PL(M ) admits no Polish group topology

arXiv:1602.02146v2 [] 9 Mar 2016

Kathryn Mann

Abstract
We show that the group of piecewise linear homeomorphisms of any compact PL
manifold does not admit a Polish group topology. This uses a) new results on the relationship between topologies on groups of homeomorphisms, their algebraic structure,
and the topology of the underlying manifold, and b) new results on the structure of certain subgroups of PL(M ). The proof also shows that the group of piecewise projective
homeomorphisms of S 1 has no Polish topology.

1

Introduction

Many transformation groups exhibit remarkable links between their algebraic structure and
topology. In the case of groups of homeomorphisms of manifolds, there is an additional rich
interplay between algebraic structure and group topology and the topology of the underlying
manifold. For example, Kallman used this perspective to show that many “big” groups of
homeomorphisms, such as the full homeomorphism group or diffeomorphism group of a
manifold, admit a unique Polish (separable and completely metrizable) group topology [7].
Other instances of this algebraic–topological relationship can be seen in the main results of
[4], [10], [6], and [11].
Here, we study the group PL(M ) of piecewise linear homeomorphisms of a manifold.
Recall that an orientation preserving homeomorphism f of the n-cube I n is piecewise linear
if there exists a subdivision of I n into finitely many linear simplices so that the restriction
of f to each simplex is an affine linear homeomorphism onto its image. A manifold M
has a P L structure if it is locally modeled on (I n , PL(I n )), in which case PL(M ) is the
automorphism group of this structure. This group is interesting for many reasons, including
its algebraic structure (c.f. [1], [2]) and its relationship with the Thompson groups. As for
topology, there has been sigificant historical interest in how best to topologize PL(M ). For
instance, in [8, problems 39–40], three different topologies are proposed by Milnor, Stasheff,
and Wall, and the choice of most appropriate topology appears to be unresolved.
We ask if the group PL(M ) admits a Polish group topology. This question is inherently
interesting from the perspective of descriptive set theory (see e.g. [13] and references therein)
but also interesting from the perspective of transformation groups. Much like the group of
diffeomorphisms of a manifold, PL(M ) is not complete in (and arguably, not best described
by) the compact-open topology inherited from Homeo(M ). However Diff(M ) does have a
different topology – the standard C ∞ topology – that makes it a Polish group, and we ask
whether PL(M ) might as well.
In [3], Cohen and Kallman showed that PL(I) and PL(S 1 ) have no Polish group structure.
However, their proof uses 1-dimensionality in an essential way. Here we follow a different
strategy, giving an independent proof of the following stronger result.
Theorem 1.1. Let M be a PL manifold. Then PL(M ) does not admit a Polish group
topology.

1

In fact, we will show that PL(M ) is very far from being a Polish group. In the case of
M = I, this distinction is easy to summarize: while PL(I) contains no free subgroups (see
[1] or Lemma 3.1 below), we will show that for many groups of homeomorphisms, including
PL(I), the generic pair of elements with respect to any Polish group topology generate a
free subgroup. Precisely, we prove the following.
Theorem 1.2. Let G ⊂ Homeo(M ) be a group satisfying a “local perturbations property”
(c.f. definition 2.2 below). If τ is any Polish group topology on G, then the generic pair
(f, g) in G × G with the product topology generate a free subgroup.
Loosely speaking, the local perturbations property is a statement that there exist many
homeomorphisms supported on small sets and close to the identity in G. While PL(M )
contains many homeomorphisms supported on small sets, the application of Theorem 1.2 is
not completely straightforward, as these need not a priori be close to the identity in any
Polish topology on PL(M ). However, we show that this is indeed the case, by proving a very
general result on topologies on groups of homeomorphisms (Theorem 2.3) illustrating again
the rich relationship between the topology of M and topologies of groups of homeomorphisms
of M .
The situation is more complicated for higher dimensional manifolds, since there are many
examples of free subgroups in PL(M ) as soon as M has dimension at least 2. (See Section
3.) However, we are able produce a proof very much in the same spirit as the PL(I) case.
In essence, the proof consists of describing a natural subgroup of PL(M ), showing that this
subgroup necessarily inherits any Polish group structure from PL(M ), and finally that the
subgroup is both large enough to have the local perturbations property and small enough
to contain no free subgroup.
Our strategy also applies to other transformation groups, such as the group of piecewise
projective homeomorphisms of S 1 discussed in [12]. In Section 4.1 we show the following.
Corollary 1.3. The group of piecewise projective homeomorphisms of S 1 admits no Polish
topology.
One can interpret these results as “explaining” why we have yet to settle on a choice of
topology for PL(M ). It is suspected that several other transformation groups, such as the
group of bi-Lipschitz homeomorphisms of a manifold, or diffeomorphisms of intermediate
regularity on a smooth manifold, fail to admit a Polish group topology. Progress is made
in [3] for the one-dimensional case, it would be interesting to extend these results to higher
dimensional manifolds as well.
Acknowledgements. The author thanks Michael Cohen, Jake Herndon, Alexander Kupers, and Christian Rosendal for their comments and interest in this project.

2
2.1

Properties of transformation groups
General results

We begin by discussing general constraints on topologies on groups of homeomorphisms.
The broad idea is that any topology on a sufficiently rich group of homeomorphisms “sees”
to some extent the topology of M . The first result along these lines is the following lemma
of Kallman.
Lemma 2.1 (Kallman [7]). Let M be a topological manifold, and let G ⊂ Homeo(M ) have
the property
2

(∗) for each nonempty open U ⊂ M , there exists a non-identity map gU ∈ G
which fixes M \ U pointwise.
If τ is any Hausdorff group topology on such a group G, then each set of the form C(U, V ) :=
{f ∈ G : f (U ) ⊆ V } is closed in (G, τ ).
A proof of Lemma 2.1 for the case of I = M is given in [3, Lemma 2.2], but it applies equally
well in the general case. The outline is as follows: first, one uses property (∗) to show that
C(U, V ) is the intersection of all sets of the form
FU ′ ,W ′ := {f ∈ Homeo(M ) : f gU ′ f −1 commutes with gW ′ }
where U ′ is open in U and W ′ is open in M \V . Now each FU ′ ,W ′ is closed, since it is the preimage of the identity under the (continuous) commutator map Homeo(M ) → Homeo(M )
given by f 7→ [f gU ′ f −1 , gW ′ ].
We will work with the following strengthening of condition (∗). Note that this condition
is satisfied by PL(M ), as well as many other familiar transformation groups such as Diff 0 (M ),
the group of volume-preserving diffeomorphisms of a manifold, etc.
Definition 2.2. Say that G ⊂ Homeo(M ) satisfies the local perturbations property if, for
each open set U ⊂ M and point y ∈ U , the set {f (y) : f |M\U = id} is uncountable.
The next theorem explains our choice of the name “local perturbations property”, it
says that such perturbations can be found in any neighborhood of the identity (i.e. locally
in the group–theoretic sense) in G.
Theorem 2.3 (Local perturbations exist). Suppose that G ⊂ Homeo(M ) has the local
perturbations property and τ is a separable, metrizable topology on G. Then for any open
set U ⊂ M , point y ∈ U , and open neighborhood of the identity N in (G, τ ), there exists
f ∈ N such that f (y) 6= y and f |M\U = id.
Proof. It suffices to prove the Theorem in the case where U is a small ball about y. Given
such U ⊂ M and y ∈ U , let H = {f : f |M\U = id}. Since (G, τ ) is separable and metrizable,
the subset topology on H is also separable.
We now claim that, for any neighborhood N of the identity in G, the neighborhood
N ∩ H of the identity in H contains some f such that f (y) 6= y. To see this, let {hi : i ∈ N}
be a countable dense subset of H. Then
∞
[
hi (N ∩ H).
H=
i=1

If we had h(y) = y for all h ∈ N ∩ H, then the set of images {f (y) : f ∈ H} = {hi (y)}
would be countable. This contradicts the local perturbations property.
Theorem 2.3 readily generalizes to groups of homeomorphisms fixing a submanifold or,
in the case where ∂M 6= 0, those fixing the boundary of M . For simplicity, we state only
the boundary case. Let Homeo(M, ∂) denote the group of homeomorphisms of M that fix
∂M pointwise.
Proposition 2.4. Suppose that G ⊂ Homeo(M, ∂) has a separable metrizable topology τ ,
and suppose that the condition in the local perturbations property is satisfied for every point
y in the interior of M . Then for any closed set X ⊂ M , interior point y ∈
/ X, and open
neighborhood of the identity N in (G, τ ), there exists f ∈ N such that f (x) = x for all
x ∈ X, but f (y) 6= y.
The proof is exactly the same as that of Proposition 2.3.
3

2.2

Generic free subgroups

Using Theorem 2.3, we can now prove Theorem 1.2 on generic free subgroups. Recall
that this is the statement that, for any group G ⊂ Homeo(M ) with the local perturbations
property, and any Polish group topology τ on G, the τ -generic pair of elements (f, g) ∈ G×G
generate a free group. Our proof will actually show that the generic pair generates a free
group whose action on M is such that some point has trivial stabilizer.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. Assume that G has a Polish topology, so G × G is a Baire space. For
each non-trivial, reduced word w ∈ F2 , define a set Xw := {(f, g) ∈ G × G : w(f, g) = id}.
This is the pre-image of the singleton {id} under the (continuous) map G × G → G given
by (f, g) 7→ w(f, g), so is closed. We will show that Xw has empty interior, in which case
the generic pair (f, g) does not lie in any Xw , and hence generates a free group.
Assume for contradiction that some Xw has nonempty interior and let (f, g) ∈ int(Xw ).
Write w(f, g) = tk . . . t1 as a reduced word, where each ti ∈ {f ±1 , g ±1 }.
Choose any point y0 ∈ M , and let yi = ti . . . t1 (y0 ). Let m be the minimum integer such
that the points y0 , y1 , y2 , . . . , ym are not all distinct. Since w(f, g) = id, we have yk = y0 and
so 1 ≤ m ≤ k. Let U be a small neighborhood of ym−1 disjoint from {y0 , y1 , . . . , ym−2 }\{ym},
and such that tm (U ) is also disjoint from {y0 , y1 , . . . , ym−1 } \ {ym }. By Theorem 2.3, for
any neighborhood N of the identity in G, there exists h ∈ N such that h(ym−1 ) 6= ym−1 and
h restricts to the identity on the complement of U . Modify tm (which is either f , g, f −1 , or
g −1 ) by replacing it with tm ◦ h, and leaving the other free generator unchanged. This gives
a new pair (f ′ , g ′ ) that still lies in the interior of Xw , provided N was chosen small enough.
We claim that, after this modification, the images of y under the first m initial strings
of w(f ′ , g ′ ) – adapting the previous notation, these are the points t′i . . . t′1 (y), for 0 ≤ i ≤ m,
where t′i ∈ {(f ′ )±1 , (g ′ )±1 } – are now all distinct. In fact, we will have t′i . . . t′1 (y) = ti . . . t1 (y)
for each i < m − 1. To see this, note that for each generator ti , we have ti (yi−1 ) = yi , except
−1
in the (intended) case i = m, or possibly if tm−1 = tm
, in which case t′m−1 = h−1 tm−1 and
−1
′
we would have tm−1 (ym−2 ) = h (ym−1 ). But this case is excluded by requiring that w be
a reduced word. As t′m (ym−1 ) 6= ym , and t′m (ym−1 ) ∈ tm (U ), this shows that the points
t′i . . . t′1 (y) are all distinct.
If w(f ′ , g ′ ) 6= id, we are already done. Otherwise, we may repeat the procedure, again
perturbing a generator in the neighborhood of the first repeated point in the sequence of
images of y under initial subwords of w(f ′ , g ′ ). The process terminates when we arrive at
some pair (f (k) , g (k) ) in the interior of Xw satisfying either w(f (k) , g (k) ) 6= id or the more
specific condition w(f (k) , g (k) )(y) 6= y. This contradicts the definition of Xw .
Remark 2.5. Our proof borrowed notation (and some inspiration) from Ghys’ proof that
the generic pair of homeomorphisms of the circle, with respect to the standard C 0 topology,
generate a free group [5, Prop 4.5]. The difference here is that we know much less about the
topology on G than we do about the C 0 topology on Homeo(S 1 ). In particular, we don’t
even know whether the evaluation maps G × M → M given by (g, x) 7→ g(x) are continuous
– a fact used directly in [5].
Remark 2.6 (Relative case of Theorem 1.2). Using Proposition 2.4 in place of Theorem 2.3,
the proof above shows that whenever G ⊂ Homeo(M, ∂) has a Polish group topology and
satisfies the local perturbations property, then the generic pair of elements of G generate a
free group.

4

3

Free groups in PL(I n )

We use the following result of Brin and Squier.
Lemma 3.1 ([1]). PL(I) contains no free subgroup. More specifically, the subgroup generated by any two elements f, g ∈ PL(I) is either abelian or contains a copy of Z∞ .
The proof is not hard, for completeness we give a sketch here. Recall the standard
notation supp(f ) for the support of f, the closure of the set {x ∈ M : f (x) 6= x}.
Proof. Let f, g ∈ PL(I). If a point x is fixed by both f and g, then the derivative of the
commutator [f, g] at x is 1, and it follows that [f, g] is the identity on a neighborhood of x.
This shows that supp([f, g]) is contained in I \ (fix(f ) ∩ fix(g)). Assuming that the subgroup
generated by f and g is not abelian, let W then be the (nonempty) subgroup consisting of
homeomorphisms w such that supp(w) is nonempty and contained in I \ (fix(f ) ∩ fix(g)).
Choose some w ∈ W such that supp(w) meets a minimum number of connected components of I \ (fix(f ) ∩ fix(g)). Let A be a connected component of I \ (fix(f ) ∩ fix(g))
that meets supp(w), this is a closed interval. Let a and b denote min{supp(w) ∩ A} and
max{supp(w) ∩ A} respectively.
As sup{h(a) : h ∈ hf, gi} is fixed by hf, gi, there exists some h in hf, gi with h(a) > b. It
follows that hwh−1 and w have disjoint support on A, so [hwh−1 , w] restricts to the identity
here. Since supp(w) was assumed to meet a minimum number of connected components
of I \ (fix(f ) ∩ fix(g)), we must have supp([hwh−1 , w]) = ∅, i.e. hwh−1 and w commute.
This
hn that displaces the support of w off of
S process can−1be repeated iteratively, finding
∞
supp(h
wh
)
∩
A,
giving
a
copy
of
Z
in
hf,
gi.
i
i
i<n
By contrast, as soon as dim(M ) = n ≥ 2, the groups PL(M ), and PL(M, ∂) contain
many free subgroups. A number of examples are given in [2], the easiest ones are the
following.
Example 3.2. Let n ≥ 2, and consider a free subgroup of GLn (R) freely generated by α
and β. For any p ∈ M , there exist PL homeomorphisms f and g, fixing p, supported on a
neighborhood of p, and with derivatives Df (p) = α and Dg(p) = β. Taking the derivative
at p defines an injective homomorphism from the group generated by f and g to a free
subgroup of GLn (R), hence f and g satisfy no relation.
Our next goal is to show that we can exclude these free subgroups by restricting our
attention to homeomorphisms that preserve a 1-dimensional foliation.
Definition 3.3. Let PL(I n , F ) denote the subgroup of PL(I n ) consisting of homeomorphisms that preserve each leaf of the foliation of I n by vertical lines {x} × I, where x ∈ I n−1 .
Proposition 3.4. PL(I n , F ) does not contain a free subgroup.
Proof. Let f, g ∈ PL(I n , F ). The restrictions of f and g to any vertical line L = {x} × I
are piecewise linear homeomorphisms of L.
By Lemma 3.1, the restriction of f and g to L generate a group that is either abelian
or contains a copy of Z∞ , in particular, there are nontrivial words u and v in hf, gi such
that u and v restrict to the identity on L and such that [u, v] is not the trivial word. Notice
that if u ∈ PL(I n , F ) restricts to the identity on L, then after identifying L with the nth

5

coordinate axis, u is locally linear of the

1 0
0 1

 ..
.

0 0
0 0

form
... 0
... 0
... 1
... 0


a1
a2 




an−1 
1

and the collection of all such linear maps forms an abelian group. In particular, the commutator [u, v] agrees with the identity on a neighborhood of L. Shrinking this neighborhood if
needed, we may take it to be of the form U × I, where U is a neighborhood of x in I n−1 .
Now consider the collection of all open sets of the form U ′ × I, such that
• U ′ is open in I n−1 and
• There exists some nontrivial reduced word w in f and g with w|U ′ ×I = id.
The argument given above shows that this collection of sets forms an open cover of I n . Let
{U1 × I, . . . , Um × I} be a finite subcover of minimal cardinality, and for each 1 ≤ i ≤ m
let wi be a nontrivial word that restricts to the identity on Ui × I. We claim that m = 1,
and therefore f and g satisfy a nontrivial relation.
To see that m = 1, assume for contradiction that we have more than one set in the cover
and choose i and j such that Ui ∩ Uj 6= ∅. If [wi , wj ] reduces to the trivial word, then wi
and wj would both be powers of some word w′ . Since PL(I) is torsion-free, this implies
that w′ restricts to the identity on both Ui and Uj , so we could replace our cover with a
smaller one, using the single set (Ui ∪ Uj ) × I on which w′ is identity. Thus, the assumption
of minimal cardinality of the cover implies that [wi , wj ] is a nontrivial word. However, since
wi pointwise fixes Ui × I and wj pointwise fixes Uj × I, the commutator [wi , wj ] restricts to
the identity on (Ui ∪ Uj ) × I, and this again contradicts our choice of a minimal cover.

4

Completing the proof

We now put together our previous work to finish the proof of Theorem 1.1, starting with the
special case of M = I n . Suppose for contradiction that PL(I n ) admits a Polish topology.
Let PL(I n , F ) be the subgroup of vertical line preserving homeomorphisms defined in the
previous section. We claim that PL(I n , F ) is a closed subgroup, and hence Polish. This is
a consequence of the following general lemma.
Lemma 4.1. Let M = A × B be a product manifold. Let G ⊂ Homeo(M ) be a subgroup
satisfying condition (∗), and τ a Hausdorff group topology on G. Then
G(B) := {f ∈ G : f ({a} × B) = {a} × B for all a ∈ A}
is a closed subgroup.
Proof. We show that G(B) is an intersection of sets of the form C(U, V ), hence is closed by
Lemma 2.1. Consider the collection Λ of sets of the form {U ′ } × B, where U ′ is open in A.
Then
\
G(B) =
C(U, U ).
U∈Λ

′

Indeed, if f ∈ Homeo(M ) satisfies f ({U } × B) ⊂ {U ′ } × B for each U ′ inTa neighborhood
basis of a ∈ A, then f ({a} × B) = {a} × B. This gives the inclusion of U∈Λ C(U, U ) in
G(B), and the reverse inclusion is immediate.
6

To continue the proof of the Theorem, note that PL(I n , F ) also satisfies the local perturbations property – for example, given y ∈ M and any neighborhood U of y, one can
define for each t ∈ (0, ǫ) an element of PL(I n , F ) supported on U , and agreeing with
(x1 , ..., xn−1 , xn ) 7→ (x1 , ..., xn−1 , xn + t) on a small linear simplex containing y. Thus, by
Theorem 1.2 the generic f, g ∈ PL(I n , F ) generate a free subgroup. This contradicts Proposition 3.4, so we conclude that PL(I n ) has no Polish topology.
This strategy also works to show that the group PL(I n , ∂) of piecewise linear homeomorphisms of I n that pointwise fix the boundary admits no Polish group topology. The
proof of Lemma 4.1 shows that the subgroup of homeomorphisms in PL(I n , ∂) that preserve
each vertical line is closed, hence Polish. It also satisfies the (relative) local perturbations
property. Now Remark 2.6 implies that the generic pair of elements generate a free group,
which is again a contradiction.
For the general case, let M be an n-dimensional PL manifold, and assume again for
contradiction that PL(M ) has a Polish group topology. Let A ⊂ M be a linearly embedded
copy of I n , and let G ⊂ PL(M ) be the subgroup of homeomorphisms that restrict to the
identity on M \ A. We claim that
\
C(U ′ , U ′ ),
G=
U ′ ⊂M\Ā open

and hence G is a closed subgroup. That G ⊂ C(U ′ , U ′ ) for any U ′ ⊂ M \ Ā is immediate,
to see the reverse inclusion, take any point x ∈ M \ Ā. If f (U ′ ) ⊂ U ′ for all sets U ′ in a
neighborhood basis of x, then f (x) = x.
Since G is closed, it is also a Polish group. As G ∼
= PL(I n , ∂), this contradicts the case
proved above, and completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.

4.1

Piecewise projective homeomorphisms

A homeomorphism f of S 1 is piecewise projective if there is a partition of S 1 into finitely
many intervals such that the restriction of f to each interval agrees with the standard action
of PSL(2, R) by projective transformations on RP 1 = S 1 . Much like PL(M ), this group has
a rich algebraic structure: among its subgroups are counterexamples to the Von Neumann
conjecture (see [12]), and the full group is closely related to a proposed “Lie algebra” for
the group Homeo(S 1 ) given in [9].
We now prove Corollary 1.3, the analog of Theorem 1.1 for piecewise projective homeomorphisms. Let G denote the group of all piecewise projective homeomorphisms of S 1 , let
I ⊂ S 1 be a small interval, and let H ⊂ G be the subgroup of homeomorphisms pointwise
fixing I. Suppose that G is given a Polish group topology. Since we have
\
H=
C(U, U )
U open, U⊂I

H is a closed subgroup, hence Polish.
Note also that H has the local perturbations property (in the modified sense for groups
of homeomorphisms fixing a submanifold), so it follows from Theorem 1.2 that the generic
pair of elements of H generate a free group. However, the same argument as in Lemma
3.1 shows that the subgroup generated by any two elements of H is either metabelian or
contains a copy of Z∞ ; in particular, it is not free (this is also proved in Theorem 14 of [12]).
This gives a contradiction, showing that G cannot have a Polish group topology.

7

References
[1] M. Brin, C. Squier, Groups of piecewise linear homeomorphisms of the real line. Invent.
Math. 79 no. 3 (1985), 485-498.
[2] D. Calegari, D. Rolfsen, Groups of PL homeomorphisms of cubes. Preprint.
arXiv:1401.0570 [] (2014) To appear in Ann. Math. Toulouse.
[3] M. Cohen, R. Kallman, PL+ (I) is not a Polish group. Preprint. arXiv:1407.7910
[] (2014). To appear in Erg. Th. Dynam. Sys.
[4] R. Filipkiewicz, Isomorphisms between diffeomorphism groups. Ergodic Theory Dynamical Systems 2 (1982), 159-171.
[5] E. Ghys, Groups acting on the circle. L’Ens. Math. 47 (2001), 329-407.
[6] S. Hurtado, Continuity of discrete homomorphisms of diffeomorphism groups. Geometry
& Topology 19 (2015), 2117-2154.
[7] R. Kallman, Uniqueness results for homeomorphism groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
295.1 (1986) 389-396.
[8] R. Lashof, Problems in Differential and Algebraic Topology. Seattle Conference, 1963
Ann. Math (2) 81, no. 3 (1965) 565-591.
[9] F. Malikov, R. Penner, The Lie algebra of homeomorphisms of the circle. Adv. Math.
140 no. 2(1998) 282-322.
[10] K. Mann, Homomorphisms between diffeomorphism groups. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems 35-01 (2015), 192-214.
[11] K. Mann, Automatic continuity for homeomorphism groups and applications. Preprint.
arXiv:1501.02688. (2015).
[12] N. Monod, Groups of piecewise projective homeomorphisms. PNAS 110 no. 12 (2013),
4524-4527.
[13] C. Rosendal, On the non-existence of certain group topologies. Fund. Math. 187 no. 3
(2005), 213-228.

Dept. of Mathematics
University of California, Berkeley
970 Evans Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720
E-mail: kpmann@math.berkeley.edu

8

