APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION, I:
AUTO-CORRELATION OF MODEL SETS

arXiv:1602.08928v2 [math.DS] 2 Apr 2017

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI
A BSTRACT. We study uniform and non-uniform model sets in arbitrary locally compact second countable (lcsc) groups, which provide a natural generalization of uniform model sets in
locally compact abelian groups as defined by Meyer and used as mathematical models of quasicrystals. We then define a notion of auto-correlation for subsets of finite local complexitiy in
arbitrary lcsc groups, which generalizes Hof’s classical definition beyond the class of amenable
groups, and provide a formula for the auto-correlation of a regular model set. Along the way
we show that the punctured hull of an arbitrary regular model set admits a unique invariant
probability measure, even in the case where the punctured hull is non-compact and the group
is non-amenable. In fact this measure is also the unique stationary measure with respect to any
admissible probability measure.

1. I NTRODUCTION
Aperiodic point sets in Euclidean space are a classical object of study in geometry, combinatorics and harmonic analysis. The diffraction theory of such point sets was pioneered
by Meyer already in the late 1960s [28, 29, 30]. However, it came to a wider popularity only
in the 1980s, after the discovery of quasi-crystals and the subsequent attempts of physicists,
crystallographers and mathematicians to provide mathematical models [21, 25, 17] explaining
the icosahedral symmetry in the diffraction picture of certain aluminium-manganese alloys
discovered experimentally by Shechtman et al. [38]. Diffraction theory of aperiodic point
sets in locally compact abelian groups, sometimes called mathematical quasi-crystals, has remained a popular topic in abelian harmonic analysis ever since. The recent monograph [1]
lists several hundred references. Among these, the following were particularly influential on
the current article: [13, 18, 37, 31, 3]. Further developments in the theory of mathematical
quasicrystals (including diffraction theory) are covered in the works [19, 39, 23, 33, 16, 5, 4,
24, 26, 27, 35, 20, 40, 32, 2].
From the point of view of physics and crystallography, it is natural to restrict the attention
to quasi-crystals in Rn , n ≤ 3. From the mathematical point of view, this restriction is rather
unnatural, and mathematical quasi-crystals have since long been studied in Euclidean spaces
of arbitrary dimensions and in arbitrary locally compact abelian groups. However, there is no
reason to stop at the class of locally compact abelian groups. In fact, in the present article and
its sequel [9] we demonstrate that a large part of the diffraction theory of mathematical quasicrystals can be carried out in the framework of arbitrary locally-compact second countable
(lcsc) groups. More specifically, our goals in this series of articles are three-fold:
(1) to construct plenty of examples of mathematical quasi-crystals in non-abelian (and
even non-amenable) lcsc groups, and to point out some of the new phenomena which
appear in this context;
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 52C23; Secondary: 22D40, 22E40, 37A45.
1

2

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

(2) to develop a theory of diffraction, which works in our general context, and specializes
to the classical theory in the abelian case;
(3) to compute in a rather explicit way the (spherical) diffraction of our examples.
Classically, the diffraction of a quasi-crystal in Rn is defined as the Fourier transform of its
so-called auto-correlation measure. Similarly, our diffraction theory for quasi-crystals in nonabelian groups will consist of two parts. In this first part we are going to develop the theory
of auto-correlation measures of quasi-crystals in the non-abelian setting. The sequel [9] will
then be concerned with the (spherical) Fourier transform of this auto-correlation, which we
consider as a natural notion of non-abelian diffraction.
1.1. Model sets
A special role in the Euclidean theory of quasi-crystals is played by so-called model sets,
as introduced by Meyer [28, 29, 30]. These are aperiodic sets constructed by a cut-and-project
scheme from lattices in products of locally compact abelian groups. We extend this definition
to arbitrary lcsc groups in Definition 2.6 below after some preliminary definitions. For the
purposes of this introduction it suffices to know that a model set is constructed starting from
a lattice Γ in a product G × H of lcsc groups by choosing a compact subset W0 ⊂ H (called
the window) and projecting (G × W0 ) ∩ Γ to G. Under certain technical assumptions on the
quadruple (G, H, Γ, W0 ) (see Definition 2.6) we call the resulting set P0 a regular model set. We
say that P0 is uniform or non-uniform depending on whether Γ has the corresponding property.
Note that all regular model sets in lcsc abelian groups are uniform, hence the existence of
non-uniform model sets is a new phenomenon in the non-abelian setting.
An important property of model sets is their finite local complexity: If P is a model set in a
lcsc group G, then P −1 P is locally finite, i.e. closed and discrete. In fact, it is even uniformly
discrete. In the Euclidean context one can show that conversely a relatively dense subset
P ⊂ Rn has a uniformly discrete difference set P − P if and only if it is a relatively dense
subset of a model set, cf. [22, 31]. There is no analogous classification theorem for non-abelian
groups, but model sets can still be defined and studied in complete analogy with the abelian
case.
Model sets exist in many unimodular lcsc groups. For example, every semisimple real
Lie group admits a model set which is not contained in a lattice. Non-uniform model sets
exist in many real and p-adic semisimple Lie groups, despite the fact that semisimple p-adic
Lie groups never admit non-uniform lattices. Model sets in nilpotent Lie groups are always
uniform, and not every nilpotent group contains a (uniform) model set. However, the class
of nilpotent Lie groups containing a uniform model set is substantially larger than the class
of nilpotent Lie groups containing a lattice [8]. For more on these and other examples see
Subsection 2.3.
1.2. A general framework for auto-correlation
We now present a general framework for auto-correlation of subset of finite local complexity in lcsc groups, which we are going to apply to model sets. The standard definition of the
auto-correlation of a quasi-crystal in Rn is due to Hof [18]. Let us first consider the case where
P0 ⊂ R3 is a subset of finite local complexity with the property that the finite sums
σt (f ) :=

1
Vol(Bt (0))

X

X

x∈P0 ∩Bt (0) y∈P0 ∩Bt (0)

f (y − x)

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

3

converge as t → ∞ for every f ∈ Cc (R3 ), where Bt (0) denotes the Euclidean ball of radius t
around the origin. For example, these assumptions are satisfied if P0 is a model set in R3 . In
this situation, the Hof diffraction of P0 can be defined as the Radon measure ηP0 on R3 given
by
ηP0 (f ) = lim σt (f ) (f ∈ Cc (R3 )).
t→∞

If the finite sums σt (f ) do not converge, then one can consider the different accumulation
points, but the significance of such arbitrary accumulation points is rather unclear.
Hof’s definition of auto-correlation can be generalized to certain classes of subsets (including uniform regular model sets) of amenable lcsc groups by replacing the sequence Bt (0) by
a suitable Følner sequence (Ft ). Apart from the question of dependence on the Følner sequence (which can be resolved), this does yield a reasonable theory of auto-correlation, but
this approach has no chance to be generalized beyond amenable groups. We thus suggest an
alternative definition of auto-correlation, which works in greater generality.
To define this notion, we recall that the collection C(G) of closed subsets of a lcsc group G
carries a natural compact metrizable topology called the Chabauty–Fell topology (see Subsection 2.4). We consider C(G) as a G-space with respect to the left-translation action and, given
a subset P0 ⊂ G of finite local complexity, we denote by X = XP0 the orbit closure of P0 in
C(G), which we refer to as the hull of P0 . We also consider the punctured hull X × = XP×0 given
by X × := X \ {∅} and define the periodization map of P0 by the formula
X
P : Cc (G) → C0 (XP×0 ), Pf (P ) :=
f (x),
x∈P

where C0× (XP0 ) denotes the space of continuous functions on XP×0 vanishing at infinity. If ν
is a G-invariant probability measure on XP0 , then there is a unique positive-definite Radon
measure ην on G such that
ην (f ∗ ∗ f ) = kPf k2L2 (X × ,ν)

(f ∈ Cc (G)),

and we refer to this measure as the auto-correlation of ν. In many examples of interest, including all regular model sets, there is in fact a unique G-invariant measure on X × ; in this case
we call ηP0 := ην simply the auto-correlation of P0 .
For many FLC subsets of amenable lcsc groups, including the case of uniform regular
model sets in such groups, the above definition is equivalent to Hof’s definition. For example, assume that G is amenable and that P0 ⊂ G if an FLC subset whose punctured hull
X × = XP×0 is compact and uniquely ergodic. Then for all f ∈ Cc (G) we have
1
t→∞ mG (Ft )

ηP0 (f ) = lim

X

X

x∈P0 ∩Ft y∈P0

1
t→∞ mG (Ft )

f (x−1 y) = lim

X

X

f (x−1 y)

(1.1)

x∈P0 ∩Ft y∈P0 ∩Ft

along suitable Følner sequences (Ft ). For example, this holds if (Ft ) is a nested van Hove sequence as defined e.g. in [1], or slightly more generally a weakly admissible Følner sequence
as defined in Definition 5.1 below. The proof of this fact is a straight-forward generalization
of the classical argument in the abelian case.
Remarkably, a version of the first equality in (1.1) still holds in many non-amenable lcsc
groups, despite the fact that such groups do not admit any Følner sequences whatsoever.
We provide some explicit examples of this phenomenon in Theorem 1.2 below. For a more
systematic treatment of approximation theorems for non-amenable groups in the context of
the so-called spherical auto-correlation we refer the reader to the sequel [9]

4

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

1.3. The hull of a regular model set
From now on let P0 ⊂ G be a regular model set associated with a quadruple (G, H, Γ, W0 )
as above. If G is non-amenable and/or the punctured hull X × = XP×0 is not compact, then
it is not a priori clear whether X × admits a G-invariant probability measure, and even if
such a measure exists, it need not be unique a priori. In the context of non-amenable groups
it is actually more natural to consider stationary measures on the punctured hull (see the
discussion preceding Theorem 3.4) and discuss existence and uniqueness of such measures.
In order to study establish both the existence and the uniqueness of stationary or invariant
measures on X × we introduce a certain parametrization map between the punctured hull and
the parameter space Y := (G× H)/Γ, which in the abelian case reduces to Schlottmann’s generalized torus parametrization [36, 37]. The existence of such a parametrization map yields
immediately the following results; here mY denotes the unique (G × H)-invariant probability
measure on Y .
Theorem 1.1 (Punctured hulls of regular model sets). Let P0 be a regular model set and let X × :=
XP×0 . Then there exists a unique G-invariant probability measure ν on X × , which is also the unique
stationary probability measure with respect to any admissible probability measure µ on G. Moreover,
(X × , ν) is measurably G-isomorphic to (Y, mY ). In particular, as unitary G-representations,
L2 (X × , ν) ∼
= L2 (Y, mY ).
Moreover, if P0 is uniform, then X × = X is a compact minimal G-space.
Note that if P0 is non-uniform, then both X × and Y are non-compact. In fact, overcoming
this non-compactness is one of the major technical issues in the proof of the theorem.
1.4. Auto-correlation of regular model sets in semisimple Lie groups
It follows from Theorem 1.1 that for every regular model set P0 in a lcsc group G the autocorrelation ηP0 is well-defined. If G is amenable, then it can equivalently be defined by a limit
over Følner sets as in (1.1). A similar approximation formula also holds if G is a semisimple
Lie group (and in particular non-amenable). Let us start with a concrete example:
Example (Approximation formula for regular model sets in PSL2 (R)). Let H2 be the upper
half space model of the hyperbolic plane, and denote by π : T 1 H2 → H2 its unit tangent
bundle. Given t > 0 we write Bt ⊂ H2 for the hyperbolic ball of radius t around i. The group
G := PSL2 (R) acts by diffeomorphisms on H2 , and the induced action on T 1 H2 is simply
transitive. Let Ft be the subset of G which under the diffeomorphism G ∼
= T 1 H2 corresponds
to π −1 (Bt ). Then for every regular model set P0 ⊂ G the auto-correlation measure ηP0 is
given by
X X
1
f (x−1 y) (f ∈ Cc (G)).
(1.2)
ηP0 (f ) = lim
t→∞ mG (Ft )
x∈Po ∩Ft y∈Po

The formula carries over to arbitrary semisimple Lie groups as follows:
Theorem 1.2 (Approximation formula for regular model sets in semisimple Lie groups). Let
G be a connected semisimple real Lie group with no non-trivial compact factors, and K < G a maximal
compact subgroup. Let d denote the G-invariant Riemannian metric on G/K associated to the CartanKilling form of the symmetric space G/K, and for t > 0 set

Ft = g ∈ G : d(K, gK) ≤ t .

Then for every regular model set P0 ⊂ G the auto-correlation measure ηP0 is given by (1.2).

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

5

1.5. A general formula for the auto-correlation of regular model sets
We conclude this first part with an explicit formula for the auto-correlation of a regular
model set P0 ⊂ G associated with a quadruple (G, H, Γ, W0 ) as above in terms of the associated parameter space Y := (G × H)/Γ the associated parameter space. This formula will be
used in the sequel [9] to relate the spherical diffraction of a regular model set to the automorphic spectrum of the underlying lattice. Given a Riemann-integrable function F : G × H → C
with compact support we denote by
X
PΓ F : Y → C, PΓ F ((g, h)Γ) :=
F ((g, h)γ)
γ∈Γ

its periodization over Γ.
Theorem 1.3 (Auto-correlation formula for regular model sets). The auto-correlation ηP0 of the
regular model set P0 as above is uniquely determined by the formula
ηP0 (f ∗ ∗ f ) = kPΓ (f ⊗ χW0 )k2L2 (Y )

(f ∈ Cc (G)).

(1.3)

1.6. Organization of the article
This article is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce model sets and discuss
several classes of examples. We then collect some basic structural properties concerning the
hull of a regular model set. This knowledge is then applied in Section 3 to construct the
parametrization map of such a hull and to deduce unique ergodicity and (in the uniform case)
minimality. In the construction of the parametrization map we use an alternative description
of the Chabauty–Fell topology on the hull of a model set, which is discussed in detail in
Appendix A. Section 4 is devoted to the construction of the auto-correlation measure and the
proof of Theorem 1.3. Finally, in Section 5 we establish several approximation theorems for
the auto-correlation, including Theorem 1.2.
1.7. Notational conventions
The following notational conventions will be applied throughout this article:
All function spaces are complex-valued and all inner products are anti-linear in the first
variable. Given a locally compact space X we denote by Cc (X), C0 (X) and Cb (X) the function space of compactly supported continuous functions, continuous functions vanishing at
infinity and continuous bounded functions respectively.
Given a group G and a function f : G → C we denote by f¯, fˇ and f ∗ respectively the
functions on G given by
f¯(g) := f (g),

fˇ(g) := f (g −1 ) and

f ∗ (g) := f (g −1 ).

Given an action of G on a set Z we define a G-action on complex-valued functions on Z by
g.f (z) := f (g −1 .z). Moreover we denote by Z G ⊂ Z the subset of G-invariants.
If (X, ν) is a measure space and f, g ∈ L2 (X, ν), then we denote by
Z
f¯ · g dν
hf, giX := hf, gi(X,ν) :=
X

L2 -inner

the
product. Given a subset A ⊂ X we denote by χA its characteristic function.
If G is a locally compact, second countable group, then we denote by mG some fixed choice
of left-Haar measure on G (normalized to total mass 1 in the compact case). We then denote
by C(G), O(G) and K(G) the sets of closed, open and compact subsets of G respectively. We

6

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

also denote by e the identity element of G and by U(G) = Ue (G) the identity neighbourhood
filter of G.
Acknowledgement.
We thank Amos Nevo and Barak Weiss for numerous discussions and their interest in
our work. We also profited from discussions with Michael Baake, Uri Bader, Daniel Lenz,
Christoph Richard, Eitan Sayag, Boris Solomyak and Andreas Strömbergsson. We also thank
the mathematics departments of Chalmers University and Technion, Haifa for their hospitality during our respective visits. Finally we thank the organizers and the participants of the
Oberwolfach Arbeitsgemeinschaft on “Mathematical quasi-crystals” for the opportunity to
present and discuss our work.
2. M ODEL

SETS AND THEIR HULLS

2.1. Delone sets in groups
Let (X, d) be a metric space. Given R > 0 and x ∈ X we denote by B
SR (x) the open
d-ball of radius R around x, and given A ⊂ G we denote by NR (A) := x∈A Br (A) the
R-neighbourhood of A.
Definition 2.1. Let r, R > 0. A non-empty subset P ⊂ X is called
(1) r-uniformly discrete if d(x, y) ≥ r for all x, y ∈ P ;
(2) R-relatively dense if NR (P ) = G;
(3) a (r, R)-Delone set if it is both r-uniformly discrete and R-relatively dense.
It is called uniformly discrete, relatively dense or a Delone set if it has the respective property for
some r, R > 0.
Given a locally-compact second countable (lcsc) group G, let us call a metric d on G admissible if it is proper (i.e. closed balls are compact), left-invariant and induces the given
topology on G. We call a subset P ⊂ G uniformly discrete/relatively dense/a Delone set if it has
the corresponding property for some admissible metric on G, in which case it actually has
the corresponding property for any admissible metric on G. These properties then admit the
following purely topological characterizations (see e.g. [8, Prop. 2.2 and Lemma 2.3]): P ⊂ G
is uniformly discrete if and only if the identity e ∈ G is not an accumulation point of P −1 P .
Equivalently, there exists an open subset V ⊂ G such that |P ∩ gV | ≤ 1 for all g ∈ G. (We then
say that P is V -discrete.) On the other hand, P is relatively dense if and only if it is left-syndetic,
meaning that there exists a compact subset K ⊂ G such that P K = G.
In our further study of Delone sets in lcsc groups we will need the following related notions
of discreteness:
Definition 2.2. Let G be a lcsc group and P ⊂ G be a subset.
(1) P is called locally finite if it is closed and discrete.
(2) P is called (left-)uniformly locally finite if for some (hence any) compact subset K ⊂ G
there exists C > 0 such that |P ∩ gK| < C for all g ∈ G. (We then say that P is
(K, C)-locally finite.)
(3) P has (left-) finite local complexity (FLC) if P −1 P is locally finite.
We then have the chain of implications
P has left-FLC ⇒ P −1 P discrete ⇒ P uniformly discrete

⇒ P left-uniformly locally finite ⇒ P locally finite ⇒ P discrete.

(2.1)

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

7

Analogous characterizations hold with left replaced by right (where we then have to define
uniform discreteness with respect to a right-invariant metric and replace P −1 P by P P −1 ).
2.2. Model sets
We recall that a discrete subgroup Γ of a lcsc group G is a lattice if G/Γ admits a G-invariant
probability measure, and a uniform lattice if G/Γ is moreover compact. We also recall that
every discrete subgroup of a lcsc group is necessarily closed, hence locally finite.
Definition 2.3. 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 2.4 (Cut-and-project schemes from irreducible lattices). The assumptions on the
projections of Γ can often be arranged. Assume for example that we start from a lattice
Γ0 < G × H0 which is irreducible in the sense that it projects densely to both factors, and
denote by pG and pH0 the coordinate projections of G × H0 . Then Γ1 := ker(pG |Γ0 ) is a normal
subgroup of Γ0 , and pH0 (Γ1 ) is a normal subgroup of H0 . If Γ1 is finite, then we obtain a
cut-and-project scheme
(G, H0 /pH0 (Γ1 ), Γ0 /Γ1 ).
In certain situations of interest, finiteness of Γ1 holds automatically. For example, if G and
H0 are semisimple Lie groups, then Γ0 is a higher rank lattice and Γ1 is of infinite index in Γ0
since Γ0 /Γ1 projects densely to G. It thus follows from Margulis’ normal subgroup theorem
that Γ1 is finite.
Given a cut-and-project scheme (G, H, Γ) 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”.
Definition 2.5. Let (G, H, Γ) be a cut-and-project scheme with associated “∗-map” τ : ΓG →
H. Given a compact subset W0 ⊂ H, the pre-image
P0 (G, H, Γ, W0 ) := τ −1 (W0 ) ⊂ G

is called a weak model set, and W0 is called its window. It is called a weak uniform model set if
(G, H, Γ) is uniform.
Every weak model set has finite local complexity [8, Prop. 2.13], but it need not be relatively
dense, even if it is uniform and G and H are abelian. For example, the set of visible lattice
points in R2 is a weak uniform model set which is not relatively dense, see [1, Prop. 10.4].
While general weak model sets have received much attention recently, we will focus on the
following more classical subclasses.
Definition 2.6. A weak (uniform) model set is called a (uniform) model set if its window has
non-empty interior. It is called a regular model set if W0 is Jordan-measurable with dense
interior, aperiodic (i.e. and StabH (W0 ) = {e} and Γ-regular, meaning that
∂W0 ∩ πH (Γ) = ∅.

Some of the theory developed in the sequel could be developed in the generality of arbitrary model sets. However, to obtain our strongest results, such as unique ergodicity and
minimality of the hull, we need additional regularity assumptions on the window, hence we
make the

8

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

Convention 2.7. From now on all model sets (uniform or not) are assumed to be regular.
2.3. Examples of model sets
Let us provide some examples of model sets and cut-and-project schemes. The classical
theory as developed by Meyer [29] is concerned with abelian cut-and-project schemes. A
particularly interesting
groups.
√ class of examples arises from arithmetic lattices
√ in lcsc abelian
√
√
For example, Γ = Z[ 2] embeds as a lattice into R × R via a + b 2 7→ (a + b 2, a − b 2)
and Γ = Z[1/p] embeds as a lattice into R × Qp leading to different model sets in R. These
arithmetic examples admit various generalizations to non-abelian cut-and-project schemes as
follows.
Example (Model sets in nilpotent Lie groups). Denote by H(R) the 3-dimensional Heisenberg
group over a commutative ring R, i.e. the subgroup of M3 (R) consisting of upper triangular
matrices with 1s
√ on the diagonal. Then H(R) is 2-step nilpotent and the (uniform) lattice
embeddings Z[ 2] ֒→ R × R and Z[1/p] ֒→ R × Qp induce (uniform) lattice embeddings
√
H(Z[ 2]) ֒→ H(R) × H(R) and H(Z[1/p]) ֒→ H(R) × H(Qp ),
leading to different kinds of uniform model sets in the real Heisenberg group H(R).
Remark 2.8. One major difference between the abelian and the nilpotent case is that while
every abelian Lie group admits a (uniform) lattice, there exist nilpotent Lie groups which
do not admit any (uniform) lattices, but which do admit (uniform) model sets. For explicit
examples in dimension 7, see [8, Sec. 2.4].
While every model set in an abelian or nilpotent Lie group is uniform, this is not the case
for general amenable group. In fact, the following example which modifies a construction
of Bader, Caprace, Gelander and Mozes [7, Example 3.5] shows that there even exist nonuniform model sets in compact-by-abelian groups.
Example (A non-uniform model P
set in a compact-by-abelian group). Let S be a set of primes
which is “thin” in the sense that p∈S p1 < ∞ and set
M
Y
V :=
Fp and K :=
F×
p,
p∈S

p∈S

so that V is abelian and K is compact and acts by coordinate-wise multiplication on V . Set
G := V ⋊ K and, given γ ∈ G, write γ = (γp )p∈S , where γp ∈ Fp ⋊ F×
p . We claim that
G contains regular non-uniform model sets. For this we construct a cut-and-project scheme
(G, H, Γ) with H := G and Γ given as follows. Let Γ0 < G be the dense subgroup given by
M
Γ0 :=
Fp ⋊ F×
p < G,
p∈S

and define a dense embedding τ : Γ0 → H by

τ ((bp , ap )p∈S ) = ((1, 1)(bp , ap )(1, 1)−1 )p∈S = (bp + 1 − ap , ap )p∈S .

Then we set
Γ := {(γ, τ (γ)) | γ ∈ Γ0 } < G × H.

By construction, Γ projects injectively to G and densely to H. It thus remains to show that it is
a non-uniform lattice in G × H. Discreteness of Γ is an easy exercise. Unravelling definitions

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

9

we see that two points (u, v), (u′ , v ′ ) ∈ V ⊕ V are in the same Γ-orbit if and only if for every
p ∈ S there exist elements bp ∈ Fp and ap ∈ F×
p such that
bp + ap up = u′p

and

bp + 1 − ap + ap vp = vp′ .

From these formulas it is not hard to deduce that the Γ-orbits in V ⊕ V are exactly the sets
SI := {(u, v) | vp − up = 1 ⇔ p ∈ I},

where I ⊂ S is a finite subset. In particular, Γ is not cocompact, since there are infinitely
many such orbits. To show that Γ has finite covolume it suffices to show that
X
1
< ∞,
|Γ(u,v) |
[(u,v)]∈Γ\V ⊕V

where Γ(u,v) denotes the stabilizer of (u, v) ∈ V ⊕ V in Γ and the sum is over all Γ-orbits in
V ⊕ V (see [6, Sec. 1.5]). Given (u, v) ∈ SI we have
M
Γ(u,v) =
{(bp , ap ) ∈ Fp × F×
p | bp + ap up = up and bp + 1 − ap + ap vp = vp },
p∈S

Q
from which one deduces that |Γ(u,v) | = p∈I (p − 1). We obtain
X
X
1
1
Q
< ∞,
=
|Γ(u,v) |
p∈I (p − 1)
[(u,v)]∈Γ\V ⊕V

I⊂S
finite

which shows that Γ has finite covolume in G × H.
We now turn to model sets in non-amenable group.
Example (Model sets in real semisimple Lie groups). Similarly to the abelian case one can
construct arithmetic examples of cut-and-project in semisimple Lie groups. If G is an arbitrary
semisimple Lie group without compact factors, then by [42, Cor. 18.7.4] there always exists
an irreducible uniform lattice in G × G. By Remark 2.4 this implies that G contains uniform
model sets. Similarly, non-uniform model sets can be constructed starting from irreducible
non-uniform lattices such as
√
SLn (Z[ 2]) < SLn (R) × SLn (R) and SLn (Z[1/p]) < SLn (R) × SLn (Qp ).
Example (Non-unimodular model sets in semisimple p-adic groups). Starting from the irreducible lattice SLn (Z[1/p]) < SLn (Qp ) × SLn (R) we can construct non-uniform model sets in
SLn (Qp ). This is remarkable, since SLn (Qp ) does not admit any non-uniform lattices.
Example (A geometric example). There exist examples of model sets in geometrically defined non-amenable totally-disconnected lcsc groups, such as automorphism groups of regular trees. These examples are very different in nature from the arithmetically flavored examples above. For example, while all arithmetic lattices are residually finite, Burger and Mozes
[11, 12] have constructed lattices in products of automorphism groups of regular trees which
are simple (and thus as far from residually finite as possible), and these lead to interesting
examples of model sets.
Example (Hartman sets). Yet another very different (but well-understood) class of examples
arises from discrete groups Γ which embed densely into a compact group K. We can then
view Γ as a lattice in G × H, where G := Γ and H := K and study the corresponding model
sets, which are called Hartman sets. We refer the interested reader to the survey [41].

10

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

2.4. The hull of a subset of finite local complexity
If G is a lcsc group, then there is a natural compact metrizable topology τCF on the collection C(G) of closed subsets of G which is called the Chabauty–Fell topology and defined
as follows. Recall that we denote by O(G) and K(G) the collections of open, respectively
compact subsets of G. Given V ∈ O(G) and K ∈ K(G) we define subsets UV , U K ⊂ C(G) by
UV = {C ∈ C(G) | C ∩ V 6= ∅}

and

U K = {C ∈ C(G) | C ∩ K = ∅}.

Then the Chabauty–Fell topology on C(G) is generated by the collection of basic open sets
{UV | V ∈ O(G)} ∪ {U K | K ∈ K(G)}.

The group G × G acts on the compact space C(G) by

(g, h).Λ = gΛh−1 ,

and this action is jointly continuous, since it maps basic open sets to basic open set:
(g, h).UV = UgV h−1 ,

(g, h).U K = U gKh

−1

(g, h ∈ G).

Restricting the action of G × G y C(G) to the factors and the diagonal we obtain three topological dynamical systems over G, where G acts from the left, the right or by conjugation.
The former two dynamical systems are isomorphic via the isomorphisms P 7→ P −1 , but the
conjugation system has very different properties. Here we will focus on the action of G on
the left as given by (g, P ) 7→ gP for g ∈ G, P ∈ C(G).
Definition 2.9. Given a closed subset P0 ⊂ G, the (right-)hull XP0 of P0 is defined as the
closure of the orbit G.P0 in C(G), and the punctured (right-)hull XP×0 is defined as XP×0 :=
XP0 \ {∅}.

Note that by definition the hull of a closed subset is always a compact metrizable G-space,
since it is a closed subset of C(G), and thus XP×0 is always locally compact and metrizable.
By [8, Prop. 4.4] we have ∅ ∈ XP0 if and only if P0 is not relatively dense. In particular the
punctured hull XP×0 of a model set P0 is compact if and only if P0 is uniform. While the hull
of a uniformly finite subset of G may contain non-discrete subsets of G, the hull of an FLC
subset always consists of FLC sets:
Proposition 2.10 (Orbit closures of FLC sets, [8, Lemma 4.6]). Let G be a lcsc group and let
P0 ⊂ G be an FLC subset. Then for every P ∈ XP0 we have
P −1 P ⊂ P0−1 P0 .

In particular, every P ∈ XP0 has finite local complexity, and if ΓG denotes the subgroup of G generated
by P0 and P ∈ XP0 , then p−1 P ⊂ ΓG for every p ∈ P .

2.5. The hull of a model set and the canonical transversal
Since model sets have finite local complexity, the discussion of the previous subsection
applies in particular to model sets. Given a model set P0 = P0 (G, H, Γ, W0 ), the subgroup
of G generated by P0 is given by ΓG = πG (Γ). It thus follows from Proposition 2.10 that the
subset
(2.2)
T := {P ∈ XP×0 | P ⊂ ΓG } ⊂ XP×0 .

intersects every G-orbit in XP0 . We refer to T as the canonical transversal in XP×0 . We can
summarize our discussion so far as follows:
Corollary 2.11. Let P0 = P0 (G, H, Γ, W0 ) be a model set in a lcsc group G.

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

(i) X × := XP×0 is a locally compact metrizable G-space consisting of FLC sets.
(ii) Every G-orbit in X × intersects the canonical transversal T given by (2.2).
(iii) X × is compact if and only if Γ < G × H is a uniform lattice.
3. M INIMALITY

11



AND UNIQUE ERGODICITY OF THE PUNCTURED HULL

3.1. The parametrization map of a model set
The goal of this section is to show that the punctured hull of a model set is uniquely ergodic
(and moreover minimal if the model set is uniform). This will be achieved by means of a
parametrization map, which generalizes the well-known torus parametrization of the abelian
theory. This parametrization map is of independent interest, and we will use it to derive a
formula for the auto-correlation of the corresponding model set in Section 4.
Throughout this section we fix the following setting. P0 = P0 (G, H, Γ, W0 ) is a model set in
a lcsc group G (always assumed to be regular by Convention 2.7). We denote by X × = XP×0
its punctured hull, and by T ⊂ X × the canonical transversal given by (2.2). Finally, we
abbreviate by Y the homogeneous space
Y := (G × H)/Γ,

which we refer to as the parameter space of P0 and abbreviate by y0 := (e, e)Γ the canonical
basepoint of Y . The following theorem summarizes the main results of this subsection.
Theorem 3.1 (Properties of the parametrization map). There exists a unique G-equivariant Borel
map β : X × → Y which maps P0 to y0 and has a closed graph. This map has the following additional
properties:
(i) If Y ns := {(g, h)Γ ∈ Y | h−1 W0 is Γ-regular} and X ns := β −1 (Y ns ), then
β|X ns : X ns → Y ns

is bijective.
(ii) P ∈ T if and only if there exists hP ∈ H such that β(P ) = (e, hP )Γ.
(iii) If P ∈ T ∩ X ns and hP is as in (ii), then P = τ −1 (h−1
P W0 ).
(iv) It Γ is cocompact, then β is continuous.
Remark 3.2.
(1) In view of (i), elements of X ns are called non-singular points and elements
ns
of Y are called non-singular parameters.
(2) The special case G = Rk , H = Rn is classical. In this case, Y is a torus and β : X × → Y
is known as the torus parametrization of the hull. For general locally compact abelian
groups G, H the construction of a parametrization map β is due to Schlottmann [37]
(see also [36] for an earlier special case). In his proof he first establishes minimality of
X × using compactness (in the form of Gottschalk’s criterion), and then uses minimality to establish existence of the parametrization map.
(3) Unlike Schlottmann’s proof, the present argument does not require compactness of
X × , nor any a priori knowledge of minimality. Consequently, the argument also applies to non-compact punctured hulls, and minimality comes for free in the case of
compact punctured hulls.
(4) Our proof of Theorem 3.1 does not use the full assumptions on Γ and W0 . We do not
need that Γ is a lattice (as long as it is discrete and satisfies the other assumptions), nor
do we use that W0 is Jordan-measurable. However, both assumptions will be used in
the sequel. We need that W0 is Jordan-measurable to obtain that Y ns has full Haar

12

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

measure in Y , and that Γ is a lattice to obtain an invariant probability measure on X.
We therefore do not pursue this additional generality here.
3.2. Minimality and unique ergodicity of the hull
Let us postpone the proof of Theorem 3.1 to the end of this section and first deduce the
desired consequences concerning minimality and unique ergodicity of the hull. We keep the
notation of the previous subsection and recall that the model set P0 is relatively dense in G
provided it is a uniform model set.
Proposition 3.3 (Minimality properties). The hull of a uniform regular model set is minimal. More
precisely:
(i) Y is a minimal G-space.
(ii) If P0 is uniform, then X × = X is a minimal compact G-space.
(iii) If P0 is non-uniform, then X × is not compact and no G-orbit in X × is pre-compact.
Proof. Observe first that since ΓH is dense in H, the space G\(G × H) is minimal as a Γ-space,
and thus Y = (G × H)/Γ is minimal as a G-space by the duality principle. Now assume
that X0 ⊂ X × is a non-empty compact G-invariant subset. Since β has a closed graph, it
maps compact sets to closed sets, and since it is G-equivariant, the image of X0 is a closed
G-invariant subset of Y . Minimality of Y then yields β(X0 ) = Y . In particular β(P0 ) ∈ β(X0 ),
and since P0 ∈ X ns we deduce P0 ∈ X0 and thus X0 = X × . This proves that every compact
G-invariant subset of X × is either empty or all of X × . Since the punctured hull of a closed
subset is compact if and only if the subset if relatively dense, this implies (ii) and (iii).

We now turn to the question of unique ergodicity of the hull. It it is an immediate consequence of the duality principle that (Y, mY ) is (uniquely) G-ergodic, and we want to lift
this property to X × . The natural context to discuss this problem is that of stationary measures. Recall that a probability measure µ on G is called admissible if its support generates G
and if it is absolutely continuous with respect to the Haar measure mG on G. Then a probability measure ν on a measurable G-space is called µ-stationary provided µ ∗ ν = ν. If G is
a non-amenable group and Z is a compact G-space, then there might not exist G-invariant
measures, but by a straight-forward application of the Kakutani fixpoint theorem there will
always exist a µ-stationary probability measure on Z for any admissible probability measure
µ on G, and one may then ask whether such a measure is actually unique.
Theorem 3.4 (Existence and uniqueness of stationary and invariant measures on X × ). There
exists a unique G-invariant probability measure ν on X × . This measure satisfies ν(X ns ) = 1 and is
also the unique stationary probability measure with respect to any admissible probability measure µ
on G.
Moreover, β : (X × , ν) → (Y, mY ) is a measurable isomorphism of G-spaces and thus induces an
isomorphism
β ∗ : L2 (Y, mY ) → L2 (X × , ν)
of unitary G-representations.
In the language of [8], Theorem 3.4 yields the following conclusion when combined with
[8, Prop. 2.13]:
Corollary 3.5 (Regular model sets as approximate lattices). A regular model set is a strong approximate lattice provided its window is symmetric and contains the identity.

The proof of Theorem 3.4 is a consequence of Theorem 3.1 and the following two lemmas.

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

13

Lemma 3.6. The subset Y ns ⊂ Y is conull with respect to Haar measure on Y .
Lemma 3.7. The Haar measure mY is the unique stationary probability measure on Y with respect
to any admissible probability measure µ on G.
Proof of Theorem 3.4. Let β : X × → Y be the parametrization map constructed in Theorem
3.1. Since β has a closed graph, so does the restriction β|X ns : X ns → Y ns and hence also
its inverse (β|X ns )−1 : Y ns → X ns . In particular, (β|X ns )−1 is Borel and we may define a
G-invariant probability measure on X × by
ν := (β|X ns )−1
∗ mY |Y ns .

By definition, we have for every Borel subset A ⊂ X × ,

ν(A) = mY (β(A ∩ X ns )) = mY (β(A) ∩ Y ns ) = mY (β(A)).

Now let µ be an admissible probability measure on G and ν ′ a µ-stationary probability measure on X × . Then β∗ ν ′ is a µ-stationary measure on Y and thus β∗ ν ′ = mY by Lemma 3.7.
Since β∗ ν ′ (Y ns ) = 1 by Lemma 3.6 we deduce that ν ′ (X ns ) = 1, i.e. ν ′ is a probability measure on X ns . Now µ-stationary measures on X ns correspond bijectively via β to µ-stationary
measures on Y ns via the G-equivariant Borel isomorphism β|X ns . We conclude that ν ′ = ν,
and the theorem follows.

Proof of Lemma 3.6. An element (g, h) · Γ ∈ Y is singular if and only if h−1 W0 is not Γ-regular.
This amounts to h−1 ∂W0 ∩ ΓH 6= ∅, i.e. h ∈ ∂W0 ΓH . Now since W0 is Jordan-measurable we
have mH (∂W0 ) = 0 and thus ∂W0 ΓH is a nullset by countability of ΓH .

Proof of Lemma 3.7. Fix an admissible probability measure µ on G and let ν be an arbitrary
µ-stationary probability measure on Y . We are going to showRthat ν = mY .
For every non-negative function ρ ∈ Cc (H) normalized to ρdmH = 1 we define a probability measure νρ on Y by νρ := (µ ⊗ ρmH ) ∗ (µ ⊗ ρmH ) ∗ ν. Using that the G- and H-action
commute, we see that νρ is µ-stationary. Since µ and ρmH are respectively absolutely continuous with respect to mG and mH we deduce that (µ ⊗ ρmH ) ∗ ν is absolutely continuous with
respect to mY . The second convolution then has a smoothing effect, and we deduce that νρ
has a continuous density ψρ ∈ C(Y ) with respect to Haar measure. Since mY is G-invariant
and νρ is µ-stationary, the density ψρ is µ-stationary as well. By a standard argument, this
implies that ψρ is actually G-invariant. Indeed, since ψρ is continuous and the support of µ
generates G as a semigroup, it suffices to show that for all k ∈ N,
Z Z
(ψρ (gy) − ψρ (y))2 dmY (y)dµ∗k (g) = 0,
Ik :=
G

Y

Using stationarity of mY and ψρ and expanding the square we obtain


Z
Z
Z
∗k
2
ψρ (gy)dµ (g) dmY (y) = 0
ψρ (y)
ψρ dmY −
Ik = 2
Y

Y

for all k ∈ N. This shows that ψρ is indeed G-invariant, hence constant by Proposition 3.3.(i).
We deduce that ψρ = 1 and νρ = mH for every ρ as above.
Now let ρn be a sequence of normalized positive functions in Cc (H) such that ρn mH converges to δe in the weak-∗ topology. Then the previous argument yields νρn = mY for every
n and thus
ν = lim νρn = mY .

n→∞

14

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

3.3. The local topology and the proof of Theorem 3.1
Our proof of Theorem 3.1 uses a characterization of the Chabauty–Fell topology on the
orbit closure of a model set which is established in Appendix A, and which we summarize
here for the convenience of the reader.
By definition, the (left-) local topology is the unique topology on C(G) such that for every
P ∈ C(G) a neighbourhood basis of P is given by the sets
UK,V (P ) = {Q ∈ C(G) | ∃ t ∈ V : tQ ∩ K = P ∩ K},

where K runs over all compact subsets of G and V runs over the identity neighbourhood
basis of G.
It turns out that the local topology is finer than the Chabauty–Fell topology on C(G). However, if P ∈ C(G) is of finite local complexity (e.g. a model set), then by Corollary A.8 the
orbit closures of P in the local topology and the Chabauty–Fell topology coincide. It will thus
suffice to establish Theorem 3.1 for the orbit closure of P0 = P0 (G, H, Γ, W0 ) in C(G) with
respect to the local topology, which is computationally more convenient. For the rest of this
section we will exclusively work with the local topology on C(G).
Towards the proof of Theorem 3.1 we first note that the assumptions on G imply that G is
σ-compact. We may thus fix an exhaustion K1 ⊂ K2 ⊂ · · · ⊂ G of G by compact subsets. We
also fix a sequence
T of symmetric pre-compact open identity neighbourhoods V1 ⊃ V2 ⊃ . . .
in G such that Vn = {e}. The proof of Theorem 3.1 will be based on the following two
lemmas:
Lemma 3.8. Let W0 ⊂ H be a window, let h, h′ ∈ H and let (hn ), (h′n ) be sequences in H converging
to h and h′ respectively.
(i) If h 6= h′ , then there exists a non-empty, open subset U ⊂ H such that for all sufficiently large
n ∈ N,
U ⊂ hn W0 \ h′n W0 .
(ii) If the windows hn W0 and hW0 are Γ-regular, then for every K ∈ K(G) there exists n0 ∈ N such
that for all n ≥ n0 we have
(K × hn W0 ) ∩ Γ = (K × hW0 ) ∩ Γ.

Lemma 3.9. For every P ∈ T there exists hP ∈ H with the following property. For every sequence
(gn ) in G with gn P0 → P there exists a subsequence (gni ) such that
(i) gni = si γi for some si ∈ Vi , γi ∈ ΓG ;
(ii) si → e, τ (γi ) → h−1
P ;
(iii) For every i, j ∈ N with j ≥ i we have
γj P0 ∩ Ki = P ∩ Ki .

Let us first explain how these lemmas imply the theorem.
Proof of Theorem 3.1. Consider the orbit closure Z := G.(P0 , y0 ) ⊂ X × × Y and note that Z
projects onto both X × and Y . We claim that for every P ∈ X × the section
Z[P ] := {y ∈ Y | (P, y) ∈ Z}

(3.1)

is a singleton. Assuming the claim for the moment, we deduce that Z = gr(β) for some
map β : X × → Y , which is G-equivariant by G-invariance of Z and satisfies β(P0 ) = y0 by
construction. Since β has a closed graph, it is automatically Borel. Conversely, if β ′ : X × → Y
is any G-equivariant Borel map with closed graph satisfying β ′ (P0 ) = y0 , then gr(β ′ ) ⊃ Z =

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

15

gr(β) and thus β ′ = β. Thus our claim implies both existence and uniqueness of β. Moreover,
in the cocompact case both X × and Y are compact, hence β is automatically continuous by
the closed graph theorem.
To establish the claim, consider first P ∈ T and let y ∈ Z[P ]. By definition this means that
there exist gn ∈ G such that
gn .(P0 , y0 ) → (P, y).

By Lemma 3.9 we can find a subsequence (gni ) of (gn ) and si ∈ Vi , γi ∈ ΓG such that
y = lim gni .y0 = lim (si γi , e)Γ = lim (si , τ (γi )−1 )Γ = (e, hP )Γ.
i→∞

i→∞

i→∞

Thus Z[P ] = {(e, hP )Γ} is a singleton.
Now let P ∈ X × be arbitrary. Since P 6= ∅ we can pick p ∈ P . By Proposition 2.10 we have
−1
p P ∈ T , hence if {y1 , y2 } ∈ Z[P ], then by G-invariance of Z we have
{p−1 y1 , p−1 y2 } ⊂ Z[p−1 P ],
and thus p−1 y1 = p−1 y2 by the previous argument. This implies y1 = y2 and finishes the
proof of the claim and shows that Z = gr(β). For P ∈ T we have also established that
β(P ) = (e, hP )Γ.

(3.2)

To show (iii) we consider P ∈ X ns ∩ T and, using Lemma 3.9, pick a sequence (γi ) in ΓG such
that γi P0 → P , τ (γi ) → h−1
P and for all j ≥ i
P ∩ Ki = γj P0 ∩ Ki .

(3.3)

Now fix i ∈ N and consider the finite sets F := (Ki ×h−1
P W0 )∩Γ and Fj := (Ki ×τ (γj )W0 )∩Γ.
ns
Since P ∈ X ∩ T and β(P ) = (e, hP )Γ, the window h−1
P W0 is Γ-regular, and every ΓH we
can
thus apply Lemma 3.8.(ii) to find
translate of W0 is regular as well. Since τ (γj ) → h−1
P
j ≥ i such that F = Fj . For such j we can then apply (3.3) to obtain
P ∩ Ki = γj P0 ∩ Ki = πG (Fj ) = πG (F ) = τ −1 (h−1
P W0 ) ∩ Ki .
Since i was arbitrary, this implies P = τ −1 (h−1
P W0 ). This finishes the proof of (iii) and shows
that β is injective on X ns ∩ T .
We now establish (ii). The inclusion T ⊂ β −1 (({e} × H)Γ) has already been established in
(3.2). Conversely assume that P ∈ X × with β(P ) = (e, h)Γ for some h ∈ H. By Proposition
2.10 we have p−1 P ∈ T for every p ∈ P , hence there exists hp ∈ H such that β(p−1 P ) =
(e, hp )Γ. It then follows from G-equivariance of β that
(e, hp )Γ = β(p−1 P ) = p−1 β(P ) = (p−1 , h)Γ,
hence p ∈ ΓG . Since p ∈ P was arbitrary this implies P ∈ T and finishes the proof of (ii).
Concerning (i), assume that P1 , P2 ∈ X ns satisfy β(P1 ) = β(P2 ) = (g, h)Γ for some g ∈ G,
h ∈ H. Then
β(g−1 P1 ) = β(g −1 P2 ) = (e, h)Γ,

and hence {g−1 P1 , g−1 P2 } ⊂ X ns ∩ T by (ii). Since β is injective on X ns ∩ T we deduce that
g−1 P1 = g−1 P2 and hence P1 = P2 . This proves (i) and finishes the proof.

It remains to prove the lemmas.

16

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

Proof of Lemma 3.8. (i) Given n ∈ N we define a subset W0,n ⊂ W0o by
W0,n := {w ∈ W0o | Vn−1 w ⊆ W0o }

(n ∈ N).

We first observe that
W0,1 ⊂ W0,2 ⊂ · · · ⊂ W0o

and

W0,n ⊂

\

vW0 .

(3.4)

v∈Vn

Indeed, the first statement follows from the fact that the Vn are descreasing, and if v ∈ Vn and
w ∈ W0,n then v −1 w ∈ W0o ⊆ W0 , which implies w ∈ vW0 and thus establishes (3.4).
Now define Mn := hW0,n \ h′ Vn W0 . We claim that there exists n ∈ N such that Mn contains
a non-empty open set U . Assuming the claim for the moment, let us finish the proof. We can
find k0 such that for all k ≥ k0 we have hk ∈ hVn and h′k ∈ h′ Vn . Then by (3.4) we have
\
\
vW0 \ h′ Vn W0 ⊃ Mn ⊃ U,
hvW0 \ h′ Vn W0 ⊃ h
hk W0 \ h′k W0 ⊃
v∈Vn

v∈Vn

h′k W0

i.e. hk W0 \
⊃ U , which is the statement of the lemma. It thus remains to establish the
claim.
Firstly, since W0 has trivial stabilizer we have hW0 \ h′ W0 6= ∅. Secondly, since h′ W0 is
compact and hW0o is dense in hW0 , hW0o \ h′ W0 ⊂ hW0 \ h′ W0 is dense, and in particular
hW0o \ h′ W0 6= ∅. Thirdly, hW0o \ h′ W0 is open, and thus mH (hW0o \ h′ W0 ) > 0. From regularity
of the Haar measure we thus deduce that
∃m ∈ N : mH (hW0o \ h′ Vm W0 ) > 0.

(3.5)

U := Vn w ⊂ Mn .

(3.6)

We fix such an m once and for all and observe that A := hW0o \ h′ Vm W0 6= ∅.
Since the set A is open and non-empty it contains a a basic open set of the form Un,w :=
hVn−1 h−1 Vn w for some n ∈ N and w ∈ G. We may assume that n ≥ m. Then we claim that
Since U is open this will finish the proof. From the inclusion Un,w ⊂ A we deduce two things:
Firstly, Un,w ⊂ hW0o , i.e. Vn−1 h−1 Vn w ⊂ W0o . By the very definition of W0,n this means that
h−1 Vn w ⊂ W0,n , and hence
U = Vn w ⊂ hW0,n .
(3.7)
Secondly, since e ∈ Vn−1 we have U = Vn w ⊂ Un,w and thus

U ∩ h′ Vm W0 ⊂ Un,w ∩ h′ Vm W0 ⊂ A ∩ h′ Vm W0 = ∅.

(3.8)

Combining (3.8) and (3.7) and using that n ≥ m and hence Vn ⊂ Vm we obtain
U ⊂ hW0,n \ h′ Vm W0 ⊂ hW0,n \ h′ Vn W0 = Mn .

This establishes (3.6) and finishes the proof.
(ii) Let K ⊂ G be a compact set. Since hW0 and hn W0 are Γ-regular for every n, we have


(K × hW0 ) ∩ Γ = (K × (hW0 \ hn W0o )) ∩ Γ ∪ (K × (hW0 ∩ hn W0 )) ∩ Γ
(3.9)

and



(K × hn W0 ) ∩ Γ = (K × (hn W0 \ hW0o )) ∩ Γ ∪ (K × (hn W0 ∩ hW0 )) ∩ Γ .

(3.10)

Hence, in order to show that

(K × hW0 ) ∩ Γ = (K × hn W0 ) ∩ Γ

(3.11)

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

17

for large enough n, it suffices to show that for large enough n, we have


K × (hW0 \ hn W0o ) ∩ Γ = K × (hn W0 \ hW0o ) ∩ Γ = ∅.

Since W0 is compact and hn → h, there is a compact set L ⊂ H such that hW0 \ hn W0o ⊂ L
and hn W0 \ hW0o ⊂ L for all n. Since Γ is discrete, this shows that the sets


An = K × (hW0 \ hn W0o ) ∩ Γ and Bn = K × (hn W0 \ hW0o ) ∩ Γ

vary inside the set of all subsets of the finite set T = (K × L) ∩ Γ. In particular, for every
sub-sequence of (hn ), there is a further sub-sequence (hnj ) such that the sequences (Anj ) and
(Bnj ) are constant. On the other hand, one readily verifies that
\
\
(hW0 \ hnj W0o ) ⊂ h∂W0 and
(hnj W0 \ hW0o ) ⊂ h∂W0 ,
j

j

for every sub-sequence (hnj ), and thus, since hW0 is Γ-regular, we conclude that
\
\
Anj = ∅ and
Bnj = ∅.
j

j

We conclude that every sub-sequence of (hn ) admits a further sub-sequence (hnj ) such that


K × (hW0 \ hnj W0o ) ∩ Γ = K × (hnj W0 \ hW0o ) ∩ Γ = ∅.

for all j. We claim that this finishes the proof. Indeed, if (3.11) were to fail for infinitely many
n, then (3.9) and (3.10) would tell us that we can find a sub-sequence (hnj ) such that either


K × (hW0 \ hnj W0o ) ∩ Γ 6= ∅ or K × (hnj W0 \ hW0o ) ∩ Γ 6= ∅,

for all j, which contradicts what we have just proved.



Proof of Lemma 3.9. Since gn P0 → P we can find for every i ∈ N some ni ∈ N and ti ∈ Vi such
that
(3.12)
ti gni P0 ∩ Ki = P ∩ Ki .
If we define γi := ti gni then γi P0 ∩ Ki = P ∩ Ki . We deduce that for all j ≥ i we have
γj P0 ∩ Ki = (γj P0 ∩ Kj ) ∩ Ki = P ∩ Kj ∩ Ki = P ∩ Ki .

Since P ∩ Ki 6= ∅, we may assume by passing to a further subsequence that γi P0 ∩ Ki 6= ∅ for
all i ∈ N. Then for every i ∈ N there exists p0 ∈ P0 ⊂ ΓG such that γi p0 ∈ γi P0 ∩ Ki = P ∩ Ki .
Since P ∈ T we deduce that γi p0 ∈ ΓG and thus γi ∈ ΓG . If we now set si := t−1
i , then
si ∈ Vi−1 = Vi and gni = si γi . For this choice of γi and si we have thus established (i) and (iii).
Also note that si ∈ Vi implies si → e.
We next claim that the set {τ (γi )} is pre-compact. Suppose otherwise for contradiction.
Then for every i ∈ N there exists j > i such that
and consequently

τ (γi )W0 ∩ τ (γj )W0 = ∅,

πG ([(Ki × τ (γi )W0 ) ∩ Γ] ∩ [(Kj × τ (γj )W0 ) ∩ Γ]) = ∅.

Since πG |Γ is injective, this can be rewritten as
or equivalently

πG (Ki × τ (γi )W0 ) ∩ Γ) ∩ πG (Kj × τ (γj )W0 ) ∩ Γ) = ∅,

(γi P0 ∩ Ki ) ∩ (γj P0 ∩ Kj ) = ∅.
This, however, contradicts (iii), and establishes our claim.

18

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

In order to establish (ii) and thereby to finish the proof of the lemma it remains to show that
every convergent subsequence of τ (γi ) converges to the same limit h−1
P , which is independent
of the sequence gn . We argue again by contradiction and assume otherwise. Then there exist
cofinal subsets I, I ′ ⊂ N and sequences (γi )i∈I , (γi′′ )i′ ∈I ′ satisfying (iii) such that hi := τ (γi )
and h′i′ := τ (γi′′ ) converge to different elements of H. By Lemma 3.8.(i) we then find an open
set U such that for all sufficiently large i, i′ ,
U ⊂ τ (γi )W0 \ τ (γi′′ )W0 .
Since ΓH is dense in H we have ΓH ∩ U 6= ∅ and thus (G × U ) ∩ Γ 6= ∅. For sufficiently large
j we thus get (Kj × U ) ∩ Γ 6= ∅, hence
∅=
6 (Kj × U ) ∩ Γ ⊂ (Kj × τ (γi )W0 ) ∩ Γ \ [(Kj × τ (γi′′ )W0 ) ∩ Γ].
Applying πG , which is injective on Γ, we obtain
∅=
6 (γi P0 ∩ Kj ) \ (γi′′ P0 ∩ Kj ).
However, we may assume that i and i′ are larger than j. Then (iii) yields
γi P0 ∩ Kj = P ∩ Kj = γi′′ P0 ∩ Kj ,
which is a contradiction.
4. T HE


AUTO - CORRELATION OF A MODEL SET

4.1. The periodization map of an FLC set
We consider the following setting: G is a lcsc group and P0 ⊂ G is a subset of finite local
complexity. We denote by X := XP0 and X × := XP×0 the hull and the punctured hull of P0
respectively. While we have in mind the case of a (not-necessarily uniform) model set, large
parts of the theory can be carried out in larger generality.
Proposition 4.1 (Existence of the parametrization map). There is a well-defined G-equivariant
map
X
P : Cc (G) → C(X), Pf (P ) :=
f (g).
g∈P

Note that the sum definining Pf (P ) is finite for every f ∈ Cc (G) and P ∈ X. Indeed,
every such P is locally finite by Proposition 2.10 and supp(f ) is compact by assumption.
Since equivariance of P is obvious, the non-trivial statement in the proposition is continuity
of Pf in the Chabauty–Fell topology. This is proved in [8, Prop. 5.1].
Note that if P0 is not relatively dense and thus ∅ ∈ X, then Pf (∅) = 0 for all f ∈ Cc (G).
Thus the image of P is contained in C0 (X × ) ⊂ Cb (X × ). If P0 is relatively dense, then anyway
C(X) = C(X × ) = C0 (X × ), and thus we can consider P as a map into C0 (X × ) in either case.
Definition 4.2. The map P : Cc (G) → C0 (X × ) is called the periodization map of P0 .
The issue of continuity of the periodization map is a subtle one. The periodization map is in
general not continuous when Cc (G) and C0 (X × ) are equipped with the respective topologies
of uniform convergence on compacta. However, it is continuous with respect to the natural
Fréchet topology on Cc (G) and the topology of uniform convergence on C0 (X × ). Explicitly,
this means the following:

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

19

Lemma 4.3 (Continuity of the periodization map, [8, Prop. 5.4]). For every compact subset
K ⊂ G there exists CK > 0 such that if f ∈ Cc (G) with supp(f ) ⊂ K, then
4.2. Periodization of measures

kPf k∞

≤

(4.1)

CK · kf k∞ .

The continuity property of the periodization map as expressed by Lemma 4.3 implies that if
ν is a probability measure on X × , then we can define a Radon measure P ∗ ν on G by P ∗ ν(f ) :=
ν(Pf ), where we think of Radon measures as linear functionals on Cc (G). More generally we
(n)
define for every n ≥ 1 a Radon measure ην on Gn by
Z
Pf1 · · · Pfn dν (f1 , . . . , fn ∈ Cc (G)),
ην(n) (f1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ fn ) :=
X×

which we call the n-th correlation measure of ν. Note that it follows from equivariance of the pe(n)
riodization map, that if ν is a G-invariant measure on X × , then the correlation measures ην
are invariant under the action of the diagonal subgroup ∆(G) on Gn by left-multiplication.
Proposition 4.4. Every probability measure on X × is determined by its correlation measures.
Proof. By [8, Prop. 5.3] the image of the periodization map separates point in X × . If X × = X,
then the proposition thus follows from the Stone–Weierstraß theorem. If X × is non-compact,
then its one-point compactification is given by X. In this case, the set P(Cc (G)) ∪ {1X } separates points of X. Applying the Stone–Weierstraß theorem to this set, we deduce that the
algebra generated by P(Cc (G)) and 1X is dense in C(X), which implies that the algebra generated by P(Cc (G)) is dense in C0 (X × ) and finishes the proof.

4.3. Auto-correlation measures of an invariant measure
We recall that a lcsc group G is unimodular if some left-Haar measure on G is also rightinvariant. Every lcsc group containing a lattice, or more generally a model set, is necessarily
unimodular. To simplify our exposition we are going to make the
Convention 4.5. From now on, all lcsc groups are assumed to be unimodular.
Given a unimodular lcsc group H and a closed unimodular subgroup K < H we denote
by
Z
PK : Cc (H) → Cc (K\H),

PK (f )(Kh) :=

f (kh)dmK (k)

K

the periodization map. In order to define the auto-correlation measures of an invariant measure we will make use of the following general lemma.
Lemma 4.6. Let H be a unimodular lcsc group and K < H a closed unimodular subgroup. Then for
every K-invariant Radon measure η on H there is a unique Radon measure η on K\H such that
η(f ) = η(PK f ) (f ∈ Cc (H)).

Proof. Uniqueness of η follows from surjectivity of the periodization map (see e.g. [34, Lemma
1.1.1]). Given f¯ ∈ Cc (K\H), we would like to define η(f¯) := η(f ), where f is a pre-image
f¯ under PK . To show that this is well-defined we need to show that if f ∈ Cc (K) satisfies
PK f = 0, then η(f ) = 0. Assume for contradiction that PK f = 0, but η(f ) 6= 0. Choose
ρn ∈ Cc (H) such that PK (ρn ) → 1 and observe that

Z
Z
ρn (kh)dmK (k) dη(h) → η(f ) 6= 0.
f (h) ·
H

K

20

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

On the other hand, using K-invariance of η and unimodularity of K we obtain for all n ∈ N,


Z
Z Z
Z
−1
f (k h)dmK (k) ρn (n)dη(h)
ρn (kh)dmK (k) dη(h) =
f (h) ·
K
H
K
H

Z
Z Z
PK (f )(Kh) · ρn (h)dη(h) = 0.
f (kh)dmK (k) ρn (n)dη(h) =
=
H

K

H

This contradiction finishes the proof.


(n)

If ν is a G-invariant probability measure on X × , then its nth correlation measure ην is
(n−1)
a ∆(G)-invariant Radon measure on Gn , hence descends to Radon measures η ν
on the
n−1
quotient ∆(G)\(G × · · · × G), which we can identify with G
via the isomorphism
∆(G)\(G × · · · × G) → Gn−1 ,

(g1 , . . . , gn ) 7→ (g1−1 g2 , . . . , g1−1 gn ).

Definition 4.7. If ν is a G-invariant probability measure on X × , then the Radon measure
(n)
η ν on Gn is called the n-th auto-correlation measure of ν. In particular, the Radon measure
(1)
ην := η ν on G is called the auto-correlation measure of ν.
It follows from Proposition 4.4 that a G-invariant probability measure ν on X × is uniquely
determined by its auto-correlation measures. The first auto-correlation measure has a special
property not shared by the higher auto-correlation measures.
Proposition 4.8 (Positive-definiteness of the auto-correlation). The auto-correlation ην of an invariant probability measure ν on X × is a positive-definite Radon measure on G. In fact, it is the
unique positive-definite Radon measure on G such that
ην (f ∗ ∗ f ) = kPf k2L2 (X × ,ν)
Proof. Note that if f1 , f2 ∈ Cc (G), then
Z
(2)
Pf1 · Pf2 dν
ην (f1 ⊗ f2 ) =

(f ∈ Cc (G)).

=

X×

(4.2)

hPf1 , Pf2 iL2 (X × ,ν) .

Next observe that for all g, h ∈ G we have
Z
(f1 ⊗ f2 )(rg, rh) dmG (r)
f12 (g −1 h) :=
G
Z
=
f1 (r)f2 (rg−1 h) dmG (r)
ZG
f1∗ (r)f2 (r −1 g−1 h) dmG (r) = (f1∗ ∗ f2 )(g−1 h).
=
G

It follows that
ην (f1∗ ∗ f2 )

=

ην (f12 )

=

ην(2) (f1 ⊗ f2 )

=

hPf1 , Pf2 iL2 (X × ,ν) .

Specializing to f1 = f2 =: f we obtain (4.2). In particular, ην (f ∗ ∗ f ) ≥ 0 for all f ∈ Cc (G),
showing that ην is positive-definite. Finally, ην is uniquely determined by (4.2), since {f ∗ ∗ f |
f ∈ Cc (G)} is dense in Cc (G).

For the rest of this article we will focus almost exclusively on the (first) auto-correlation
measure and not consider the higher auto-correlation measures. We will, however, briefly
comment on the 0th auto-correlation measure in Subsection 4.5.

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

21

Remark 4.9. If P0 is an arbitrary FLC subset of a lcsc group G, then in general there may not
exist any G-invariant probability measure on X × . There are two notable exceptions. Firstly,
if G is amenable and P0 ⊂ G is a Delone set, then X × = X is compact, and thus there will
always exist a G-invariant probability measure on X × . Secondly, if P0 happens to be a regular
model set, then a G-invariant probability measure on X × exists by Theorem 3.4, and there is
in fact a unique such measure.
Definition 4.10. Assume that P0 ⊂ G is a FLC set whose punctured hull X × admits a unique
G-invariant probability measure ν. Then the auto-correlation measure ηP0 := ην is called the
auto-correlation measure of P0 .
4.4. A formula for the auto-correlation of a model set
We now apply the theory developed so far to the case of model sets. For the rest of this
section we fix a regular model set P0 = P0 (G, H, Γ, W0 ) in a lcsc group G. As before we
denote by X × the punctured hull of P0 , by ν the unique G-invariant probability measure
on X × and by Y := (G × H)/Γ the associated parameter space. By Theorem 3.1 we have a
parametrization map β : X × → Y which satisfies β∗ ν = mY , where mY denotes the invariant
probability measure on Y . Recall that the auto-correlation measure ηP0 of P0 was defined as
the auto-correlation measure ην of ν.
Given a bounded Riemann-integrable function F : G × H → R with compact support we
denote by PΓ F the Γ-periodization of F , i.e. the function
X
PΓ F : Y → R, PΓ F ((g, h)Γ) =
F ((g, h)γ).
γ∈Γ

Then we have the following formula for the auto-correlation of P0 .
Theorem 4.11 (Auto-correlation of model sets). Let η = ηP0 be the auto-correlation measure of
P0 . Then η is the unique Radon measure on G satisfying
η(f ∗ ∗ f ) = kPΓ (f ⊗ χW0 )k2L2 (Y )

(4.3)

(f ∈ Cc (G)).

In view of (4.2) this is an immediate consequence of the following lemma and the fact that
ν(X ns ) = mY (Y ns ) = 1.
Lemma 4.12. If P ∈ X ns and f ∈ Cc (G), then

Pf (P ) = PΓ (f ⊗ χW0 )(β(P )).

Proof. Let P ∈ X ns and p ∈ P . By Proposition 2.10 and G-invariance of X ns we then have
P ′ := p−1 P ∈ T ∩ X ns . By Theorem 3.1 we then have
β(P ′ ) = (e, hP ′ ) Γ

and

′
τ −1 (h−1
P ′ W0 ) = P .

Now G-equivariance of β yields
β(P ) = β(pP ′ ) = pβ(P ′ ) = p(e, hP ′ ) Γ = (p, hP ′ ) Γ,
and thus we obtain for every f ∈ Cc (G),
PΓ (f ⊗ χW0 )(β(P )) = PΓ (f ⊗ χW0 )((p, hP ′ ) Γ) =
=

X

γ∈τ −1 (h−1
W0 )
P′

= Pf (P ).

f (pγ) =

X

γ∈P ′

X

f (pγ)χW0 (hP ′ τ (γ))

γ∈ΓG

f (pγ) =

X

γ∈pP ′

f (γ) =

X

γ∈P

f (γ)

22

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI


4.5. The covolume of regular model sets
If P0 is a regular model set in G, then by definition P0 arises from a cut-and-project scheme
(G, H, Γ) and window W0 , but H, Γ and W0 are not uniquely determined by P0 . In this
subsection we explain how to use the 0the auto-correlation to construct an invariant of P0
from some normalized volume of the window W0 .
Let us fix a reference Haar measure mG on G once and for all. Given a Haar measure mH
on H, we denote by covol(Γ) the covolume of Γ in G × H with respect to mG ⊗ mH . Then the
quotient
covol mG (P0 ) :=

covol(Γ)
mH (W0 )

does not depend on the choice of Haar measure mH on H, and we refer to this quotient as
the covolume of P0 in G with respect to mG . This is motivated by the fact that if H is the trivial
group, then P0 is a lattice in G and covolmG (P0 ) is the covolume of P0 in G with respect to mG
in the usual sense. We claim that the covolume depends only on mG and the regular model
set P0 = P0 (G, H, Γ, W0 ), but not on the choices of H, Γ and W0 . To establish the claim, let us
denote by ν the unique invariant measure on X × = XP×0 . Since the first correlation measure
(1)

ην of ν is G-invariant, it is a multiple of mG and we claim:
Proposition 4.13. If P0 = P0 (G, H, Γ, W0 ) is a regular model set, then
Z
Z
1
(1)
f dmG (f ∈ Cc (G)).
·
Pf dν =
ην (f ) =
covolmG (P0 ) G
X×
In particular, covol mG (P0 ) depends only on P0 and mG , but not on H, Γ and W0 .
Proof. Replacing mH by covol(Γ)−1 · mH we may assume that covol(Γ) = 1. Since β∗ ν = mY ,
Lemma 4.12 then implies that for every f ∈ Cc (G),
Z
Z
P(f ⊗ χW0 )dmY
Pf dν =
Y
X×
Z Z
f ⊗ χW0 dmG dmH
=
G

H

= mH (W0 ) · mG (f ),
which finishes the proof.
5. A PPROXIMATIONS


OF THE AUTO - CORRELATION MEASURE

5.1. An abstract approximation theorem for the auto-correlation
We return to the general setting where G is a lcsc group and P0 ⊂ G is a subset of finite
local complexity. We denote by X := XP0 and X × := XP×0 the hull and the punctured hull
of P0 respectively and assume that there exists a G-invariant probability measure ν on X × .
Our goal is to express the auto-correlation measure ην of ν as a limit of finite sums of Dirac
measures, similarly to the classical definition of the auto-correlation of a uniform model set
in an abelian group.

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

23

More precisely, our goal is to find conditions on a sequence (Ft ) of subsets of G and a class
of functions A ⊂ Cc (G) such that the finite sums
X X
1
f (x−1 y)
(5.1)
σt (f ) :=
mG (Ft )
x∈P0 ∩Ft y∈P0

approximate ην (f ) for all f ∈ A.
To formulate the conditions on the sequence (Ft ), we fix an admissible metric on G and
denote by Bδ the open ball of radius δ around the identity. Given a subset L ⊂ G and δ > 0
we then denote
\
Lt.
Lδ = LBδ and L−δ =
t∈Bδ

The following definition is a weakening of the notion of an admissible sequence from [15].
Definition 5.1. We say that a sequence (Ft ) of compact subsets of G is weakly admissible if each
(Ft ) has positive Haar measure and there are continuous functions α, β : [0, 1) → R+ with
α(0) = 0 and β(0) = 0 such that
(Ft )δ ⊂ Ft+α(δ)

and

sup
s

mG (Fs+δ )
= 1 + β(δ),
mG (Fs )

for all t, δ > 0. We shall refer to the pair (α, β) as the parameters of (Ft ).
Concerning the class of functions A we are going to assume the following condition.

Definition 5.2. Let (Ft ) be a sequence of compact subsets of G of positive Haar measures. We
say that a linear sub-space A ⊂ Cc (G) is generic with respect to ν and the sequence (Ft ) if
Z
1
Pf1 (s−1 .P0 ) Pf2 (s−1 .P0 ) dmG (s) for all f1 , f2 ∈ A.
ην (f1∗ ∗ f2 ) = lim
t→∞ mG (Ft ) F
t
Now we can state the desired approximation theorem.
Theorem 5.3 (Abstract approximation theorem). Suppose that (Ft ) is a weakly admissible sequence of compact subsets of G and that A ⊂ Cc (G) is generic with respect to ν and (Ft ). Then for
every f ∈ A the finite sums (5.1) converge to the auto-correlation, i.e.
ην (f ) = lim σt (f ).
t→∞

The proof of Theorem 5.3 will be given in Subsection 5.4. We emphasize that no compactness assumption on X × is made in Theorem 5.3.
5.2. An approximation theorem for FLC subsets of amenable groups
To illustrate how Theorem 5.3 can be applied in practice, we consider first the case where
G is amenable.
Corollary 5.4 (Approximation theorem for amenable groups). Assume that G is amenable and
let (Ft ) be a weakly admissible Følner sequence of compact subsets in G. If the hull X × of a FLC subset
P0 ⊂ G is compact and uniquely ergodic, then
ηP0 (f ) = lim σt (f ) for all f ∈ Cc (G).
t→∞

X×

Proof. If G is amenable and
is compact and uniquely ergodic, then the pointwise ergodic
theorem for uniquely ergodic systems (see e.g. [14, Thm. 4.10] for G = Z; the extension to
amenable groups is straight-forward) implies that Cc (G) is generic with respect to any Følner
sequence. Then Corollary 5.4 follows from Theorem 5.3.


24

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

5.3. An approximation theorem for regular model sets in non-amenable groups
The goal of this subsection is to illustrate that Theorem 5.3 also applies in many nonamenable situations. To this end we are going to establish a general theorem concerning the
approximation of the autocorrelation measure of a regular model sets, which contains Theorem 1.2 from the introduction on regular model sets in semisimple Lie groups as a special
case.
Throughout this subsection P0 = P0 (G, H, Γ, W0 ) denotes a regular model set in a lcsc
group G in the sense of Definition 2.6. For large parts of this subsection G can be an arbitrary
lcsc group, although for the explicit examples below we will assume that G is a semisimple
Lie group. We recall from Theorem 1.1 that the punctured hull X × of P0 admits a unique
G-invariant probability measure ν, and by definition ηP0 = ην . In the sequel we denote by
Y := (G × H)/Γ the parameter space of X × and by β : X × → Y the parametrization map
from Theorem 3.1. We also recall from Lemma 4.12 that for f ∈ Cc (G) we have
β ∗ PΓ (f ⊗ χWo ) = Pf,

ν-almost everywhere.

(5.2)

Our goal is to find conditions on a weakly admissible sequence (Ft ) of compact subsets of G
which guarantee that Cc (G) is generic with respect to ν and (Ft ), for then Theorem 5.3 will
imply that
ηP0 (f ) = lim σt (f ) for all f ∈ Cc (G).
t→∞

We begin by introducing some notation. Given a sequence (Ft ) of compact sets in G with
positive measures, we define a sequence (βt ) of probability measures on G by
Z
1
φ(g) dmG (g) for φ ∈ Cc (G).
(5.3)
βt (φ) =
mG (Ft ) Ft
Definition 5.5 ((Almost) everywhere goodness). We say that a sequence (Ft ) of compact subsets of G with positive measures is
• everywhere good for (Y, mY ) if
Z
f dmY , for all f ∈ Cc (Y ) and every y ∈ Y .
(βt ∗ f )(y) →
Y

By a straightforward approximation argument, the same will also hold for all compactly supported mY -Riemann integrable functions on Y .
• almost everywhere good for (Y, mY ) if
Z
f dmY , for all f ∈ L2 (Y, mY ) and mY -almost every y ∈ Y .
(βt ∗ f )(y) →
Y

Theorem 5.6 (Approximation theorem for the auto-correlation of a general regular model
set). Let P0 be a regular model set in a lcsc group G and let (Ft ) be a weakly admissible sequence of
compact and symmetric subsets of G which are almost everywhere good for (Y, mY ). Then
ηP0 (f ) = lim σt (f ) for all f ∈ Cc (G).
t→∞

Example (Weakly admissible sequences in semisimple Lie groups, after Gorodnik–Nevo [15]).
If G is a connected semisimple real Lie group, and (Ft ) is the sequence of compact and symmetric sets in G as defined in Theorem 1.2, then
• (Ft ) is almost everywhere good for (Y, mY ) (in fact, almost everywhere good for any
ergodic G-space).

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

25

• (Ft ) is weakly admissible (and thus in particular quasi-uniform, see below).

Both results are established in Sections 3 and 4 of [15]. (In fact, this paper discusses the notions
above and many variants thereof in great details, and many examples are worked out. )
Note that Theorem 1.2 is an immediate consequence of Theorem 5.6 and the previous example. We now turn to the proof of Theorem 5.6. We will need the following notion.
Definition 5.7 (Quasi-uniformity). We say that a sequence (Ft ) of compact subsets of G with
positive measures is quasi-uniform if
• For every ε > 0, there is an open neighborhood O of e in G such that for all sufficiently
large t, we have OFt ⊂ Ft+ε .
• For every δ > 0, there exists ε > 0 such that for all sufficiently large t,
mG (Ft+ε ) ≤ (1 + δ)mG (Ft ).
We note that every weakly admissible sequence of compact and symmetric sets is automatically quasi-uniform. In view of Theorem 5.3 above it thus remains to show only that if (Ft )
is a weakly admissible sequence of compact subsets of G which is quasi-uniform and almost
everywhere good for (Y, mY ), then Cc (G) is generic with respect to ν and (Ft ). We will break
the proof into the following two lemmas.
Lemma 5.8. Suppose that (Ft ) is a quasi-uniform sequence of compact subsets in G of positive measures which is almost everywhere good for (Y, mY ). Then (Ft ) is everywhere good for (Y, mY ).
Proof. We pick f ∈ Cc (G). By Theorem 5.22 in [15], there exists a G-invariant and mY -conull
subset Y f ⊂ Y such that
Z
f dmY , for all y ∈ Y f .
(βt ∗ f )(y) →
Y

Given a compact subset K ⊂ Y , we can find a countable dense subset D ⊂ C(K). A straightforward approximation argument shows that
Z
\

f
YK :=
f dmY , for all f ∈ C(K) .
Y = y ∈ Y : (βt ∗ f )(y) →
f ∈D

Y

We see that YK is again a G-invariant and mY -conull set, and we shall prove that YK = Y .
Since K is arbitrary, this finishes the proof of Lemma 5.8.
To do this, let us fix a compact set K ⊂ Y and an open and pre-compact set U ⊂ H which
contains e. One readily shows that the irreducibility of Γ forces
(5.4)

(G × U )Γ = G × H.

We set L = ({e}×U )K and note that L is again a compact subset of Y . Since K ⊂ L, we clearly
have the inclusion YL ⊂ YK . Furthermore, if f ∈ C(K) and h ∈ U , then fh (y) := f ((e, h)y)
belongs to C(L), so if y ∈ YL , then
Z
Z
f dmY .
fh dmY =
(βt ∗ f )((e, h)y) = (βt ∗ fh )(y) →
Y

Y

In other words, if y ∈ YL , then (e, h)y ∈ YK for all h ∈ U , or equivalently,
({e} × U )YL ⊂ YK .

26

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

Since YL is mY -conull and Γ is countable, we see that YL′ :=
set. Furthermore,

T

γ∈Γ γYL

is again a mY -conull

({e} × U )YL′ = ({e} × U )ΓYL′ ⊂ ({e} × U )YL ⊂ YK .

Since YK is G-invariant, we see that

(G × {e})({e} × U )YL′ = (G × U )ΓYL′ ⊂ (G × {e})YK = YK .

By (5.4), we conclude that (G × U )ΓY ′ = (G × H)Y ′ = Y , whence YK = Y .



Lemma 5.9. Suppose that (Ft ) is a sequence of compact subsets in G of positive measures which is
everywhere good for (Y, mY ). Then Cc (G) is generic with respect to ν and (Ft ).
Proof. Given f1 , f2 ∈ Cc (G), we define the compactly supported mY -Riemann integrable
function u : Y → C by
u(y) := PΓ (f1 ⊗ χW0 )(y)PΓ (f2 ⊗ χW0 )(y).

By (5.2) above, we have
Z

Y

u dmY =

Z

X×

Pf1 Pf2 dν = hPf1 , Pf2 iL2 (X × ,ν) .

Since (Ft ) is everywhere good with respect to mY and h is mY -Riemann integrable, we have
Z
Z
u(g −1 y) dβt (g), for every y ∈ Y .
u dmY = lim
Y

t→∞ G

If we combine these two observations (with y = yo ), we get
Z
∗
u dmY
ην (f1 ∗ f2 ) = hPf1 , Pf2 iL2 (X × ,ν) =
Y
Z
u(g−1 y0 ) dβt (g)
= lim
t→∞ G
Z
1
= lim
u(s−1 y0 )dmG (s)
t→∞ mG (Ft )
Z Ft
1
PΓ (f1 ⊗ χW0 )(s−1 .y0 )PΓ (f2 ⊗ χW0 )(s−1 .y0 )dmG (s)
= lim
t→∞ mG (Ft )
Ft
Z
1
= lim
Pf1 (s−1 · P0 )Pf2 (s−1 · P0 ) dmG (s).
t→∞ mG (Ft ) F
t

Now Theorem 5.6 follows from Lemma 5.8, Lemma 5.9 and Theorem 5.3.
5.4. The proof of the abstract approximation theorem
The proof of Theorem 5.3 is based on the following observations:
Lemma 5.10. Suppose that ψ is a non-negative left uniformly continuous function on G. Then, for
every ε > 0, there exists δ > 0, such that
Z
X
X
ψ(x) − ε|P0 ∩ Lδ | ≤ (Pρ)(s−1 P0 )ψ(s)dmG (s) ≤
ψ(x) + ε|P0 ∩ Lδ |
x∈P0 ∩L−δ

L

x∈P0 ∩Lδ

for every compact set L ⊂ G and non-negative ρ ∈ Cc (G) with supp ρ ⊂ Bδ and

R

G

ρ dmG = 1.

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

27

Lemma 5.11. For every δ > 0, there exists a constant Mδ such that
Mδ ≥

|P0 ∩ L−δ |
mG (L)

for every compact subset L ⊂ G.

Applying this to weakly admissible sequences we obtain:
Corollary 5.12. For every weakly admissible sequence (Ft ), we have
sup
t

|P0 ∩ Ft |
< ∞.
mG (Ft )

Let us first explain how Lemma 5.10 and Corollary 5.12 imply Theorem 5.3.
Proof of Theorem 5.3. Fix f ∈ A, which we may assume is non-negative, and note that ψ(s) =
Pf (s−1 · P0 ) is non-negative and left-uniformly continuous on G. Let (Ft ) be a weakly admissible sequence of subsets in G with associated parameters (α, β). We wish to prove that
X
1
ην (f ) = lim
ψ(x).
t→∞ mG (Ft )
x∈P0 ∩Ft

Fix ε > 0 and choose δ > 0 as Rin Lemma 5.10 so that for every non-negative continuous
function ρ supported on Bδ with G ρ dmG = 1 and every t ∈ R we have
Z
X
X
(Pρ)(s−1 P0 )ψ(s)dmG (s) ≤
ψ(x) + ε|P0 ∩ (Ft )δ |.
ψ(x) − ε|P0 ∩ (Ft )δ | ≤
Ft

x∈P0 ∩(Ft )−δ

x∈P0 ∩(Ft )δ

If we define

Z
1
(Pρ)(s−1 P0 )ψ(s)dmG (s),
Ξρ (t) =
mG (Ft ) Ft
then, since A is assumed to be generic with respect to ν and (Ft ), we have
ην (ρ∗ ∗ f ) = lim Ξρ (t).
t→∞

Since (Ft ) is weakly admissible, we have for all t > 0,
Ft−α(δ) ⊂ (Ft )−δ

and

mG (Ft−α(δ) )
1
≥
mG (Ft )
1 + β(δ)
Moreover, by Corollary 5.12,
M := sup
t

and

(Ft )δ ⊂ Ft+α(δ) ,

and

mG (Ft+α(δ) )
≤ 1 + β(δ),
mG (Ft )

|P0 ∩ Ft |
< ∞.
mG (Ft )

Hence, if we define
Ψ(t) =

1
mG (Ft )

X

ψ(x),

Ψ− = lim Ψ(t) and
t

x∈P0 ∩Ft

then it follows that for all t > 0
1
Ψ(t − α(δ)) − ε(1 + β(δ))M
1 + β(δ)

≤

Ξρ (t)

≤

Ψ+ = lim Ψ(t),
t

(1 + β(δ))(Ψ(t) + εM ),

and thus in particular
1
Ψ+ − ε(1 + β(δ))M
1 + β(δ)

≤

ην (ρ∗ ∗ f )

≤

(1 + β(δ))(Ψ− + εM ).

28

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

Note that these estimates are uniform in ε. We may now choose a decreasing sequence (εn )
which converges to zero, and pick δn and ρn correspondingly. Since f has compact support
and ην is finite on compact subsets of G, we have
lim ην (ρ∗n ∗ f ) = ην (f ),

n→∞

and thus, since β is continuous and β(0) = 0, we have
Ψ+ ≤ ην (f ) ≤ Ψ− .

This shows that Ψ+ = Ψ− = ην (f ), and thus finishes the proof.



We now turn to the proofs of the lemmas.
Proof of Lemma 5.10. Let ψ be a left uniformly continuous function on G. Fix ε > 0 and choose
δ > 0 such that
|ψ(s) − ψ(x)| < ε,

for all s, x ∈ G such that s−1 x ∈ Bδ .

R

(5.5)

Let ρ be a non-negative continuous function on G supported on Bδ with G ρ dmG = 1 and
L ⊂ G be a compact set. Note firstly that if s−1 x ∈ Bδ , s ∈ L, x ∈ P0 and then x ∈ P0 ∩ Lδ .
This implies that
Z
XZ
−1
ρ(s−1 x)ψ(s) dmG (s)
Pρ(s · P0 )ψ(s) dmG (s) =
L

L

x∈P0

X

=

x∈P0 ∩Lδ

X

+

x∈P0 ∩Lδ

Z

L

ρ(s−1 x)(ψ(s) − ψ(x)) dmG (s)

Z

L


ρ(s−1 x) dmG (s) ψ(x).

R
By the relation between ψ and Bδ described in (5.5), and by the bound L ρ(s−1 x) dmG (s) ≤ 1
for all x ∈ G, we see that
Z
X
Pρ(s−1 · P0 )ψ(s) dmG (s) ≤ ε|P0 ∩ Lδ | +
ψ(x),
L

x∈P0 ∩Lδ

which finishes the proof of the upper bound. Concerning the lower bound, we observe that
if x ∈ L−δ , then L−1 x ⊃ Bδ and thus
Z
ρ(s−1 x) dmG (s) = 1 for all x ∈ L−δ .
L

Combining this with (5.5) we conclude that
Z
X
Pρ(s−1 · P0 )ψ(s) dmG (s) ≥
L

x∈P0 ∩Lδ

−
≥
=

X

x∈P0 ∩Lδ

Z

L

Z

X

x∈P0 ∩L−δ

X

x∈P0 ∩L−δ

which is the desired lower bound.


ρ(s−1 x) dmG (s) ψ(x)

L

ρ(s−1 x)|ψ(s) − ψ(x)| dmG (s)

Z

L


ρ(s−1 x) dmG (s) ψ(x) − ε|P0 ∩ Lδ |

ψ(x) − ε|P0 ∩ Lδ |,


APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

29

Proof of Lemma 5.11. RFix δ > 0 and choose a non-negative continuous function ρ on G supported on Bδ with G ρ dmG = 1. We recall from Proposition 4.1 that Mδ := kPρk∞ < ∞.
Now
let L ⊂ G be a compact set and note that for all x ∈ L−δ , we have L−1 x ⊃ Bδ , and thus
R
−1
L ρ(s x) dmG (s) = 1. We conclude that
Z
XZ
1
1
−1
Mδ ≥
ρ(s−1 x) dmG (s)
Pρ(s P0 ) dmG (s) =
mG (L) L
mG (L)
L
x∈P0
Z
X
1
|P0 ∩ L−δ |
≥
ρ(s−1 x) dmG (s) =
. 
mG (L)
mG (L)
L
x∈P0 ∩L−δ

This completes the proof of Theorem 5.3.
A PPENDIX A. T HE C HABAUTY–F ELL

TOPOLOGY AND THE LOCAL TOPOLOGY

The goal of this appendix is to compare different topologies on the collection C(G) of closed
subsets of a lcsc group G, and to discuss orbit closures of FLC sets in these topologies. All
the results presented in this appendix are well-known in the abelian case [31, 37, 3] and the
generalizations to non-abelian groups discussed here are entirely routine. In the non-abelian
case, the only treatment we are aware of is [43], which however focuses on different aspects.
A.1. A basis for the Chabauty–Fell topology of a lcsc group
We start by discussing different bases for the Chabauty–Fell topology on C(G). In Subsection
2.4 we have defined this topology by means of the basic open subsets UV , U K ⊂ C(G) given
by
UV = {C ∈ C(G) | C ∩ V 6= ∅} and U K = {C ∈ C(G) | C ∩ K = ∅},
where V runs over the open subsets of G and K runs over the compact subsets of G. In the
sequel will prefer to work with a different basis, which is defined as follows.
Given P ∈ C(G), K ∈ K(G) and V ∈ U(G) we define
bK,V (P ) := {Q ∈ C(G) | Q ∩ K ⊂ V P and P ∩ K ⊂ V Q}.
U

bK,V (P ) | K ∈ K(G), V ∈ U(G)} generate the neighbourhood filter of
Proposition A.1. The sets {U
P in the Chabauty–Fell topology.
bK,V (P )}. We first
Proof. Denote by τ the topology with neighbourhood filters given by the {U
show that every non-empty Chabauty–Fell open set U contains a non-empty τ -open subset.
We may assume that U is of the form
U =U

K

∩

n
\

UVi ,

i=1

Vi ∈ O(G) for all i ∈ {1, . . . , n} and K ∈ K(G). Since U 6= ∅ we have Vi \ K 6= ∅ for all i ∈ I
and hence we find x1 , . . . , xn ∈ G and W = W −1 ∈ U(G) such that
K′

W xi ⊂ Vi \ K.

Let P := {x1 , . . . , xn } and
:= K ∪ W P and note that the latter union is disjoint. We claim
b
bK ′ ,W (P ) so that
that UK ′ ,W (P ) ⊂ U . Indeed, let Q ∈ U
Q ∩ K′ ⊂ W P

and

P ∩ K ′ ⊂ W Q.

Then Q ∩ K ′ ⊂ W P = K ′ \ K and thus Q ∩ K = ∅, i.e. Q ∈ U K . Given i ∈ {1, . . . , n}
we have xi ∈ P = P ∩ K ′ ⊂ W Q and hence W xi ∩ Q = W −1 xi ∩ Q 6= ∅. We deduce that

30

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

Q ∩ Vi ⊃ Q ∩ W xi 6= ∅ and thus Q ∈ UVi . This shows that Q ∈ U and shows that τ is finer
than the Chabauty–Fell topology.
Conversely let P ∈ C(G), K ∈ K(G) and V ∈ U(G). We construct a Chabauty–Fell open
bK,V (P ) as follows. Firstly, let W ∈ U(G) be open and symmetric with W 2 ⊂ V .
subset U of U
Secondly, let K ′ := K \ W P ∈ K(G). Since K ∩ P is compact there exist t1 , . . . , tn ∈ G such
that
n
[
W ti and (K ∩ P ) ∩ W ti 6= ∅.
(A.1)
K ∩P ⊂
i=1

We claim that
′

U := U K ∩
′

\

bK,V (P ).
UW ti ⊂ U

Indeed, let Q ∈ U . Since Q ∈ U K we have ∅ = Q ∩ K ′ = Q ∩ (K \ W P ), hence Q ∩ K ⊂ W P ⊂
V P . Concerning the other inclusion, note that for i = 1, . . . , n we have Q ∩ W ti 6= ∅, say
q = wti with q ∈ Q and w ∈ W . Then W ti = W w−1 q ∈ W W −1 Q ⊂ V Q and thus K ∩ P ⊂ V Q
by (A.1), finishing the proof.

In the abelian context, this model for the Chabauty–Fell topology appears in [3], where it
is referred to as the local rubber topology.
A.2. The local uniformity and the local topology
In this subsection we are going to define a G-invariant uniformity on C(G) whose associated topology is finer than the Chabauty–Fell topology, but coincides with the Chabauty–Fell
topology on the orbit closure of any set of finite local complexity. For every K ∈ K(G) and
every V ∈ U(G) we define a subset UK,V ⊂ C(G) × C(G) by
UK,V := {(P, Q) ∈ C(G) | ∃t ∈ V : P ∩ K = tQ ∩ K}.

(A.2)

Proposition A.2. The set B := {UK,V | K ∈ K(G), V ∈ U(G)} is a fundamental system of
entourages for a uniformity on C(G).
Proof. In the notation of [10, Chapter 2, § 1.1] we have to show that
(B1) the diagonal ∆(C(G)) is contained in every U ∈ B;
(B2) for all U1 , U2 ∈ B there exists U3 ∈ B with U3 ⊂ U1 ∩ U2 ;
(B3) for all U1 ∈ B there exists U2 ∈ B such that U2 ⊂ U1−1 ;
(B4) for all U1 ∈ B there exists U2 ∈ B such that U22 ⊂ U1 .
We establish (B1) – (B4) for our B at hand.
(B1) is immediate from the fact that e ∈ V for every V ∈ U(G).
(B2) If (P, Q) ∈ UK1 ∪K2 ,V1 ∩V2 , then there exists t ∈ V1 ∩ V2 such that
It follows that for j = 1, 2,

P ∩ (K1 ∪ K2 ) = tQ ∩ (K1 ∪ K2 ).

P ∩ Kj = tQ ∩ Kj ,
whence (P, Q) ∈ UK1 ,V1 ∩ UK2 ,V2 . This shows that UK1 ∪K2 ,V1 ∩V2 ⊂ UK1 ,V1 ∩ UK2 ,V2 .
(B3) Let V ∈ U(G) and K ∈ K(G). There exists a compact W ∈ U(G) with W 2 ⊂ V and
W = W −1 . Then W K is compact and if (P, Q) ∈ UW K,W , then there exists t ∈ W such that
P ∩ W K = tQ ∩ W K.

By assumption, s := t−1 ∈ W ⊂ V and e ∈ sW , hence K ⊂ sW K. We obtain
Q ∩ K = (Q ∩ sW K) ∩ K = (sP ∩ sW K) ∩ K = sP ∩ K,

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

31

−1
.
showing that (Q, P ) ∈ UK,V , whence UW K,W ⊂ UK,V
2
(B4) Let V, K, W as in the proof of (B3) and let (P, R) ∈ UW
K,W . Then there exist Q ∈ D(G)
such that {(P, Q), (Q, R)} ⊂ UW K,W , i.e. there exist t1 , t2 ∈ W such that

P ∩ W K = t1 Q ∩ W K,

Q ∩ W K = t2 R ∩ W K.

Let t := t1 t2 ∈ V . Since K ⊂ t1 W K ∩ W K we then have

tR ∩ K = (t1 t2 R ∩ t1 W K) ∩ K = t1 (t2 R ∩ W K) ∩ K = t1 (Q ∩ W K) ∩ K
= t1 Q ∩ K = (t1 Q ∩ W K) ∩ K = (P ∩ W K) ∩ K = P ∩ K,

2
hence (P, R) ∈ UV,K , showing that UW
K,W ⊂ UK,V .
This establishes (B1) – (B4) and finishes the proof.



In the sequel we refer to the uniformity defined in Proposition A.2 as the local uniformity on
C(G). and the corresponding topology as the local topology. By definition, a neighbourhood
basis of P ∈ C(G) in the local topology is given by the sets
UK,V (P ) = {Q ∈ C(G) | (P, Q) ∈ UK,V }

= {Q ∈ C(G) | ∃ t ∈ V : tQ ∩ K = P ∩ K}.

where K runs through K(G) and V runs through U(G)

Lemma A.3. The G-action on C(G) by left-translations is jointly continuous with respect to the local
topology.
Proof. Let us denote by m : G × C(G) → C(G) the left-translation action of G, and let g ∈ G,
P ∈ C(G). We are going to show continuity of m at (g, P ). For this let K ⊂ G be compact and
V ⊂ G be an open identity neighbourhood. We choose a symmetric identity neighbourhood
W with W 2 ⊂ V and define K ′ := g −1 K and V ′ := g−1 W g. Now let h ∈ W g and Q ∈
UK ′ ,V ′ (P ). We then find s ∈ V ′ such that sQ ∩ K ′ = P ∩ K ′ and thus
(gsh−1 )(hQ) ∩ K = gP ∩ K.

Since s ∈ V ′ we have gsg −1 ∈ W and since also gh−1 ∈ W we obtain
t := gsh−1 = (gsg −1 )(gh−1 ) ∈ W 2 ⊂ V.

To summarize, we have found t ∈ V such that

t(hQ) ∩ K = gP ∩ K.

This shows that hQ ∈ UK,V (gP ) and thus W g × UK ′ ,V ′ (P ) ⊂ m−1 (UK,V (gP )), which implies
continuity of m at (g, P ).

For the following proposition we denote by τCF the Chabauty–Fell topology on C(G) and
by τloc the local topology.
Proposition A.4. The identity map (C(G), τloc ) → (C(G), τCF ) is continuous, i.e. the local topology
is finer than the Chabauty topology (hence in particular Hausdorff).
b of P ∈ C(G) contains a τloc -neighbourhood
Proof. We show that every τCF -neighbourhood U
b =U
bK,V (P ) for some K ∈ K(G), V ∈ U(G).
of P . By Proposition A.1 we may assume that U
′
Let K be a compact set such that
\
K⊂
t−1 K ′
t∈V

32

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

bK,V (P ). Indeed, let
and let V ′ ∈ U(G) such that (V ′ )−1 V ′ ⊂ V . We claim that UK ′ ,V ′ (P ) ⊂ U
′
′
′
Q ∈ UK ′ ,V ′ (P ) and let t ∈ V such that tQ ∩ K = P ∩ K . Then P ∩ K ⊂ V ′ Q′ ⊂ V Q and
moreover
Q ∩ t−1 K ′ = t−1 P ∩ t−1 K ′ ⇒ Q ∩ K = t−1 P ∩ K ⊂ (V ′ )−1 P ∩ K ⊂ V P ∩ K.

bK,V (P ) and finishes the proof.
This shows that Q ∈ U



A.3. Compactness in the local topology

In the sequel we denote by D(G) ⊂ C(G) the subset of locally finite subsets of G.
Proposition A.5. The restriction of the local uniformity to D(G) is complete.
Proof. Let (I, ≤) be a directed set and (Pi )i∈I be a Cauchy net in D(G) with respect to the local
uniformity. We have to show that (Pi )i∈I admits a convergent subnet. Either there exists a
subnet converging to the empty set, or after passing to a subnet we may assume that there
exists K ∈ K(G) such that Pi ∩ K 6= ∅ for all i ∈ I. In the latter case we can choose ti ∈ Pi ∩ K
and passing to another subnet we may assume that ti → t. Then (t−1
i Pi ) is again a Cauchy
net, and convergence of (Pi ) is equivalent to convergence of (t−1
P
).
We may thus assume
i
i
that e ∈ Pi for every i ∈ I.
Now let V0 be a compact identity neighbourhood. Since (Pi ) is a Cauchy net there exists
i0 ∈ I such that for every i ≥ i0 we have (Pi0 , Pi ) ∈ UV0 ,V0 . Thus for every i ≥ i0 there exists
si ∈ V0 such that
si Pi0 ∩ V0 = Pi ∩ V0 .
Since e ∈ Pi ∩ V0 ⊂ si Pi0 we have si ∈ Pi−1
. Since also si ∈ V0 , we deduce that for all i ≥ i0 ,
0
−1
−1
Pi ∩ V0 = si Pi0 ∩ V0 = si (Pi0 ∩ s−1
i V0 ) ⊂ (Pi0 ∩ V0 )(Pi0 ∩ V0 V0 ).

(A.3)

Now Pi0 and hence Pi−1
are locally finite, and V0 and hence V0−1 V0 are compact. It follows
0
that
F := (Pi−1
∩ V0 )(Pi0 ∩ V0−1 V0 )
0
is finite, and hence V1 := (V0 \ F) ∪ {e} is an identity neighbourhood. By (A.3) we have
Pi ∩ V1 = {e}

for all i ≥ i0 .
Now let K ∈ K(G) be arbitrary. Since (Pi ) is a Cauchy filter we find i1 ≥ i0 such that for
all l, m ≥ i1 we have (Pl , Pm ) ∈ UK,V1 . Thus there exists t ∈ V1 such that
tPl ∩ K = Pm ∩ K.

Now assume K ⊃ V1 . Since e ∈ Pl we have t ∈ tPl ∩ K, and hence t ∈ Pm ∩ K. In particular,
t ∈ Pm ∩ V1 = {e} and thus Pl ∩ K = Pm ∩ K. To summarize, for every sufficiently large K
(and hence, a posteriori, for every K), there exists iK ∈ I such that for all j ≥ iK we have
Pj ∩ K = PiK ∩ K. We may assume that iK ≤ iK ′ whenever K ⊂ K ′ . In particular, if we
define
[
P :=
PiK ∩ K
K∈K(G)

then for all j ≥ iK we have

Pj ∩ K = P ∩ K.

This shows both that P is locally finite, since P ∩ K is finite for every K, and that (Pi ) converges to P .


APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

33

From this completeness property we derive the following compactness criterion.
Corollary A.6. A subset C ⊂ D(G) is pre-compact with respect to the local topology if and only if
for every K ∈ K(G) and U ∈ U(G) there exists a finite subset F ⊂ D(G) such that
[
−1
(P ).
C⊂
UK,V
P ∈F

Proof. Since the local topology on D(G) is complete, it follows from [10, Chapter 2, § 4.2,
Theorem 3] that a subset C ⊂ D(G) is pre-compact if and only if for every K ∈ K(G) and
V ∈ U(G) there exists a finite subset F ⊂ D(G) such that
[
C⊂
UK,V (P ).
P ∈F

−1
.
By axiom (B3) in the proof of Proposition A.2 we can replace UK,V by UK,V



A.4. Orbit closures of sets of finite local complexity
It turns out that finite local complexity can be characterized as a compactness property as
follows.
Theorem A.7. Let P ∈ D(G). Then the following are equivalent.
(i) P has finite local complexity, i.e. P −1 P ⊂ G is locally finite.
(ii) The G-orbit G.P ⊂ C(G) is pre-compact with respect to the local topology.
(iii) ∀K ∈ K(G) ∃K ′ ∈ K′ (G) ∀t ∈ G ∃t′ ∈ K ′ : tP ∩ K = t′ P ∩ K.
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii): Assume that P −1 P is locally finite and fix K ∈ K(G) and V ∈ U(G). Then the
intersection F := P −1 P ∩ K −1 K is finite since K −1 K is compact. Moreover, finitely many
right-V -translates cover K, i.e. there exists another finite set E such that K ⊂ V E. We claim
that for all g ∈ G we get
[
−1
gP ∈
(P ′ ),
(A.4)
UK,V
P ′ ∈F

where
F := {sF ′ ∈ D(G) | F ′ ⊆ F, s ∈ E}.

Since F ⊂ D(G) is finite, this will imply pre-compactness of G.P by Corollary A.6. Thus its
remains only to show (A.4).
If gP ∩ K = ∅ then there is nothing to show. Otherwise we can choose p ∈ P such that
gp ∈ K ⊂ V E. Then F ′ := p−1 P ∩ (gp)−1 K ⊆ F and we find s ∈ E and v ∈ V such that
gp = vs. We then compute
gP ∩ K = gp(p−1 P ∩ (gp)−1 K) ∩ K = vs(p−1 P ∩ (gp)−1 K) ∩ K = vsF ′ ∩ K,

−1
(sF ′ ) and proves (A.4).
which shows that gP ∈ UK,V
(ii) ⇒ (iii): If the orbit G.P is precompact, then for every K ∈ K(G) and V ∈ U(G) the open
cover
[
−1
(g.P )
G.P ⊂
UK,V
g∈G

has a finite subcover. Given K ∈ K(G) we can thus choose a compact V ∈ U(G) and
t1 , . . . , tn ∈ G such that
n
[
−1
(ti P ).
UK,V
G.P ⊂
i=1

34

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

Set K ′ :=

S

V ti , then for every t ∈ G there exists s ∈ V and i ∈ {1, . . . , n} such that
tP ∩ K = sti P ∩ K.

Hence if we define t′ := sti , then t ∈ K ′ and tP ∩ K = t′ P ∩ K.
(iii) ⇒ (i): Given P satisfying (iii) we will show that P −1 P ∩ K is finite for every K ∈ K(G).
We may assume that e ∈ K and choose K ′ ∈ K(G) as in (iii). We will show that
P −1 P ∩ K ⊂ (P −1 ∩ K ′ )(P ∩ (K ′ )−1 K),

(A.5)

which is finite. Thus let q ∈ P −1 P ∩ K and choose q1 , q2 ∈ P with q = q2−1 q1 . By assumption
there exists t′ ∈ K ′ such that
q2−1 P ∩ K = t′ P ∩ K ⊂ t′ P.

We have e ∈ q2−1 P ∩ K, hence e ∈ t′ P , i.e. t′ ∈ P −1 ∩ K ′ . Thus

q = q2−1 q1 ∈ q2−1 P ∩ K = t′ P ∩ K = t′ (P ∩ (t′ )−1 K) ⊂ (P −1 ∩ K ′ )(P ∩ (K ′ )−1 K),

which establishes (A.5) and finishes the proof.



Corollary A.8. Let P ∈ D(G) and X := G.P ⊂ C(G) its orbit closure in the local topology. Then
the Chabauty–Fell topology and the local topology coincide on X if and only if P is of finite local
complexity. In this case, X is also the orbit closure of P in the Chabauty–Fell topology.
Proof. If P has finite local complexity, then (X, τloc ) is compact and hence the continuous
map (X, τloc ) → (X, τCF ) is a homeomorphism. This implies in particular, that X is also the
orbit closure of P in the Chabauty–Fell topology. Conversely, if the topologies coincide, then
(X, τloc ) is compact, hence P has finite local complexity.

R EFERENCES
[1] M. Baake and U. Grimm. Aperiodic order. Vol. 1, volume 149 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. A mathematical invitation, With a foreword by Roger
Penrose.
[2] M. Baake, C. Huck, and N. Strungaru. On weak model sets of extremal density. preprint, 2015. on arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.07129.
[3] M. Baake and D. Lenz. Dynamical systems on translation bounded measures: pure point dynamical and
diffraction spectra. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 24(6):1867–1893, 2004.
[4] M. Baake, D. Lenz, and R. V. Moody. Characterization of model sets by dynamical systems. Ergodic Theory
Dynam. Systems, 27(2):341–382, 2007.
[5] M. Baake and R. V. Moody. Weighted Dirac combs with pure point diffraction. J. Reine Angew. Math., 573:61–
94, 2004.
[6] H. Bass and A. Lubotzky. Tree lattices, volume 176 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston,
MA, 2001. With appendices by Bass, L. Carbone, Lubotzky, G. Rosenberg and J. Tits.
[7] Y. Benoist and J.-F. Quint. Lattices in S-adic Lie groups. J. Lie Theory, 24(1):179–197, 2014.
[8] M.
Bjorklund
and
T.
Hartnick.
Approximate
lattices.
Preprint,
2016.
on
arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.09246.
[9] M. Bjorklund, T. Hartnick, and F. Pogorzelski. Aperiodic order and spherical diffraction, II: The shadow
transform and the diffraction formula. Preprint, 2017.
[10] N. Bourbaki. Topologie générale: Chapitres 1-4. Springer Berlin Heidelberg Paris, 2007.
[11] M. Burger and S. Mozes. Groups acting on trees: from local to global structure. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ.
Math., (92):113–150 (2001), 2000.
[12] M. Burger and S. Mozes. Lattices in product of trees. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (92):151–194 (2001),
2000.
[13] S. Dworkin. Spectral theory and x-ray diffraction. J. Math. Phys., 34(7):2965–2967, 1993.
[14] M. Einsiedler and T. Ward. Ergodic theory with a view towards number theory, volume 259 of Graduate Texts in
Mathematics. Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, 2011.

APERIODIC ORDER AND SPHERICAL DIFFRACTION

35

[15] A. Gorodnik and A. Nevo. The ergodic theory of lattice subgroups, volume 172 of Annals of Mathematics Studies.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010.
[16] J.-B. Gouéré. Quasicrystals and almost periodicity. Comm. Math. Phys., 255(3):655–681, 2005.
[17] D. Gratias and L. Michel. International Workshop on Aperiodic Crystals : March 11-20, 1986, Les Houches (France).
Les Ulis Cedex, France, 1986.
[18] A. Hof. On diffraction by aperiodic structures. Comm. Math. Phys., 169(1):25–43, 1995.
[19] A. Hof. Uniform distribution and the projection method. In Quasicrystals and discrete geometry (Toronto, ON,
1995), volume 10 of Fields Inst. Monogr., pages 201–206. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1998.
[20] G. Keller and C. Richard. Dynamics on the graph of the torus parametrisation. preprint, 2015. on arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06137.
[21] P. Kramer and R. Neri. On periodic and non-periodic space fillings of E m obtained by projection. Acta Crystallographica, A40(5):580–587, 1984. Erratum A 41, 1985.
[22] J. C. Lagarias. Meyer’s concept of quasicrystal and quasiregular sets. Comm. Math. Phys., 179(2):365–376,
1996.
[23] J.-Y. Lee, R. V. Moody, and B. Solomyak. Pure point dynamical and diffraction spectra. Ann. Henri Poincaré,
3(5):1003–1018, 2002.
[24] D. Lenz and N. Strungaru. Pure point spectrum for measure dynamical systems on locally compact abelian
groups. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 92(4):323–341, 2009.
[25] D. Levine and P. J. Steinhardt. Quasicrystals: A new class of ordered structures. Phys. Rev. Lett., 53:2477–2480,
Dec 1984.
[26] J. Marklof and A. Strömbergsson. Free path lengths in quasicrystals. Comm. Math. Phys., 330(2):723–755, 2014.
[27] J. Marklof and A. Strömbergsson. Visibility and directions in quasicrystals. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN,
(15):6588–6617, 2015.
[28] Y. Meyer. À propos de la formule de Poisson. Fac. Sci., Univ. Paris, Orsay, 1969.
[29] Y. Meyer. Nombres de Pisot, nombres de Salem et analyse harmonique. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 117.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1970. Cours Peccot donné au Collège de France en avril-mai 1969.
[30] Y. Meyer. Algebraic numbers and harmonic analysis. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-London;
American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1972. North-Holland Mathematical Library, Vol. 2.
[31] R. 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.
[32] R. V. Moody. Meyer sets and their duals. In From quasicrystals to more complex systems (Les Houches, 1998),
pages 145–166. Springer, Berlin, 2000.
[33] R. V. Moody. Uniform distribution in model sets. Canad. Math. Bull., 45(1):123–130, 2002.
[34] M. S. Raghunathan. Discrete subgroups of Lie groups. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972. Ergebnisse
der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 68.
[35] C. Richard and N. Strungaru. Pure point diffraction and Poisson summation. preprint, 2015. on arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.00912.
[36] E. A. Robinson, Jr. The dynamical properties of Penrose tilings. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 348(11):4447–4464,
1996.
[37] M. Schlottmann. Generalized model sets and dynamical systems. In Directions in mathematical quasicrystals,
volume 13 of CRM Monogr. Ser., pages 143–159. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000.
[38] D. Shechtman, I. Blech, D. Gratias, and J. W. Cahn. Metallic phase with longe-range orientational order and
no translational symmetry. Phys. Rev. Lett., 53:1951–1953, 1984.
[39] B. Solomyak. Spectrum of dynamical systems arising from Delone sets. In Quasicrystals and discrete geometry
(Toronto, ON, 1995), volume 10 of Fields Inst. Monogr., pages 265–275. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1998.
[40] N. Strungaru. Almost periodic measures and meyer sets. preprint,
2015. on arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00945.
[41] R. Winkler. Hartman sets, functions and sequences—a survey. In Probability and number theory—Kanazawa
2005, volume 49 of Adv. Stud. Pure Math., pages 517–543. Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2007.
[42] D. Witte-Morris. Introduction to arithmetic groups. Deductive Press, 2015.
[43] T. Yokonuma. Discrete sets and associated dynamical systems in a non-commutative setting. Canad. Math.
Bull., 48(2):302–316, 2005.

36

MICHAEL BJÖRKLUND, TOBIAS HARTNICK, AND FELIX POGORZELSKI

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
M ATHEMATICS D EPARTMENT, T ECHNION , H AIFA 32000, I SRAEL
E-mail address: felixp@tx.technion.ac.il

