ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

arXiv:1709.09942v1 [] 28 Sep 2017

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

A BSTRACT. We introduce a notion of cocycle-induction for strong uniform approximate lattices in locally compact second countable groups and use it to relate (relative) Kazhdan- and
Haagerup-type of approximate lattices to the corresponding properties of the ambient locally
compact groups. Our approach applies to large classes of uniform approximate lattices (though
not all of them) and is flexible enough to cover the Lp -versions of Property (FH) and a-(FH)menability as well as quasified versions thereof a la Burger–Monod and Ozawa.

1. I NTRODUCTION
1.1. Approximate lattices
This article is concerned with analytic properties of approximate lattices in locally compact
second countable (lcsc) groups, in particular with properties of Kazhdan and Haagerup type.
Following Tao [Tao08], we say that a subset Λ of a group is an approximate subgroup if it is
symmetric (i.e. Λ−1 = Λ) and contains the identity, and if moreover there exists a finite set
FΛ ⊂ Λ3 such that
Λ2 ⊂ ΛFΛ .
While the original interest was mostly in families of finite approximate subgroups with FΛ
of some uniformly bounded size, here we are interested in infinite approximate subgroups of
lcsc groups.
If Λ is an approximate subgroup of a lcsc group G, then we refer to the group Λ∞ generated
by Λ in G as the enveloping group of Λ and to the pair (Λ, Λ∞ ) as an approximate group. Following [BH16], we say that an approximate subgroup Λ ⊂ G is a uniform approximate lattice
in Λ if it is a Delone1 subset of G. This terminology is motivated by the observation that if
Λ = Λ∞ is actually a subgroup of G, then it is a uniform approximate lattice if and only if it
is a uniform lattice.
Remark 1.1. In [BH16] we also discussed several tentative definitions of “non-uniform approximate lattices”. In the present article we focus exclusively on uniform approximate lattices to avoid certain integrability issues.
We observed in [BH16], that if Λ is a uniform approximate lattice in G, then many properties of the group G are reflected by properties of the approximate group (Λ, Λ∞ ). For example, G is compactly generated if and only Λ∞ is finitely generated. In this case, the canonical
quasi-isometry class of G is represented by the restriction of any word metric on Λ∞ to Λ, and
G is amenable if and only if Λ is metrically amenable with respect to any such word metric.
Date: September 29, 2017.
Key words and phrases. Approximate lattices, Property (T), Property (FH), Haagerup Property, a-T-menability.
1See the body of the text for detailed definitions.
1

2

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

Here we are interested in the question, in how far analytic properties of a lcsc group G are
reflected by analytic properties of a uniform approximate lattice Λ in G and the associated approximate group (Λ, Λ∞ ). We will focus our investigation on variants of two important analytic properties of lcsc groups, namely Kazhdan’s Property (T) (also known as Property (FH),
see [Kaz67, BdlHV08]) and the Haagerup property (also known as Gromov’s a-T-menability,
see [Haa79, Gro93, CCJ+ 01]).
1.2. Properties of Kazhdan- and Haagerup-type
Recall that a lcsc group G has the Haagerup Property if there exists a metrically proper
affine isometric action on a Hilbert space. As for Property (T), there are many equivalent
characterizations. The one we are going to generalize here is known as Property (FH), which
demands that every affine isometric action of G on a Hilbert space has bounded orbits. Both
the Haagerup Property and Property (FH) have been generalized in two different directions.
Firstly, if instead of Hilbert space we consider Lp -spaces for some fixed p ∈ (1, ∞), then we
obtain the notion of a-FLp -menability [DCTV08], respectively the notion of Property (FLp ) as
introduced and studied by Bader, Furman, Gelander and Monod [BFGM07]. (We warn the
reader, that while Property (FH) is equivalent to Property (T), Property (FLp ) as just defined
is strictly stronger than Property (TLp ) from [BFGM07].)
Secondly, if one replaces affine actions and cocycles by the weaker notions of quasi-cocycles,
respectively weak quasi-cocycles, then one obtains strengthenings of Property (FH), which
were introduced respectively by Burger–Monod [BM02, Mon01] and Ozawa [Oza11] under
the names Property (TT) and Property (TTT). Since these properties actually generalize Property (FH) and to avoid a conflict of terminology in the Lp -case, we follow the terminology
introduced by Mimura [Mim11] and refer to them as Property (FFH) and (FFFH) respectively.
Dually, one obtains weakening of the Haagerup Property, which we refer to respectively as
a-(FFH)-menability and a-(FFFH)-menability (which is more consistent with our other terminology than the term “Ha-Ha-Haagerup property” suggested by Nicolas Monod). Note that
one can combine both generalizations in the obvious way.
Definition 1.2. In the sequel we refer to the properties (FLp ), (FFLp ) and (FFFLp) for p ∈
(1, ∞) as Kazhdan type properties, and to the a-FLp -amenability, a-FFLp -menability and the
a-FFFLp -menability for p ∈ (1, ∞) as Haagerup type properties.
Cornulier in his thesis [C05, C06] introduced the notion of relative Property (T) and relative
Haagerup-Property of a group with respect to a subset. (Relative Property (T) with respect to
subgroups was defined much earlier by Margulis [Mar82] and implicitly already appears in
Kazhdan’s original paper [Kaz67].) Namely, a lcsc group G has Property (T) relative to a
subset A if every affine isometric action of G on a Hilbert space has a bounded A orbit, and it
has the Haagerup property relative to a subset A if there exists an affine isometric action of G
on a Hilbert space which is A-proper. If P is any Kazhdan-type or Haagerup-type property,
then relative versions can be defined similarly.
Definition 1.3. Let (Λ, Λ∞ ) be an approximate group and let P be a Kazhdan-type of Haageruptype property. We say that (Λ, Λ∞ ) has P if Λ∞ has P relative to Λ.
Remark 1.4. Note that if the group Λ∞ enjoys a Kazhdan-type or Haagerup-type property P,
then so does the approximate group (Λ, Λ∞ ). However, as we will see in Example 1.12 below,
in general the converse is not true.

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

3

In terms of Definition 1.2 and Definition 1.3, the main problem considered in the present
article can be formulated as follows.
Problem 1.5. Let G be a lcsc group and Λ ⊂ G a uniform approximate lattice with enveloping group
Λ∞ . How are the Kazhdan-type and Haagerup-type properties of G related to the Kazhdan-type and
Haagerup-type properties of (Λ, Λ∞ )?
1.3. Main results
Recall that if Γ is a uniform lattice in a lcsc group G and P is a property of Kazhdan-type or
Haagerup-type, then G has P if and only if Γ has P. There are a number of problems which
prevent us from generalizing the results to arbitrary uniform approximate lattices.
Firstly, note that if Γ is a uniform lattice in G, then the homogeneous space G/Γ always admits a unique G-invariant probability measure. If Λ is merely a uniform approximate lattice
in G, then it is currently not known in full generality whether the natural substitute for the
homogeneous space G/Γ, the so-called hull XΛ of Λ, admits a G-invariant probability measure. Let us call Λ a strong uniform approximate lattice if such a measure exists. The following
theorem will be established in Subsection 5.1:
Theorem 1.6. Let H be a Haagerup-type property, G be a lcsc group and Σ ⊂ G be a uniform
approximate lattice which is contained in a strong uniform approximate lattice Λ ⊂ G. Then G has H
if and only if (Σ, Σ∞ ) has H.
We emphasize that we do not need to assume that Σ itself is strong, but only that it is
contained in a strong uniform approximate lattice. As far as examples are concerned, let us
briefly recall the main constructions of approximate lattices. For this let G, H be lcsc groups
and let Γ < G × H be a uniform lattice which projects injectively into G and densely into H.
Moreover, let W be a compact identity neighbourhood in H with dense interior. Then the set
Λ := Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) := πG (Γ ∩ (G × W ))
is called a symmetric model set. A symmetric model set is called regular provided W is Jordanmeasurable with dense interior, aperiodic (i.e. StabH (W ) = {e}) and satisfies ∂W ∩πH (Γ) = ∅.
A subset ∆ of a lcsc group G is called a Meyer set if there exists a symmetric model set Λ ⊂ G
and a finite subset F ⊂ G such that ∆ ⊂ Λ ⊂ ∆F . In fact, Λ can be chosen to be regular.
Proposition 1.7 ([BH16]). Every regular symmetric model set is a strong uniform approximate lattice, and every symmetric Meyer set is a uniform approximate lattice (not necessarily strong).
Combining Proposition 1.7 and Theorem 1.6 we obtain:
Corollary 1.8. Let H be a Haagerup-type property, G be a lcsc group and Λ ⊂ G be a symmetric
Meyer set containing the identity. Then G has H if and only if (Λ, Λ∞ ) has H.
If G is abelian, then every uniform approximate lattice in G is a symmetric Meyer set
[Mey72, Moo97]. As for general G, it is currently not known whether there exist any uniform approximate lattices which are not symmetric Meyer sets. In particular, the corollary
covers all currently known examples of uniform approximate lattices.
The situation with Kazhdan-type properties is more complicated than in the Haagerup
case. To formulate our result, we say that a model set Λ is of almost connected type, respectively
connected Lie type, if Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) for some H which is almost connected (i.e. connectedby-compact), respectively a connected Lie group. The following theorem will be established
in Subsection 5.4:

4

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

Theorem 1.9. Let T be a Kazhdan-type property, G be a lcsc group and Λ ⊂ G be a uniform approximate lattice. Assume that one of the following holds:
(1) Λ is a model set.
(2) Λ is a Meyer set which is contained in a model set of almost connected type.
Then G has T if and only if (Λ, Λ∞ ) has T .
Concerning Case (2) of Theorem 1.9, it is natural to ask how restrictive the assumption on
a Meyer set to be contained in a model set of almost connected type actually is. While it is not
true that every Meyer set is contained in a model set of almost connected type, we establish
(a more precise version of) the following result in the appendix:
Theorem 1.10. Let Λ be an arbitrary Meyer set. Then Λ is contained in a finite union of left-translates
of a model set of almost connected type. In fact, it is even contained in a finite union of left-translates
of a model set of connected Lie type.
Remark 1.11. For Property (T), Part (1) of Theorem 1.9 was established (without using the
language of approximate groups) by Chifan and Ioana [CI11, Cor. 1.3] using Cornulier’s
notion of resolutions [C06]. While their proof is simpler than ours, it uses unitary representation theory, and it is unclear to us whether their approach can be extended to cover Properties
(FFH) and (FFFH) and/or Lp -Kazhdan-type properties for p 6= 2.
Theorem 1.6 and Theorem 1.9 provide a rich supply of examples of approximate groups
with various Haagerup-type and Kazhdan-type properties, see Examples 5.12 and 5.13 below.
Example 1.12. (i) Let n ≥ 2, G := SU(n, 2) and H := SU(n + 1, 1), let Γ be an irreducible
lattice in G × H and let Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) be a regular model set in G with symmetric
window W ⊂ H containing the identity. It then follows from the results in [BM02]
that Λ has the Burger–Monod Property (FFH) (a.k.a. Property (TT)), whereas Λ∞ does
not even have Property (FH). Moreover, by results from [BFGM07], Λ also has Property
(FLp ) for all p ∈ (1, ∞), whereas Λ∞ does not have Property (FLp ) for any p ∈ (1, ∞).
(For p = 2 this follows also from the results in [CI11].)
(ii) Let n ≥ 2 and let Λ be a symmetric model set in Sp(n, 1) containing the identity. Then
Λ has Property (FH), but by results from [Oza11], respectively [DCTV08], it is both aFFFH-menable and a-FLp -menable for p > 4n + 2.
1.4. Towards applications
Given approximate groups (Λ, Λ∞ ) and (Σ, Σ∞ ) we say that a map of pairs ϕ : (Λ, Λ∞ ) →
(Σ, Σ∞ ), is called a morphism if ϕ(gh) = ϕ(g)ϕ(h) for all g, h ∈ Λ∞ and a quasimorphism if the
set {ϕ(h)−1 ϕ(g)−1 ϕ(gh) | g, h ∈ Λ∞ } is finite. Then the following result can be established as
in the group case.
Proposition 1.13. Let p ∈ (1, ∞), (Λ, Λ∞ ), (Σ, Σ∞ ) be approximate groups and ϕ : (Λ, Λ∞ ) →
(Σ, Σ∞ ). Assume that either of the following holds:
(i) If (Λ, Λ∞ ) has (FLp ), (Σ, Σ∞ ) is a-FLp -menable and ϕ is a morphism.
(ii) If (Λ, Λ∞ ) has (FFFLp), (Σ, Σ∞ ) is a-FFFLp -menable and ϕ is a quasimorphism.
Then ϕ(Λ) is finite.
Remark 1.14. In view of the Proposition it would be of interest to have more examples of
approximate groups which have (FFFLp ) or are a-FFFLp -menable. For instance, it would be
of interest to know, whether every higher rank Lie group has Property (FFFH). Similarly,

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

5

one would like to know whether every (coarsely-connected, finitely generated) hyperbolic
approximate group (Λ, Λ∞ ) is a-FFFH-menable by an argument similar to the one suggested
in [Oza11] for groups.
Finally, let us suggest our own variations on Property (T) and the Haagerup property. A
natural class of maps between approximate groups is given by 2-Freiman quasimorphisms,
i.e. maps ϕ : (Λ, Λ∞ ) → (Σ, Σ∞ ) such that the set {ϕ(h)−1 ϕ(g)−1 ϕ(gh) | g, h ∈ Λ} is finite.
To obtain a result analogous to Proposition 1.13 for such maps, we suggest to introduce the
following extensions of Property (TT) and (TTT):
Definition 1.15. Let (Λ, Λ∞ ) be an approxximate group, E be an Lp -space, and π : Λ∞ →
O(E) be an arbitrary map. Then a map b : Λ∞ → E is called a 2-Freiman wq-cocycle if
sup kb(gh) − b(g) − π(g)b(h)k < ∞.
g,h∈Λ

We say that (Λ, Λ∞ ) has Property (FFFFLp) if every 2-Freiman wq-cocycle on Λ∞ is bounded
on Λ, and that it is a-FFFFLp -menable if there exists a 2-Freiman wq-cocycle on Λ∞ which is
proper on Λ.
We leave the following as an exercise:
Proposition 1.16. Let p ∈ (1, ∞), (Λ, Λ∞ ), (Σ, Σ∞ ) be approximate groups and ϕ : (Λ, Λ∞ ) →
(Σ, Σ∞ ). Assume that (Λ, Λ∞ ) has (FFFFLp), (Σ, Σ∞ ) is a-FFFFLp-menable and ϕ is a 2-Freiman
quasimorphism. Then ϕ(Λ) is finite.
In relation to this, we would like to advertise the following problem:
Problem 1.17. Find examples of approximate groups with Property (FFFFLp). Also consider the case
of higher order k-Freiman cocycles instead of 2-Freiman wq-cocycles.
1.5. On the method of proof
The proofs of Theorem 1.6 and Theorem 1.9 are based on a version of cocycle induction
from a strong uniform approximate lattice Λ to the ambient lcsc group G, which may be
of independent interest. This construction is general enough to also apply to (weak) quasicocycles with values in Lp -spaces. Theorem 1.6 then follows from the observation that induction preserves properness of cocycles. On the other hand, it is not obvious (even in the Hilbert
setting) that boundedness of the induced cocycle implies boundedness of the original cocycle
on Λ. In case where Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) is a model set, we can circumvent this problem by
using an alternative model for induction, which allows us to extend the induced G-cocycle to
a cocycle on G × H. Using results from [BHP16] we are then able to transfer the problem to a
problem about the homogeneous space (G × H)/Γ. Even after the reduction to the homogeneous setting, the proof of Theorem 1.9 remains non-trivial and relies on a strengthening of
arguments developed by Ozawa in his work on Property (TTT).
C ONTENTS
1. Introduction
1.1. Approximate lattices
1.2. Properties of Kazhdan- and Haagerup-type
1.3. Main results
1.4. Towards applications

1
1
2
3
4

6

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

1.5. On the method of proof
Acknowledgements
2. Approximate groups and approximate lattices
2.1. Basic definitions
2.2. The hull of an approximate lattice
2.3. Bounded Borel sections over the hull
2.4. Approximate lattices from model sets
3. Affine isometric actions and Lp -induction
3.1. Affine isometric actions on Banach spaces and (weak) quasi-cocycles
3.2. Lp -induction for strong uniform approximate lattices
3.3. Dependence on the section and the measure
3.4. Lp -induction for model sets
4. Analytic properties of approximate groups
4.1. Property (T) and its relatives
4.2. Elementary constructions preserving Kazhdan-type properties
4.3. The Haagerup Property and its relatives
5. Analytic properties of approximate lattices via induction
5.1. Preservation of Haagerup type properties under induction
5.2. Preservation of Kazhdan type properties, I: The trivial direction
5.3. Preservation of Kazhdan type properties, II: The model set case
5.4. Preservation of Kazhdan type properties, III: The Meyer case
Appendix A. Structure theory of Meyer sets
References

5
6
6
6
7
8
9
12
12
13
15
16
17
17
18
19
20
20
22
22
27
28
31

Acknowledgements
We thank Marc Burger for pointing out the potential relevance of [Oza11] for approximate
groups and Yves de Cornulier for explanations concerning his work on relative Property (T).
We thank the Departments of Mathematics at Technion and Chalmers, and the Gothenburg
Center of Advanced Studies for their hospitality during our mutual visits.
2. A PPROXIMATE

GROUPS AND APPROXIMATE LATTICES

2.1. Basic definitions
Definition 2.1. An approximate group is a pair (Λ, Λ∞ ), where Λ∞ is a group and Λ ⊂ Λ∞ is a
subset which satisfies the following conditions.
(AG1) Λ is symmetric, i.e. Λ = Λ−1 , and contains the identity.
(AG2) There exists a finite subset FΛ ⊂ Λ∞ such that Λ2 ⊂ ΛFΛ .
(AG3) Λ generates Λ∞ .
If (Λ, Λ∞ ) is an approximate group and G is a group containing Λ∞ , then the subset Λ ⊂ G
is called an approximate subgroup of Γ. We then call Λ∞ the enveloping group of Λ in G.
We will be particularly interested in approximate subgroups of locally compact second
countable (lcsc) groups. Recall that if G is a lcsc group, then G admits a metric which is
left-invariant, proper and defines the given topology of G. We refer to any such metric as a
left-admissible metric on G. Also recall that if (X, d) is an metric space, then a subset Λ ⊂ X is

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

7

called a Delone set if there exist constants R > r > 0 (called the Delone parameters of Λ) such
that
• Λ is r-uniformly discrete i.e. d(x, y) ≥ r for all x, y ∈ Λ;
• Λ is R-relatively dense in X, i.e. for every x ∈ X there exists y ∈ Λ with d(x, y) ≤ R.
If G is a lcsc group, then a subset Λ ⊂ G is called a Delone set if it is a Delone set with respect
to some left-admissible metric on G. Once can show (see e.g. [BH16, Prop. 2.2]) that this
notion does not depend on the choice of left-admissible metric.
Definition 2.2. An approximate subgroup Λ of a lcsc group G is called a uniform approximate
lattice provided Λ is a Delone set in G.
Note that a subgroup Λ < G is a Delone set if and only if it is a uniform lattice, hence the
name.
Remark 2.3. Let G be a lcsc group. Then a subset A ⊂ G is relatively dense, if and only if
there exists a compact subset K ⊂ G such that AK ⊂ G (see [BH16, Prop. 2.2]). Now assume
that Λ ⊂ G is a Delone subset and let Σ ⊂ Λ. Then the following are equivalent (see [BH16,
Cor. 2.10]):
(i) Σ is relatively dense in G.
(ii) There exists a finite set F ⊂ Λ−1 Λ such that Σ ⊂ Λ ⊂ ΣF .
In this situation we say that Σ is left-syndetic in Λ. Note that every symmetric left-syndetic
subset of an approximate lattice which contains the identity is again an approximate lattice.
2.2. The hull of an approximate lattice
For the rest of this section we fix a uniform approximate lattice Λ in a lcsc group G. We denote by C(G) the collection of all closed subsets of G. Then G acts on C(G) by left-translations,
and we denote the orbit of an element P ∈ C(G) by G.P . The set C(G) carries a compact Hausdorff topology called the Chabauty-Fell topology, whose basic open sets are given by
{P ∈ C(G) | P ∩ K = ∅}

and

{P ∈ C(G) | P ∩ V 6= ∅},

where K ranges over all compact subsets of G and V ranges over all open subsets of G. We
refer the reader to [BH16, BHP16] for a detailed discussion of this topology.
Definition 2.4. Given an approximate lattice Λ ⊂ G, the closure XΛ := G.Λ of the lefttranslation orbit G.Λ in C(G) with respect to the Chabauty-Fell topology is called the hull
of Λ.
Since the action of G on C(G) is jointly continuous, so is the action of G on the hull of Λ.
We will often use the following fact (see [BH16, Lemma 4.6]):
Lemma 2.5. If P ∈ XΛ , then P −1 P ⊂ Λ−1 Λ = Λ2 , hence P and P −1 P are uniformly discrete.



Note that the hull XΛ is compact and that the G-action on XΛ is jointly continuous. This
implies in particular, that XΛ admits a µ-stationary probability measure for every admissible
probability measure µ on G. However, if G is non-amenable, then it is unclear whether the
hull supports any G-invariant probability measure.
Definition 2.6. Λ is called a strong uniform approximate lattice if the hull XΛ admits a Ginvariant probability measure.

8

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

2.3. Bounded Borel sections over the hull
We keep the notation of the previous subsection. Moreover, we fix a left-admissible metric
d on G and denote by R > r > 0 the Delone parameters of Λ with respect to d. In analogy
with the group case we define:
Definition 2.7. A map s : XΛ → G is called a section provided s(P ) ∈ P for all P ∈ XΛ . A
section is called bounded if its image is pre-compact.
Proposition 2.8. Let Λ ⊂ G be a uniform approximate lattice. Then there exists a bounded Borel
section s : XΛ → G. In fact, s can be chosen to take values in B2R (e).
Proof. For every P ∈ XΛ choose x ∈ P ∩BR (e) (which exists since P is R-relatively dense) and
define an open neighbourhood of P in XΛ by U (P, x) := {Q ∈ XΛ | Q ∩ Br/2 (x) 6= ∅}. Note
that if Q ∈ U (P, x), then since Q is r-discrete, there exists a unique point σP,x (Q) ∈ Q∩Br/2 (x)
(which is in fact contained in Br/2 (x)) and thus we obtain a section σP,x : UP,x → XΛ over
UP,x . It follows from [BH16, Corollary 4.7] (applied with K := Br/2 (x)) that if Qn ∈ U (P, x)
converge to Q ∈ U (P, x), then σP,x (Qn ) → σP,x (Q), hence σP,x is continuous.
Since the open sets U (P, x) cover the compact space XΛ there exist finitely many elements
P1 , . . . , Pn ∈ XΛ and xi ∈ Pi such that
XΛ = U (P1 , x1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ U (Pn , xn ).
We thus obtain a Borel section over XΛ by setting
σ(Q) := σPjQ ,xjQ (Q), where jQ := min{j ∈ {1, . . . , n} | Q ∈ U (Pj , xj )}.
By definition, min d(σ(Q), xj ) ≤ r/2, and since xj ∈ BR (e) we deduce that σ(Q) ∈ BR+r (e) ⊂
B2R (e).

Lemma 2.9. Let s : XΛ → G be a Borel section. Then for all g ∈ G and P ∈ XΛ we have
βs (g, P ) := s(gP )−1 gs(P ) ∈ Λ2 ,
and the function βs : G × XΛ → Λ2 satisfies the cocycle identity
βs (g1 g2 , P ) = βs (g1 , g2 P )β(g2 , P )

(g1 , g2 ∈ G, P ∈ XΛ ).

(2.1)

The image of βs is uniformly discrete in G and if s is moreover bounded, then for every compact subset
K ⊂ G the image βs (K × XΛ ) is finite.
Proof. It follows from Lemma 2.5 that
s(gP )−1 gs(P ) ∈ (gP )−1 gP = P −1 P ⊂ Λ2 .
Moreover, the identity
(s(g1 g2 P )−1 g1 s(g2 P ))(s(g2 P )−1 g2 s(P )) = s(g1 g2 P )−1 g1 g2 s(P )
implies (2.1). Finally note that if Λ ⊂ G is an approximate lattice, then so is Λ2 , and thus βs
takes values in a uniformly discrete subset of G. In particular, if g varies over a compact set K
and s is chosen to take values in a bounded set B, then βs (g, P ) is contained in set BKB ∩ Λ2 ,
which is finite.

In the sequel we refer to βs as the cocycle associated with the section s. Note that the cocycle
identity (2.1) implies that β(e, P ) = e (since β(e, P ) = β(e, P )2 ), hence for all g ∈ G we have
e = β(g −1 g, P ) = β(g −1 , gP )β(g, P ), i.e.
β(g, P ) = β(g −1 , gP )−1 .

(2.2)

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

9

We also record the following standard fact for later reference:
Lemma 2.10. If s1 , s2 : XΛ → G are Borel sections, then
βs2 (g, P ) = u(gP )−1 βs1 (g, P )u(P ),
where u : XΛ → Λ2 is given by u(P ) := s1 (P )−1 s2 (P ).
Proof. By Lemma 2.5 we have s1 (P )−1 s2 (P ) ∈ P −1 P ⊂ Λ−1 Λ = Λ2 , hence u is well-defined.
The formula relating βs1 and βs2 then follows from
s2 (gP )−1 gs2 (P )

=

s2 (gP )−1 s1 (gP )(s1 (gP )−1 gs1 (P ))s1 (P )−1 s2 (P ).


Now let s : XΛ → G be a bounded Borel section taking values in B2R (e). Given an element
g ∈ G we denote kgk := d(g, e), and given g ∈ G and λ ∈ Λ2 we define
XΛ (g, λ) := {P ∈ XΛ | β(g−1 , P )−1 = λ}.

(2.3)

The following observation will be used in the definition of an induced affine isometric action.
Lemma 2.11. If XΛ (g, λ) 6= ∅, then
kgk − 4R

<

kλk

<

kgk + 4R.

Proof. If P ∈ XΛ (g, λ), then by definition
λ = s(P )−1 g−1 s(gP ),
with {ks(P )k, ks(gP )k} ⊂ [0, R). Thus a simple application of the triangle inequality yields
kλk = d(e, s(P )−1 g −1 s(gP ))

≥

= d(s(P ), g−1 ) − d(s(gP ), e)

d(e, s(P )−1 g −1 ) − d(s(P )−1 g−1 s(gP ), s(P )−1 g−1 )
≥

d(g −1 , e) − d(e, s(P )) − d(e, s(gP ))

> kgk − 4R,
and a similary argument yields the upper bound.



2.4. Approximate lattices from model sets
An important class of approximate lattices is given by symmetric model sets [Mey72,
BHP16, BHP17] in the sense of Meyer. These examples will play an important role in the
sequel, hence we briefly recall their definition and basic properties.
Definition 2.12. A cut-and-project-scheme is a triple (G, H, Γ) where G and H are lcsc groups
and Γ < G × H is a lattice which projects injectively to G and densely to H. A cut-and-project
scheme is called uniform if Γ is moreover a uniform lattice.
Remark 2.13. In the sequel when given a uniform cut-and-project scheme (G, H, Γ) we will
always use the following notations and conventions: Firstly, we denote by πG , πH the coordinate projections of G × H and set ΓG := πG (Γ) and ΓH := πH (Γ). We then define a map
τ : ΓG → H as τ := πH ◦ (πG |Γ )−1 . Note that the image of τ is precisely ΓH ; in the abelian
case this map is sometimes called the “∗-map”. Secondly, we denote by Y := Y (G, H, Γ) :=
(G × H)/Γ the associated compact homogeneous space and by πY : G × H → Y the canonical
projection. Inside G × H we can choose a compact subset F with dense interior F o such that
ΓF = G × H and such that F o is mapped homeomorphically to a dense open subset of Y .
(For example, the Voronoi cell of the identity with respect to any left-admissible metric on
G × H has these properties.) We then set FG := πG (F) and FH := πH (F) and observe that

10

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

these are compact subsets of G and H respectively. Thirdly, we choose Haar measures mG
and mH on G respectively H in such a way that mG ⊗ mH (F) = 1 Then the unique invariant
probability measure mY on Y is given in terms of the projection π : G × H → Y by
mY (f ) = mG ⊗ mH ((π ◦ f ) · χF ) (f ∈ Cc (Y )).
Finally, we will always choose a bounded Borel section s : Y → G × H, x 7→ (sG (x), sH (x))
with values in F such that σ(π(g, h)) = (g, h) for all (g, h) ∈ F o . Then, by construction,
s ∗ mY = χF · mG ⊗ mH
As a consequence of our special choice of section we obtain:
Lemma 2.14. In the notation of Remark 2.13, let µG = (sG )∗ mY and µH := (sH )∗ mY . Then there
exist bounded measurable functions ρG ∈ L∞ (FG ) and ρH ∈ L∞ (FH ) such that
µ G = ρG m G

and

µ H = ρH m H .

Proof. Given g ∈ G, write Fg := {h ∈ H | (g, h) ∈ F} ⊂ FH . Then µG = ρG mG , where
ρG (g) = mH (Fg ). By definition we have ρG (g) = 0 unless g ∈ FG , and since ρG (g) ≤ mH (FH )
the function ρG is bounded. The argument for µH follows by reversing the roles of G and
H.

Definition 2.15. Let (G, H, Γ) be a cut-and-project scheme. Given a compact subset W ⊂ H,
the subset
Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) := πG (Γ ∩ (G × W )) ⊂ G
is called a weak model set and W is called its window.
In terms of the map τ : ΓG → H from Remark 2.13 we have Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) = τ −1 (W ).
Definition 2.16. A weak model set Λ is called a model set if its window has non-empty interior.
It is called uniform if the underlying cut-and-project scheme is uniform and symmetric if it
satisfies Λ = Λ−1 .
The relation to approximate lattices is given by the following result.
Proposition 2.17 ([BH16, Prop. 2.13]). Every symmetric uniform model set in G which contains
the identity is a uniform approximate lattice in G.

We now provide a condition which ensures that this uniform approximate lattice is strong.
Definition 2.18. Let (G, H, Γ) be a cut-and-project scheme and let W ⊂ H be compact. We say
that W is Γ-regular if it is Jordan-measurable with dense interior, aperiodic (i.e. StabH (W ) =
{e}) and satisfies ∂W ∩ ΓH = ∅. In this case the associated model set Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) is called
a regular model set.
The following theorem summarizes basic results on regular symmetric uniform model sets
containing the identity.
Theorem 2.19 ([BHP16, Thm. 1.1]). Let Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) is a regular symmetric uniform model
set containing the identity. Then the following hold:
(i) Λ is a strong approximate lattice in G, and XΛ admits a unique G-invariant measure ν.
(ii) There exists a unique continuous G-equivariant surjection ι : XΛ → Y := (G × H)/Γ mapping
Λ to (e, e)Γ, which induces a probability-measure preserving isomorphism
(XΛ , ν) → (Y, mY )
of measurable G-spaces.



ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

11

Remark 2.20. Let Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) be as in the theorem. Since the projection of Γ onto the
first factor is injective, it induces a group isomorphism Γ ∼
= Λ∞ . Under this isomorphism the
set Λ corresponds to the subset ΓW := Γ ∩ (G × W ) of Γ. In this sense the approximate group
(Λ, Λ∞ ) is isomorphic to the approximate group (ΓW , Γ).
Definition 2.21. A model set Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) is said to have large window if W ⊃ FH .
Note that every (symmetric, regular) model set is contained in a (symmetric, regular)
model set with large window. The following technical result will be used to provide an alternative model for cocycle induction for model sets.
Proposition 2.22. Let Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) be a uniform model set with large window. Then for
any bounded Borel section s : Y → G × H as in Remark 2.13 there exists a bounded Borel section
σ : XΛ → G such that for almost all P ∈ XΛ ,
σ(P ) = πG (s(ι(P ))).
For the proof of the proposition we need an explicit almost everywhere defined inverse of
the map ι : XΛ → Y from Theorem 2.19.
Lemma 2.23. Let Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) be a symmetric regular uniform model set and let ι : XΛ → Y
be as in Theorem 2.19. Then there exists a ν-conull G-invariant Borel set X0 ⊂ XΛ and a Haarconull G-invariant Borel set Y0 ⊂ Y such that ι restricts to a G-equivariant measurable bijection
−1 (h−1 W ).
ι0 : X0 → Y0 with inverse given by ι−1
0 ((g, h)Γ) = gτ
Proof. The first statement is contained in [BHP16, Thm. 3.1 and Thm. 3.4]. We first claim that
for every P ∈ X0 and every gP ∈ P there exists hP ∈ H such that
ι0 (P ) = (gP , hP )Γ

and P = gP .τ −1 (h−1
P W ).

(2.4)

To prove the claim, we fix P ∈ X0 and gP ∈ P . It is established in [BHP16, Prop. 2.10 and Sec.
2.5] that gP−1 P is contained in the intersection of X0 with the so-called canonical transversal
T . It then follows from [BHP16, Thm. 3.1 (ii) and (iii)] that there exists hP ∈ H such that
ι(gP−1 P ) = (e, hP )Γ and ι−1 ((e, hP )Γ) = τ −1 (h−1
P W ) for some hP ∈ H. By G-equivariance of
ι0 and ι−1
we
have
0
ι0 (P ) = ι0 (gP gP−1 P ) = gP ι0 (gP−1 P ) = gP (e, hP ) = (gP , hP )Γ
−1
−1 (h−1 W ). This finishes the proof of (2.4).
and P = ι−1
0 ((gp , hP )Γ) = gp .ι0 ((e, hP )Γ) = gP .τ
P

Now let (g, h)Γ ∈ Y0 and set P := ι−1
0 ((g, h)Γ) ∈ X. Choose gP ∈ P and let hP ∈ H such
that (2.4) holds. Then (g, h)Γ = ι0 (P ) = (gP , hP )Γ, hence there exists (γ, γ ∗ ) ∈ Γ such that
(g, h) = (gP γ, hP γ ∗ ), and hence
−1 −1
∗
∗ −1 −1
(h W ).
P = gP .τ −1 (h−1
P W ) = gP πG ((γ, γ )(Γ ∩ (G × (γ ) hP W ))) = gτ



Proof of Proposition 2.22. Let X0 and Y0 as in Lemma 2.23 and let P ∈ X0 . Abbreviate (g, h) :=
s(ι(P )). By construction, (g, h) ∈ F and hence h ∈ FH . By Lemma 2.23 we have
P = g πG (Γ ∩ (G × h−1 W ))
Since h ∈ FH ⊂ W the set G × h−1 W contains the identity, hence g ∈ P . Thus
g = πG (s(ι(P ))) ∈ P

for all P ∈ X0 .

(2.5)

12

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

We now fix an arbitrary bounded Borel section σ ′ : XΛ → G and define

πG (s(ι(P ))), if P ∈ X0 ,
σ : XΛ → G, σ(P ) =
σ ′ (P )
if P 6∈ X0 .
It follows from (2.5) and the fact that σ ′ is a section, that σ is a section. Moreover, σ is Borel,
since s and σ ′ are and since X0 and its complement are Borel sets. It is bounded, since s and
σ ′ is bounded. Finally, σ(P ) = πG (s(ι(P ))) for all P ∈ X0 , hence for almost all P ∈ XΛ .

3. A FFINE

ISOMETRIC ACTIONS AND

Lp - INDUCTION

3.1. Affine isometric actions on Banach spaces and (weak) quasi-cocycles
In the sequel, all Banach spaces are assumed to be defined over the field of real numbers.
Given a Banach space (E, k · k) we denote by Is(E) the corresponding isometry group. By
the Mazur-Ulam theorem we have Is(E) = O(E) ⋉ E, where O(E) denotes the orthogonal
group of (E, k · k) (i.e. the group of linear isometries), and E acts on itself by translations. If
Γ is a group, then a homomorphism ρ : Γ → Is(E) is called an affine isometric action of Γ on E.
Every such action is of the form
ρ(g).v = π(g).v + b(g),

(g ∈ Γ, v ∈ E)

where π : Γ → O(E) is a homomorphism, and b : Γ → E is a 1-cocycle with respect to π in
the sense that
b(gh) = b(g) + π(g)b(h)

(g, h ∈ Γ).

(3.1)

We then write ρ = (π, b) and refer to π and b as the linear part of ρ, respectively the cocycle
defined by ρ. For later use we record that if b is a cocycle then b(e) = 0 (since b(e) = b(e) +
π(e)b(e) = 2b(e)) and hence for all g ∈ G we have
0 = b(gg−1 ) = b(g) + π(g)b(g −1 ),
i.e.
b(g−1 ) = −π(g)−1 b(g).

(3.2)

In the remainder of this article we will only consider uniformly convex Banach spaces. If G is
a topological group and π : G → O(E) is a homomorphism, then the action map G × E → E
is jointly continuous if and only if π is weakly continuous (equivalently, strongly continuous)
if and only if the orbit maps of π are continuous (see e.g. [BFGM07, Lemma 2.4]). In this case
we call π a continuous orthogonal representation.
Definition 3.1. An affine isometric action ρ = (π, b) of a topological group g on a uniformly
convex Banach space E is called continuous if π is a continuous orthogonal representation and
b is a continuous cocycle.
Given 1 < p < ∞, we say that a Banach space E is an Lp -space if it is isometrically isomorphic to Lp (Y, µ) for some σ-finite Borel measure µ on a standard Borel space Y . In particular,
this implies that E is separable, and hence Is(E) and O(E) are Polish groups with the topology of pointwise convergence (a.k.a. strong operator topology).
Definition 3.2. If G is a lcsc group and ρ = (π, b) is a continuous affine isometric action on an
Lp -space, then we refer to ρ as an affine Lp -action of G and to b as an Lp -cocycle on G.

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

13

Thus our affine actions will always implicitly assumed to be continuous. The following
weakenings of the notion of a Lp -cocycle were introduced (in the case p = 2) by Ozawa in
his work on Property (TTT), respectively by Burger–Monod in their work on Property (TT).
Here, O(E) is equipped with the Borel structure associated with the strong (equivalently, the
weak) operator topology.
Definition 3.3. Let G be a lcsc group and E be an Lp -space.
(i) Given a Borel map π : G → O(E) (not necessarily a homomorphism) we say that a Borel
map b : G → E is a weak Lp -quasi-cocycle (wq-Lp -cocycle for short) with respect to π if
D(b) := sup kb(g1 g2 ) − b(g1 ) − π(g1 )b(g2 )k < ∞.
g1 ,g2 ∈G

Then the pair (π, b) is called a wq-Lp -pair for G, and E is called the underlying Lp -space.
(ii) If (π, b) is a wq-Lp -pair and π is moreover a homomorphism, then b is called a quasicocycle and (π, b) is then called a quasi-Lp -pair.
By definition, every Lp -cocycle is an Lp -quasi-cocyle, and every Lp -quasi-cocycle is a wqLp -cocycle. In particular, all results concerning wq-Lp -cocycles below apply to Lp -quasicocycles and Lp -cocycles.
Remark 3.4. Our definition of a quasi-cocycle follows Ozawa [Oza11]. Burger and Monod
[BM02] require in addition that b be continuous. However, since every Borel quasi-cocycle is
cohomologous to a continuous quasi-cocycle, this difference in definition does not affect the
notion of Property (FFLp ) defined below.
3.2. Lp -induction for strong uniform approximate lattices
For the rest of this section we consider the following setting: Let G be a lcsc group, let Λ ⊂
G be a strong uniform approximate lattice with enveloping group Λ∞ , and denote by X = XΛ
the hull of Λ. We fix a left-admissible metric d on G and given g ∈ G we set kgk := d(g, e). Let
R > r > 0 be Delone parameters of Λ with respect to d. Using Proposition 2.8 we choose a
Borel section s : XΛ → G which takes values in BR (e) and denote by β = βs : G × XΛ → Λ2
the associated cocycle.
If Λ happens to be a uniform lattice in G, then every affine Lp -action of Λ induces an affine
Lp -action of G (see e.g. [Sha00]), and we would like to generalize this construction to the case
at hand. In fact, it is natural to discuss induction in the wider context of wq-Lp -cocycles. In
the present setting the situation is complicated by the fact that there may be more than one Ginvariant measure on X. As we will see in Example 3.9 below, different choices of measures
on X will lead to substantially different induction procedures.
We now fix a G-invariant measure ν on X and proceed to define an induction operation
depending on ν. For this let Y be a standard Borel space, µ a σ-finite Borel measure on Y and
E := Lp (Y, µ) for some p ∈ (1, ∞). We then denote by
b := Lp (XΛ , ν; E)
E

the space of equivalence classes of Bochner p-integrable E-valued functions on (XΛ , ν). Exb if and only if the map f¯ : XΛ × Y → C
plicitly, a function f : XΛ → E represents a class in E
given by
f¯(P, y) := f (P )(y)
p
represents a class in L (XΛ × Y, ν ⊗ µ). In particular, we see from the isometric isomorphism
∼

=
b−
E
→ Lp (XΛ × Y, ν ⊗ µ),

[f ] 7→ [f¯]

14

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

b is again an Lp -space.
that E

b :=
Proposition 3.5. Let (π, b) be a wq-Lp -pair for Λ∞ with underlying Lp -space E and let E
p
L (XΛ , ν; E).
(i) There are well-defined Borel maps
b
π
b : G → U (E),
π
b(g)f (P ) :=
b
bb(g)
b
b : G → E,
:=

π(β(g −1 , P )−1 )f (g−1 P ),
b(β(g −1 , P )−1 ),

b satisfying D(bb) ≤ D(b).
and (b
π , bb) is a wq-Lp -pair for G with underlying Lp -space E
p
b
(ii) If (π, b) is a quasi-L -pair, then so is (b
π , b).
p
(iii) If (π, b) is an affine L -action, then so is (b
π , bb).

b since π is orthogonal and is clearly a Borel map. As for wellProof. (i) π
b maps G into U (E)
definedness of bb we have to show that bb(g) is p-integrable for every g ∈ G. Recall from (2.3)
the definition of the sets XΛ (g, λ) for g ∈ G and λ ∈ Λ2 . Since β takes values in Λ2 we have
G
XΛ =
XΛ (g, λ).
λ∈Λ2

for every fixed g ∈ G. We deduce that
Z
p
b
kbb(g)(P )kp dν(P )
kb(g)k =

=

X

kb(β(g−1 , P )−1 )kp dν(P )

XΛ

XΛ

=

Z

kb(λ)kp ν(XΛ (g, λ)).

λ∈Λ2

By Lemma 2.11 we have ν(XΛ (g, λ)) = 0 unless kλk ≤ kgk + 4R. Since Λ is uniformly discrete
in G, it follows that all but finitely many summands are 0. This shows that kbb(g)k < ∞,
b for all g ∈ G, and the map bb is evidently Borel. It remains to show that bb is
whence bb(g) ∈ E
a wq-cocycle with respect to π
b. To this end we observe that for all g1 , g2 ∈ G and P ∈ XΛ we
have
β(g2−1 g1−1 , P )−1 ) = β(g1−1 , P )−1 β(g2−1 , g1−1 P )−1 ),
and hence
kbb(g1 g2 ) − bb(g1 ) − π
b(g1 )bb(g2 )k = kb(β(g−1 , P )−1 β(g−1 , g−1 P )−1 ) − b(β(g−1 , P )−1 )
1

−π(β(g

2

−1

−1

,P)

1
−1 −1
)b(β(g2 , g1 P )−1 )k

≤

D(b),

which shows that D(bb) ≤ D(b) and establishes (i).
(ii) It remains to show only that if π is a homomorphism, then so is π
b. Now by (2.1) we
have for all g1 , g2 ∈ G and P ∈ XΛ ,
π
b(g1 g2 )f (P ) = π(β(g2−1 g1−1 , P )−1 )f (g2−1 g1−1 P )

= π(β(g1−1 , P )−1 )π(β(g2−1 , g1−1 P )−1 )f (g2−1 (g1−1 P ))

= π(β(g1−1 , P )−1 )b
π (g2 )f (g1−1 P )

= π
b(g1 )b
π (g2 )f (P ),

and hence π
b(g1 g2 ) = π
b(g1 )b
π (g2 ).
(iii) Assume that (π, b) is an affine Lp -action, i.e. a quasi-Lp -pair with D(b) = 0. By (ii), this
implies that (b
π , bb) is a quasi-Lp -pair, and by (i) we have D(bb) ≤ D(b) = 0, hence b is a cocycle.
b is Borel. It the follows from [Pet50] that ρb is continuous,
Now the ρb = (b
π , bb) : G → Is(E)
hence defines an affine Lp -action of G.


ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

15

Definition 3.6. In the situation of Proposition 3.5 the pair ρb = (b
π , bb) is said to be (ν, s)-induced
from (π, b) and we write
(ν, s)−IndG
π , bb).
(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π, b) := (b

It b is a Lp -cocycle (respectively an Lp -quasicocycle or an Lp -cocycle), then bb is called the
(ν, s)-induced wq-Lp -cocycle (respectively the ν-induced Lp -quasicocycle or the ν-induced
Lp -cocycle).
Remark 3.7. Induction of wq-Lp -cocycles and wq-Lp -pairs applies in particular to the case
where Λ = Λ∞ is actually a uniform lattice in G, and in this cases we recover the classical
constructions. In the sequel, when dealing with induction from uniform lattices we will thus
use the same notations as introduced in the approximate lattice case above.
3.3. Dependence on the section and the measure
Remark 3.8. It turns out that the dependence of (ν, s)−IndG
(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π, b) on the section s is
inessential in the following sense. Let s1 , s2 : XΛ → G be bounded Borel sections and recall
from Lemma 2.10 that
βs2 (g−1 , P )−1 = u(P )−1 βs1 (g−1 , P )−1 u(g −1 P ).
where u : XΛ → Λ2 is given by u(P ) := s1 (P )−1 s2 (P ). Now let (π, b) be be a wq-Lp -pair for
Λ∞ with underlying Lp -space E, and set
(b
πj , bbj ) := (ν, sj )−IndG
(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π, b)

(j ∈ {1, 2}).

b = Lp (XΛ , E), and we define an isometric
Both pairs have the same underlying Lp -space E
b→E
b by
isomorphism U : E
U f (P ) := π(u(P ))f (P ) + b(u(P )).

If we assume that (π, b) is an affine Lp -action, then by (3.2) we have
b(u(P ))b(u(P )−1 + b(u(P )) = 0

for all P ∈ XΛ ,

and hence
(U ◦ ρb2 (g))f (P ) = π(u(P ))(π(βs2 (g−1 , P )−1 )f (g−1 P ) + bb2 (g)) + b(u(P ))
= π(u(P ))π(u(P )−1 βs1 (g−1 , P )−1 u(g−1 P ))f (g −1 P )

+π(u(P ))b(u(P )−1 βs1 (g−1 , P )−1 u(g−1 P )) + b(u(P ))

= π(βs1 (g−1 , P )−1 )π(u(g −1 P ))f (g−1 P )
+b(βs1 (g−1 , P )−1 ) + π(βs1 (g−1 , P )−1 )b(u(g−1 P ))
= π
b1 (g)(π(u(P ))f (P ) + b(u(P ))) + bb1 (g)(P )
= π
b1 (g)(U f )(P ) + bb1 (g)(P )

= (ρb1 (g) ◦ U )f (P ).

This shows that if (π, b) is an affine Lp -action, then (b
π1 , bb1 ) and (b
ρ2 , π
b2 ) are intertwined by the
isometric isomorphism U , hence define isomorphic affine actions.
If (π, b) is only a quasi-Lp -pair, then U still intertwines the orthogonal representations π
b1
and π
b2 , and the Lp -quasi-cocycles b
b1 and b
b2 are intertwined by U up to a bounded error.
Finally, if (π, b) is merely a wq-Lp -pair, then there is no control about π
b1 and π
b2 , but the
q
b
b
induced wq-L -cocycles b1 and b2 are still intertwined by U up to a bounded error.

16

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

It follows that properties of bb which are stable under bounded pertubations, such as boundedness or properness, are independent of the choice of section used to define it. In view of
this essential independence of the section we will often write
G
ν−IndG
(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π, b) := (ν, s)−Ind(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π, b)

and suppress the choice of section s from our notation
On the contrary, the following example shows that even in the case of an affine Lp -action
(π, b) the induced representation ν−IndG
(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π, b) does depend in an essential way on the
choice of invariant measure ν on the hull:
Example 3.9. Let (ak ) be the sequence
2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, . . .
and given n ∈ N0 define
xn :=

n
X

ak .

k=1

Then Λ := {±xn | n ∈ N0 } is an approximate lattice in G := R with Λ∞ := Z. The hull
XΛ contains both Λ2 := 2Z and Λ3 := 3Z. Denote by X2 and X3 respectively the orbits of
Λ2 and Λ3 in XΛ . Then both X2 and X3 are compact subsets of XΛ which support unique
disjoint G-invariant probability measures ν2 and ν3 , and for every affine Lp -action (π, b) and
q ∈ {2, 3} we have
G
∼
(b
πq , bbq ) := νq −IndG
(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π, b) = IndqZ (π|qZ , b|qZ ).

In particular, if (π, b) is realized on an Lp -space E and T := π(1), then νq −IndG
(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π, b) can
be realized on the space
bq := {f ∈ Lp (R; E) | f (x + q) = T q f (x)},
E

with π
bq (g)f (x) := f (x − g). In general, the orthogonal representations π
b2 and π
b3 are not
b2 and E
b3
equivalent. For instance, consider the case when E = R and T v = −v for v ∈ E. If E
b2 → E
b3 ,
were isomorphic (as orthogonal representations) via some linear isomorphism S : E
b2
then a straightforward calculation shows that S(f + π
b2 (1)f ) = 0, and thus every f ∈ E
b
would satisfy f (x − 1) = −f (x), which is clearly not the case for the element f ≡ 1 in E2 .
Thus, in general,
∼
ν2 −IndG
6
ν3 −IndG
=
(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π, b)
(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π, b).
3.4. Lp -induction for model sets
We illustrate our construction of Lp -induction for the case of uniform regular symmetric
model sets. Throughout this subsection let (G, H, Γ) be a uniform cut-and-project scheme and
let Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) be a symmetric regular uniform model set. We will use the notations
and conventions introduced in Remark 2.13. In particular, we set Y := (G × H)/Γ. We recall
that the map πG induces an isomorphism
πG : (ΓW , Γ) → (Λ, Λ∞ )
of approximate groups, where ΓW := Γ ∩ (G × W ).
Now consider an affine isometric action ρ0 = (π0 , b0 ) of Λ∞ on a Lp -space E. Via the
isomorphism πG this induces an affine Lp -action ρ := ρ0 ◦ πG = (π, b) of Γ. Since Γ is a

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

17

(π, b) of
uniform lattice in G × H, we can induce this action to obtain an affine action IndG×H
Γ
b := Lp ((G × H)/Γ; E).
G × H on the Banach space E

Proposition 3.10. Assume that Λ has large window and denote by ν the unique G-invariant measure
on XΛ . Then


G×H
∼
(π,
b)
Ind
ν−IndG
.
(3.3)
(π
,
b
)
=
∞
(Λ,Λ ) 0 0
Γ
G

Proof. Firstly, let ι : (XΛ , ν) → (Y, mY ) denote the measurable isomorphism from Theorem
2.19. Secondly, let s : Y → G × H be a bounded Borel section chosen as in Remark 2.13 and
b defined by means of this section. By
(π, b) on E
denote by (b
π , bb) the representation IndG×H
Γ
Proposition 2.22 we can choose a bounded Borel section σ : XΛ → G such that for almost all
P ∈ XΛ ,
σ(P ) = πG (s(ι(P ))).
e
e := Lp (XΛ , ν; E) by means of
Denote by (e
π , b) the model of ν−IndG ∞ (π0 , b0 ) defined on E
(Λ,Λ )

the section σ. Then ι induces an isomorphism
b → E,
e
ι∗ : E

ι∗ f := f ◦ ι.

b with the
We claim that this isomorphism intertwines the action of G × {e} via (b
π , bb) on E
e via (e
action of G on E
π , eb). Towards the proof of the claim we first observe that for g ∈ G and
x ∈ XΛ we have
βσ (g−1 , x)−1 = σ(x)−1 gσ(gx)

πG (s(ι(x)))−1 gπG (s(ι(gx)))

=

= πG (s(ι(x))−1 (g, e)s((g, e)ι(x)))
= πG (βs (g−1 , ι(x))−1 ),
hence
π0 (βσ (g−1 , x)−1 ) = π(βs (g−1 , ι(x))−1 ) and

b0 (βσ (g −1 , x)−1 ) = b(βs (g−1 , ι(x))−1 ).

This implies that
(e
ρ(g) ◦ ι∗ )f (x) = π0 (βσ (g−1 , x)−1 )f (ι(g)−1 x) + b0 (βσ (g−1 , x)−1 )
= π(βs (g −1 , ι(x))−1 )f ((g, e)−1 ι(x)) + b(βs (g −1 , ι(x))−1 )
= (ι∗ ◦ π
b(g, e))f (x),

which establishes the claim and thereby finishes the proof.



Remark 3.11. (i) Proposition 3.10 shows in particular that the induced affine Lp -action
p
ν−IndG
(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π0 , b0 ) can be extended to an affine L -action of the lcsc group G × H.
The additional flexibility coming from the H-action will turn out to be useful e.g. in
establishing various Kazhdan properties of model sets.
(ii) The right-hand side of (3.3) makes sense for every model set Λ, regardless of whether
the hull XΛ admits a G-invariant measure or whether Λ has large window. This allows
us to define induction also for model sets, which are not strong approximate lattice.
4. A NALYTIC

PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE GROUPS

4.1. Property (T) and its relatives
We spell out the definitions of the various Kazhdan-type properties which we investigate
in the sequel.

18

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

Definition 4.1. Let G be a lcsc group and let A be subset of G and p ∈ (1, ∞).
(i) G has Property (FLp ) relative to A if every Lp -cocycle on G is bounded on A.
(ii) G has Property (FFLp ) relative to A if every Lp -quasi-cocycle on G is bounded on A.
(iii) G has Property (FFFLp ) relative to A if every weak Lp -quasi-cocycle on G is bounded on
A.
If A = G then we simply say that G has Property (FLp ), (FFLp ) or (FFFLp ) respectively.
Remark 4.2. (i) In the sequel when given p ∈ (1, ∞), we refer to the Properties (FLp ),
(FFLp ) and (FFFLp) as Lp -Kazhdan-type properties. If we do not want to specify p, then
we simply refer to them as Kazhdan-type properties.
(ii) If p = 2, then we also write “H” (for Hilbert space) instead of “L2 ”.
(iii) Property (FLp ) is equivalent to A having bounded orbits in every affine Lp -action of G.
(iv) If G enjoys some Kazhdan-type property, then (G, A) also enjoys this property for every
subset A ⊂ G.
(v) If A is actually a subgroup, then Property (FLp ) is equivalent to A having a fixpoint
in every affine Lp -action of G, hence the name. For general subsets, relative Property
(FLp ) is not a fixpoint property (and hence a more appropriate term might be “Property
(BLp )”). In fact, A having a fixpoint in every affine Lp -action of G is equivalent to G
having Property (FLp ) relative to the group generated by A, which is a much stronger
property.
(vi) As remarked in the introduction, Property (FFH) was introduced by Burger and Monod
[BM02] under the name Property (TT), and Property (FFFH) was introduced by Ozawa
[Oza11] under the name Property (TTT). Cornulier [C06] was the first to systematically
study Property (T) relative to arbitrary subsets. The extension to Lp -spaces (and more
general classes of Banach spaces) goes back to Bader, Furman, Gelander and Monod
[BFGM07].
We now specialize to our case of interest:
Definition 4.3. Let T be a Kazhdan-type property. An approximate group (Λ, Λ∞ ) is said to
have T if Λ∞ has T relative to Λ.
Remark 4.4. As a special case of Remark 4.9 we observe that if Λ∞ enjoys a Kazhdan-type
property T , then so does (Λ, Λ∞ ). We will see in Example 5.12 below that the converse is not
true.
4.2. Elementary constructions preserving Kazhdan-type properties
The following facts follow straight from the definitions.
Lemma 4.5. Let G1 , G2 be lcsc groups, A1 ⊂ G1 , A2 ⊂ G2 be subsets, and let T be a Kazhdan type
property.
(i) If G1 has T , then (G1 , A1 ) has relative T
(ii) If A1 is finite, then (G1 , A1 ) has relative T .
(iii) If (G1 , A1 ) and (G2 , A2 ) have relative T , then so has (G1 × G2 , A1 × A2 ).
(iv) If G1 = G2 and (G1 , A1 ) and (G2 , A2 ) have relative T , then so has (G1 , A1 A2 ).
(v) If F ⊂ G1 is finite and (G1 , A1 ) has relative T , then so have (G1 , A1 F ) and (G1 , F A1 ).

Concerning passage to subpairs we observe:
Lemma 4.6. Let Γ1 < Γ2 be countable groups, A2 ⊂ Γ2 , A1 ⊂ Γ1 ∩A2 , , and let T be an Lp -Kazhdan
type property for some p ∈ (1, ∞).

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

19

(i) If (Γ2 , A2 ) has relative T and Γ1 has finite index in Γ2 , then (A2 , Γ2 ) has relative T .
(ii) If A1 is left-syndetic in A2 and (Γ1 , A1 ) has relative T , then (Γ2 , A2 ) has relative T .
Proof. (i) Let b : Γ1 → E be an Lp -cocycle/quasi-cocycle/wq-cocycle. Since Γ1 has finite index
in Γ2 , it is a uniform lattice in Γ2 , and the invariant measure on X = Γ2 /Γ1 is the normalb = ℓp (X; E) and denote by bb : Γ2 → E
b the induced/quasiized counting measure. Let E
cocycle/wq-cocycle. We will assume that the section used to define the induction satisfies
s(Γ1 ) = e. As in the proof of Proposition 3.5 we have for all g ∈ Γ2 ,
X
kbb(g)kp =
kb(λ)kp ν(X(g, λ)),
λ∈Γ1

where X(g, λ) = {x ∈ X |
= λ}. Since b
b is bounded on A2 ⊃ A1 , we deduce that
there exists a constant C such that for all λ ∈ A1
kb(λ)kp ν(X(λ, λ)) ≤ kbb(λ)kp ≤ C.
β(g−1 , x)−1

Note that β(λ−1 , Γ1 )−1 = s(Γ1 )−1 λs(λ−1 Γ1 ) = λ, hence X(λ, λ) 6= ∅, and thus ν(X(λ, λ)) ≥
[Γ2 : Γ1 ]−1 . This shows that b is bounded on A1 and finishes the proof.
(ii) Let b be an Lp -cocycle/quasi-cocycle/wq-cocycle on Γ2 . Then b|A1 is bounded by assumption, and since A1 is left-syndetic in A2 , it follows from the wq-cocycle property that b
is bounded on A2 .

Note that while the proof of (ii) also works in the topological setting, discreteness was
essential in the proof of (i). The results of this subsection specialize to approximate groups in
the obvious way. Note that if (Λ, Λ∞ ) is an approximate group, then so is (Λk , Λ∞ ) for every
k ∈ N, and we have:
Corollary 4.7. Let (Λ, Λ∞ ) be an approximate group and T be a Kazhdan type property. Then
(Λ, Λ∞ ) has T if and only if (Λk , Λ∞ ) has T for every k ∈ N.

4.3. The Haagerup Property and its relatives
The Haagerup Property (also known as Gromov’s a-T-menability) is a strong negation
of Property (T) in the sense that every lcsc group which enjoys both Property (T) and the
Haagerup Property is compact. In analogy with Property (T) (or rather Property (FH)), we
can define a number of variants of this property as follows.
Let G be a lcsc group with left-admissible metric d, and let A be a subset. We say that an
affine Lp -action ρ = (π, b) of G on E is metrically A-proper if for every C > 0 and some (hence
any) v ∈ E the set {g ∈ A | kρ(g).vk ≤ C} is relatively compact. Choosing v = 0 this is
equivalent to b being an A-proper cocycle, i.e. pre-compactness of the sets {g ∈ A | kb(g)k ≤ C}
for all C > 0. Similarly, a (weak) quasi-cocycle b on G is called A-proper if the corresponding
sets are pre-compact.
Definition 4.8. Let G be a lcsc group and let A be subset and p ∈ (1, ∞).
(i) G is a-FLp -menable relative to A if there exists an Lp -cocycle on G which is A-proper.
(ii) G is a-FFLp -menable relative to A if there exists a weak Lp -cocycle on G which is Aproper.
(iii) G is a-FFFLp-menable relative to A if there exists a weak Lp -quasi-cocycle on G which is
A-proper.
If A = G then we simply say that G is a-FLp -menable, a-FFLp -menable or a-FFFLp -menable
respectively.

20

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

Remark 4.9. (i) In the sequel when given p ∈ (1, ∞), we refer to a-FLp -menability, a-FFLp menability or a-FFFLp -menability as Lp -Haagerup-type properties. If we do not want to
specify p, then we simply refer to them as Haagerup-type properties.
(ii) If p = 2, then we also write “H” (for Hilbert space) instead of “L2 ”.
(iii) Every Kazhdan-type property T has a dual Haagerup-type property H such that if G
enjoys both T and H relativ to A, then A is pre-compact.
(iv) if d denotes a left-admissible metric on G, then A-properness of a wq-cocycle b is equivalent to the existence of a proper function ρ : (0, ∞) → (0, ∞) such that for all x ∈ A,
d(x, e) ≥ t

⇒

kb(x)k ≥ ρ(t).

Any such function ρ is then called a control function for b on A.
Definition 4.10. Let H be a Haagerup-type property. An approximate group (Λ, Λ∞ ) is said
to have H if Λ∞ has H relative to Λ.
5. A NALYTIC

PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES VIA INDUCTION

5.1. Preservation of Haagerup type properties under induction
In this section we relate analytic properties of strong uniform approximate lattices to analytic properties of the ambient lcsc group using cocycle induction. It turns out that this is
rather straight-forward for the Haagerup type properties, but much harder for the Kazhdan
type properties, hence we start with the former.
Throughout this subsection let Λ be a strong uniform approximate lattice in a lcsc group
G. We fix a left-admissible metric d on G. Given g ∈ G we abbreviate kgk := d(g, e), and we
denote by R > r > 0 the Delone-parameters of Λ with respect to d. We then choose a Borel
section s : XΛ → G which takes values in BR (e) and denote by β = βs the associated cocycle.
Proposition 5.1. Let (π, b) be a wq-Lp -pair with underlying Banach space E, let ν be a G-invariant
b
probability measure ν on the hull XΛ and let (b
π , bb) := ν−IndG
(Λ,Λ∞ ) (π, b). If b is Λ-proper, then b is
G-proper.
For the proof we will make use of the following trivial but important observation:
Lemma 5.2. Let d′ be a left-admissible metric on Λ∞ and let k ∈ N and A ⊂ Λk . Then we have
equivalences
A is bounded w.r.t. d ⇔ A is bounded w.r.t. d′ ⇔ |A| < ∞.
Proof. Since Λ∞ is discrete, d′ -bounded sets are exactly the finite sets. If Λ ⊂ G is an approximate lattice, then so is Λk for every k ∈ N. In particular, Λk is uniformly discrete, hence
intersects every d-bounded subset of G in a finite set.

Proof of Proposition 5.1. Since the cocycle b is Λ-proper and Λ is syndetic in Λ2 , it is also Λ2 proper. It thus follows from Lemma 5.2 applied with k = 2 that there exists a proper function
ρ : (0, ∞) → (0, ∞) such that for all λ ∈ Λ2 ,
kλk = d(λ, e) ≥ t

⇒

kb(λ)k ≥ ρ(t).

(5.1)

Now consider the sets XΛ (g, λ) from (2.3). It follows from (5.1) and Lemma 2.11 that for all
g ∈ G and λ ∈ Λ2 we have the implication
XΛ (g, λ) 6= ∅

⇒

kλk ≥ kgk − 4R

⇒

kb(λ)k ≥ ρ(kgk − 4R).

(5.2)

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

21

Also observe that for fixed g ∈ G the hull XΛ decomposes as the disjoint union
G
XΛ =
XΛ (g, λ).
λ∈Λ2

We conclude that for all g ∈ G with kgk4R we have
Z
Z
p
p
b
b
kb(g)(P )k dν(P ) =
kb(g)k =
=

X

kb(β(g−1 , P )−1 )kp dν(P )

XΛ

XΛ

kb(λ)kp ν(XΛ (g, λ))

λ∈Λ2
p

= ρ(kgk − 4R) ·

X

≥

X

ρ(kgk − 2R)p ν(XΛ (g, λ))

λ∈Λ2

ν(XΛ (g, λ))

=

ρ(kgk − 4R)p ,

λ∈Λ2

whence we obtain
showing that bb is proper.

kbb(g)k ≥ ρ(kgk − 4R),



Corollary 5.3. Let Λ be a strong uniform approximate lattice in a lcsc group G and let H be a
Haagerup-type property. Then (Λ, Λ∞ ) has H if and only if G has H.
Proof. Assume that (Λ, Λ∞ ) is a-Lp -menable. Then there exists a Λ-proper affine Lp -action
of Λ∞ , and by Proposition 5.1 we thus obtain a G-proper affine Lp -action of G by induction,
showing that G is a-Lp -menable. Conversely, it follows from Lemma 5.2 (with k = 1) that
if G is a-Lp -menable, then any G-proper affine Lp -action of G restricts to a Λ-proper affine
Lp -action of Λ∞ . The argument for the other Haagerup-type properties is the same.

For instance, the following application of the corollary shows that (as in the group case) neither the a-Lp -menability for some p > 2 nor the a-FFFH-menability imply a-FH-menability
for approximate groups.
Example 5.4. Assume that Λ is a strong uniform approximate lattice in a rank one Lie group
G. If G is locally isomorpic to SO(1, n) or SU(1, n) for some n ≥ 2, then G and hence (Λ, Λ∞ )
is a-FH-menable [CCJ+ 01]. If G is of quaternion or octonion type, then G has Property (T)
[BdlHV08], hence is not a-FH-menable. It is however a-FLp -menable for sufficiently large
p (e.g. for p > 4n + 2 in the case of Sp(n, 1), see [DCTV08]). Moreover, as remarked by
Ozawa [Oza11, Remark on p.2], every countable hyperbolic group is a-FFFH-menable. This
applies in particular to uniform lattices in G (which exist by Borel–Harish-Chandra). Using
both directions of the corollary, we deduce firstly that G is a-FFFH-menable, and secondly
that every strong uniform approximate lattice in a rank one group is a-FFFH-menable.
Corollary 5.3 is a special case of Theorem 1.6 in that we have to assume here that the uniform approximate lattice under consideration is strong. In fact, Theorem 1.6 can be deduced
from Corollary 5.3 together with the following simple observation:
Proposition 5.5. Let G be a lcsc group and let H be a Haagerup property. If Λ ⊂ Σ ⊂ G are uniform
approximate lattices and (Σ, Σ∞ ) has H, then (Λ, Λ∞ ) has H.
Proof. We prove this for a-FLp -menability, the other properties can be proved similarly. By
assumption there exists a Σ-proper affine Lp -action ρ0 of Σ∞ . We can restrict this action to
an affine Lp -action ρ of Λ∞ . Since Λ and Σ are both relatively dense in G, Λ is left-syndetic
in Σ by Remark 2.3. If thus follows that ρ0 and hence ρ is also Λ-proper. This finishes the
proof.


22

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

5.2. Preservation of Kazhdan type properties, I: The trivial direction
Concerning Kazhdan type properties of approximate lattices we have the following trivial
implication:
Proposition 5.6. Let T be a Kazhdan type property. If Λ is a uniform strong approximate lattice in a
lcsc group G and (Λ, Λ∞ ) has T , then G has T .
Proof. Assume that (Λ, Λ∞ ) has Property (TLp ) and let ρ = (π, b) be an affine Lp -action of G.
Then ρ|Λ∞ is an affine Lp -action of Λ∞ , hence Λ has a bounded orbit. Since Λ is relatively
dense in G and ρ is continuous, this implies that G has a bounded orbit. The proof for the
other properties is similar.

Remark 5.7. The argument applies more generally to pairs (Λ, Λ∞ ) where Λ ⊂ G is any
subsets which is bi-syndetic in the sense that there exist compact subsets K, L of G such that
G = KΛL, and Λ∞ denotes its enveloping group. This includes in particular the class of
strong non-uniform approximate lattices as introduced in [BH16].
Problem 5.8. Let T be a Kazhdan type property, let G be a lcsc group with T and let Λ ⊂ G be a
uniform approximate lattice with enveloping group Λ∞ . Is it true that (Λ, Λ∞ ) has T ?
Remark 5.9. One might expect naively, that at least for strong uniform approximate lattices
one can obtain a positive answer to this question by a similar induction argument as in the
Haagerup case. However, any attempt in this direction runs into the following problem:
Assume e.g. that G has (FLp ) and let (π, b) be an affine Lp -action of Λ∞ , where Λ ⊂ G is a
strong uniform approximate lattice. Choose a G-invariant probability measure ν on XΛ and
let bb denote the ν-induced Lp -cocycle on G. The assumption then implies that b
b is bounded,
hence if we define sets XΛ (g, λ) as in (2.3), then as in the proof of Proposition 3.5 we obtain
for all g ∈ G,
X
kb(λ)kp ν(XΛ (g, λ)) = kbb(g)kp ≤ kbbkp .
∞

λ∈Λ2

Thus for all λ ∈ Λ and g ∈ G we have

kb(λ)k

≤

kbbk∞
.
ν(XΛ (g, λ))

To conclude, we would have to find for every λ ∈ Λ (or at least for sufficiently many such λ)
some g(λ) ∈ G such that ν(XΛ (g(λ), λ) > C for some uniform C > 0. Even in the case where
Λ = Λ∞ is a group, this requires some non-trivial argument (see [Oza11]), but it can be done
(for g(λ) := λ). In the approximate group case, the cocycle β used in the definition of the
sets XΛ (g, λ) is more complicated, and while we are able to show that XΛ (λ, λ) is open and
non-empty, we are not able to conclude that it has uniformly positive measure in general.
5.3. Preservation of Kazhdan type properties, II: The model set case
In this subsection we provide a positive answer to Problem 5.8 in the model set case.
Throughout this subsection let T be a Kazhdan type property, let (G, H, Λ) be a uniform
cut-and-project scheme and let Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) be a symmetric regular uniform model set
containing the identity with window W . We denote by Λ∞ the enveloping group of Λ. Recall
that (Λ, Λ∞ ) ∼
= (ΓW , Γ), where ΓW = Γ ∩ (G × W ). In particular, T for (Λ, Λ∞ ) is equivalent
to relative T of the pair (Γ, ΓW ). We are going to show:

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

23

.
Theorem 5.10. Let (π, b) be a wq-Lp -pair for Γ with underlying Lp -space E and let (b
π , bb) = IndG×H
Γ
b
If b is bounded on G × {e}, then b is bounded on ΓW .
As an immediate consequence we obtain:

Corollary 5.11. Let T be a Kazhdan type property. If Λ is a symmetric uniform model set containing
the identity in a lcsc group G and G has T , then (Λ, Λ∞ ) has T .
Before we prove the theorem, let us mention that Corollary 5.11 implies that an approximate group (Λ, Λ∞ ) can have Property (FLp ) for every p ∈ (1, ∞), even though Λ∞ fails to
have Property (FLp ) for any p ∈ (1, ∞):
Example 5.12. (i) Let n ≥ 2, G := SU(n, 2) and H := SU(n + 1, 1). Since G has rank ≥ 2,
it has Property (FLp ) for all p ∈ (1, ∞) by [BFGM07, Thm. B]. On the other hand, H
has the Haagerup Property (see e.g. [CCJ+ 01]), hence fails to have Property (T). It thus
follows from [BFGM07, Thm. A] that H does not have Property (TLp ) for any [BFGM07,
Thm. B]. It then follows from [BFGM07, Thm. 1.3] that H, and hence G × H, does not
have Property (FLp ) for any p ∈ (1, ∞). Now let Γ < G × H be an irreducible uniform
lattice, let W be a Γ-regular window which is symmetric and contains the identity, and
let Λ := Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) be the associated regular uniform model set. It then follows from
Corollary 5.11 that (Λ, Λ∞ ) has Property (FLp ) for every p ∈ (1, ∞). On the other hand,
Λ∞ is isomorphic to the lattice Γ in G × H, hence fails to have Property (FLp ) for any
p ∈ (1, ∞). (Note that the case p = 2 can also be deduced from the proof of [CI11, Cor.
1.3].)
(ii) Note that if G and Λ are as in (i), then G and hence Λ also have Property (FFH) by
[BM02], while Λ∞ does not (since (FFH) would imply (FH)).
On a more anecdotal level we also mention:
Example 5.13. The group G := Sp(n, 2) has Property (FH) (see e.g. [BdlHV08]), but as we
have seen in Example 5.4 it is also a-F Lp -menable for p > 4n + 2 and a-FFFH-menable.
The same then holds for any symmetric regular model set in G containing the identity. This
provides examples of approximate groups which have the above three properties simultaneously.
The remainder of this subsection is devoted to the proof of Theorem 5.10. The main ingredient in the proof is the following theorem established by Narutaka Ozawa in his work on
Property (TTT):
Theorem 5.14 (Ozawa, [Oza11, Thm. C]). Let G be a lcsc group acting measure-preservingly on
a standard probability space (Y, m). Let C ≥ 1 and let ℓ : Y × G → R≥0 be a measurable functions
such that for almost all (x, g1 , g2 ) ∈ Y × G × G,
ℓ(x, g1 g2 ) ≤ C(ℓ(x, g1 ) + ℓ(g1−1 x, g2 )).
Assume that there exists D > 0 such that for almost all g ∈ G
Z
ℓ(x, g)dm(x) < D < ∞.

(5.3)

(5.4)

Y

Then there exists φ ∈ L1 (Y, m) with φ ≥ 0 such that for almost all (g, x) ∈ G × Y ,
ℓ(x, g) ≤ φ(x) + φ(g −1 x).

(5.5)


24

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

We now return to the situation of Theorem 5.10. Concerning the cut-and-project scheme
(G, H, Γ) we use freely the notations introduced in Remark 2.13. In particular we abbreviate
Y := (G × H)/Γ and choose a bounded Borel section s : Y → G × H as in the remark. We fix
the section s for the rest of this subsection and denote by β = βs the associated cocycle.
Given γ ∈ ΓG we denote by γ ∗ the unique element of ΓH such that (γ, γ ∗ ) ∈ Γ. Given
γ
x, y ∈ Y and (γ, γ ∗ ) ∈ Γ we define elements gx,y
∈ G and hγx,y ∈ H by
γ
s(x)(γ, γ ∗ )s(y)−1 = (gx,y
, hγx,y )

(5.6)

We will establish below the following useful algebraic identities:
Lemma 5.15.

(i) For all (γ, γ ∗ ) ∈ Γ and x, y ∈ Y we have
(γ, γ ∗ ) = β((s(x)(γ, γ ∗ )s(y)−1 )−1 , x)−1 .

(ii) For all (γ, γ ∗ ) ∈ Γ and all x, y ∈ Y we have
γ
(gx,y
, e)−1 .x = (sG (y), sH (x)γ ∗ ).Γ = (e, hγx,y ).y.

We also need the following lemma, which is essentially a combination of Fubini’s theorem
and Čebyšev’s inequality. Here our special choice of section will play an important role.
Lemma 5.16. Let Ω ⊂ G × Y be a conull subset and let φ ∈ L1 (Y, m) with φ ≥ 0. Then there exists
a constant C > 0 such that for all (γ, γ ∗ ) ∈ Γ ∩ (G × W ) there exist x, y ∈ Y such that
γ
(gx,y
, x) ∈ Ω and

φ(x) ≤ C

γ
and φ((gx,y
, e)−1 x) ≤ C.

Before we prove the two lemmas, let us explain how they imply the theorem:
Proof of Theorem 5.10 modulo Lemma 5.15 and Lemma 5.16. By Lemma 5.15 we have for all x, y ∈
Y and (γ, γ ∗ ) ∈ Γ,
(γ, γ ∗ ) = β((s(x)(γ, γ ∗ )s(y)−1 )−1 , x)−1 ) =
−1
γ
= β((e, hγx,y )−1 (gx,y
, e)−1 , x)−1

γ
β((gx,y
, hγx,y )−1 , x)−1

γ
γ
= β((gx,y
, e)−1 , x)−1 β((e, hγx,y )−1 , (gx,y
, e)−1 .x)−1

γ
= β((gx,y
, e)−1 , x)−1 β((e, hγx,y )−1 , (e, hγx,y ).y)−1
γ
= β((gx,y
, e)−1 , x)−1 β((e, hγx,y )−1 , y),

where equality follows from (2.2). In particular, we deduce from the wq-Property and the
fact that π takes values in isometries that
γ
kb(γ, γ ∗ )k ≤ kb(β((gx,y
, e)−1 , x)−1 )k + kb(β((e, hγx,y )−1 , y))k + D(b).

Now assume that (γ, γ ∗ ) ∈ ΓW := Γ ∩ (G × W ). Then
hγx,y = sH (x)γ ∗ sH (y) ∈ πH (F)W πH (F),
which is a compact subset of H. It thus follows from the last assertion of Lemma 2.9 that there
exists a constant C0 > 0 such that for all h ∈ πH (F)W πH (F) and y ∈ Y
kb(β(y, (e, h)))k ≤ C0 ,
and hence
γ
kb(γ, γ ∗ )k ≤ kb(β((gx,y
, e)−1 , x)−1 )k + C0 + D(b)
(5.7)
∗
for all x, y ∈ Y and (γ, γ ) ∈ ΓW . To estimate the first term on the right-hand side of the
inequality we are going to apply Ozawa’s theorem to the function

ℓ : Y × G → R≥0 ,

ℓ(x, g) := kb(β((g, e)−1 , x))−1 k + D(b).

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

25

We need to check that this function satisfies the conditions of Theorem 5.14. Set
C1 := sup kbb(g, e)|k < ∞.
g∈G

Since for all g ∈ G and x ∈ Y we have bb(g, e)(x) = b(β((g, e)−1 , x)−1 ), we deduce that
1/p
Z
Z
−1
−1 p
−1
−1
≤ C1 .
kb(β((g, e) , x) )k dm(x)
kb(β((g, e) , x) )kdm(x) ≤
Y

Y

This implies that

Z

ℓ(x, g)dm(x)

≤

C1 + D(b)

∞.

<

Y

Combining this with the inequality
ℓ(x, g1 g2 ) = kb(β((g1 g2 , e)−1 , x))−1 k + D(b)
= kb(β((g1 , e)−1 , x)−1 β((g2 , e)−1 , (g1 , e)−1 .x−1 )−1 k + D(b)
≤ kb(β((g1 , e)−1 , x)−1 )k + kb(β((g2 , e)−1 , (g1 , e)−1 .x−1 )−1 )k + 2D(b)
≤ ℓ(x, g1 ) + ℓ(g1−1 .x, g2 ),
we deduce that Theorem 5.14 indeed applies to ℓ. We thus deduce that there exists a conull
set Ω ⊂ G × Y and a function φ ∈ L1 (Y, m) such that for all (g, x) ∈ Ω,
kb(β((g, e)−1 , x)−1 )k

≤

φ(x) + φ((g, e)−1 x).

(5.8)

Now fix (γ, γ ∗ ) ∈ ΓW and let C be the constant from Lemma 5.16. By the same lemma, there
γ
γ
exist x, y ∈ Y such that (x, gx,y
) ∈ Ω, φ(x) ≤ C and φ(gxy
, e)−1 x) ≤ C. Now by (5.7) and (5.8)
this implies that
γ
γ
kb(γ, γ ∗ )k ≤ kb(β(x, (gxy
, e)))k + C0 ≤ φ(x) + φ((gxy
, e)−1 x) + C0 ≤ 2C + C0 .

Since (γ, γ ∗ ) ∈ ΓW was chosen arbitrarily, this shows that b is bounded on ΓW and thereby
finishes the proof.

The rest of this subsection is devoted to the proof of the lemmas used in the proof of this
theorem.
Proof of Lemma 5.15. (i) Since β(g−1 , x)−1 = s(x)−1 gs(g−1 x) we have
β((s(x)(γ, γ ∗ )s(y)−1 )−1 , x)−1 = s(x)−1 (s(x)(γ, γ ∗ )s(y)−1 )s(s(y)(γ, γ ∗ )s(x)−1 x)
= (γ, γ ∗ )s(y)−1 s(s(y)(γ, γ ∗ )Γ)
= (γ, γ ∗ )s(y)−1 s(y)

=

(γ, γ ∗ ).

(ii) We have
γ
(sG (x)γsG (y)−1 , sH (x)γ ∗ sH (y)−1 ) = s(x)(γ, γ ∗ )s(y)−1 = (gx,y
, hγx,y ),

and hence
γ
(gx,y
, e)−1 .x = (sG (y)γ −1 sG (x)−1 , e).(sG (x), sH (x))(γ, γ ∗ )Γ

= (sG (y), sH (x)γ ∗ )Γ
= (e, sH (x)γ ∗ sH (y)−1 )(sG (y), sH (y))Γ
= (e, hγx,y ).y,
γ
which establishes (gx,y
, e)−1 .x = (sG (y), sH (x)γ ∗ ).Γ = (e, hγx,y ).y.



26

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

Proof of Lemma 5.16. Throughout the proof we fix (γ, γ ∗ ) ∈ Γ ∩ (G × W ). For every C > 0 we
now define sets
γ
Ωγ1 := {(x, y) ∈ Y × Y | (gx,y
, x) ∈ Ω} and

ΩC
2 := {(x, y) ∈ Y × Y | φ(x) ≤ C}

and
γ
Ωγ,C
:= {(x, y) ∈ Y × Y | φ((gx,y
, e)−1 x) ≤ C}.
3

It suffices to show that for some C > 0 independent of γ the intersection
γ,C
Ωγ,C := Ωγ1 ∩ ΩC
2 ∩ Ω3 ,

has positive measure (hence is non-empty).
As far as Ωγ1 is concerned, since Ω is a conull subset of G × Y , Fubini’s theorem implies that
there exists a conull subset Y0 ⊂ Y such that for all x ∈ Y0 the set
Ωx := {g ∈ G | (g, x) ∈ Ω}
is a conull set in G. Now fix x ∈ Y0 and let y ∈ Y . By definition we have the equivalences
(x, y) ∈ Ωγ1

⇔

sG (x)γsG (y)−1 ∈ Ωx

⇔

sG (y) ∈ Ω−1
x sG (x)γ.

Now for every fixed x ∈ Y0 the set Ω−1
x sG (x)γ is a conull set in G. This shows that
(mY ⊗ mY )(Ωγ1 ) = 1.

(5.9)

As far as ΩC
2 is concerned, Čebyšev’s inequality yields
(mY ⊗ mY )(ΩC
2 ) = 1 − mY ({x ∈ Y | φ(x) > C}) ≥ 1 −

1
kφk1 ,
C

hence if ε > 0 and C > kφ1 k/ε, then
(m ⊗ m)(ΩC
2 ) > 1 − ε.
To estimate the measures of the sets
K := πG (F) × πH (F)W and define
φe : G × H → R≥0 ,

Ωγ,C
3

(5.10)

we define a compact subset K ⊂ G × H by

e h) := χK (g, h) · φ((g, h)Γ).
φ(g,

Since K ⊂ G × H is compact, it can be covered by finitely many translates of F, and since
φ ∈ L1 (Y, m) we deduce that φe ∈ L1 (G × H, mG ⊗ mH ). We also define a function
hγ : Y × Y,

e G (y), sH (x)γ ∗ )
(x, y) 7→ φ(s

γ
Since by Lemma 5.15 we have (gx,y
, e)−1 x = (sG (y), sH (x)γ ∗ ).Γ and since for all x, y ∈ Y we
∗
have (sG (y), sH (x)γ ) ∈ K we deduce that

Ωγ,C
= {(x, y) ∈ Y × Y | hγ (x, y) ≤ C}.
3
We observe that, in the notation of Lemma 2.14,
Z
e G (y), sH (x)γ ∗ )dmY (y)dmY (x)
φ(s
khγ k1 =
ZY ×Y
Z
e hγ ∗ )dµH (h)dµG (g)
φ(g,
=
G H
Z Z
e hγ ∗ )ρG (g)ρH (h)dmH (h)dmG (g)
=
φ(g,
FG

FH

e 1
≤ kρG k∞ kρH k∞ kφk

=:

C0 ,

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

27

in particular the functions hγ are contained in L1 (Y × Y ) and have uniformly bounded L1 norm. Another application of Čebyšev’s inequality thus yields
C0
(mY ⊗ mY )(Ωγ,C
≥ 1−
,
3 )
C
which for C > C0 /ε yields
(mY ⊗ mY )(Ωγ,C
3 )

>

1 − ε.

(5.11)

Combining (5.9), (5.10) and (5.11) we deduce that for every ǫ > 0 there exists C > 0 (independent of γ) such that
(mY ⊗ mY )(Ωγ,C ) > 1 − 2ε,
hence Ωγ,C 6= ∅.

5.4. Preservation of Kazhdan type properties, III: The Meyer case
In the last subsection we have established Part (1) of Theorem 1.9 in Corollary 5.11. The
remaining part of the theorem can be deduced from Part (1) using the results of the appendix:
Proof of Theorem 1.9(2). Let G be a lcsc group satisfying a Kazhdan type Property T and let
Λ ⊂ G be a Meyer set, which is a uniform lattice and contained in a model set Σ of almost
connected type. By Part (1) of Theorem 1.9, the approximate group (Σ, Σ∞ ) has T . It then
follows from Corollary A.6 that also (Λ, Λ∞ ) has T .

This finishes the proof of Theorem 1.9

28

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

A PPENDIX A. S TRUCTURE

THEORY OF

M EYER

SETS

Let (G, H, Γ) be a uniform cut-and-project scheme and let W ⊂ H be a subset with dense
interior. Recall that the set
Λ := Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) := πG (Γ ∩ (G × W ))
is called a uniform model set with window W . If W is symmetric and contains the identity,
then it is a uniform approximate lattice in G. By Remark 2.3 every symmetric subset ∆ < Λ
containing the identity, which is relatively dense in G (equivalently, left-syndetic in Λ), is then
also a uniform approximate lattice in G.
Definition A.1. A left-syndetic subset of a model set is called a Meyer set.
If G is abelian, then every uniform approximate lattice in G is a symmetric Meyer set
[Mey72, Moo97]. As for general G, it is currently not known whether there exist any uniform approximate lattices which are not symmetric Meyer sets.
Remark A.2. In the definition of a model set, we can always assume that W generates H,
for otherwise we can replace H by the group generated by W without changing Λ. Similarly,
in the definition of a Meyer set, we may always assume that the ambient model set is symmetric, regular and contains the identity, hence is a strong approximate lattice. Indeed, this
can be achieved by simply enlarging the window. In the sequel, when constructing model
sets/Meyer sets, we will always assume tacitly that H and W are chosen in this way.
Definition A.3. Let Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) be a uniform model set and ∆ ⊂ Λ be a Meyer set. We
say that Λ and ∆ are of connected Lie type if H is a connected Lie group. We say that Λ and ∆
are of almost connected type if H is almost connected, i.e. compact-by-connected.
The difference between almost connected type and connected Lie type is rather small:
Proposition A.4. Let G be a lcsc group. If Λ is a uniform model set of almost connected type in G,
then there exists a uniform model set Λ′ of connected Lie type in G and a finite subset F ⊂ Λ−1 Λ such
that
Λ ⊂ Λ′ ⊂ ΛF
In particular, every Meyer set of almost connected type is of connected Lie type.
Proof. Clearly the first statement implies the second. As for the first statement, let Λ =
Λ(G, H, Γ, W0 ) with H almost connected. Then by [MZ74, p. 175] there exist a compact
normal subgroup V < H such that L := H/V is a connected Lie group and {e} × V intersects Λ trivially. Denote by πL : H → L the canonical projection and set WL := πL (W0 ),
W := πL−1 (W0 ) = W0 V and
ΓL := {(γ1 , πL (γ2 )) ∈ G × L | (γ1 , γ2 ) ∈ Γ} < G × L
Then (G, L, ΓL ) is a cut-and-project scheme, W is compact, and
Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) = Λ(G, L, ΓL , WL )
is a uniform model set of connected Lie type. Since Λ and Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) are model sets
associated with the same cut-and-project scheme with windows W0 ⊂ W , the model set Λ is
left-syndetic in this model set of connected Lie type by Remark 2.3.

One reason for our interest in model sets of almost connected type is the following observation:

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

29

Proposition A.5. Let Λ be a regular symmetric uniform model set of almost connected type and let
∆ ⊂ Λ be a symmetric Meyer set containing the identity. Then ∆∞ is of finite index in Λ∞ .
In connection with Kazhdan type properties we mention the following application, which
is immediate from Proposition A.5 and Lemma 4.6:
Corollary A.6. Let T be a Kazhdan type property, let Λ be a symmetric uniform regular model set of
almost connected type and let ∆ ⊂ Λ be a symmetric Meyer set containing the identity. If (Λ, Λ∞ )
has T , then (∆, ∆∞ ) has T .

For the proof of Proposition A.5 we need:
Lemma A.7. Let G, L be lcsc groups, WL ⊂ L be compact and let Θ ⊂ G × L be a subset such that
πL (Θ) is dense in L. If
Σ := πG (Θ ∩ (G × WL ))
is relatively dense in G, then Θ is relatively dense in G × L.
Proof. Since Σ is relatively dense, we can choose a compact subset K1 ⊂ G such that G = ΣK1 .
Let K2 be a compact identity neighbourhood in L and observe that since πL (Θ) is dense in L
we have L = π2 (Θ)K2 . We claim that G × L = Θ(K1 × WL−1 K2 ).
Indeed, let (g, l) ∈ G×L; since L = π2 (Θ)K2 we can write l = θ2 k2 for some θ = (θ1 , θ2 ) ∈ Θ
and k2 ∈ K2 . Since G = ΣK1 we then find σ ∈ Σ and k1 ∈ K1 such that θ1−1 g = σk1 . By
definition of Σ we can write σ = πG (θ ′ ) for some θ ′ = (σ, θ2′ ) ∈ Θ with θ2′ ∈ WL . Then
(g, l) = (θ1 , θ2 )(θ1−1 g, k2 ) = θ(σ, θ2′ )(k1 , (θ2′ )−1 k2 ) = θθ ′ (k1 , (θ2′ )−1 k2 ),
and since (g, l) ∈ G × L was chosen arbitrarily we have G × L = Θ(K1 × WL−1 K2 ) as claimed.

Proof of of Proposition A.5. Let Λ = Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) with H almost connected and denote by
τ : Λ∞ = ΓG → H the ∗-map of the cut-and-project scheme (G, H, Γ). Define
−1
(∆∞ ) < Γ
Θ := Γ ∩ πG

so that πG (Θ) = ∆∞ and πH (Θ) = τ (∆∞ ). By assumption there exists a finite subset F ⊂ Λ∞
such that Λ ⊂ F ∆. Thus if we set F ∗ := τ (F ), then
W ∩ ΓH = τ (Λ) ⊂ τ (F ∆) = F ∗ τ (∆).
Since ΓH is dense in H, the intersection W ∩ ΓH is dense in W o , hence in W o = W . We deduce
that
W = W ∩ ΓH ⊂ F ∗ τ (∆).
Thus F ∗ τ (∆) has non-empty interior, and since F ∗ is finite, the Baire category theorem implies that τ (∆) has non-empty interior. It follows that the subgroup
L := πH (Θ) = τ (∆∞ ) < H

(A.1)

has non-empty interior, hence is an open subgroup of H, and WL := W ∩ L is a non-empty
compact subset of L. By definition Θ is contained in G × L, and by (A.1), πL (Θ) = πH (Θ) is
dense in L. Moreover the set
Σ := πG (Θ ∩ (G × WL ))
is relatively dense in G, since it contains ∆. Thus Lemma A.7 applies, and we deduce that
Θ is relatively dense in G × L. Now H is almost connected and L being open contains the
identity component of H, hence L is left-syndetic in H. It follows that Θ is also a relatively

30

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

dense in G × H. Since Θ < Γ it is also uniformly discrete, hence a uniform lattice. Since Θ
and Γ are both uniform lattices, we deduce that Θ has finite index in Γ, and projecting to G
we see that ∆∞ = πG (Θ) has finite index in Λ∞ = πG (Γ).

Finally we turn to the question how far an arbitrary Meyer set is from being of almost connected type, respectively connected Lie type. To state our result, we introduce the following
terminology:
Definition A.8. Let Γ be a group and Σ ⊂ Γ be a symmetric subset. We say that an element
a ∈ Γ quasi-commensurates Σ if there exists a finite subset Fa ⊂ Γ such that
aΣ ⊂ ΣFa

and Σa ⊂ Fa Σ.

We say that a subset A ⊂ Γ quasi-commensurates the set Σ if every element of A quasicommensurates Σ. If Λ ⊂ Γ is a subset we denote by qCommΛ (Σ) the set of all elements of Λ
which commensurate Σ.
B definition, qCommΛ (Σ) is the largest subset of Λ which quasi-commensurates Σ. Note
that we can enlarge approximate groups by finite subsets of their quasi-commensurator:
Proposition A.9. Let G be a group and Σ ⊂ G be an approximate subgroup. If F ⊂ qCommG (Σ)
is finite and contains the identity, then F Σ ∪ ΣF −1 is an approximate subgroup of G.
Proof. By construction, ΣF is symmetric and contains the identity. Let FΣS
be finite such that
Σ2 ⊂ ΣFΣ . Given x ∈ F chose Fx finite such that xΣ = ΣFx and set F0 := Fx . Then
Σ2F ⊂ ΣΣF03 ⊂ ΣFΣ F03 ,

which shows that ΣF is an approximate subgroup.



Definition A.10. If G is a group, Σ ⊂ G is an approximate subgroup and F ⊂ qCommG (Σ) is
finite, then the approximate group ΣF := F Σ ∪ ΣF −1 is called the enlargement of Σ by F .
While it is not true in general that every Meyer set is contained in a model set of connected
Lie type, we can show that every Meyer set is contained in the enlargement of a suitable
model set of connected Lie type.
Theorem A.11. Let G be a lcsc group and let Λ be a model set in G. Then there exists a model set Σ
of connected Lie type in G and a finite subset F ⊂ qCommΛ∞ (Σ) such that
Λ ⊂ F Σ ⊂ ΣF .
In particular, every Meyer set is contained in a finite union of model sets of connected Lie type.
Proof. Let (G, H, Γ) be a cut-and-project scheme with ∗-map τ : ΓG → H and let Λ =
Λ(G, H, Γ, W ) = τ −1 (W ). Denote by Ho the identity component of H and by π : H → H/Ho
be the canonical projection. Let U < H/Ho be an arbitrary compact-open subgroup and set
L := π −1 (U ) so that L is an almost connected open subgroup of H. Since L is almost connected, [MZ74, p. 175] implies that we can choose a compact normal subgroup V of L such
that {e} × L intersects Γ trivially and such that M := L/V is a connected Lie group. We
denote by πM : L → M the canonical projection.
Since ΓH is dense in H, the image π(ΓH ) = π(τ (ΓG )) is dense in H/Ho and thus π(τ (ΓG ))U =
H/Ho . Since π(W ) is compact we find a finite subset F ⊂ ΓG such that π(W ) ⊂ π(τ (F ))U ,
and hence
W ⊂ τ (F )L.

ANALYTIC PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATE LATTICES

31

We now choose a compact subset WL ⊂ L such that WL ⊃ F −1 W ∩ L ⊂ L and such that
−1
(WM ) = WL . Then
WM := πM (WL ) satisfies πM
[
[
[
W =
(W ∩ τ (f )L) =
τ (f )(τ (f )−1 W ∩ L) ⊂
τ (f )WL = τ (F )WL ,
f ∈F

f ∈F

and hence if we set Σ :=

τ −1 (W

L)

f ∈F

⊂ ΓG , then

Λ = τ −1 (W ) ⊂ τ −1 (τ (F )WL ) = F τ −1 (WL ) = F Σ.
Now define ΓL := Γ ∩ (G × L) < G × L and ΓM := (id × πM )(ΓL ) < G × M . Since G × L is
open in G × H, the group ΓL is a uniform lattice in G × L. Since ΓL < Γ its projection to G
is injectice, and since L is open in H, the projection of ΓL to L is dense in L, hence (G, L, ΓL )
is a cut-and-project scheme. From this it follows as in the proof of Proposition A.9 that also
−1
(WM ) we have
(G, M, ΓM ) is a cut-and-project scheme and since WL = πM
Σ = πG ((G × WL ) ∩ Γ) = πG ((G × WL ) ∩ ΓL ) = πG ((G × WM ) ∩ ΓM ) = Λ(G, M, ΓM , WM ).
This shows that Σ is a model set of connected type such that Λ ⊂ F Σ. Moreover, if x ∈ F ,
then the compact set τ (x)WL can be covered by finitely many ΓH -translates of WL (since ΓH
is dense in H and WL has open interior in H), hence we find Fx ⊂ ΓG = Λ∞ such that
τ (x)WL ⊂ WL τ (Fx )

and WL τ (x) ⊂ τ (Fx )WL .

Consequently,
xΣ ⊂ τ −1 (τ (xΣ)) = τ −1 (ΓH ∩ τ (x)WL ) ⊂ τ −1 (ΓH ∩ WL τ (Fx )) = ΣFx ,
and similarly Σx ⊂ Fx Σ. This shows that F ⊂ qCommΛ∞ (Σ) and finishes the proof.



Let us say that a lcsc group G can be coupled to a lcsc group H if there exists a uniform lattice
Γ < G × H which projects injectively to G and densely to H. Then we have the following
consequence of Theorem A.11:
Corollary A.12. Let G be a lcsc group which cannot be coupled to any non-compact connected Lie
group. Then every Meyer set in G is contained in a finite union of lattices.

R EFERENCES
[BdlHV08] Bachir Bekka, Pierre de la Harpe, and Alain Valette. Kazhdan’s property (T), volume 11 of New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.
[BFGM07] Uri Bader, Alex Furman, Tsachik Gelander, and Nicolas Monod. Property (T) and rigidity for actions
on Banach spaces. Acta Math., 198(1):57–105, 2007.
[BH16]
M. Björklund and T. Hartnick. Approximate lattices. ArXiv e-prints, December 2016.
[BHP16] M. Björklund, T. Hartnick, and F. Pogorzelski. Aperiodic order and spherical diffraction, I: Autocorrelation of model sets. ArXiv e-prints, February 2016.
[BHP17] M. Björklund, T. Hartnick, and F. Pogorzelski. Aperiodic order and spherical diffraction, II: The
shadow transform and the diffraction formula. ArXiv e-prints, April 2017.
[BM02]
M. Burger and N. Monod. Continuous bounded cohomology and applications to rigidity theory. Geom.
Funct. Anal., 12(2):219–280, 2002.
[C05]
Yves de Cornulier. On Haagerup and Kazhdan properties. 2005.
[C06]
Yves de Cornulier. Relative Kazhdan property. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4), 39(2):301–333, 2006.
[CCJ+ 01] Pierre-Alain Cherix, Michael Cowling, Paul Jolissaint, Pierre Julg, and Alain Valette. Groups with
the Haagerup property. Modern Birkhäuser Classics. Birkhäuser/Springer, Basel, 2001. Gromov’s a-Tmenability, Paperback reprint of the 2001 edition [ MR1852148].
[CI11]
Ionut Chifan and Adrian Ioana. On relative property (T) and Haagerup’s property. Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc., 363(12):6407–6420, 2011.

32

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND AND TOBIAS HARTNICK

[DCTV08] Yves De Cornulier, Romain Tessera, and Alain Valette. Isometric group actions on Banach spaces and
representations vanishing at infinity. Transform. Groups, 13(1):125–147, 2008.
[Gro93]
M. Gromov. Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups. In Geometric group theory, Vol. 2 (Sussex, 1991),
volume 182 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., pages 1–295. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge,
1993.
[Haa79]
Uffe Haagerup. An example of a nonnuclear C ∗ -algebra, which has the metric approximation property. Invent. Math., 50(3):279–293, 1978/79.
[Kaz67]
D. A. Kazhdan. On the connection of the dual space of a group with the structure of its closed subgroups. Funkcional. Anal. i Priložen., 1:71–74, 1967.
[Mar82]
G. A. Margulis. Finitely-additive invariant measures on Euclidean spaces. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 2(3-4):383–396 (1983), 1982.
[Mey72] Yves Meyer. Algebraic numbers and harmonic analysis. North-Holland Publishing Co., AmsterdamLondon; American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1972. North-Holland Mathematical Library, Vol. 2.
[Mim11] Masato Mimura. Fixed point properties and second bounded cohomology of universal lattices on
Banach spaces. J. Reine Angew. Math., 653:115–134, 2011.
[Mon01] Nicolas Monod. Continuous bounded cohomology of locally compact groups, volume 1758 of Lecture Notes
in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.
[Moo97] Robert V. Moody. Meyer sets and their duals. In The mathematics of long-range aperiodic order (Waterloo,
ON, 1995), volume 489 of NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., pages 403–441. Kluwer Acad.
Publ., Dordrecht, 1997.
[MZ74]
Deane Montgomery and Leo Zippin. Topological transformation groups. Robert E. Krieger Publishing
Co., Huntington, N.Y., 1974. Reprint of the 1955 original.
[Oza11]
Narutaka Ozawa. Quasi-homomorphism rigidity with non-commutative targets. J. Reine Angew.
Math., 655:89–104, 2011.
[Pet50]
B. J. Pettis. On continuity and openness of homomorphisms in topological groups. Ann. of Math. (2),
52:293–308, 1950.
[Sha00]
Yehuda Shalom. Rigidity, unitary representations of semisimple groups, and fundamental groups of
manifolds with rank one transformation group. Ann. of Math. (2), 152(1):113–182, 2000.
[Tao08]
Terence Tao. Product set estimates for non-commutative groups. Combinatorica, 28(5):547–594, 2008.
D EPARTMENT OF M ATHEMATICS , C HALMERS , G OTHENBURG , S WEDEN
E-mail address: micbjo@chalmers.se
M ATHEMATICS D EPARTMENT, T ECHNION , H AIFA 32000, I SRAEL
E-mail address: hartnick@tx.technion.ac.il

