Asymptotic dynamics on amenable groups and van der Corput sets

We begin by proving (i). Let us fix an S \in \mathcal{S}(\mathcal{T}) and a g \in Q, and let us assume that gS\setminus S \neq \emptyset.(Later we will take sums over sets of the form gS\setminus S, and the sums will be empty if gS\setminus S is empty, hence they will be negligible.) Since S is (Q,\epsilon)-invariant, we have |gS\setminus S| < \epsilon|S|, so there exist injections \phi_{S,1},\cdots,\phi_{S,n_S}:gS\setminus S\rightarrow S for which S \subseteq \bigcup_{m = 1}^{n_S}\phi_{S,m}(gS\setminus S), each s \in S is contained in \phi_{S,m}(gS\setminus S) for at most 2 values of m, and \frac{1}{n_S} < \epsilon. We see that for x \in gS and y := \phi_{S,m}(x) \in S, we have t := xy^{-1} \in gSS^{-1} \subseteq QUU^{-1}, hence

To prove the second claim of (i), it suffices to argue as above after replacing the maps \phi_{S,m} with the maps \phi_{S,m}':S\setminus g^{-1}S\rightarrow S given by \phi_{S,m}'(x) = \phi_{S,m}(gx).

To prove (ii), we see that for any g \in Q we have

For g \in Q, let A_g denote the set of tiles T for which either \nu _T is not (\{g\},\sqrt{\epsilon}|Q|)-invariant or with \nu (T) = 0, and let B_g be the set of all other tiles. We see that for g \in Q we have

Consequently, we let D denote the union of all tiles T that are contained in every B_g with g \in Q. If D is an infinite set, then using monotonicity of the measure \nu we can pick a subset, which by abuse of notation we also call D, so that D is a finite union of tiles of \mathcal{T} (and hence it is finite) and satisfies \nu(D) > 1-4\sqrt{\epsilon}.

Let L \in \mathbb{N} be such that L^{-1} < \epsilon. Let K := \{g_i\}_{i = 1}^L \subseteq G be such that g_iF\cap g_jF = \emptyset when i \neq j. We see that for every c \in G we have

We begin with the case in which f \in L^1(X,\mu). Let K_1 \subseteq K_2 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq G be an exhaustion of G by finite sets, and let \delta_1 > \delta_2 > \cdots > \delta_n > \cdots tend to 0. Let us assume for the sake of contradiction that there exists some \epsilon > 0 such that for each n \in \mathbb{N} there exists a set A_n \in \mathscr{B} with \mu(A_n) > \epsilon and a (K_n,\delta_n)-invariant probability measure \nu_n on G such that

for all x \in A_n. Since (\nu_n)_{n = 1}^\infty is a Reiter sequence, the Mean Ergodic Theorem (see, e.g. [AmenabilityByPaterson, Proposition 5.4]) tells us that

with convergence taking place in L^1(X,\mu). In particular, we have convergence in measure, so let N \in \mathbb{N} be such that for all n \ge N we have

on a set of measure at least 1-\epsilon, which yields the desired contradiction.

Now let us assume that f \in L^\infty(X,\mu). Let A_0 \in \mathscr{B} be such that \mu(A_0) > 1-2^{-1}\epsilon, and Equation (?) is satisfied for \frac{\epsilon}{2}, f and all x \in A_0. For each p \in \mathbb{N}, let A_p \in \mathscr{B} be such that \mu(A_p) > 1-2^{-p-1}\epsilon, and Equation (?) is satisfied for 2^{-p-1}\epsilon, |f|^p and all x \in A_p. Let A = \bigcap_{p = 0}^\infty A_p. We see that for any x \in A and any p \in \mathbb{N}, there exists g \in \text{supp}(\nu) for which |f(\tau_gx)| > ||f||_p-\epsilon. The desired result follows from the fact that ||f||_\infty = \lim_{p\rightarrow\infty}||f||_p.

Let \phi take values in \mathbb{K} \in \{\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C}\}. By Theorem 2.6 let U be a unitary representation of G in a Hilbert space \mathcal{H} and f' \in \mathcal{H} a cyclic vector for which \phi(g) = \langle U_gf',f'\rangle. Let \mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_c\oplus\mathcal{H}_w be the decomposition in which \mathcal{H}_w has no finite dimensional U-invariant subspaces, and \mathcal{H}_c decomposes into a direct sum of finite dimensional U-invariant subspaces. Let f' = f_c'+f_w' with f_c' \in \mathcal{H}_c and f_w' \in \mathcal{H}_w.

We would now like to verify that \langle U_gf'_c,f'_c\rangle and \langle U_gf'_w,f'_w\rangle take values in \mathbb{K}. Since this is clear if \mathbb{K} = \mathbb{C}, let us assume for the moment that \mathbb{K} = \mathbb{R}. Let us further assume for the sake of contradiction that \left|\text{Im}(\langle U_{g_0}f'_c,f'_c\rangle)\right| = \epsilon > 0 for some g_0 \in G and \epsilon > 0. Since g\mapsto \langle U_gf'_c,f'_c\rangle is an almost periodic function, we see that

is syndetic. Let g_1,\cdots,g_r \in G be such that G = \bigcup_{i = 1}^rg_iS. Since f'_w \in \mathcal{H}_w, we see that for any Fø lner sequence (F_n)_{n = 1}^\infty we have

Since \phi is real-valued, we must have that \left|\text{Im}(\langle U_gf'_w,f'_w\rangle)\right| = \left|-\text{Im}(\langle U_gf'_c,f'_c\rangle)\right| > \frac{\epsilon}{2} for all g \in S. However, this implies that

which yields the desired contradiction.

Using Theorem 2.7 we may pick a weakly mixing m.p.s. \mathcal{X}_w := (X_w,\mathscr{B}_w,\mu_w,(\tau_{w,g})_{g \in G}) and f_w'' \in L^2_{\mathbb{K}}(X_w,\mu_w) for which \langle \tau_{w,g}f_w'',f_w''\rangle_{L^2} = \langle U_gf_w',f_w'\rangle. To handle f_c', we require the following result.

Using Lemma ? we may pick an ergodic m.p.s. \mathcal{X}_c := (X_c,\mathscr{B}_c,\mu_c,(\tau)_{c,g})_{g \in G}) and f_c'' \in L^2_{\mathbb{K}}(X_c,\mu_c) for which \langle \tau_{c,g}f_c'',f_c''\rangle_{L^2} = \langle U_gf_c',f_c'\rangle. Now let \mathcal{X} = \mathcal{X}_c\times\mathcal{X}_w and note that \mathcal{X} is ergodic. Let f_w,f_c \in L^2_{\mathbb{K}}(X,\mu) be given by f_w(x_1,x_2) = f_w''(x_1) and f_c(x_1,x_2) = f_c''(x_2), and observe that \int_Xf_wd\mu_w\times\mu_c = \int_{X_w}f''_wd\mu_w = 0. We see that for f = f_w+f_c we have

We give the proof for Equation ? as well as Equation (?) in the corresponding case, and remark that the proof for Equation (?) is similar. Let f' \in L^\infty(X,\mu) be such that Range(f') \subseteq R, ||f'-f||_2 < \frac{\epsilon}{16||f||_2} and ||f'||_\infty = M. We begin by taking the ergodic decomposition of (X,\mathscr{B},\mu,(\tau_g)_{g \in G}). Let \mathcal{Y} := (Y,\mathscr{A},\gamma) be a probability space such that (X,\mathscr{B},\mu,(\tau_g)_{g \in G}) is the direct integral over \mathcal{Y} of the ergodic systems \mathcal{X}_y := (X_y,\mathscr{B}_y,\mu_y,(\tau_{y,g})_{g \in G}). Since \tau_{y,g} = \tau_g|_{X_y}, we will simply write \tau_g instead of \tau_{y,g} to save on notation. Let f_y \in L^\infty(X_y,\mu_y) be given by f_y = f'|_{X_y}. For h \in H, let f_h:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{C} be given by f_h(y) = \int_{X_y}\tau_hf_y(x)\overline{f_y(x)}d\mu_y(x), and let S_h = \sum_{j = 1}^{J_h}w_{j,h}\mathbbm{1}_{Y_{j,h}} be a simple function on Y with \{Y_{j,h}\}_{j = 1}^{J_h} being pairwise disjoint and ||S_h-f_h||_\infty < \frac{\epsilon}{8}. Let J(H) = \{(j_h)_{h \in H}\ |\ 1 \le j_h \le J_h\ \forall\ h \in H\}, and for each \vec{j} \in J(H) let Y_{\vec{j}} := \bigcap_{h \in H}Y_{j_h,h}, and if Y_{\vec{j}} \neq \emptyset let y_{\vec{j}} \in Y_{\vec{j}} be such that

Let K_{\vec{j},h}, \delta_{\vec{j},h}, and A_{\vec{j},h} be as in Lemma 2.5 with respect to \frac{\epsilon}{8|H|} and \tau_hf_{y_{\vec{j}}}\overline{f_{y_{\vec{j}}}}. Let K_1 = \bigcup_{h \in H}\bigcup_{\vec{j} \in J(H)}K_{\vec{j},h} and for each \vec{j} \in J(H) let x_{\vec{j}} \in \bigcap_{h \in H}A_{j_h,h} be arbitrary. We require that \sqrt{\delta}|K_1| < \text{min}\left\{\delta_{\vec{j},h}\ |\ h \in H\ \&\ \vec{j} \in J(H)\right\}, 8M^2\sqrt{\delta} < \frac{\epsilon}{8}, and \delta < \frac{\epsilon}{16|J(H)|}.

Let \mathcal{T} be a tiling of G whose shapes \{T_i\}_{i = 1}^I are each (K_1H^{-1},\delta)-invariant, and let U = \bigcup_{i = 1}^IT_i. Let K_2 \subseteq G be as in Lemma 2.4, with respect to U and \frac{\epsilon}{16|J(H)|}, and let K = HTT^{-1}\cup K_2. Let C = \bigcup_{i = 1}^IC(T_i), where C(T_i), i \in \{1,\cdots,I\} are the center sets of the tiling. Now consider a partition C = \bigsqcup_{\vec{j} \in J(H)}D_{\vec{j}} for which we have

Furthermore, we may assume without loss of generality that D_{\vec{j}} = \emptyset if \gamma(Y_{\vec{j}}) = 0. To see that the choice of D_{\vec{j}} can be made independently of the (K,\delta)-invariant measure \nu, we observe that D_{\vec{j}} can be chosen by only making use of the fact that \nu(Uc) < \frac{\epsilon}{8|J(H)|} for all c \in G. For each \vec{j} \in J(H), let D_{\vec{j}} = \bigcap_{h \in H}D_{j_h,h}. For a \in C(T_i)\cap D_{\vec{j}} and g \in T_i, let c_{ga} = f_{y_{\vec{j}}}(\tau_{ga}x_{\vec{j}}). Using Lemma 2.3, let D \subseteq G be a finite union of tiles of \mathcal{T} for which \nu(D) > 1-4\sqrt{\delta} and for every tile T \subseteq D the probability measure \nu_T is (K_1,\sqrt{\delta}|K_1|)-invariant. Let C_i = C(T_i)\cap D. Let us now verify that Equation (?) holds. Fix h \in H and observe that

Lastly, we will verify that

Pick \vec{j} \in J(H) such that ||\tau_hf_{y_{\vec{j}}}\overline{f_{y_{\vec{j}}}}||_\infty \ge ||\tau_hf\overline{f}||_\infty-\epsilon. Since any tile T of \mathcal{T} is (K_{\vec{j},h}H^{-1},\frac{1}{2}\delta_{\vec{j},h})-invariant, we see that T\cap hT is (K_{\vec{j},h},\delta_{\vec{j},h})-invariant. Since x_{\vec{j}} \in A_{\vec{j},h}, we see that for a \in C(T_i)\cap D_{\vec{j}} we have

We give the proof of Equation (?) and remark that the proof of Equations (?) and (?) is similar. Let us fix an exhaustion \{e\} \subseteq H_1 \subseteq H_2 \subseteq \cdots of G by finite sets. Let (\epsilon_q)_{q = 1}^\infty be a sequence decreasing to 0, and let (c_{g,q})_{g \in G} satisfy the conclusion of Lemma 3.2 with respect to f,\epsilon_q, and H_q. Furthermore, by allowing \epsilon_q to tend to 0 slowly enough, we assume without loss of generality that ||(c_{g,q})_{g \in G}||_\infty < 2^q for all q \in \mathbb{N}.

Now we will construct the sequence (c_g)_{g \in G} by an inductive process. To do this, we will also have to inductively construct a congruent sequence of tilings (\mathcal{T}_q)_{q = 1}^\infty, a sequence of positive real numbers (\delta_n)_{n = 1}^\infty tending to 0, an increasing sequence (N_q)_{q = 1}^\infty \subseteq \mathbb{N}, and increasing sequences (V_q)_{q = 1}^\infty,(W_q)_{q = 1}^\infty, and (K_n)_{n = 1}^\infty of finite subsets of G. Let (\mathcal{T}_n')_{n = 1}^\infty be given by Theorem 2.2 with respect to (\epsilon_n)_{n = 1}^\infty and (\mathcal{H}_n)_{n = 1}^\infty. For the base case of this inductive procedure, let N_1,N_2 \in \mathbb{N} and \{e\} \subseteq V_1 \subseteq W_1 \subseteq V_2 \subseteq G and \delta_1 \ge \delta_2 > 0 all be arbitrary, then let \mathcal{T}_1 = \mathcal{T}_1' and \mathcal{T}_2 = \mathcal{T}_2'. For 1 \le n \le N_2, let K_n be arbitrary. For g \in W_1, let c_g \in R be arbitrary. For the inductive step with q \ge 2, we will construct N_{q+1}, V_{q+1}, W_q, \mathcal{T}_{q+1}, \delta_{q+1}, define K_n for N_q < n \le N_{q+1}, and define c_g for g \in W_q\setminus W_{q-1}.

Let K_{q+1} and \delta_{q+1} be as in Lemma 3.2 with respect to f, \epsilon_{q+1}, and H_{q+1}. Let \mathcal{T}_{q+1} = \mathcal{T}_k' for a value of k so large that each tile is (K_{q+1},\delta_{q+1}^2)-invariant. Let the shapes of \mathcal{T}_{q+1} be \{\tau_{q+1,i}\}_{i = 1}^{I_{q+1}} and let U_{q+1} = \bigcup_{i = 1}^{I_{q+1}}\tau_{q+1,i}. Furthermore, we may assume without loss of generality that K_{q+1} \supseteq K_qU_qU_q^{-1} and \delta_{q+1} < 2^{-8q}\delta_q^2I_q^{-1}|U_q|^{-1}|K_q|^{-2}. Let W_q denote the union of all tiles of \mathcal{T}_{q+1} that intersect V_q. Using Lemma 2.4 let N_{q+1} be such that for N_{q+1} < n we have \nu_n(W_q) < \delta_q2^{-4q} and that \nu_n is (K_{q+1}U_{q+1}U_{q+1}^{-1},2^{-8q}\delta_{q+1}^2I_{q+1}^{-1}|U_{q+1}|^{-1})-invariant. We recall that for n \in \mathbb{N} and a finite set F \subseteq G for which \nu_n(F) \neq 0, we define \nu_{n,F}(A) = \frac{\nu_n(A\cap F)}{\nu_n(F)}. For n \le N_{q+1}, let D_{n,q+1} be a union of tiles of \mathcal{T}_{q+1} for which \nu_n(D_{n,q+1}) > 1-4\cdot2^{-4q-4}\delta_{q+1}, and using Lemma 2.3 we may assume for N_q < n \le N_{q+1} that for each tile T \subseteq D_{n,q+1}, \nu_{n,T} is (K_q,2^{-4q}\delta_q)-invariant. Let V_{q+1} = H_q(W_q\cup\bigcup_{n = 1}^{N_{q+1}}D_{n,q+1}). For g \in W_q\setminus W_{q-1} we define c_g = c_{g,q-1}. We also observe that \bigcup_{q = 1}^\infty W_q = G, and that H_qW_q \subseteq W_{q+1}.

Now let h \in G be arbitrary and let q_h \in \mathbb{N} be such that h \in H_{q_h}. We see that for q \ge q_h+1 and N_q < n \le N_{q+1} we have

Next, we observe that if T is a tile of \mathcal{T}_{q+1} contained in D_{n,q+1}\cap(W_{q+1}\setminus W_q), then \nu_{n,T} is (K_q,2^{-4q}\delta_q)-invariant, so by Lemma 3.2 we have

Now let us suppose that T is a tile of \mathcal{T}_{q+1} contained in D_{n,q+1}\cap(W_q\setminus W_{q-1}). Since \nu_{n,T} is (K_q,2^{-4q}\delta_q)-invariant we may apply Lemma 2.3 to obtain a finite union of tiles of \mathcal{T}_q that we denote by D_T for which \nu_{n,T}(D_T) > 1-2^{-6q+6}\delta_{q-1}, such that if T_0 is a tile of \mathcal{T}_q that is contained in D_T, then \nu_{n,T_0} = (\nu_{n,T})_{T_0} is (K_{q-1},2^{-6q+4}\delta_q)-invariant. As in Equation (?), we have

Consequently, we see that for q > \log_2(1+||f||_2), we have

Putting together the above pieces, we see that for q \ge q_h+1+\log_2(1+||f||_2) and N_q < n \le N_{q+1}, we have

Let X = \widehat{G}\times S(G), let \mathscr{B} be the Borel \sigma-algebra, let \tau:X\rightarrow X be given by \tau_g(\chi,x) = (\chi,\chi(g)x), and let \mu = \nu\times m, where m is the normalized Haar measure of the compact group S(G). Let f(\chi,x) = x if \chi \neq e_{\widehat{G}}, and f(e_{\widehat{G}},x) = 1. We see that

It only remains to show that the maximal spectral type of \mathcal{X} is of the given form. Since X is a compact abelian group, the characters of X have a dense span in L^2(X,\mu), so it suffices to show that the spectral measure of each character is some \nu_n. We note that S(G) is either a finite set, or it is \mathbb{T}, so any character on S(G) is of the form x\mapsto x^s for some s \in \mathbb{Z}. Let g \in G = \widehat{\widehat{G}} and s \in \mathbb{Z} both be arbitrary, let f'(\chi,x) = \chi(g)x^s, and observe that

We first show that (iii)\rightarrow(ii). Let us assume for the sake of contradiction that Equations (?)-(?) are satisfied, but there is some (M_q)_{q = 1}^\infty \subseteq \mathbb{N} for which

Let S_{h,q} = \int_G\xi_{h^{-1}g}d\nu_{M_q}(g) and let \xi_{g,q} = \xi_g-S_{e,q}. By replacing (M_q)_{q = 1}^\infty with a subsequence, we may assume without loss of generality that

exist for all h \in G. To see that (\gamma_1(h))_{h \in G} is a positive definite sequence, we see that for any g_1,\cdots,g_n \in G and any c_1,\cdots,c_n \in \mathbb{C}, we have

A similar calculation shows that (\gamma_2(h))_{h \in G} is also a positive definite sequence. Using the second assumption in Equation (?), we see that

We now use the equivalence of items (?) and (?) in Theorem 4.2. Letting M denote the unique invariant mean on the set W(G) of weakly almost periodic functions on G, we see that \gamma_1(v) = \overline{\gamma_1(v^{-1})} = 0 for all v \in V, so M(\gamma_1) = 0. It follows that M(\gamma_2) = -\epsilon^2 < 0, but this contradicts the fact that M(\phi) \ge 0 whenever \phi is a positive definite function on G (see Section ?).

It is clear that (ii)\rightarrow(i). Then fact that (i)\rightarrow(iii) and (iv)\rightarrow(v) are a consequence of Theorem 3.3. To see that (v)\rightarrow(iv), we will assume familiarity with the Stone-Čech compactification \beta G of G, and refer the reader to [AlgebraInTheSCC] for background. For n \in \mathbb{N}, let u:G\rightarrow\mathbb{C} be given by u(g) = u_g, and let \tilde{u}:\beta G\rightarrow\mathbb{C} be the unique continuous extension of u. We see that each \nu_n has a unique extension to a probability measure \tilde{\nu}_n on \beta G. Let \mu be any probability measure on (\beta G,\mathscr{A}) with \mathscr{A} the Borel \sigma-algebra that is a weak^* limit of the sequence \left\{\tilde{\nu}_n\right\}_{n = 1}^\infty, and let \left\{\tilde{\nu}_{M_q}\right\}_{q = 1}^\infty be a subsequence converging to \mu. Let \tau_g:\beta G\rightarrow \beta G be given by \tau_g(p) = g^{-1}\cdot p,(It is worth noting that we are using different notation than in [AlgebraInTheSCC] since we are assuming that g^{-1}\cdot p is continuous with respect to the variable p instead of the variable g. The necessity to do so stems from the fact that we chose to work with left-asymptotically invariant sequences of probability rather than right.), hence measurable. Letting \mathscr{B} be the countably generated \sigma-algebra of \tilde{u} and (\tau_g)_{g \in G}, we see that (\beta G,\mathscr{B},(\tau_g)_{g \in G},\mu) is isomorphic to a measure preserving system on a standard probability space. Lastly, we see that

It is clear that (iii)\rightarrow(v). Now let us show that (v)\rightarrow(iii) when G is abelian. We see that if (X,\mathscr{B},\mu,(\tau_g)_{g \in G}) is a measure preserving system and f \in L^2(X,\mu) is normalized so that ||f||_2 = 1, then \phi(g) = \langle \tau_gf,f\rangle is a positive definite sequence with \phi(e) = 1, so there exists a probability measure \nu on \widehat{G} for which \hat{\nu}(g) = \langle \tau_gf,f\rangle and \nu(\{0\}) = ||P_If||_2^2 \ge \left|\int_Xfd\mu\right|^2. We may use Lemma 3.4 to obtain a measure preserving system (Y,\mathscr{A},\mu',(S_g)_{g \in G}) and a measurable f':Y\rightarrow S(G) satisfying \phi(g) = \langle S_gf',f'\rangle and \nu(\{0\}) = \int_Yf'd\mu'.

We first show that (?)\Rightarrow(?). Let A denote the set of all nonnegative bounded linear operators on the (complex) Hilbert space \mathcal{H}, let B(\mathcal{H}) denote the Banach space of self-adjoint bounded linear operators on \mathcal{H}, and let B_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathcal{H}) denote B(\mathcal{H}) viewed as a real-Banach space. Observe that A is a closed convex set with nonempty interior in the B_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathcal{H}). Let B = B(V), and let us assume for the sake of contradiction that there exists \epsilon > 0 for which (B+\epsilon)\cap A = \emptyset. Since (B+\epsilon)\cap B_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathcal{H}) = \{b+\epsilon\ |\ b \in B\text{ and }b = b^*\} is also a convex set, the Hahn-Banach separation theorem gives us a real-valued continuous linear functional f on B_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathcal{H}), for which r_A := \inf_{a \in A}f(a) \ge \sup\{f(b+\epsilon)\ |\ b \in B\text{ and }b = b^*\}. We note that for any a \in A and \lambda \in \mathbb{R}^+, we have \lambda a \in A, hence r_A = 0. It follows that f is a positive linear functional, so we may assume without loss of generality that ||f|| = 1. We extend f by linearity to be a complex-valued functional on the Banach space B(\mathcal{H}) of all bounded linear operators on \mathcal{H}. Now we observe that for \lambda \in \mathbb{R}, v \in V, and b \in B, we have b+\lambda i(U_v-U_{v^{-1}}) \in B, hence

Since \lambda \in \mathbb{R} was arbitrary, we conclude that for all v \in V we have

Similarly, we see that for any \lambda \in \mathbb{R}, v_1,v_2 \in V, and b \in B, we have b+\lambda(U_{v_1}+U_{v_1^{-1}}-U_{v_2}-U_{v_2^{-1}}) \in B, hence

Since \lambda \in \mathbb{R} and v_1,v_2 \in V were all arbitrary, we see that

Combining this with Equation (?), we see that for any v \in V\cup V^{-1} we have f(U_v) = r. Since \frac{1}{2}(U_v+U_{v^{-1}}) \in B, we see that r \le 0.

We now claim that the sequence (f(U_g))_{g \in G} is a positive definite sequence. To prove the claim, let c_1,\cdots,c_n \in \mathbb{C} and g_1,\cdots,g_n \in G be arbitrary, and let V = \sum_{i,j = 1}^nc_i\overline{c_j}U_{g_j^{-1}g_i}. We want to show that f(V) \ge 0, so it suffices to show that V is a positive operator. To this end, let \xi \in \mathcal{H} be arbitrary, and observe that

Now that we have proven the claim, we use the GNS-construction to create a representation \pi of G on \mathcal{H}' and a cyclic vector \eta \in \mathcal{H}' for which \langle \pi_g\eta,\eta\rangle_{\mathcal{H}'} = f(U_g) for all g \in G. Now let \mathcal{H}'' = \mathcal{H}'\oplus\mathbb{C}, let \xi = (\eta,\sqrt{-r}), and let \pi_g' = \pi_g\oplus\text{Id}. We see that for every v \in V we have

Condition (?) tells us that \xi is orthogonal to subspace of \pi'(G)-invariant vectors, which yields the desired contradiction.

We now show that (?)\Rightarrow(?). Let R denote the right regular representation of G on L^2(G,\lambda), where \lambda is the counting measure. Let \epsilon > 0 be arbitrary and let P = \sum_{h \in V\cup V^{-1}}c_hR_h be such that P = P^*, P+\epsilon is positive, (c_h)_{h \in V\cup V^{-1}} is finitely supported, and \sum_{h \in V\cup V^{-1}}c_h = 1. Since P^* = \sum_{h \in V\cup V^{-1}}\overline{c_h}R_h^* = \sum_{h \in V\cup V^{-1}}\overline{c_h}R_{h^{-1}}, we see that c_{h^{-1}} = \overline{c_h} for all h \in G. Let c_{e} = \epsilon and c_g = 0 for g \notin V\cup V^{-1}\cup\{e\}. We will show that (c_g)_{g \in G} is a positive definite sequence. To this end, let (\delta_g)_{g \in G} be the standard bases for L^2(G,\lambda), i.e., \delta_g(g) = 1, and \delta_g(h) = 0 for all h \neq g. We observe that R_h\delta_g = \delta_{gh^{-1}}. Let (z_g)_{g \in G} be any finitely supported sequence of complex numbers, let \xi = \sum_{g \in G}z_g\delta_g, and observe that

Since \sum_{g \in G}c_g = 1+\epsilon, we see that the desired positive definite sequence (a_g)_{g \in G} is given by a_g = \frac{1}{1+\epsilon}c_g.

Next, we show that (?)\Rightarrow(?). Let \epsilon > 0 be arbitrary, let \epsilon' = \frac{\epsilon}{1+\epsilon}, and observe that for x \in (0,\epsilon') we have \frac {x}{(1-x)} < \epsilon. Let (a_g)_{g \in G} be a positive definite sequence with a finite support contained in V\cup V^{-1}\cup\{e\} satisfying \sum_{g \in G}a_g = 1 and |a_e| < \epsilon'. Let P = \frac{1}{1-|a_e|}\sum_{g \in V\cup V^{-1}}a_gU_g. Since (a_g)_{g \in G} is positive definite, we see that a_g = \overline{a_{g^{-1}}}, so P = P^*. Since P+\epsilon > P' = \frac{1}{1-|a_e|}\sum_{g \in V\cup V^{-1}\cup\{e\}}a_gU_g, it suffices to show that P' is a positive operator. To this end, we see that f \in L^2(G,\lambda) given by f(g) = a_g is a continuous positive definite function, so using [C(star)AlgebraByDixmier, Theorem 13.8.6] we pick a continuous positive definite function \psi \in L^2(G,\lambda) for which f = \psi*\psi and \psi = \tilde{\psi}, where * denotes convolution and \tilde{F}(g) := \overline{F(g^{-1})}. Letting \Psi = \sum_{g \in G}\psi(g)U_g, we see that \Psi^* = \Psi, and (1-\epsilon')P' = \Psi\Psi = \Psi\Psi^*, so P' is a positive operator.

We now show that (?)\Rightarrow(?). Let \xi_I denote the projection of \xi onto the subspace of \pi(G)-invariant vectors, and let \xi = \xi_I+\xi'. Let \epsilon > 0 be arbitrary, and let P = \sum_{g \in V\cup V^{-1}}c_g\pi_g \in B(V) be such that P+\epsilon is a positive operator. Letting c_{e} = \epsilon and c_g = 0 for g \notin V\cup V^{-1}\cup\{e\}, we see that (c_g)_{g \in G} is a positive definite sequence, so for all g \in G we have |c_g| \le |c_{e}| = \epsilon. We now see that

Since \epsilon > 0 was arbitrary, we see that ||\xi_I||^2 = 0.

We now show that (?)\rightarrow(?). Let \pi^p be the tensor product of p copies of \pi acting on \otimes_{i = 1}^p\mathcal{H}. We see that \xi^p := \otimes_{i = 1}^p\xi \in \otimes_{i = 1}^p\mathcal{H} satisfies

so \xi^p is orthogonal to the space of \pi^p-invariant vectors, hence \xi is orthogonal to the space of \pi-invariant vectors.

It is clear that (?)\rightarrow(?), so we proceed to show that (?)\rightarrow(?). Assume that (?) holds, and suppose that \pi is a unitary representation of G, and \xi\in \mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{\pi} and p\geq 1 are such that \sum_{v\in V}|\langle \pi _v \xi , \xi \rangle |^p<\infty. Let \bar{\pi} be the conjugate representation of \pi on the conjugate Hilbert space \bar{\mathcal{H}} = \{ \bar{\eta} : \eta \in \mathcal{H} \} of \mathcal{H}, i.e., scalar multiplication in \bar{H} is defined by c\bar{\eta}= \overline{\bar{c}\eta}, the inner product is given by \langle \bar{\eta}_0,\bar{\eta}_1\rangle =\langle \eta _1 , \eta _0 \rangle, and \bar{\pi} is defined by \bar{\pi}_g\bar{\eta}= \overline{\pi _g \eta}. Let \mathrm{HS}(\mathcal{H}) be the Hilbert space of all Hilbert-Schmidt operators on \mathcal{H}, and let \sigma be the unitary representation on \mathrm{HS}(\mathcal{H}) given by \sigma _g(T) := \pi _gT\pi _g ^{-1} for T\in \mathrm{HS}(\mathcal{H}) and g\in G. Then the representations \pi\otimes \bar{\pi} and \sigma are isomorphic via the map \mathcal{H}\otimes \bar{\mathcal{H}} \to \mathrm{HS}(\mathcal{H}), \zeta\mapsto \tau_{\zeta}, determined by \langle \tau_{\zeta} \eta _0, \eta _1 \rangle := \langle \zeta , \eta _1\otimes \bar{\eta} _0\rangle, for \zeta\in \mathcal{H}\otimes\bar{\mathcal{H}} and \eta _0, \eta _1 \in \mathcal{H}. We have

so the assumption that (?) holds lets us deduce that \tau_{\xi\otimes \bar{\xi}} is orthogonal in \mathrm{HS}(\mathcal{H}) to the subspace of all \sigma-invariant vectors. In particular, given a finite dimensional \pi-invariant subspace \mathcal{K} of \mathcal{H}, it follows that \tau_{\xi\otimes \bar{\xi}} is orthogonal to the orthogonal projection P_{\mathcal{K}} to \mathcal{K}. Taking an orthonormal basis B_{\mathcal{K}} for \mathcal{K} and extending it to an orthonormal basis B for \mathcal{H}, we compute

which shows that \xi is orthogonal to \mathcal{K}.

It is clear that (?)\rightarrow(?), so let us now show that (?)\rightarrow(?). Let (v_n)_{n = 1}^\infty be an enumeration of the elements of V, and for n \in \mathbb{N} let F_n = (v_m)_{m = 1}^n. Let (H_n)_{n = 1}^\infty be an exhaustion of G by finite sets. Let us assume for the sake of contradiction that there exists \epsilon > 0 such that for all n \in \mathbb{N} there exists a unitary representation \pi_n of G on a Hilbert space \mathcal{H}_n and a unit vector \xi_n \in \mathcal{H}_n for which \sup_{v \in F_n}|\pi_n(v)\xi_n,\xi_n\rangle| < \delta and |\langle\xi_n,\eta_n\rangle| \ge \epsilon for some (\pi_n(H_n),\frac{1}{n})-invariant unit vector \eta_n \in \mathcal{H}_n. Let p \in \beta\mathbb{N}^* be a nonprincipal ultrafilter and let \mathcal{H} := \prod_p\mathcal{H}_n denote the ultraproduct of (\mathcal{H}_n)_{n = 1}^\infty with respect to p. Let \xi,\eta \in \mathcal{H} be the unit vectors corresponding to the equivalence classes of (\xi_n)_{n = 1}^\infty and (\eta_n)_{n = 1}^\infty respectively, and let \pi be the unitary representation of G on \mathcal{H} given by \pi(g)(x_n)_{n = 1}^\infty = (\pi_n(g)x_n)_{n = 1}^\infty. We see that for g \in G we have

so \eta is a \pi(G)-invariant vector. We also see that for v \in V we have

so the desired contradiction now follows from the observation that

Now we show that (?) is equivalent to (?) and that (?) is equivalent to (?). Let P_I:\mathcal{H}\rightarrow\mathcal{H} denote the orthogonal projection onto the space of \pi-invariant vectors. To this end, we recall that a function \phi:G\rightarrow\mathbb{C} is positive definite if and only if there exists a unitary representation \pi of G on a Hilbert space \mathcal{H} and a cyclic vector \xi such that \phi(g) = \langle \pi(g)\xi,\xi\rangle. The desired result follows from the observation that M(\phi) = 0 if and only if ||P_I\xi|| = 0, and M(|\phi|) = 0 if and only if \pi has no finite dimensional subrepresentations (see Section ?).

It is clear that (?)\rightarrow(?)\rightarrow(?), so we proceed to show that (?)\rightarrow(?). Since \phi(g) = \langle \pi(g)\xi,\xi\rangle is a positive definite sequence, we use Theorem 2.8 to construct an ergodic m.p.s. (X,\mathscr{B},\mu,(\tau_g)_{g \in G}) and a f \in L^2(X,\mu) for which \phi(g) = \langle \tau_gf,f\rangle. We observe that \left(\int_Xfd\mu\right)^2 = M(\phi) = ||P_I\xi||^2. Since 0 = \langle \pi(v)\xi,\xi\rangle = \langle \tau_vf,f\rangle for all v \in V, we see that 0 = \int_Xfd\mu = ||P_I\xi||.

The equivalence between (?) and (?) is a special case of the equivalence of (?) and (?) in Theorem 4.2. To see that (?)\rightarrow(?) and that (?)\rightarrow(?), it suffices to observe that the Spectral Theorem gives us a measure \mu on \widehat{G} for which \hat{\mu}(g) = \langle \pi(g)\xi,\xi\rangle and \mu(\{\chi\}) = ||P_{\chi}\xi||^2, where P_\chi:\mathcal{H}_\pi\rightarrow\mathcal{H}_\pi is the orthogonal projection onto the space of \chi-eigenvectors. To see that (?)\rightarrow(?) and that (?)\rightarrow(?), it suffices to observe that the representation \pi of G on L^2(\widehat{G},\mu) given by (\pi(g)f)(\chi) = \chi(g)f(\chi) satisfies \hat{\mu}(g) = \langle \pi(g)1,1\rangle and \mu(\{\chi\}) = ||P_{\chi}1||^2.

The only part of this Theorem whose proof is different from the analogous statement in [SaulsvdC, Section 5] is part (v). In particular, we need to show that if H is a subgroup of G, and V \subseteq H, then V is a set of operatorial recurrence in H. Let \pi be a representation of H on \mathcal{H}, let \mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_1\oplus\mathcal{H}_2 where \mathcal{H}_1 is the space of \pi-invariant vectors, let \pi' on \mathcal{H}_2\otimes \ell^2(G/H) be the induced representation from H to G of \pi restricted to \mathcal{H}_2, and let \kappa be the direct sum of the trivial representation of G on \mathcal{H}_1 with \pi'. Now let \xi \in \mathcal{H} be such that \langle \pi(v)\xi,\xi\rangle = 0 for all v \in V. Let \xi = \xi^{(1)}+\xi^{(2)} with \xi^{(i)} \in \mathcal{H}_i and let \xi' \in \mathcal{H}_1\oplus\left(\mathcal{H}_2\otimes\ell^2(G/H)\right) be given by \xi' = \xi^{(1)}+\xi^{(2)}\otimes\mathbbm{1}_{\{eH\}}. We see that \langle \kappa(v)\xi',\xi'\rangle = 0 for all v \in V, so \xi^{(1)} = 0 since \mathcal{H}_1 is the space of \kappa-invariant vectors, which yields the desired result.