arXiv:1408.4217v4 [] 15 Jun 2017

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS
URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER
Abstract. We study equicontinuous actions of semisimple groups and some generalizations. We prove that any such action is universally closed, and in particular proper. We
derive various applications, both old and new, including closedness of continuous homomorphisms, nonexistence of weaker topologies, metric ergodicity of transitive actions and
vanishing of matrix coefficients for reflexive (more generally: WAP) representations.

Contents
1. Historical prelude and introduction
1.1. The structure of the paper
1.2. Acknowledgment
2. Preliminaries
2.1. On nets convergence
2.2. Uniform structures and compatible topologies
2.3. Universally closed maps and actions
3. Quasi-semisimple groups
4. The main theorem
5. Images of homomorphisms
5.1. Closed images
5.2. Group topologies
5.3. Completions
5.4. Baire property
5.5. Proof of Theorem 5.1
6. Measurable metrics and metric ergodicity
7. Monoid compactifications
7.1. Ellis joint continuity
7.2. Monoids
7.3. Weakly almost periodic rigidity
8. WAP representations and mixing
9. Banach modules
10. Further discussion
References
Date: July 26, 2015.
The research was partly supported by the ERC and the ISF.
1

2
5
6
6
6
7
9
11
13
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
21
21
23
24
26
27
29
29

2

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

1. Historical prelude and introduction
We begin by presenting some of the history of the ideas around the so called “Mautner
phenomenon”, Moore ergodicity theorem, the Howe–Moore theorem and related topics.
This mixture of ideas and techniques fascinatingly relates ergodic theory, representation
theory, topological group theory and metric geometry.
The term “Mautner phenomenon” is used to describe the idea behind the following easy
lemma and its various generalizations.
Lemma 1.1. Let G be a topological group acting isometrically on a metric space (X, d)
such that the homomorphism G → Iso(X) is continuous. Assume that (an ) is a sequence
in G, and u ∈ G is an element such that limn uan = e in G. If x ∈ X satisfies limn an x = x
then ux = x.
The beautiful one line proof is given by
−1
an
an
d(ux, x) = lim d(ua−1
n x, an x) = lim d(u x, x) = d(lim u x, x) = d(ex, x) = 0.
n

n

n

It seems to us that the first documented use of this idea is from 1950 by Segal and
von Neumann, see [SvN50, Lemma 1]. Mautner used the “Mautner phenomenon” in his
1957 paper [Ma57] to establish the ergodicity of the geodesic flow on finite volume locally
symmetric spaces, applying it to the dynamics of the associated semisimple Lie group on
a corresponding unitary representation. Mautner’s result dramatically generalizes Hopf’s
result [Ho39] which treats the rank one case, by a beautiful geometric argument. The
powerful idea of using unitary representations for the study of ergodicity of the geodesic
flow is due to Gelfand and Fomin [GF52] who used it for the special case of manifolds
of dimension 2 and 3, using the explicit classification of the irreducible representation of
SL2 (R) and SL2 (C).
Mautner’s work was shortly after generalized by Moore who showed in [Mo66] that
for every ergodic probability measure preserving action of a simple Lie group, every one
parameter subgroup is mixing. Moore’s work, in turn, was generalized by Zimmer and
Howe who obtained independently the following well known theorem.
Theorem 1.2 ([Zi77, Theorem 5.2],[HM79, Theorem 5.1]). In a unitary representation of
a simple Lie group which has no non-zero invariant vectors, the matrix coefficients tend to
0 at infinity.
Zimmer’s proof relies on a theorem proved independently in [Sh66, Theorem 1] and
[Mo70, Theorem 8], describing the restriction of a unitary representation of a simple Lie
group to a maximal split torus. The approach of Howe–Moore is based on the Mautner
phenomenon and works for uniformly bounded Hilbert representations and over any local field. A main extra technical ingredient there is the reduction of the statement to a
statement about SL2 , via the Jacobson–Marozov theorem.
It is interesting to note that the tone in [HM79] is apologetic. Before stating their
Theorem 5.1 they write: “Our only excuse for including this in view of the fact that more

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

3

precise results are known (but involving some effort and machinery) is that it is simple and
direct and already contains useful information.” The “more precise results” they refer to
are results of Cowling and Wallach regarding the asymptotic behavior of matrix coefficients
of irreducible uniformly bounded representations, e.g that the matrix coefficients are in Lp
for some p, see [Co] for the archimedean case and [BW80] for the general case.
The Howe–Moore theorem was soon generalized by Veech who obtained in [Ve79] a similar theorem applicable for any uniformly bounded representation on any reflexive Banach
space. Veech’s result is again an elaboration on the Mautner phenomenon, now applied in
the context of the WAP (Weakly Almost Periodic) compactification of a semisimple group.
The WAP compactification of a group is a universal semi-topological, semi-group compactification which was studied by de Leeuw and Glicksberg, following a fundamental work of
Eberlein, Grothendieck and others on WAP functions on groups. Matrix coefficients of
uniformly bounded reflexive representations are WAP functions, thus the WAP compactificqation gathers information on all reflexive representations. It is interesting to note that
by the main theorem of [DFJP74], the converse is also true: every WAP function is a matrix
coefficient of a reflexive representation, see [Me03] (check also [Ka81]). In [Co79] Cowling
proves a similar, though slightly weaker theorem: he considers the Fourier–Stieltjes compactification of a semisimple Lie group and proves a parallel result to Veech’s. His proof
is representation theoretic. Veech’s result was reproduced and put in a conceptual context
by Ellis and Nerurkar in [EN89]. We find the papers [Ve79] and [EN89] very appealing and
we are surprised how little attention they got. For example, when we wrote [BGFM07],
together with Furman and Monod, we included an appendix, based on an observation of
Shalom, which reproduced the so called Howe–Moore Theorem in the restrictive context
of super-reflexive Banach spaces, see [BGFM07, Theorem 9.1]. No one ever, till this day,
had brought to our attention that this result is subsumed in [Ve79]. After the publication of [BGFM07] we realized that Theorem 9.1, with the same proof essentially, could be
easily generalized to all reflexive representations, with the aid of one extra ingredient: the
Ryll-Nardzewski Theorem. This already brought us to consider the WAP compactification.
Considering the latter, we soon came across [Ve79].
From the late 70’s to this day the Howe–Moore theorem stands as a corner stone in
the analytic theory of semisimple groups. For example, it is a key ingredient in Margulis’
proof of his celebrated super-rigidity theorem. It has numerous other applications. Let us
mention here only two very easy ones. The first one is the easy proof of an older result
due to Tits and Prasad [Pr82]: every proper open subgroup of a simple group over a
local field is compact. Indeed, this follows at once by considering the matrix coefficients
of the corresponding quasi-regular representation. The second application, given in [Zi77,
Theorem 7.3], could be seen as a strengthening of simplicity: for a simple group over a local
field, every non-trivial continuous homomorphism with dense image into a locally compact
group is an open bijection. This follows by considering the regular representation of the
target group. Let us elaborate on this last application.
Already in 1966, Omori had proved that every continuous homomorphism from a semisimple Lie group (with finite center) into any first countable topological group has a closed

4

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

image, [Om66]. This generalizes previous results of van Est (proving a similar theorem
with Lie group targets, [vE51]) and Goto (same with locally compact targets, [Go48] and
[GY50]). See [Go73] for a general discussion. Groups satisfying the property that every
injective image in a topological group is closed are called “absolutely closed”. Their group
topology is called “minimal”. For a recent extensive survey on the subject, see [DM14].
As mentioned above, Zimmer reproved Goto’s result, as a corollary of the Howe–Moore
theorem. In [HM79, Theorem 2.1] it is also shown that the image of a homeomorphism of
a simple Lie group in the unitary group of a Hilbert space is closed. It seems that the three
authors were unaware of Omori’s result from 1966, [Om66]. A more systematic attempt to
relate the notion of coarse group topologies and the study of matrix coefficients is given in
[Ma97] for connected Lie groups. It seems that for general locally compact groups there
is still unexplored ground in this direction. Here we observe that Omori’s theorem (even
without the first countability assumption) is an immediate application of the following
theorem.
Theorem 1.3. Let G be a simple group over a local field. Assume G acts equicontinuously
and without fixed points on a uniform space. Then every orbit is closed and all the point
stabilizers are compact.
Indeed, given a continuous homomorphism into a topological group, G → H, endowing
H with its left uniform structure and consider the left action of G on H we get that the
orbit of e ∈ H, that is the image of G, is closed. We get the following extension of Omori’s
theorem.
Corollary 1.4. A simple group over a local field is absolutely closed.
Our main contribution in this paper is the formulation of Theorem 4.1, which is a simultaneous generalization of Veech’s theorem and Theorem 1.3 above. Theorem 4.1 discusses
an action of a group on a space with two compatible structures: a uniform structure and a
compatible (typically weaker) topology. The reader familiar with the classical Howe–Moore
theorem should have in mind the two compatible structures on the unit ball of a Banach
space: the norm and the weak topologies. We will not formulate Theorem 4.1 in this introduction, due to its technical nature. Instead we choose to demonstrate it by proving a
toy case, which already contains most of the ideas of the proof. For a generalization of the
next theorem, see Theorem 6.1.
Theorem 1.5 (toy case). Assume the group G = SL2 (R) is acting continuously by isometries on a metric space X. Let x0 ∈ X be a point. Then either x0 is a global fixed point or
its stabilizer group is compact.
Note that every metric space has a canonical uniform structure, and every isometric
action is equicontinuous, thus Theorem 1.5 is an immediate corollary of Theorem 1.3. To
the best of our knowledge, even this very specific result has not been formulated in the
past literature. Here is a complete proof:

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

5

Proof. Suppose that the stabilizer group Gx0 is not compact and let gn ∈ Gx0 be a sequence
tending to infinity. Write gn = kn an kn′ with kn , kn′ ∈ SO(2) and


αn 0
an =
0 αn−1
with αn → ∞. Up to replacing gn by a subsequance we may suppose that kn → k and
kn′ → k ′ . Set x1 = k ′ · x0 and x2 = k −1 · x0 .
α
→ ∞,
Let m : N → N be a function tending sufficiently fast to ∞ so that βn := m(n)
αn
−1
and set bn = am(n) an , that is


βn 0
bn =
.
0 βn−1
Since the action G y X is continuous by isometries, and since an ·x1 → x2 and a−1
n ·x2 → x1 ,
−1
we see that bn · x2 → x2 , as well as bn · x2 → x2 . Note that for




1 t
1 0
and u− (t) =
u+ (t) =
0 1
t 1

t
we have limn→∞ b−1
2 ) = e, thus by Lemma 1.1, u+ (t)x2 = x2 .
n u+ (t)bn = limn→∞ u+ ( βn
−1
Similarly, we have that limn→∞ bn u− (t)bn = e, hence u− (t)x2 = x2 . Since G is generated
by u+ (t) and u− (t) we deduce that G = Gx2 . Finally, it follows that x2 = x0 , hence x0 is a
global fixed point.


In the above proof, note the role of the sequence (bn ) which zig-zags between the accumulation points x1 and x2 . This is the only novel ingredient in the following short list
which summarizes the main ingredients appearing in the above proof:
•
•
•
•

the KAK decomposition,
the Mautner phenomenon,
a zig-zaging argument, and
the generation of G by opposite unipotents.

In the proof of Theorem 4.1, the zig-zaging argument will come about by the use of
Lemma 2.2.
Finally note that for the proof we don’t need the precise structure of the group G,
only the properties allowing us to use the ingredients above. This observation was used
before by several authors, generalizing the Howe–Moore theorem to various non-algebraic
groups, notably groups acting on trees, see [LM92]. We will prove our main theorems for
groups having these appropriate properties, which we call “quasi-semisimple”, or shortly
qss groups. A similar axiomatic approach is taken in the recent preprint [Ci].
1.1. The structure of the paper. The first half of the paper is devoted to the formulation and proof of the main Theorem 4.1 about equicontinuous actions of semisimple (and,
more generally, qss) groups, including a presentation of the basic notions and necessary

6

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

background. The second half (§5 and further) is dedicated to various applications of Theorem 4.1. The very last section deals with some further generalizations of our axiomatic
scheme.
§2 summarizes some well-known background material. In §3 we present the class of quasisemisimple groups, the class to which we apply our main theorems proven in §4. In §5 we
prove the inexistence of weak topologies on qss groups improving old results of Omori and
Goto. In §6 we establish new results concerning metric ergodicity of analytic semisimple
groups and their lattices. In §7 we review the theory of monoid compactifications of a group
and reprove (and slightly extend) Veech’s theorem. We apply these results in §8 in order to
gain information about Banach representations. In §9 we reprove the results of §8 directly
from Theorem 4.1, for the benefit of the reader who wishes to avoid the abstract setting of
§7. In §10 we discuss the extension of our results to the class of hereditary quasi-semisimple
groups.
1.2. Acknowledgment. We thank Amos Nevo for an enlightening conversation regarding
the history and Gil Goffer and the excellent referee for many remarks and suggestions for
improvements. We thank Michael Megrelishvili for some helpful suggestions and references.
We are grateful to Meny Shlossberg for spotting a gap in the proof of Theorem 5.1 in an
earlier version of this paper.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. On nets convergence. Recall that a net in a topological space is a map to the space
from a directed set, where a directed set is a pre-ordered set in which every two elements
have an upper bound. Typically we denote a directed set by the symbol (α) where α
denotes a generic element in the directed set, and for a net in the topological space X we
use symbols as (xα ), representing the map α 7→ xα .
The net xα converges to x, to be denoted xα → x, if for every neighborhood U of x there
exists α0 ∈ (α) such that for every α ≥ α0 , xα ∈ U.
A net (xβ ) is said to be a subnet of the net (xα ) if it is obtained as the composition of
an order preserving cofinal map (β) → (α) with the map α 7→ xα . It is well known and
easy to check that a net converges if and only if all of its subnets converge and to the same
point. Less well known is the fact that every net which majorizes a subnet of a converging
net converges as well.
Lemma 2.1. Let n : (α) → X be a net converging to x. Let f : (β) → (α) be an
order preserving cofinal map. Let f ′ : (β) → (α) be another map, satisfying for every β,
f ′ (β) ≥ f (β). Then the net n ◦ f ′ converges to x.
Proof. Fixing a neighborhood U of x we need to show that there exists β0 ∈ (β) such that
for every β ≥ β0 , xf ′ (β) ∈ U. Indeed, by the convergence of the net xα there exists α0 ∈ (α)
such that for every α ≥ α0 , xα ∈ U, and by the cofinality of f , there exists β0 ∈ (β) such
that f (β0 ) ≥ α0 . Then for every β ≥ β0 , f ′ (β) ≥ f (β) ≥ α0 implies xf ′ (β) ∈ U.


EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

7

In a locally compact space X, a net is said to converge to infinity if for every compact
subset K there exists α0 such that for every α ≥ α0 , xα ∈
/ K. The following technical
lemma will be of use.
Lemma 2.2 (Zig-Zag lemma). Let G be a locally compact group acting on a topological
space X. Let gα be a net in G converging to infinity and assume that for some x, y ∈ X,
the net (gα x) converges to y in X. Then there exists a directed set (β) and two nets
n, n′ : (β) → G satisfying n(β)x → y and n′ (β)x → y in X and n(β)−1 n′ (β) → ∞ in G.
Proof. We let C be the directed set of compact subsets of G, ordered by reversed inclusion,
and set (β) = (α) × C endowed with the product order. We let f : (β) → (α) be the
projection on the first variable. This is obviously an order preserving cofinal map. For
every (α0 , K) ∈ (β) we use the fact that the subnet (gα )α≥α0 converges to infinity in G to
find an element α1 ≥ α0 satisfying gα1 ∈
/ gα0 K. We denote α1 = f ′ (α0 , K). The lemma
now follows from Lemma 2.1, setting n(β) = gf (β) and n′ (β) = gf ′ (β) .

2.2. Uniform structures and compatible topologies. Recall that a uniform structure
on a set X is a symmetric filter S of reflexive relations on X, such that for every U ∈ S
there is U ′ ∈ S with U ′ U ′ ⊂ U. Here
U1 U2 = {(u1 , u2 ) : ∃u3 , (u1 , u3) ∈ U1 , (u3, u2 ) ∈ U2 }.
Let (X, S) be a uniform space.
Definition 2.3. We will say that a topology T on X is S-compatible if for every V ∈ T
and a point y ∈ V , there exists y ∈ V ′ ∈ T and U ∈ S such that UV ′ ⊂ V , where
UV ′ = {v | ∃v ′ ∈ V ′ , (v, v ′ ) ∈ U}.
We shall denote by TS the S-topology on X, i.e. the topology generated by the sets
U(x) := U{x}, x ∈ X, U ∈ S.
Obviously, we have:
Example 2.4. The S-topology TS is S-compatible.
A topological group action on a topological space G y (X, T ) is said to be jointly
continuous or simply continuous if the action map G × X → X is continuous as a function
of two variables.
Example 2.5. Given an action of a topological group G on a set X we define the action
uniform structure SG on X to be the uniform structure generated by the images of the sets
U × X under the map
G × X → X × X, (g, x) 7→ (x, gx),
where U runs over the identity neighborhoods in G. A topology T on X is SG -compatible
if and only if the action of G on (X, T ) is continuous.

8

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

A group action on a uniform space G y X is said to be equicontinuous (or sometimes
uniformly continuous) if for every U ∈ S, also the set {(u, v) | ∀g ∈ G, (gu, gv) ∈ U} is in
S. This means that S has a basis consisting of G-invariant uniformities.
Example 2.6. For a topological group G, setting X = G, the right regular action defines
a uniform structure on G, as in Example 2.5. This structure is called the left uniform
structure. Note that the left regular action is equicontinuous with respect to that structure.
Lemma 2.7. Assume G acts on (X, S) uniformly. Denote by X/G the space of orbits and
denote by π : X → X/G the natural quotient map. Then the collection {(π×π)(U) | U ∈ S}
defines a uniform structure on X/G, to be denoted π∗ S, and the associated topology on X/G,
Tπ∗ S coincides with the quotient topology π∗ TS .
Proof. Left to the reader.



Lemma 2.8. An equicontinuous action of a topological group is (jointly) continuous with
respect to the S-topology if (and only if ) the orbit maps are continuous.
Proof. For any y ∈ X and a neighborhood of the form U(y) associated with a uniformity
U ∈ S, there exists a G-invariant uniformity U ′ such that U ′ U ′ ⊂ U. For any (g, x) with
gx = y, let Ω ⊂ G be the pre-image of U ′ (y) under the x-orbit map. Then Ω × U ′ (x) is a
neighborhood of (g, x) in G × X whose image under the action map is contained in U(y).
Indeed, for (g ′, x′ ) ∈ Ω × U ′ (x), (x′ , x) ∈ U ′ implies that (g ′x′ , g ′x) ∈ U ′ which together
with (g ′ x, y) ∈ U ′ gives (g ′ x′ , y) ∈ U.

Lemma 2.9. Let G y (X, S) be an equicontinuous action. Let T be an S-compatible
topology on X. Let (α) be a directed set. Assume that xα is a TS -converging net in X with
TS - lim xα = x, and that gα is a net in G. Then T - lim gα xα exists if and only if T - lim gα x
exists, in which case they are equal.
Proof. Let x′α be an arbitrary net in X which TS -converges to x. Suppose that T - lim gα xα
exists and denote it by y. Let V ∈ T be a neighborhood of y. We will show that there
exists α0 such that α ≥ α0 implies gα x′α ∈ V . Fix V ′ ∈ T around y and a G-invariant
uniformity U ∈ S so that UV ′ ⊂ V . Let U ′ ∈ S be a symmetric uniformity with U ′ U ′ ⊂ U.
By the assumptions there exists α0 such that for every α ≥ α0 ,
gα xα ∈ V ′ , (xα , x) ∈ U ′ and (x′α , x) ∈ U ′ .
Thus (xα , x′α ) ∈ U and, by the G-invariance of U, also (gα x′α , gα xα ) ∈ U. It follows that
gα x′α ∈ UV ′ ⊂ V .
By switching the roles of xα and x′α we deduce that limT gα xα exists if and only if
limT gα x′α exists, in which case they are equal. The lemma follows by specializing to the
constant net x′α ≡ x.

Lemma 2.10 (A variant ot Mautner’s lemma). Let G be a topological group. Let X be a
G-space equipped with a uniform structure S and an S-compatible topology T . Assume that
the action is continuous with respect to both topologies T and TS and equicontinuous with

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

9

respect to S. Let gα be a net in G and assume for some points x, y ∈ X, y = T -limgα x.
−1
Assume g ∈ G satisfies lim g gα = e. Then gy = y.
−1

Proof. By continuity of the action G y (X, TS ) we have (TS - lim)g gα x = x. Applying
−1
Lemma 2.9 to the net gα in G and the net g gα x in X, we deduce that indeed
−1

gy = g(T -lim)gα x = (T -lim)ggαx = (T -lim)gα · g gα x = (T -lim)gα x = y.

Lemma 2.11. Let G y (X, S) be an equicontinuous action. Assume that for some net
(gα ) in G and x, y ∈ X, (TS -lim)gα x = y. Then (TS -lim)gα−1 y = x.
Proof. For every neighborhood V of x there exists a G-invariant uniformity U with U(x) ⊂
V . By gα x → y there exists α0 such that for every α ≥ α0 , gα x ∈ U(y), that is (gα x, y) ∈ U.
By G-invariance we get (x, gα−1 y) ∈ U and by symmetry (gα−1y, x) ∈ U. Therefore for every
α ≥ α0 , gα−1y ∈ U(x) ⊂ V .

2.3. Universally closed maps and actions. Recall that a continuous map π : X → Y
between topological spaces is called proper if the preimage of a compact set is compact, and
closed if the image π(A) of every closed set A ⊂ X is closed in Y . Under mild assumptions
on Y , it is automatic that a proper map is closed. This is the case if Y is a K-space, e.g
when Y is either locally compact or satisfies the first axiom of countability, see [Pa70]. In
general however, a proper map is not necessarily closed. The current section deals with the
general case. Recall the following classical theorem:
Theorem 2.12. A topological space K is compact if and only if for every topological space
Z, the projection map K × Z → Z is closed.
Note that we do not assume any separation property of the topological spaces involved.
Since we are not aware of a reference for 2.12 in this generality, we add a proof for the
convenience of the reader.
Proof. The fact that if K is compact then for every Z, K × Z → Z is closed is standard
and easy. Assume now K is not compact and pick a directed set (α) and a net (xα ) in
K which has no converging subnet. For every x ∈ K we can find a neighborhood Ux and
αx such that for every α ≥ αx , xα ∈
/ Ux . Consider the poset obtained by adding to (α) a
maximal element, ∞. Observe that the collection consisting of all intervals in (α) of the
form [α, ∞] forms a base for a topology. Let Z be the topological space thus obtained.
Check that ∞ ∈ Z is not isolated. Let A ⊂ X × Z be the complement of the open set
∪x (Ux × [αx , ∞]). Observe that A ∩ X × {∞} = ∅ and for each α, (xα , α) ∈ A, thus the
projection of A to Z consists of the subset Z − {∞}, which is not closed.

Here is another basic result of point-set topology for which we couldn’t find a proper
reference.
Theorem 2.13. Let π : X → Y be a continuous map between topological spaces. The
following are equivalent.

10

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

(1) For every topological space Z, the map π × idZ : X × Z → Y × Z is a closed map.
(2) π is closed and proper.
(3) For every net (xα ) in X which has no converging subnet, the net (π(xα )) has no
converging subnet in Y .
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) : By taking Z to be a point we see that π is closed. In order to see that π
is proper, consider an arbitrary compact subset K ⊂ Y and an arbitrary topological space
Z. The projection map π −1 (K) × Z → Z is closed, being the composition of the closed
maps π −1 (K) × Z → K × Z → Z. Thus by Theorem 2.12 π −1 (K) is compact.
(2) ⇒ (3) : Assume by contradiction that (xα ) is a net in X which has no converging
subnet and π(xα ) → y ∈ Y . Denote Xy = π −1 ({y}). Since π is closed and proper, Xy is
non-empty and compact. For every x ∈ Xy we can find an open neighborhood Ux of x and
αx such that α ≥ αx ⇒ xα ∈
/ Ux . By compactness of Xy we can find a finite set F ⊂ Xy
such that Xy ⊂ ∪x∈F Ux . We let
V = Y \ π(X \ ∪x∈F Ux ).
Since π is closed V is an open neighborhood of y in Y . Note that U = π −1 (V ) ⊂ ∪x∈F Ux .
Let α0 be an index satisfying α0 ≥ αx for every x ∈ F . Then for every α ≥ α0 , xα ∈
/ U
and thus π(xα ) ∈
/ V , contradicting the assumption that π(xα ) → y.
(3) ⇒ (1) : Let A ⊂ X × Z be a closed set. Assume, by way of contradiction, that
(π × idZ )(A) is not closed in Y × Z and pick a net (yα , zα ) ∈ (π × idZ )(A) converging
to a point (y, z) ∈
/ (π × idZ )(A). Pick lifts (xα ) of (yα ) such that (xα , zα ) ∈ A. By our
assumption, since (yα ) converges, (xα ) has a converging subnet. Abusing the notation we
assume that (xα ) → x. It follows that (xα , zα ) → (x, z). Since A is closed, (x, z) ∈ A and
thus (y, z) = (π × idZ )(x, z) ∈ (π × idZ )(A). A contradiction.

Definition 2.14. A map satisfying the above properties is called “universally closed”.
Recall that a continuous action of G on X is called a proper action if the map
(1)

G × X → X × X, (g, x) 7→ (x, gx)

is a proper map. Similarly, we say that the action is universally closed is the map (1) is
universally closed. Every universally closed action is proper.
Proposition 2.15. If G acts on X and the action is universally closed then the point
stabilizers are all compact and the quotient topology on the orbit space X/G is Hausdorff.
In particular, every orbit is closed.
Proof. The fact that stabilizers are compact follows from the properness of the action. To
show that X/G is Hausdorff, observe that the set X × X \ Im(G × X) is open in X × X
and hence its image under the open map to X/G × X/G is open. Thus its complement,
the diagonal of X/G × X/G, is closed.

The following is a useful variant.

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

11

Proposition 2.16. Suppose a topological group G acts on X and T, T ′ are two topologies
on X such that the map
G × (X, T ) → (X, T ) × (X, T ′ ),

(g, x) 7→ (x, gx)

is universally closed. Assume that points in X are T -closed. Then the stabilizers are
compact and the G-orbits in X are T ′ -closed.
Proof. Again, compactness of the stabilizers follows from properness. Given a point x0 ∈ X,
the image of G × {x0 }, that is {x0 } × Gx0 , is a closed subset of (X, T ) × (X, T ′ ) and its
preimage in X under the continuous map (X, T ′ ) → (X, T ) × (X, T ′ ), x 7→ (x0 , x) is the
orbit Gx0 .

3. Quasi-semisimple groups
The main objects of this paper are semisimple Lie groups over local fields. However,
much of the things we prove are based on two specific properties, namely:
• the existence of a Cartan KAK decomposition for G,
• for every a ∈ A, the group G is generated by elements g with the following property1:
limn→∞ an ga−n = 1, limn→−∞ an ga−n = 1 or supn∈Z kan ga−n k < ∞.
This observation encourages us to introduce an axiomatic approach. Indeed, formulating
(variants of) the above as axioms will, on one hand, make our future arguments cleaner
and more transparent, while on the other hand, our results will be more general, and apply
for other classes of groups. Our axiomatic approach is influenced by [Ci].
Given a topological group G and a net gα in G we define the following three groups:
(g )

U+ α = {x ∈ G | gα−1xgα → e},

(g )

U− α = {x ∈ G | gα xgα−1 → e} and

(g )

U0 α = {x ∈ G | every subnet of both nets gα−1 xgα and gα xgα−1 admits a converging subnet}.
The following lemma is obvious and left as an exercise to the reader.
(g )

(g )

(g )

Lemma 3.1. Let G be a topological group and gα a net in G. The U+ α , U− α and U0 α
(g )
(g )
(g )
defined above are indeed groups and the group U0 α normalizes both groups U+ α and U− α .
Definition 3.2. A locally compact topological group G is said to be quasi-semisimple (qss,
for short) if there exists a closed subgroup A < G satisfying the following axioms:
• There exists a compact subset C ⊂ G such that G = CAC.
• For every net aα in A with aα → ∞, there exists a subnet aβ such that the group
(a )
(a )
(a )
U+ β is not pre-compact and the group generated by the three groups U+ β , U− β
(a )
and U0 β is dense in G.
Remark 3.3. The class QSS of quasi-semisimple groups is closed under finite direct products. Every compact group is qss and in addition if H = G/O where O ⊳ G is a compact
normal subgroup, then H is qss iff G is qss.
1In

the classical case one can deduce this property using a root space decomposition of the Lie algebra.

12

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

It is well known that Zariski connected semisimple groups over local fields are qss. This
follows for example from [Ma90, Ch. I, Proposition (1.2.1)]. In particular every Zariski
connected semisimple Lie group with finite center is qss. It is not clear to us whether any
quotient group of a general qss group is qss as well. For a surjective map φ : G → H, where
G is qss relatively to a subgroup A < G, it is reasonable to expect that H would be qss
relatively to φ(A). The only problem that might occur is that for some net φ(aβ ) → ∞,
φ(a )
the group U+ β would be precompact in H. This problem never occurs for semisimple
groups.
Theorem 3.4. Let H be a locally compact topological group. Let k be a local field and
G a Zariski connected, semi-simple algebraic group defined over k. Assume there is a
continuous surjection G(k) ։ H. Then H is qss. In particular every Zariski connected
semi-simple Lie group with finite center is qss.
Remark 3.5. We will see in Corollary 5.2 that the assumption that H is locally compact
is in fact redundant.
Proof. Since G(k) is locally compact, by a standard Baire category argument, H is isomorphic as a topological group to G(k)/N for some closed normal subgroup N ⊳ G(k).
We denote by φ : G(k) → G(k)/N the natural surjection. Recall that G contains a closed
normal subgroup G(k)+ such that G(k)/G(k)+ is abelian and compact, and even finite
when char(k) = 0. The group G(k) is the image of the natural isogeny G̃(k) → G(k)
where G̃ is the simply connected form of G. By [Ma90, Ch. I, Proposition 1.5.4(vi)],
G(k) = G(k)+ · ZG (S)(k) where S is a k-split torus. We let A = φ(S(k)). In view of the
discussion above, our only task is to show that for a net (sα ) in S(k) which tends to ∞ mod
N, one can pass to a subnet (sβ ) such that U φ(sβ ) is not precompact. We abuse notation
and view S a subgroup of G̃. Consider the preimage of N in G̃(k) and mod out the finite
center. This is a normal subgroup in a product of simple non-abelian groups, thus consists
of a product of factors. Moding out these factors, we still have that sα → ∞. The nonpre-compactness of U φ(sβ ) follows by a standard root space decomposition argument. 
Remark 3.6 (Adelic groups are qss). Let K be a global field and G a Zariski connected,
simply connected, semisimple K-algebraic group. Assume that G has no anisotropic factor.
Let A = AK be the associated ring of adels. Then G(A) is qss. To see this recall that
G(A) is the restricted topological product of G(Kv ) relative to the open compact subgroups
G(Ov ) < G(Kv ) where v runs over the finite valuations, and Ov is the local ring of Kv . The
reason G(A) is qss is that the same subgroups G(Ov ) used in the construction of restricted
topological product can be used in the associated CAC (or rather KAK) decomposition
of the corresponding factors G(Kv ). It is easy to verify the details.
Another family of qss groups is given by the following (see [Ci] and [CC]):
Theorem 3.7. Let G be a group acting strongly transitively on an affine building. Then
G is qss. In particular every group of automorphisms of a simplicial tree whose action on
the boundary of the tree is 2-transitive is qss.

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

13

We note that the first ones to implicitly use the qss axioms for a boundary 2-transitive
tree group are Burger and Mozes, in their proof of the Howe–Moore property for such
groups in [BM00].
4. The main theorem
The main result of this paper is the following general statement:
Theorem 4.1. Let G be a quasi-semisimple group. Let X be a G-space equipped with a
uniform structure S and an S-compatible topology T . Assume that the action is continuous
with respect to both topologies T and TS and equicontinuous with respect to S. Suppose that
no non-compact normal subgroup of G admits a global fixed point in X. Then the map
φ : G × (X, TS ) → (X, TS ) × (X, T ),

(g, x) 7→ (x, gx)

is universally closed. In particular, it is proper.
Applying Proposition 2.16 we get the following.
Corollary 4.2. Under the conditions of Theorem 4.1 we have
(1) the stabiliser in G of every point in X is compact, and
(2) the G-orbits in X are T -closed.
In the special case where T = TS we obtain Theorem 1.3 presented in the introduction.
Moreover, we get:
Corollary 4.3. With respect to the quotient topology induced from TS , the orbit space X/G
is Hausdorff and completely regular.
By Lemma 2.7, X/G admits a uniform structure, hence it is Hausdorff and completely
regular given that it is T0 , but it is T1 by the above discussion. To see directly the Hausdorff
property of X/G, consider two points x, y which do not belong to the same orbit. Since
Gy is closed, we have an open neighborhood V of x which is disjoint from Gy. Consider
a G-invariant uniformity U such that UU(x) ⊂ V and pick a symmetric uniformity U ′
contained in U. It is easy to verify that the open sets GU ′ (x) and GU ′ (y) are disjoint.
Proof of Theorem 4.1. By way of contradiction we assume that the map φ is not universally
closed and show eventually the existence of a point fixed by some non-compact normal
subgroup of G. The proof consists of four steps.
Throughout the proof we let A < G be the subgroup guaranteed by the qss assumption,
and let C be a compact subset of G such that G = CAC.
Step 1: There exist points x, y ∈ X and a net aα ∈ A satisfying aα → ∞ and (T - lim)aα x =
y.
In view of Theorem 2.13, the assumption that φ is not universally closed is equivalent to
the existence of a directed set (α) and a net (gα , xα ) which has no converging subnet, such
that the net (xα , gα xα ) converges in the TS × T -topology.

14

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

Let gα = cα aα c′α be a corresponding CAC expression of the elements gα . Upon passing
to a subnet we may assume that both cα and c′α converge in C. Note that necessarily aα
has no converging subnet in A, that is aα → ∞.
Denote
c = lim cα and c′ = lim c′α ,
and set
x = c′ (S- lim)xα and y = c−1 (T - lim)gα xα .
Since G acts continuously on (X, TS ), we have
(TS -lim)c′α xα = x.
Since G acts continuously on (X, T ), we have
−1
−1
(T -lim)aα c′α xα = (T -lim)c−1
α · gα xα = lim cα · (T -lim)gα xα = c (T -lim)gα xα = y.

Applying Lemma 2.9 to the net aα in G and the net c′α xα which TS -converges to x in X,
we deduce that y = (T - lim)aα x.
Step 2 (reducing to the case T = TS ): The action of G on (X, TS ) is not universally closed.
By Step 1, and by the second property in Definition 3.2, replacing the net (aα ) by a
subnet (aβ ), we have in addition to
• aβ → ∞ and
• (T - lim)aβ x = y,
that
(a )
• U+ β is not precompact.
(a )

−1

For g ∈ U+ β we have lim g aβ = 1, hence by Lemma 2.10, gy = y. Thus the stabilizer
of y is non-compact. By Proposition 2.15 it follows that the action of G on (X, TS ) is not
universally closed.
Step 3: There exist a point x ∈ X and a net aβ ′ ∈ A satisfying aβ ′ → ∞ and (TS - lim)aβ ′ x =
x.
By Step 2 we know that the map
G × (X, TS ) → (X, TS ) × (X, TS ),

(g, x) 7→ (x, gx)

is not universally closed. We thus may apply Step 1 in the special case T = TS and obtain
points x, y ∈ X and a net aα ∈ A satisfying aα → ∞ and (TS - lim)aα x = y. By Lemma 2.2,
there exists a directed set (β ′ ) and two nets n, n′ : (β ′ ) → A satisfying n(β ′ )x → y and
n′ (β ′ )x → y in X (all limits in X here are with respect to TS ) and n(β ′ )−1 n′ (β ′) → ∞ in
A. By Lemma 2.11, n(β ′ )−1 y → x. Applying Lemma 2.9 (in the special case T = TS ) with
respect to the directed set (β ′ ), the net n′ (β ′ )x in X and the net n(β ′ )−1 in A, we conclude
that n(β ′ )−1 n′ (β ′ )x → x. We are done by setting aβ ′ = n(β ′ )−1 n′ (β ′ ).
Step 4: There exists a point in X which is fixed by a non-compact normal subgroup of G.

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

15

We let x be a point as obtained in Step 3. We will show that its stabilizer Gx contains a
normal non-compact subgroup of G. By replacing the net obtained in Step 3 by a subnet,
using the qss second axiom we get a net (aα′ ) in A satisfying the following properties:
• aα′ → ∞.
• (TS - lim)aα′ x = x.
(a )
• U+ α′ is not precompact.
(a )
(a )
(a )
• The group generated by the three groups U+ α′ , U− α′ and U0 α′ is dense in G.
(a

)

In view of Lemma 2.10, U+ α′ < Gx . Moreover, by Lemma 2.11 we also have
(TS - lim)a−1
α′ x = x,
(a

)

which by Lemma 2.10 gives U− α′ < Gx . By Lemma 3.1, the closed group generated by
(a )
(a )
(a )
the subgroups U+ α′ and U− α′ is normal in G. It is non-compact as U+ α′ is not precompact. We conclude that Gx contains a normal non-compact subgroup of G, completing the
argument by contradiction.

5. Images of homomorphisms
The main result of this section is the following theorem, whose proof will be completed
at the end of the section.
Theorem 5.1. Let G be a qss group and H an arbitrary Hausdorff topological group. Let
φ : G → H be a continuous homomorphism. Then φ(G) is closed. If further G is separable
then the induced map G/ ker(φ) → φ(G) is a homeomorphism and in particular φ(G) is
locally compact.
We know by Theorem 3.4 that every locally compact image of a semisimple group is qss.
Applying the above theorem we obtain:
Corollary 5.2. Let G be a semisimple analytic group with a finite center (the k points of
a Zariski connected semisimple algebraic group G, defined over a local field k). Let H be a
Hausdorff topological group. Let φ : G → H be a continuous homomorphism. Then φ(G)
is closed in H and the induced map G/ ker(φ) → φ(G) is a homeomorphism. In particular,
φ(G) is locally compact and it is also qss.
Another corollary of Theorem 5.1 regards minimality of group topologies. Given a group
G, a group topology on G is a topology with respect to which G becomes a topological
group. We say that a Hausdorff topological group G is topologically-minimal if there are
no weaker Hausdorff group topologies on G.
Corollary 5.3. Every factor group of a separable qss group is topologically-minimal.
Proof. Let G be a separable qss group and let N ⊳ G a closed normal subgroup. Denote
the quotient topology on G/N by T . Let T ′ ⊂ T be a Hausdorff group topology on G/N.
By setting H = (G/N, T ′) and applying Theorem 5.1 we conclude that T ′ = T .


16

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

5.1. Closed images. We first prove the first part of Theorem 5.1.
Proposition 5.4. Let G be a qss group, H an arbitrary Hausdorff topological group and
φ : G → H a continuous injective homomorphism. Then φ(G) is closed in H.
Proof. Set X = H and consider the left G action on X. Endow H with the left uniform
structure described in Example 2.6. This uniform structure is invariant for the left regular
action of H, and in particular under the G action, thus the assumptions of Theorem 4.1
hold. By Corollary 4.2 the G-orbits are closed. Since the image of φ coincides with the
orbit of the identity 1H , the proposition is proved.

Note that a similar theorem was proven by Omori [Om66] for a class of connected Lie
groups, including all connected semisimple Lie groups with finite center, under the assumption that the target group H satisfies the first axiom of countability.
5.2. Group topologies. In this subsection we set some preliminaries regarding group
topologies. If T is a group topology on G, setting T (e) = {U | e ∈ U ∈ T } where e ∈ G
denotes the identity element, it is standard that T = {gU | g ∈ G, U ∈ T (e)} and
(1) For all U ∈ T (e) there exists V ∈ T (e) such that V · V ⊂ U.
(2) For all U ∈ T (e) and g ∈ G also U −1 , U g ∈ T (e).
The following lemma is straightforward and we leave its verification to the reader.
Lemma 5.5. Let T be a group topology on G and A ⊂ G a dense subset. Assume C ⊂ T (e)
is a collection satisfying
(1) For all U ∈ C there exists V ∈ C such that V · V ⊂ U.
(2) For all U ∈ C and g ∈ A also U −1 , U g ∈ C.
Then the topology generated by the collection {gU | g ∈ A, U ∈ C} is a group topology on
G (included in T ).
A topology is said to be countably generated (or second countable) if it is generated as
a topology by a countable sub-collection. The following proposition is a useful step in the
proof of the second part of Theorem 5.1.
Proposition 5.6. Let G be a group and T be a separable group topology on G. Let D ⊂ T
be a countable sub-collection. Then there exists a group topology T ′ ⊂ T which is countably
generated and such that D ⊂ T ′ .
Proof. Choose a countable dense subset A ⊂ G. For each element U ⊂ D choose gU ∈ A∩U
and set C1 = {gU−1U | U ∈ D}. Clearly C1 ⊂ T (e) is countable and D ⊂ {gU | g ∈ A, U ∈
C1 }. We construct countable collections Cn ⊂ T (e) inductively as follows: given Cn , for
each U ∈ Cn we choose VU ∈ T (e) such that VU · VU ⊂ U and set
Cn+1 = {VU | U ∈ Cn } ∪ {U −1 | U ∈ Cn } ∪ {U g | U ∈ Cn , g ∈ A}.
Setting C = ∪Cn , it follows from Lemma 5.5 that the topology generated by the countable
collection {gU | g ∈ A, U ∈ C} is a group topology on G, which contains D.


EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

17

5.3. Completions. Given a uniform space, as in the case of a metric space, one can
consider Cauchy nets, that is nets (xα ) such that for every uniformity U there exists some
αU such that for every α, α′ ≥ αU , (xα , x′α ) ∈ U. The uniform space is said to be complete
if every Cauchy net converges. Any uniform space could be completed by adding ideal
points: equivalence classes of Cauchy nets. Two Cauchy nets (xα ) and (yβ ) are equivalent
if for any uniformity U there are αU and βU such that for every α ≥ αU and β ≥ βU ,
(xα , yβ ) ∈ U.
Fix a topological group G and recall the definition of the left uniform structure given
in Example 2.6. If it is complete than G is said to be Weil-complete (or left-complete).
Other uniform structures of interest on a topological group are the right uniform structure,
defined similarly to the left one, and the two sided uniform structure, which is the finest
uniform structure contained in both the left and the right ones. A group is said to be
Raikov-complete if its two sided uniform structure is complete. It is known (see e.g [AT,
Chapter 3.6]) that a Weil-complete group is also Raikov-complete (and right-complete).
Proposition 5.7. Let G be a qss group. Let T be group topology on G included in the
original topology of G. Then (G, T ) is Weil-complete. In particular it is Raikov-complete.
Proof. Set X to be the completion of G with respect to the left uniform structure associated
with the group topology T and note that the left action of G on itself extends to an action
of G on X which satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 4.1. Thus G ⊂ X is a closed
G-orbit. Since G is dense in X, we conclude that X = G, thus G is Weil-complete. As
remarked above, it follows that G is also Raikov-complete. An alternative way to see that
G is Raikov-complete would be by repeating the argument taking X to be the completion
of G with respect to the two sided uniform structure.

5.4. Baire property. Recall that a topological group is said to be a Baire group if its
underlying topological space is a Baire space, that is the Baire Category Theorem holds
true.
A uniform structure is said to be countably generated if it contains a countable collection
of uniformities which is not contained in any proper sub-uniform-structure. It is a standard
fact that a countably generated uniform structure is given by an equivalent pseudo metric on
the space, which is a true metric iff the generating uniformities separate points. The proof
of the following Lemma is an obvious adjastment of the standard proof that a complete
metric space is Baire. Alternatively, one can reduce it to the metric case by introducing
an equivalent metric.
Lemma 5.8. The underlying topological space of a complete, countably generated uniform
space is Baire.
Noticing that the left and right uniform structures of a topological group are countably generated iff the topology is first countable (the identity has a countable basis of
neighborhoods) we get:

18

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

Corollary 5.9. A Raikov-complete first countable group is Baire. In particular, a Weilcomplete first countable is Baire.
The final step in the proof of Theorem 5.1 is given by:
Proposition 5.10. Let G be a separable qss group. Let T be a group topology on G included
in the original topology of G. Then (G, T ) is a Baire group.
Proof. Let Un be a countable collection of open dense sets in T and denote by V the
complement of the T -closure of their intersection. Set D = {V } ∪ {Un | n} and use
Proposition 5.6 to find a first countable group topology T ′ on G such that D ⊂ T ′ ⊂ T .
Note that (G, T ′) is Weil-complet by Proposition 5.7. We deduce that V 6= G by the fact
that (G, T ′ ) is a Baire group which follows from Corollary 5.9.

The above result is related to [DU98, Corollary 3.3].
5.5. Proof of Theorem 5.1. In view of Proposition 5.4 we only need to verify the last
sentence, namely that, assuming G is separable, the induced map G/ ker(φ) → φ(G) is a
homeomorphism. Note that G, being seprable, is σ-compact. Note further that φ(G) has
the Baire property, by Proposition 5.10. In such a case it is well known that φ : G → φ(G)
is open, and the proof follows.
6. Measurable metrics and metric ergodicity
Theorem 4.1 and Corollary 4.2 (1) could be applied in the case where X is a metric
space, taking the metric uniform structure and T = TS . We obtain:
Theorem 6.1. Let G be a quasi-semisimple group. Assume that G acts isometrically and
continuously on a metric space X and suppose that no non-compact normal subgroup of
G admits a global fixed point in X. Then the G-orbits are closed in X and the points
stabilizers are compact in G.
The following theorem has many ergodic theoretical applications.
Theorem 6.2. Let G be a Zariski connected, semisimple analytic group with a finite center
(the k point of a Zariski connected semisimple algebraic group G, defined over a local field
k). Let H < G be a closed subgroup. Suppose that G/H admits a G-invariant, separable,
measurable metric. Then H contains a factor of G as a cocompact subgroup.
In case the metric is continuous, this theorem is an immediate application of Theorem 6.1.
Indeed, the associated uniform structure on G/H is G-invariant and continuous. Replacing
G by G/N where N is the action kernel, using the fact that G/N is qss (Theorem 3.4) we
see that H, being the stabiliser of a point, must be compact. The fact that the theorem
applies also for measurable metrics is a consequence of the following:
Lemma 6.3. Let G be a locally compact group and H < G a closed subgroup. Denote by
T the standard topology on G/H. Let d be a G-invariant, separable, measurable metric on
G/H. Then d is T -continuous.

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

19

Proof. We will prove that Td ⊂ T . Let π : G → G/H be the quotient map. By the definition
of the topology T on G/H, π is T -open, so it is enough to show that π is Td -continuous.
By G-invariance it is enough to show continuity at e. Denote by B(ǫ) the d-ball of radius ǫ
centered at π(e). We need to find for every ǫ > 0 an identity neighborhood U in G whose
image is in B(ǫ). For a given ǫ > 0 fix a countable cover of G/H by balls of radius ǫ/2. At
least one of the preimages of the balls is not Haar null, hence also the set A = π −1 (B(ǫ/2))
is not null. One easily checks that A = A−1 and π(AA) ⊂ B(ǫ). Moreover, it is well known
that AA−1 contains an identity neighborhood U, as desired.

Theorem 6.4. Let G be a semisimple analytic group with a finite center (the k point of a
Zariski connected semisimple algebraic group G, defined over a local field k). Let H < G
be a closed subgroup. Assume there exists a metric d on G which is separable, measurable,
left G-invariant and right H-invariant. Then H is compact.
Proof. By Lemma 6.3, d is continuous. By Theorem 6.2, H contains cocompactly a factor
G1 of G. Let X be G1 endowed with the induced metric. X is a G1 × G1 -space for the
left and right actions which preserve the metric. It follows by Corollary 4.2 (1) that the
stabilizer of e, namely the diagonal copy of G1 , is compact. It follows that H is compact
as well.

Definition 6.5. Let G be a group. Let X be a G-Lebesgue space, that is a standard Borel
space endowed with a measure class, on which G acts measurably, preserving the measure
class. The action of G on X is said to be metrically ergodic if for every separable metric
space U on which G acts isometrically, every G-equivariant measurable function from X
to U is a.e. a constant.
Theorem 6.6. Let G be a semisimple analytic group with a finite center (the k point of a
Zariski connected semisimple algebraic group G, defined over a local field k). Let H < G
be a closed subgroup. Endow G/H with the unique G-invariant Radon measure class. Then
G/H is G-metrically ergodic if and only if the image of H/G1 is not precompact in G/G1
for every proper factor group G1 ⊳ G.
An ergodic G-Lebesgue space X is not metrically ergodic if and only if it is induced from
an ergodic H-space, for some closed subgroup H < G which contains cocompactly a factor
group G1 ⊳ G with G/G1 non-compact.
Proof. Let G1 ⊳ G be a proper normal subgroup and suppose that H ′ = HG1 /G1 is
compact in G′ = G/G1 . Pick a positive function f ∈ L2 (G′ ) and average it over the
right action by H ′ , using the Haar measure on H ′ . The function obtained is H ′ -invariant,
but not G′ -invariant (as G′ is non-compact), thus provides a non-constant G′ -equivariant
map G′ /H ′ → L2 (G′ ). Precomposing with the map G/H → G′ /H ′ we disprove the metric
ergodicity of G/H.
′
′
In addition, given a G-space X of the form X = IndG
H (X ) where X is an H-space on
which H acts with co-compact kernel. Since H contains the unimodular group G1 as a
cocompact subgroup, it must be unimodular as well, and the procedure above produces a
non-constant G-map from X to L2 (G/H).

20

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

Let now X be an ergodic G-Lebesgue space which is not metrically ergodic, and let
φ : X → U be a G-equivariant map to a separable metric G-space. Let G1 be the maximal
factor of G for which the image of X is essentially contained in U G1 and let G′ = G/G1 . By
ergodicity of X we assume as we may that φ(X) intersects nully the fixed points set of all
proper factors of G′ in U G1 . Replacing U with U G1 minus the union of these fixed points
sets, we may assume that the action of G on U factors through G′ and that proper factors
of G′ have no fixed points. By Corollary 4.3 U/G′ is Hausdorff. Hence by the ergodicity
of X, φ(X) is essentially supported on a unique orbit, which we identify with G′ /H ′ for
some closed subgroup H ′ < G′ . By Corollary 4.2, H ′ is compact in G′ . Letting H be the
preimage of H ′ in G, we deduce that X is induced from H.
In particular, it follows that if X = G/H is G-metrically ergodic then the image of H is
not precompact in G/G1 for every proper factor group G1 ⊳ G.

The fact that metric ergodicity is preserved by a restriction to a lattice is general. We
record it here for reference.
Corollary 6.7. Let G be a semisimple analytic group with a finite center, and Γ a lattice
in G. Then every metrically ergodic G-space Y is also Γ-metrically ergodic.
In particular Γ acts metrically ergodically on G/H whenever H ≤ G is a closed subgroup
whose image in every proper quotient of G is not pre-compact.
Proof. Assume that φ : Y → U is a Γ-equivariant measurable map into a separable metric
space on which Γ acts isometrically. Replacing if necessary the metric d on U by min{d, 1}
we assume that d is bounded. Consider the space of Γ-equivariant measurable maps, defined
up to null sets, L(G, U)Γ , endowed with the metric
sZ
d(α(x), β(x))2 dx
D(α, β) =
Γ\G

where the integration is taken over a fundamental domain for Γ in G. Define the map
ψ : Y → L(G, U)Γ by ψ(y)(g) = φ(gy). Note that indeed, ψ(y) is Γ-invariant, and
further ψ intertwines the G-action on Y and the G-action on L(G, U)Γ coming from the
right regular action of G. By G-metric ergodicity of Y we conclude that ψ is essentially
constant. The essential image is a G-invariant function on G, thus a constant function
to U. This constant in turn is the essential image of φ, thus φ is essentially constant as
well.

Recall that for probability measure preserving actions, metric ergodicity is equivalent to
the weak mixing property.
Corollary 6.8. Let G be a semisimple analytic group with a finite center and no compact
factors. Let µ be an admissible probability measure on G. Let (X, ν) be a G-Lebesgue space
endowed with a µ-stationary ergodic probability measure. Then X is metrically ergodic. In
particular, if the action on X is measure preserving then X weakly mixing (and in fact it
is mixing modulo the action kernel).

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

21

In fact, in the measure preserving case, G′ y X is even mixing, as we shall see in
8.4. Below we sketch the proof of the corollary. Since we do not want to dive into the
details of the subject here, we address the interested reader to [BF] for further details and
clarifications. Assume that X is not metrically ergodic. By Theorem 6.6, there exists
a (non-compact) quotient group G′ , a compact group H ′ < G′ and an equivariant map
φ : X → G′ /H ′ . Denote ν ′ = φ∗ (ν). Since ν ′ is recurrent with respect to a random sequence
in G, while the action is dissipative, we get a contradiction. We further remark that by the
theory of Furstenberg–Poisson boundaries, it is a general fact that the question of metric
ergodicity of a stationary measure reduces to the invariant measure case. Indeed, the
Furstenberg–Poisson boundary of a group, with respect to an admissible measure, is always
a metrically ergodic action. It follows that for a stationary space X and an equivariant map
into a metric space, X → U, the pushed measure is invariant: the associated boundary
map from the Furstenberg–Poisson boundary to Prob(U) must be constant, due to the
existence of a natural invariant metric on Prob(U). Thus the corollary above is reduced to
the classical theorem of Howe–Moore, Theorem 8.4 which we will prove independently.
Corollary 6.9. Let G be a semisimple analytic group with a finite center. Let Y be a
metrically ergodic G-space. Let X be an ergodic probability measure preserving G-Lebesgue
space. Then the diagonal action of G on X × Y is metrically ergodic.
Proof. Assume that φ : X × Y → U is a G-equivariant measurable map into a separable
metric space on which G acts isometrically. By replacing if necessary the metric d on U
by min{d, 1} we may assume that d is bounded. Consider the space of measurable maps,
defined up to null sets, L(X, U), endowed with the metric
sZ
D(α, β) =
d(α(x), β(x))2 dx.
X

Define the map ψ : Y → L(X, U) by ψ(y)(x) = φ(x, y). Note that ψ is G-equivariant.
By the G-metric ergodicity of Y we conclude that ψ is essentially constant. The essential
image is a G-equivariant map from X to U. By Corollary 6.8, X is metrically ergodic
as well, thus the latter map is also essentially constant. It follows that φ was essentially
constant to begin with.

7. Monoid compactifications
7.1. Ellis joint continuity. Let G be a topological group, X a topological space and
G × X → X an action. We will say that the action is separately continuous if for every
x0 ∈ X and g0 ∈ G both maps
G → X, g 7→ gx0

and X → X, x 7→ g0 x

are continuous. We will say that the action is jointly continuous if the map
G × X → X, (g, x) 7→ gx
is continuous.

22

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

Lemma 7.1. Let G be a topological group, X a locally compact topological space and
G × X → X a separately continuous action. Consider the left regular action of G on
C0 (X) endowed with the sup-norm topology. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) The action of G on X is jointly continuous.
(2) For every f ∈ C0 (X), the orbit map G → C0 (X) given by g 7→ f (g −1·) is continuous.
(3) The action of G on C0 (X) is jointly continuous.
Proof. The fact that (1) implies (3) is standard. Clearly (3) implies (2) (in fact, the converse
implication is given by Lemma 2.8). We prove that (2) implies (1). By Urysohn’s lemma,
the collection of subsets of X of the form f −1 (W ) for f ∈ C0 (X) and W open in C is a
subbasis for the topology. Fixing f and W , our aim is to show that for every g ∈ G and
x ∈ X with gx ∈ f −1 (W ) there exists an open set (g, x) ∈ U × V ⊂ G × X such that
U · V ⊂ f −1 (W ). Choose ǫ > 0 for which the disc B(f (gx), ǫ) ⊂ W and let
V = (g −1 f )−1 (B(g −1 f (x), ǫ/2)).
Let U −1 ⊂ G be the preimage of B(g −1 f, ǫ/2) ⊂ C0 (X) under the f -orbit map G →
C0 (X), h 7→ h−1 f . Then U is open by our continuity assumption, and for h ∈ U, y ∈ V ,
|f (hy) − f (gx)| ≤ |(h−1 f − g −1 f )(y)| + |g −1 f (y) − g −1 f (x)| < kh−1 f − g −1 f k + ǫ/2 < ǫ,
i.e. f (hy) ∈ W . Thus, U · V ⊂ f −1 (W ).



Theorem 7.2 (Ellis). Let G be a locally compact group and X a locally compact space.
Then every separately continuous action of G on X is jointly continuous.
This is a corollary of Ellis’ joint continuity theorem [El57]. We give below an independent
short proof, assuming that G is first countable. We will relay on the following well known
fact.
Proposition 7.3. For a representation of a locally compact group on a Banach space by
bounded operators, the following are equivalent:
• the orbit maps are weakly continuous
• the orbit maps are strongly continuous.
Proof. This is a standard approximate identity argument, see for example [LG65, Theorem 2.8].

Proof of Theorem 7.2 for first countable groups. In view of Proposition 7.3 and Lemma 7.1,
it is enough to show that for f ∈ C0 (X), the orbit map g 7→ gf is weakly continuous. By
Riesz’ representation theorem every functional on C0 (X) is represented by a finite complex
measure and by the Hahn-Jordan decomposition it is enough to consider a positive measure
µ. By the first countability of G itR is enough to
R prove that for a converging sequence in G,
gn → g, we have the convergence gn f dµ → gf dµ. This indeed follows from Lebesgue’s
bounded convergence theorem.


EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

23

7.2. Monoids. Let (X, T ) be a compact semi-topological monoid. By this we mean that
X is a monoid and T is a compact topology on X for which the product is separately
continuous — for each y ∈ X the functions
X → X, x 7→ xy

and X → X, x 7→ yx

are both continuous, but the map X × X → X may not be. Note that C(X) is invariant
under left and right multiplication. For every f ∈ C(X) we denote xf (y) = f (yx) and let
Sf be the uniform structure obtained on X by pulling back the sup-norm uniform structure
from C(X) via the orbit map X → C(X), x 7→ xfW
. We let S be the uniform structure on
X generated by all the structures Sf , that is S = f ∈C(X) Sf .
Lemma 7.4. The topology T is S-compatible.

Proof. Note that by Urysohn’s lemma T is the weakest topology on X generated by the
functions in C(X). Thus it is enough to show that for a given f ∈ C(X), the topology Tf ,
generated on X by f , is S-compatible. We will show that it is in fact Sf -compatible.
Fix x ∈ X and ǫ > 0 and consider V = f −1 (B(f (x), ǫ)) ∈ Tf . Set
V ′ = f −1 (B(f (x), ǫ/2)) ∈ Tf

and U = {(y, z) | kyf − zf k < ǫ/2} ∈ Sf .

For y ∈ UV ′ there exists some z ∈ V ′ such that (y, z) ∈ U. Therefore
|f (y) − f (x)| ≤ |yf (e) − zf (e)| + |f (z) − f (x)| < kyf − zf k + ǫ/2 < ǫ,
and thus y ∈ V . It follows that UV ′ ⊂ V .



Let now G be a locally compact group with a continuous monoid morphism G → (X, T ).
Note that by Theorem 7.2 the product map G × X → X is continuous.
Lemma 7.5. The action of G on (X, S) is continuous and equicontinuous.
Proof. It is enough to show that for every f ∈ C(X) the action of G on (X, Sf ) is continuous and equicontinuous. Fix f ∈ C(X). We first show that the action on (X, Sf ) is
equicontinuous. For every ǫ > 0 consider the uniformity
U = {(x, y) | kxf − yf k < ǫ}.
Then
gU = {(gx, gy) | kxf − yf k < ǫ} = {(x, y) | kg −1(xf − yf )k < ǫ} =
{(x, y) | kxf − yf k < ǫ} = U,
and uniform continuity follows. We now show that the action is continuous. By Lemma 2.8
it is enough to show that for a given x ∈ X the x-orbit map G → (X, TSf ) is continuous.
This is equivalent to showing that the xf -orbit map G → C(X) is strongly continuous,
which is given by Lemma 7.1.

Let us summarize the conclusions of this section:

24

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

Theorem 7.6. Let G be a locally compact group and (X, T ) a compact semi-topological
monoid. Suppose we are given a continuous monoid representation G → X and let S be
the associated uniform structure on X. Then
• T is an S-compatible,
• the left regular action G y X is jointly continuous with respect to both topologies
T and TS , and
• G y X is equicontinuous with respect to S.
7.3. Weakly almost periodic rigidity. Let G be a locally compact group. By a monoid
representation of G we mean a continuous monoid homomorphism from G into a compact
semi-topological monoid.
Example 7.7. If G is non-compact we denote by G∗ the one-point compactification of G,
G ∪ {∞}, with the multiplication extended from that of G by
g∞ = ∞g = ∞∞ = ∞
for every g ∈ G. We let i∗ : G → G∗ be the obvious embedding. If G is compact we
set G∗ = G and i∗ = the identity map. In both cases, i∗ : G → G∗ form a monoid
representation of G.
We will say that a monoid representation with dense image i : G → X is universal
if for every monoid representation j : G → Y there exists a unique continuous monoid
homomorphism k : X → Y such that j = ki. The pair (i, X) will be referred as a universal
system.
Theorem 7.8. The locally compact group G admits a universal monoid representation
i : G → X. Every two universal systems are uniquely isomorphic. Furthermore, i is a
homeomorphism into its image and i(G) is open and dense in X.
Proof. The collection of isomorphism classes of monoid representations of G with dense
images forms a set; it could be described for example as a subset of the set of all norm
closed subalgebras of Cb (G). Pick one representative for each class and consider the product
space of those, let i be the diagonal morphism from G to this product space and let X be
the closure of i(G). The existence of k follows immediately. The uniqueness of k follows
by the fact that i(G) is dense in X, and the uniqueness of the pair (i, X) is obvious. That
i(G) is open follows from the fact that G∗ is a factor of X.

Definition 7.9. The representation alluded to in Theorem 7.8 is called WAP(G).
The representation WAP(G) was defined and studied by de Leeuw and Glicksberg. Our
presentation here is slightly different from theirs.
Remark 7.10. By the Gelfand–Neumark theory, compactifications of G correspond to
point separating ∗-subalgebras of Cb (G), where general ∗-subalgebras of the latter correspond to compactifications of (topological) quotients of G, and the Stone–Čech (the largest)

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

25

compactification correspond to the full algebra Cb (G). Among these, the monoid representations of G correspond to subalgebras carrying an additional structure, and WAP(G)
corresponds to the largest such algebra. It can be shown that it is the algebra of weakly
almost periodic functions on G, hence the notation. We will not elaborate on the point of
view of almost periodic functions on G.
Definition 7.11. A group G will be said to be WAP-rigid if WAP(G) ≃ G∗ .
Example 7.12. If G is compact then clearly WAP(G) = G = G∗ and G is WAP-rigid.
The following theorem, which was proved first in [Ve79] and [EN89] (for simple Lie
groups), could be seen as a special case of Theorem 7.14 below. For clarity we give a
separate proof.
Theorem 7.13 ([Ve79],[EN89]). Let G be an almost simple analytic group over a local
field. Then G is WAP-rigid.
Proof. We assume G is non-compact. Let j : G → X be any monoid representation of
G. We will construct a continuous monoid morphism k : G∗ → X satisfying j = ki∗ .
Such a morphism is clearly unique. In view of Theorem 7.6 we are in the situation to
apply Theorem 4.1 to either the left or the right actions of G on X. Upon replacing X
with X × G∗ we may assume that j(G) = Ge = eG is non-compact. We therefore get
by Theorem 4.1 the existence of a point x ∈ j(G) which is right G-invariant and a point
y ∈ j(G) which is left G-invariant. By continuity of the product in X we have x = xy = y.
It follows that x is the unique left G-invariant point in j(G). We then define k : G∗ → X
by setting k(g) = ge for g ∈ G and k(∞) = x. Clearly k is a continuous morphism.

We now discuss semisimple (rather than simple) groups. Let G be a finite centred
semisimple analytic group over a local field. Then G = G0 G1 · · · Gn where G0 is compact
and G1 , . . . , Gn are the non-compact almost simple factors. For each I ⊂ {1, . . . , n} we let
Y
GI =
Gi < G and GI = G/GI .
i∈I

{1,...,n}

In particular, G
is a quotient of G0 hence a compact group. Note that for I ⊆ J
there is a natural `
homomorphisms φIJ : GI → GJ . We denote φJ = φ∅J : G → GJ .
We define Ǧ = I⊆{1,...,n} GI . The sets of the form
[
[
′
′
(φJJ )−1 (U) and Ǧ \
(φJJ )−1 (K),
J ′ ⊆J

J ′ ⊆J

where J is a subset of {1, . . . , n}, U ⊂ GJ is open and K ⊂ GJ is compact, generate a
compact Hausdorff topology on Ǧ. We always refer to this topology when regarding Ǧ as
a topological space. In order to understand this topology it might be helpful to note that
for I ⊆ {1, . . . , n} and a sequence gn ∈ GI , Ǧ- lim gn = lim φJ (gn ) if and only if the right
hand side limit, which is the standard limit in the group GJ , exists, where J is the minimal
set satisfying I ⊆ J ⊆ {1, . . . , n} for which φIJ (gn ) is bounded.

26

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

We introduce a natural monoid structure on Ǧ as follows. For I, J ⊆ {1, . . . , n} and
g ∈ GI , h ∈ GJ we set gh = φII∩J (g)φJI∩J (h) ∈ GI∩J . This makes Ǧ a compact semitopological monoid.
Theorem 7.14. WAP(G) ≃ Ǧ.
Proof. We prove the theorem by induction on n, the number of non-compact simple factors
of G. The induction basis is the case n = 1 which follows from Theorem 7.13. We let
j : G → X be a monoid representation. For any I ( {1, . . . , n} we have by our induction
hypothesis WAP(GI ) = ǦI . In particular WAP(GI ) has a unique left GI -fixed point which
is also a unique right GI -fixed point (as GI has no compact factor). It follows that there
is a unique left GI -fixed point which is also a unique right GI -fixed point in j(GI ). We
denote it by eI . We define a map Ǧ → X by sending g ∈ GI to geI . One checks that this
is a continuous morphism.

8. WAP representations and mixing
Let k be a topological field. Let V, V ′ be k-vector spaces and h·, ·i : V ×V ′ → k a bilinear
form. For v ∈ V and φ ∈ V ′ we denote φ(v) = hv, φi. We assume that the elements of
V ′ separate the points in V and the elements of V separate the points of V ′ . We denote
′
by End(V )V the algebra of endomorphisms T ∈ End(V ) satisfying for every φ ∈ V ′ that
φ ◦ T is represented by an element (necessarily unique) of V ′ , to be denoted T φ.
We endow V with the weak topology, namely the weakest topology for which every φ ∈ V ′
′
is a continuous function to k. Note that the elements of End(V )V are continuous functions
from V to V . Considering the Tychonoff topology on (V, weak)V , using the embedding
End(V ) → V V , T 7→ (T v)v , we obtain the weak operator topology on End(V ), and in
′
′
particular on End(V )V . Check that the composition operation on End(V )V is continuous
′
(separately) in each variable, thus End(V )V becomes a semi-topological monoid. Note
′
that A ⊂ End(V )V is precompact if and only if Av is precompact in V for every v.
Let G be a topological group. By a continuous representation of G to V we mean a
′
continuous monoid homomorphism ρ : G → End(V )V . The representation ρ is said to
′
be weakly almost periodic, or WAP, if ρ(G) is precompact in End(V )V , or equivalently, if
ρ(G)v is precompact in V for every v ∈ V . In that case, ρ(G) is a semi-topological compact
monoid.
A representation of G on a Banach space V is said to be a Banaach WAP representaton
if it is WAP with respect to the pairing of V with V ∗ , the space of bounded functionals on
V.
Example 8.1. Let U be a Banach space, and consider a strongly continuous homomorphism G → Iso(U). Let V = U ∗ and V ′ = U, the pairing be the usual one, and the
representation ρ be the contragradient representation. By Banach–Alaoglu theorem, ρ is
a WAP representation. A special case of this example is any isometric representation on
a reflexive Banach space, and in particular any unitary representation on a Hilbert space.
In these cases ρ is a Banach WAP representation.

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

27

The following is an immediate application of Theorem 7.8.
Corollary 8.2. Let G be a locally compact topological group and let i : G → X be its
universal monoid representation into a compact semi-topological monoid. Then every WAP′
representation ρ : G → End(V )V factors as a representation of X, that is there exists a
′
continuous monoid homomorphism ρ′ : X → End(V )V such that ρ = ρ′ ◦ i.
′

For a locally compact topological group G, ρ : G → End(V )V is said to be mixing if for
every v ∈ V , φ ∈ V ′ ,
lim hgv, φi = 0.
g→∞

Theorem 7.14 gives a structure theorem of representation of semisimple groups.
Theorem 8.3. Let G be a semisimple group and let ρ : G →L
V be a WAP representation.
Then V decomposes as a direct sum of representations V = I⊂{1,...,n} VI such that on VI
the G-representation factors through GI and proper factors of GI have no fixed points in
VI . Furthermore, for every I, the representation VI is GI mixing.
A special case of Theorem 8.3 is the classical theorem of Howe–Moore [HM79].
Theorem 8.4 ([HM79, Theorem 5.1]). Let G be a semisimple analytic group with a finite
center (the F point of a Zariski connected semisimple algebraic group G, defined over a
local field F ) and no compact factor. Then every ergodic probability preserving action is
mixing modulo the action kernel.
Proof. Apply the last corollary to the Koopman representation.



9. Banach modules
We shall now concentrate on the special case of uniformly bounded representations on
Banach spaces. The main result of this section, Theorem 9.2, is a straightforward consequence of Theorem 8.3, when G is a semisimple group. However, because of the importance
of this special case, and for the convenience of the users, we decided to give a self contained
discussion that avoids the more general notion of WAP representations. In particular, we
shall provide an alternative proof for Theorem 9.2. Since we shall rely in this section only
on Theorem 4.1, we can state the results for the class of quasi-semisimple groups rather
than semisimple groups.
Let V be a Banach space and S the norm uniform structure on V . We denote by B(V )
the algebra of bounded linear operator on V and by GL(V ) the group of invertibles in
B(V ). A group representation ρ : G → GL(V ) is said to be uniformly bounded if
sup kρ(g)kop < ∞,
g∈G

i.e. if it induces a uniform action on (V, S). We denote by ρ∗ : G → GL(V ∗ ) the dual
(contragradient) representation. Since kρ(g)∗ kop = kρ(g)kop , ρ∗ is uniformly bounded iff ρ
is. We will focus on the case where G is a topological group and the representation ρ is
continuous with respect to the strong operator topology.

28

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

Definition 9.1. We will say that (V, ρ) is a G-Banach module if V is a Banach space, G
is a topological group and ρ : G → GL(V ) is a uniformly bounded representation which is
continuous in the sense that the map G × V → V, (g, v) 7→ ρ(g)(v) is continuous. We will
say that (V, ρ) is a G-Banach ∗-module if also the dual representation ρ∗ : G → GL(V ∗ ) is
continuous in the same sense.
By Lemma 2.8, ρ is continuous iff its orbit maps are continuous. We note that by [Me98,
Corollary 6.9] if V is Asplund (e.g if V is reflexive) and G is an arbitrary topological group
then every G-Banach module is automoatically a ∗-module.
Apart from the norm topology, V and V ∗ are equipped with the weak and the weak∗
(hereafter w and w ∗ ) topologies. It is obvious that these topologies are compatible with
the norm uniform structure. If G is locally compact, it follows by a standard argument
of approximating identity in L1 (G) that a uniformly bounded representation is strongly
continuous iff it is weakly continuous, see for example [LG65, Theorem 2.8]. This is also
the case when V is reflexive and G is arbitrary, see [Me01, Me03].
Theorem 9.2. Let G be a quasi-semisimple group. Let (V, ρ) be a G-Banach ∗-module.
Assume that no point in V ∗ \ {0} is fixed by a non-compact normal subgroup of G. Then
for every f ∈ V ∗ ,
w∗
Gf = Gf ∪ {0},
and ρ is mixing in the sense that all matrix coefficients tend to 0.
Proof. Given f ∈ V ∗ \ {0}, consider the space X = conv(Gf ) \ {0}. Let S be the norm
uniform structure on X and T the weak*-topology. By the Hahn–Banach and Alaoglu’s
theorems (X, T ) is locally compact. By Corollary 4.2, Gf is weak*-closed in X and homeomorphic to the coset space G/Gf , where the stabiliser Gf is compact. Thus the orbit Gf
is non-compact. It follows that it is not weak*-closed in the compact space conv(Gf ), and
w∗
hence that Gf = Gf ∪ {0}. Since the latter is compact while Gf is a proper G space, it
follows that gf → 0 (in the weak-∗ sense) when g → ∞ in G.

Remark 9.3. It follows, for instance, that for a non-compact QSS simple group G, the
existence of a nonzero invariant vector (or more generally a vector with a non-compact
stabiliser) in a Banach ∗-module V implies the existence of a non-zero invariant vector
in V ∗ . This property does not hold for general groups; for example consider the regular
representation of a discrete non-amenable group Γ on the space L∞ (Γ).
When V is reflexive, the a priory weaker assumption that G doesn’t fix a vector in V , is
actually sufficient.
Lemma 9.4. Let L be a group and ρ : L → GL(V ) a uniformly bounded linear representation on a reflexive Banach space V . If L has a non-zero invariant vector in V ∗ then it
has a non-zero invariant vector in V .
Proof. Suppose that f ∈ V ∗ is an L-invariant norm one functional. The invariant set of
supporting unit vectors
Sf = {v ∈ V : hf, vi = kvk = 1}

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

29

is non-empty by the Hahn–Banach theorem and weakly compact by Alaoglu’s theorem.
Hence the Ryll-Nardzewski fixed-point theorem implies that L admits a fixed point in
Sf

Corollary 9.5 (Howe–Moore’s theorem for reflexive Banach spaces, [Ve79]). Let G be a
quasi-semisimple group. Let (V, ρ) be a reflexive G-Banach module. Assume that no point
in V \ {0} is fixed by a non-compact normal subgroup of G. Then for every f ∈ V ∗ ,
w∗
Gf = Gf ∪ {0}, and ρ is mixing.
We conclude this paper by remarking that for every group G, every WAP function on
G appears as a matrix coefficient of some reflexive representation. This result is due to
[Me03], following the important main theorem of [DFJP74]. In this regard, one reverses
the logical order and use Corollary 9.5 in order to prove results on WAP compactifications.
10. Further discussion
In writing this paper, our general attitude was to use the axiomatic approach as long as it
simplifies and clarifies the discussion, but to keep in mind that the main objects of interest
are the classical semisimple groups over local fields. We held, until now, the temptation
of further generalize and axiomatize the results in the price of possibly obscuring their
formulation. We will do this (generalize and obscure) in this section.
Definition 10.1. A locally compact group is called hereditary qss (or hqss) if every noncompact quotient of it is qss.
It is clear that semisimple groups over local fields are hqss. We invite the enthusiastic
reader to check that (mutatis mutandis) Theorem 6.2, Theorem 6.4, Theorem 6.6, Corollary 6.7, Corollary 6.8, Corollary 6.9 and Theorem 8.4 are all still valid for the class of hqss
group.
Obviously, every simple qss group is hqss (more generally: almost simple qss groups,
qss groups for which every proper normal subgroup is precompact), thus the examples
discussed in Theorem 3.7 are hqss. Note also that the class HQSS consisting of hqss groups
is closed under taking products (and quotients). The reader is also invited to check that
Theorem 7.13 is valid for (almost) simple qss groups and Theorem 7.14 for products of
such.
References
[AT]

A. Arhangelskii, and M. Tkachenko, Topological Groups and Related Structures, An Introduction to Topological Algebra. Atlantis Press, Paris; World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.,
Hackensack, NJ, 2008.
[BGFM07] U. Bader, A. Furman, T. Gelander, and N. Monod, Property (T ) and rigidity for actions on
Banach spaces. Acta Math., 198(1):57–105, 2007.
[BF]
U. Bader, A. Furman, The structure of stationary actions, in preparation.
[BW80]
A. Borel, N. R. Wallach, Continuous cohomology, discrete subgroups, and representations of
reductive groups. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 94. Princeton University Press, Princeton,
N.J.; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1980. xvii+388 pp.

30

[BM00]
[DU98]
[CC]
[Ci]
[Co]

[Co79]
[DFJP74]
[DM14]
[El57]
[EN89]
[vE51]
[Ge08]
[GF52]
[Go48]
[Go73]
[GY50]
[Ho39]
[HM79]
[Ka81]
[LG65]
[LM92]

[Ma90]
[Ma57]
[Ma97]
[Me98]
[Me01]

URI BADER AND TSACHIK GELANDER

M. Burger, S. Mozes, Groups acting on trees: from local to global structure. Inst. Hautes
Études Sci. Publ. Math. 92 (2000), 113-150.
D. Dikranjan, V. Uspenskij, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra. 126(1-3): ( 1998) 149–168.
P.E. Caprace, C. Ciobotaru, Gelfand pairs and strong transitivity for Euclidean buildings.
preprint.
C. Ciobotaru, A unified proof of the Howe–Moore property. preprint.
M. Cowling, Sur les coefficients des représentations unitaires des groupes de Lie simples.
Analyse harmonique sur les groupes de Lie (Sm., Nancy–Strasbourg 1976–1978), II, pp. 132–
178, Lecture Notes in Math., 739, Springer, Berlin, 1979.
M. Cowling, The Fourier–Stieltjes algebra of a semisimple group. Colloq. Math. 41 (1979), no.
1, 8994.
W. Davis, T. Figiel, W.B. Johnson, A. Pelczynski, Factoring weakly compact operators. J.
Func. Anal. 7 (1974), 311–327.
D. Dikranjan, M. Megrelishvili, Minimality conditions in topological groups. Recent progress
in general topology. III, 229–327, Atlantis Press, Paris, 2014.
R. Ellis. Locally compact transformation groups. Duke Math. J. 24, (1957), 119–125.
R. Ellis, M. Nerurkar, Weakly almost periodic flows. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 313 (1989), no.
1, 103–119.
W. T. van Est, Dense imbeddings of Lie groups. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. A. 54 =
Indagationes Math. 13, (1951). pp. 321–328.
T. Gelander, On fixed points and uniformly convex spaces. 2 pages, arXiv:0805.3813.
I.M. Gelfand, S.V. Fomin, Geodesic flows on manifolds of constant negative curvature. Uspehi
Matem. Nauk (N.S.) 7, (1952). no. 1(47), 118–137.
M. Goto, Faithful representations of Lie groups. I. Math. Japonicae 1, (1948). 107–119.
M. Goto, Absolutely closed Lie groups. Math. Ann. 204 (1973), 337–341.
M. Goto, H. Yamabe, On continuous isomorphisms of topological groups. Nagoya Math. J. 1,
(1950). 109–111.
E. Hopf, Statistik der geodtischen Linien in Mannigfaltigkeiten negativer Krmmung. Ber. Verh.
Schs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig 91, (1939). 261–304.
R. Howe, C. Moore, Asymptotic properties of unitary representations. J. Funct. Anal. 32
(1979), no. 1, 72–96.
S. Kaijser, On Banach modules. I. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 90 (1981), no. 3,
423–444.
K. de Leeuw, I. Glicksberg, The decomposition of certain group representations. J. Analyse
Math. 15, 1965, 135–192.
A. Lubotzky, S. Mozes, Asymptotic properties of unitary representations of tree automorphisms. Harmonic analysis and discrete potential theory (Frascati, 1991), 289–298, Plenum,
New York, 1992.
G.A. Margulis, Discrete Subgroups of Semisimple Lie Groups, Springer–Verlag, 1990.
F.I. Mautner, Geodesic flows on symmetric Riemann spaces. Ann. of Math. (2) 65 (1957),
416–431.
M. Mayer, A symptotics of matrix coefficients and closures of Fourier–Stieltjes algebras. J.
Funct. Anal. 143 (1997), no. 1, 42–54.
M. Megrelishvili, Fragmentability and continuity of semigroup actions. Semigroup Forum, 57
(1998), 101–126.
M. Megrelishvili, Operator topologies and reflexive representability. Nuclear groups and Lie
groups, Research and Exposition in Math. series, vol. 24, Heldermann Verlag Berlin, 2001,
197–208.

EQUICONTINUOUS ACTIONS OF SEMISIMPLE GROUPS

[Me03]
[Mo66]
[Mo70]

[Om66]
[Pa70]
[Pr82]
[SvN50]
[Sh66]
[Ve79]
[Zi77]

31

M. Megrelishvili, Fragmentability and representations of flows. Topology Proceedings, 27:2
(2003), 497–544.
C. C. Moore, Ergodicity of flows on homogeneous spaces. Amer. J. Math. 88 1966 154–178.
C. C. Moore, Restrictions of unitary representations to subgroups and ergodic theory, in Group
representations in mathematics and physics., Lecture Notes in Physics, no. 6, Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1970.
H. Omori Homomorphic images of Lie groups, J. Math. Soc. Japan. 18, (1966), 97–117.
R. Palais. When proper maps are closed. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 24, (1970), 835–836.
G. Prasad, Elementary proof of a theorem of Bruhat–Tits–Rousseau and of a theorem of Tits.
Bull. Soc. Math. France 110 (1982), no. 2, 197–202.
I. E. Segal, J. von Neumann, A theorem on unitary representations of semisimple Lie groups,
Ann. of Math. (2), 52, 1950, 509–517.
T. Sherman, A weight theory for unitary representations. Canad. J. Math. 18 1966 159–168.
W. Veech, Weakly almost periodic functions on semisimple Lie groups. Monatsh. Math. 88
(1979), no. 1, 55–68.
R. J. Zimmer, Orbit spaces of unitary representations, ergodic theory, and simple Lie groups.
Ann. of Math. (2) 106 (1977), no. 3, 573–588.

