arXiv:1612.04280v2 [math.FA] 11 Jan 2018

WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE
SØREN KNUDBY

Abstract. We completely characterize connected Lie groups all of whose
countable subgroups are weakly amenable. We also provide a characterization of connected semisimple Lie groups that are weakly amenable. Finally,
we show that a connected Lie group is weakly amenable if the group is weakly
amenable as a discrete group.

1. Statement of the results
Weak amenability for locally compact groups was introduced by Cowling and
Haagerup in [11]. The property has proven useful as a tool in operator algebras
going back to Haagerup’s result on the free groups [17], results on lattices on simple
Lie groups and their group von Neumann algebras [11, 18], and more recently in
several results on Cartan rigidity in the theory of von Neumann algebras (see e.g.
[31, 32]). Due to its many applications in operator algebras, the study of weak
amenability, especially for discrete groups, is important.
A locally compact group G is weakly amenable if the constant function 1 on G can be
approximated uniformly on compact subsets by compactly supported Herz-Schur
multipliers, uniformly bounded in norm (see Section 2 for details). The optimal
uniform norm bound is the Cowling–Haagerup constant (or the weak amenability
constant), denoted here Λ(G).
By now, weak amenability is quite well studied, especially in the setting of connected
Lie groups. The combined work of [9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19] characterizes weak
amenability for simple Lie groups. For partial results in the non-simple case, we
refer to [10, 25]. We record the simple case here.
Theorem 1.1 ([9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19]). A connected simple Lie group G is weakly
amenable if and only if the real rank of G is zero or one. In that case, the weak
amenability constant is


1
when G has real rank zero,





when G ≈ SO(1, n), n ≥ 2,
1
Λ(G) = 1
(1.2)
when G ≈ SU(1, n), n ≥ 2,



2n − 1 when G ≈ Sp(1, n), n ≥ 2,



21
when G ≈ F4(−20) .
Above, G ≈ H means that G is locally isomorphic to H.

Date: January 12, 2018.
Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the Collaborative Research Centre
(SFB 878).
1

WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

2

In Section 3, we observe how the classification of simple Lie groups that are weakly
amenable can be extended to include all semisimple Lie groups. Since it is not
known in general if weak amenability of connected Lie groups is preserved under
local isomorphism, it is not entirely obvious how to deduce the semisimple case
from the simple case. We prove the following:
Theorem 3.1. Let G be a connected semisimple Lie group. Then G is locally isomorphic to a direct product S1 × · · · × Sn of connected simple Lie groups S1 , . . . , Sn ,
and G is weakly amenable if and only if each Si is weakly amenable. In fact,
Λ(G) =

n
Y

Λ(Si ).

i=1

Combining Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 1.1 one can then compute the value Λ(G)
for any connected semisimple Lie group G. Our proof of Theorem 3.1 relies on
an inequality proved by Cowling for discrete groups (see (2.6)). In order to apply
Cowling’s inequality, we pass to lattices by using Haagerup’s result (2.5) that this
does not change the Cowling-Haagerup constant. The same trick is also used in
our proof of Theorem 5.4.
Theorem 3.1 was previously known under the additional assumption that the semisimple Lie group had finite center or finite fundamental group. Indeed, under this
additional assumption Theorem 3.1 then follows from Theorem 1.1 and an application of the well-known permanence properties (2.1) and (2.3) below. The assumption of finite center or finite fundamental group can be considered as extreme cases,
and Theorem 3.1 then settles the intermediate cases in which the center and the
fundamental group are both infinite.
In a similar spirit, the characterization of weak amenability for connected Lie groups
in general has been done in the cases where the Levi factor has finite center [10]
or the Lie group has trivial fundamental group [25] (the case of finite fundamental
group then follows from (2.1)). Some intermediate cases remain open.
For a locally compact group G, we let Gd denote the same group G equipped with
the discrete topology. There has previously been some interest in studying the
relationship between properties of G and Gd (see e.g. [1, 3, 13, 26]). For instance,
it is known that if Gd is an amenable group, then G is an amenable group. The
analogous question about weak amenability is open:
Question 1 ([26]). If Gd is weakly amenable, is G weakly amenable?
It is a fact that a discrete group is weakly amenable if and only if all of its countable
subgroups are weakly amenable (see Lemma 2.7). It thus makes no difference if
one studies weak amenability of Gd or of all countable subgroups of G. Note that
countable subgroups of G are always viewed with the discrete topology which might
differ from the subspace topology coming from G.
Our main result is the following characterization of connected Lie groups all of
whose countable subgroups are weakly amenable.
Theorem 4.11. Let G be a connected Lie group, and let Gd denote the group G
equipped with the discrete topology. The following are equivalent.

WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

3

(1) G is locally isomorphic to R × SO(3)a × SL(2, R)b × SL(2, C)c , for a solvable
connected Lie group R and integers a, b, c.
(2) Gd is weakly amenable with constant 1.
(3) Gd is weakly amenable.
(4) Every countable subgroup of G is weakly amenable with constant 1.
(5) Every countable subgroup of G is weakly amenable.
In [26], Theorem 4.11 was proved in the special case where G is a simple Lie
group. In order to remove the assumption of simplicity, one needs to deal with
certain semidirect products, some of which were dealt with in [25]. In Section 4
we obtain non-weak amenability results for the remaining semidirect products (see
Proposition 4.9) and thus obtain Theorem 4.11.
Our proof of Theorem 4.11 relies in part on the methods of [13] where de Cornulier
proved that (1) in Theorem 4.11 is equivalent to
(6) Gd has the Haagerup property.
It was conjectured by Cowling (see [6, p. 7]) that a locally compact group G satisfies
Λ(G) = 1 if and only if G has the Haagerup property. Although this is now
known to be false in this generality (see [29, Remark 2.13], [14, Corollary 2]),
Theorem 4.11 together with de Cornulier’s result [13, Theorem 1.14] establishes
Cowling’s conjecture for connected Lie groups made discrete.
As another application of Theorem 4.11, we are able to settle Question 1 in the
case of connected Lie groups. In the last section, we establish the following.
Corollary 5.5. Let G be a connected Lie group. If Gd is weakly amenable, then G
is weakly amenable. In this case, Λ(Gd ) = Λ(G) = 1.
We remark that our proof of Corollary 5.5 relies on the classification obtained in
Theorem 4.11. It would be preferable to have a direct proof avoiding the classification.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Weak amenability. Let G be a locally compact group. A Herz-Schur multiplier is a complex function ϕ on G of the form ϕ(y −1 x) = hP (x), Q(y)i, where
P, Q : G → H are bounded continuous functions from G to a Hilbert space H and
x, y ∈ G. Note that ϕ is continuous and bounded by kP k∞ kQk∞ . The Herz-Schur
norm of ϕ is defined as
kϕkB2 = inf{kP k∞ kQk∞ },
where the infimum is taken over all P, Q as above. With this norm and pointwise
operations, the Herz-Schur multipliers form a unital Banach algebra.
The group G is weakly amenable if there is a net (ϕi ) of compactly supported HerzSchur multipliers converging to 1 uniformly on compact subsets of G and satisfying
supi kϕi kB2 ≤ C for some C ≥ 1. The weak amenability constant Λ(G) is the
infimum of those C ≥ 1 for which such a net exists, with the understanding that
Λ(G) = ∞ if G is not weakly amenable. There are several equivalent definitions of

WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

4

weak amenability in the literature, see e.g. [11, Proposition 1.1]. Weak amenability of groups should however not be confused with weak amenability of Banach
algebras.
Weak amenability is preserved under several group constructions. We list here the
known results needed later on and refer to [5, Section 12.3], [8, Section III], [11,
Section 1], [18], [23] for proofs. When K is a compact normal subgrop of G,
Λ(G) = Λ(G/K).
If (Gi )i∈I is a directed collection of open subgroups in G then
!
[
Λ
Gi = sup Λ(Gi ).
i∈I

(2.1)

(2.2)

i∈I

For two locally compact groups G and H,
Λ(G × H) = Λ(G)Λ(H).

(2.3)

If G has a closed normal subgroup N such that the quotient G/N is amenable then
Λ(N ) = Λ(G).

(2.4)

We remark that (2.4) is stated in [23] only for second countable groups, but it is
not difficult to deduce the general statement from this and the Kakutani-Kodaira
Theorem [21, Theorem 8.7] using (2.1) and (2.2).
Recall that a lattice Γ in a locally compact group G is a discrete subgroup such
that the homogeneous space G/Γ admits a G-invariant probability measure, where
G acts on G/Γ by left translation. If Γ is a lattice in a second countable, locally
compact group G, then
Λ(Γ) = Λ(G).

(2.5)

When Z is a central subgroup of a discrete group G then
Λ(G) ≤ Λ(G/Z).

(2.6)

A remark on (2.6) is in order. Much work related to weak amenability for connected
Lie groups would be significantly easier if (2.6) holds true for non-discrete groups G
as well. For instance, [19] would then have been an immediate consequence of earlier
work such as [9, 11], and our Theorem 3.1 would also be an immediate consequence
of earlier work. It would even be relatively easy to complete the characterization of
weak amenability for connected Lie groups. Needless to say, we have not been able
to generalize (2.6) to the non-discrete case so far. Sometimes, one can reduce the
general case to the discrete case and then apply (2.6). In the present paper, this is
done using lattices as is most explicitly seen in the proof of Theorem 3.1, but also
in Theorem 5.4.
Lemma 2.7. Let G be a discrete group. Then G is weakly amenable if and only if
every countable subgroup of G is weakly amenable.
Proof. Clearly, weak amenability of G implies that every subgroup of G is weakly
amenable. Assume conversely that G is not weakly amenable. We claim that
G contains a countable subgroup which is not weakly amenable. Since G is the

WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

5

directed union of all its countable subgroups, it follows from (2.2) that there is a
sequence G1 , G2 , . . . of countable subgroups of G such that Λ(Gn ) ≥ n. Let G∞ be
the subgroup of G generated by G1 , G2 , . . .. Then G∞ is a countable subgroup of
G and G∞ is not weakly amenable. This completes the proof.

2.2. Structure of Lie groups. Losely speaking, two Lie groups are locally isomorphic if they admit homeomorphic neighborhoods of the identity on which the
group laws (here only partially defined) are identical. Equivalently, two Lie groups
are locally isomorphic if and only if their Lie algebras are isomorphic (see [20,
Theorem II.1.11]).
e which is a Lie group
A connected Lie group G has a simply connected covering G
locally isomorphic to G in such a way that the covering map is a group homomorphism. The kernel of the covering homomorphism is a discrete central subgroup of
e Conversely, any connected Lie group locally isomorphic to G is a quotient of
G.
e by a discrete central subgroup. For a discrete subgroup N of the center Z(G)
e
G
e then the center of the quotient G/N
e
of G,
is precisely the quotient of the center
e
Z(G)/N . See e.g. [7, Chapter II] and [24, Section I.11] for details.

Let G be a connected Lie group with Lie algebra g. Then G admits a Levi decomposition G = RS. Here, R is the solvable closed connected Lie subgroup of G
associated with the solvable radical of g. The group S is a semisimple connected
Lie subgroup of G associated with a (semisimple) Levi subalgebra s of g. We refer
to [35, Section 3.18] and in particular [35, Theorem 3.18.13] for details. The semisimple Lie algebra s splits as a direct sum s = s1 ⊕· · ·⊕sn of simple Lie algebras (for
some n ≥ 0), and if Si denotes the connected Lie subgroup of G associated with the
Lie subalgebra si , then S is locally isomorphic to the direct product S1 × · · · × Sn .
3. Weak amenability of semisimple Lie groups
The computation below of Λ(G) for all semisimple Lie groups G basically relies
on three facts: the existence of lattices in semisimple Lie groups, the permanence
results stated in Section 2, and most importantly that Λ(G) is known for all simple
Lie groups.
Theorem 3.1. Let G be a connected semisimple Lie group. Then G is locally isomorphic to a direct product S1 × · · · × Sn of connected simple Lie groups S1 , . . . , Sn ,
and G is weakly amenable if and only if each Si is weakly amenable. In fact,
Λ(G) =

n
Y

Λ(Si ).

i=1

e the universal cover of G, and G = G/Z. By
Proof. Let Z denote the center of G, G
semisimplicity, Z is discrete. The Lie algebra g of G is a direct sum g = s1 ⊕ · · ·⊕ sn
e and
of simple Lie algebras. Let Sei and S i denote the analytic subgroups of G
G corresponding to si , respectively. Then we have the following direct product
decompositions
n
n
Y
Y
e=
Sei
and
G
G=
Si.
i=1

i=1

WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

6

Let Γ be a lattice in G (a lattice exists by [33, Theorem 14.1]). Consider the
covering homomorphisms
e→G
G
and
G → G,
e be the lift of Γ to G.
e Then Γ ≤ G is a
and let Γ be the lift of Γ to G, and let Γ
e
e
lattice, and Γ ≤ G is a lattice. Using (2.5), (2.3), and (2.6) we obtain
Λ(G) = Λ(Γ) ≤ Λ(Γ) = Λ(G) =

e = Λ(G)
e =
Λ(G) = Λ(Γ) ≥ Λ(Γ)

n
Y

i=1
n
Y
i=1

Λ(S i ),
Λ(Sei ).

By Theorem 1.1, we have Λ(S i ) = Λ(Sei ) for every i, and this concludes the proof.

4. Weak amenability of Lie groups made discrete
When G is a Lie group we denote by Gd the group G equipped with the discrete
topology. We recall [26, Theorem 1.10] which will be used in the proof of Theorem 4.11.
Theorem 4.1 ([26]). For a connected simple Lie group S, the following are equivalent.
• S is locally isomorphic to SO(3), SL(2, R), or SL(2, C).
• Sd is weakly amenable.
• Sd is weakly amenable with constant 1.
In order to generalize Theorem 4.1 to non-simple Lie groups we need to consider
certain semidirect products which we now describe. A main ingredient to prove
non-weak amenability of these semidirect products is [25, Theorem 5], which we
recall here for the convenience of the reader.
Theorem 4.2 ([25, Theorem 5]). Let H y N be an action by automorphisms of a
discrete group H on a discrete group N , and let G = N ⋊ H be the corresponding
semidirect product group. Let N0 be a proper subgroup of N . Suppose
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

H is not amenable;
N is amenable;
N0 is H-invariant;
For every x ∈ N \ N0 , the stabilizer of x in H is amemable.

Then G is not weakly amenable.
The semidirect products of interest also appear in [13] to which we refer the reader
for further details.
The irreducible real representations of SL(2, R) and SU(2) are well-known. We
describe them below.
For each natural number n ≥ 1, the group SL(2, R) has a unique irreducible real
representation Vn of dimension n. (see [27, p. 107]). It may be realized as the

WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

7

natural action of SL(2, R) on the homogeneous polynomials in two real variables of
degree n − 1.
Similarly, the group SU(2) acts on the homogeneous polynomials in two complex
variables of degree n−1. When n = 2m is even, this representation is still irreducible
as a real representation V4m of dimension 4m. When n = 2m + 1 is odd, the
representation is the complexification of an irreducible real representation V2m+1 of
dimension 2m + 1. The representations V2m+1 and V4m make up all the irreducible
real representations of SU(2). We refer to [4, 22] for details.
Let S be SL(2, R) or SU(2), and let s be the Lie algebra of S. If V is a real
irreducible representation of S, then V also carries the derived representation of s.
Let Alts (V ) denote the real vector space of alternating bilinear forms ϕ on V that
are s-invariant, that is, bilinear forms ϕ : V × V → R satisfying
ϕ(x, x) = 0

and

ϕ(s.x, y) + ϕ(x, s.y) = 0

for all s ∈ s, x, y ∈ V.

The Lie group H(V ) is defined as V × Alts (V )∗ with group multiplication given by
(x, z)(x′ , z ′ ) = (x + x′ , z + z ′ + ex,x′ ),

x, x′ ∈ V, z, z ′ ∈ Alts (V )∗ ,

where ex,x′ ∈ Alts (V )∗ is the evaluation functional defined by ex,x′ (ϕ) = ϕ(x, x′ ).
The group S acts on H(V ) by s.(x, z) = (s.x, z). When Z ⊆ Alts (V )∗ is a subspace,
we obtain a quotient group H(V )/Z, and the action of S on H(V ) descends to an
action on H(V )/Z. In this way we obtain the semidirect product
H(V )/Z ⋊ S.
Lemma 4.3. If G is a proper, real algebraic subgroup of SL(2, R) or SU(2), then
Gd is amenable.
Proof. Let S be SL(2, R) or SU(2), and let s be the Lie algebra of S. The group
G has only finitely many components (in the usual Hausdorff topology) (see [36,
Theorem 3] or [30, Theorem 3.6]). It is therefore enough to show that the identity
component G0 of G is amenable as a discrete group.
Since G0 is a connected, proper, closed subgroup of S, its Lie algebra g is a proper
Lie subalgebra of s. The dimension of g is therefore at most two, and g must be a
solvable Lie algebra. So G0 is a solvable group. In particular, G0 is amenable in
the discrete topology.

In what follows below, we have to exclude the trivial irreducible representation of
S. We thus assume from now on that dim V ≥ 2.
Lemma 4.4. If dim V ≥ 2 and if (x, z) ∈ H(V )/Z and x 6= 0, then the stabilizer
of (x, z) in S is amenable in the discrete topology.
Proof. The stabilizer of (x, z) in S coincides with the stabilizer of x in S. Since
x 6= 0, and S acts irreducibly on V , the stabilizer of x in S is a proper subgroup.
It follows from the explicit description of the action of S on V as the action on
the homogeneous polynomials in two variables that the stabilizer is moreover a real
algebraic subgroup. Hence, Lemma 4.3 shows that the stabilizer is amenable in the
discrete topology.


WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

8

Proposition 4.5. If dim V ≥ 2, the group H(V )/Z ⋊ S is not weakly amenable in
the discrete topology.
Proof. We intend to apply Theorem 4.2 with H = Sd , N = (H(V )/Z)d and N0 =
(Alts (V )∗ /Z)d . Clearly, H is not amenable, N is amenable, and N0 is invariant
under H (in fact, H acts trivially on N0 ). It remains to check that every element

of N \ N0 has amenable stabilizer. This is Lemma 4.4.
In the case S = SL(2, R), the group H(V )/Z ⋊ S is not simply connected, since
f R) denote the universal covering
SL(2, R) is not simply connected. Let Se = SL(2,
group of SL(2, R). The covering homomorphism Se → S has kernel isomorphic to
the group of integers Z. The group Se acts on H(V )/Z through the action of S.
Since the stabilizer of (x, z) ∈ H(V )/Z in Se is an extension by Z of the stabilizer
in S, and since amenability is preserved by extensions, the following is immediate
from Lemma 4.4.
Lemma 4.6. If dim V ≥ 2 and if (x, z) ∈ H(V )/Z and x 6= 0, then the stabilizer
of (x, z) in Se is amenable in the discrete topology.

Applying Theorem 4.2 with H = Sed , N = (H(V )/Z)d and N0 = (Alts (V )∗ /Z)d ,
we obtain the following:
Proposition 4.7. If dim V ≥ 2, the group H(V )/Z ⋊ Se is not weakly amenable in
the discrete topology.
Proposition 4.8. If dim V ≥ 2 and if G is a connected Lie group locally isomorphic
to H(V )/Z ⋊ S, then Gd is not weakly amenable.

e be the universal cover of G. Then G = G/D
e
Proof. Let G
for some discrete central
e d is not weakly amenable,
e By (2.6), it is enough to prove that G
subgroup D of G.
and hence we may (and will) assume that G is simply connected.

e = H(V )/Z ⋊ S
If S = SU(2), then the group H(V )/Z ⋊ S is simply connected, so G
f R), then H(V )/Z ⋊ Se
and we apply Proposition 4.5. If S = SL(2, R) and Se = SL(2,
e
e
is simply connected, so G = H(V )/Z ⋊ S and we apply Proposition 4.7.


For now, let S = SL(2, R) and V = Vn . If n = 2m + 1 is odd, the space Alts (V )∗
is trivial and
H(V ) ⋊ S = R2m+1 ⋊ SL(2, R).
If n = 2m is even, the space Alts (V )∗ is one dimensional and H(V ) is the 2m + 1
dimensional real Heisenberg group H2m+1 . If Z = Alts (V )∗ , then
H(V ) ⋊ S = H2m+1 ⋊ SL(2, R),

H(V )/Z ⋊ S = R2m ⋊ SL(2, R).

When S = SU(2) and V = V2m+1 , the space Alts (V )∗ is trivial, and with the
notation of [13] we have
R
H(V ) ⋊ S = D2m+1
⋊ SU(2).

When S = SU(2) and V = V4m , the space Alts (V )∗ is three dimensional. If
Zi ⊆ Alts (V )∗ is a subspace of dimension 3 − i, then with the notation of [13] we
have
i
H(V )/Zi ⋊ S = HU4m
⋊ SU(2).

WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

9

Using the perhaps more iluminating description of the groups H(V )/Z ⋊ S just
given, Proposition 4.8 translates as
Proposition 4.9. Let G be a connected Lie group locally isomorphic to one of the
following groups:
•
•
•
•

R
D2n+1
⋊ SU(2) for some i = 0, 1, 2, 3 and some n ≥ 1;
i
HU4n
⋊ SU(2) for some i = 0, 1, 2, 3 and some n ≥ 1;
Rn ⋊ SL(2, R) for some n ≥ 2;
H2n+1 ⋊ SL(2, R) for some n ≥ 1.

Then Gd is not weakly amenable.
Proposition 4.10. Let G be a connected Lie group, and let G = RS be a Levi decomposition (see Section 2.2), where R is the solvable radical and S is a semisimple
Levi factor. If [R, S] 6= 1, then Gd is not weakly amenable.
Proof. This follows basically from structure theory of Lie algebras together with
Proposition 4.9. Indeed, from the assumption [R, S] 6= 1 it follows from [13, Proposition 3.4] and [13, Proposition 3.8] that G contains a connected Lie subgroup H
locally isomorphic to one of the groups listed in Proposition 4.9. Since Hd is not
weakly amenable, Gd is not weakly amenable.

Theorem 4.11. Let G be a connected Lie group, and let Gd denote the group G
equipped with the discrete topology. The following are equivalent.
(1) G is locally isomorphic to R × SO(3)a × SL(2, R)b × SL(2, C)c , for a solvable
connected Lie group R and integers a, b, c.
(2) Gd is weakly amenable with constant 1.
(3) Gd is weakly amenable.
(4) Every countable subgroup of G is weakly amenable with constant 1.
(5) Every countable subgroup of G is weakly amenable.
Proof. Let G = RS be a Levi decomposition of G (see Section 2.2).
(1) =⇒ (2): If S is a semisimple Levi factor in G, then by assumption S is normal
in G, and the group Gd /Sd is solvable, since it is a quotient of the solvable group
Rd . By (2.4), it is enough to show that Sd is weakly amenable with constant 1.
Using (2.6), we may assume that the center of S is trivial. Then S is direct product
of factors SO(3), PSL(2, R), and PSL(2, C). An application of (2.3) and Theorem 4.1 shows that Sd is weakly amenable with constant 1.
(2) =⇒ (4): This is clear.
(4) =⇒ (5): This is clear.
(5) =⇒ (3): This is Lemma 2.7.
(3) =⇒ (1): Suppose G does not satisfy (1). If [R, S] 6= 1, then Proposition 4.10
shows that Gd is not weakly amenable. Otherwise [R, S] = 1 and S contains a
simple Lie subgroup not locally isomorphic to SO(3), SL(2, R), or SL(2, C). It then
follows from Theorem 4.1 that Sd is not weakly amenable, and hence Gd too is not
weakly amenable.


WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

10

5. Weak amenability of Lie groups with and without topology
As a consequence of Theorem 4.11, we can answer (part of) Question 1.8 in [26]
affirmatively in the case of connected Lie groups. Indeed, we show below that, for
a connected Lie group G, if Gd is weakly amenable then G too is weakly amenable.
We first establish a few lemmas.
Lemma 5.1. Let m, n be non-negative integers, and let D ⊆ Rm × Zn be a discrete
subgroup. There is a discrete subgroup D′ ⊆ Rm × Zn such that D ⊆ D′ and D′ is
cocompact in Rm × Zn .
Proof. Our proof is an application of the characterization of compactly generated,
locally compact abelian groups (see [21, Theorem 9.8]). As Rm × Zn is compactly
generated, so is the quotient (Rm × Zn )/D. Therefore the quotient is of the form
Ra × Zb × C, where a and b are integers and C is a compact abelian group. Clearly,
Ra × Zb × C has a cocompact discrete subgroup, Za × Zb × {0}, and its preimage
in Rm × Zn is a discrete, cocompact subgroup which contains D.

Our next lemma establishes the existence of lattices in certain Lie groups. There are
well-known results of Malcev about existence of lattices in nilpotent Lie groups and
of Borel about existence of lattices in semisimple Lie groups (see [33, Theorem 2.12]
and [33, Theorem 14.1]). However, we are interested in some intermediate cases
such as the following example, which we have included to give the reader an intuition
about the succeeding proof.
Example 5.2. Fix an irrational number θ. Let H be the universal covering group
of SL(2, R). Its center is infinite cyclic, and we let z denote a generator of the center
of H. Consider the group D = {(−m − nθ, z m , z n ) | m, n ∈ Z} which is central in
R × H × H, and let G be the quotient group G = (R × H × H)/D. We will describe
a lattice in G.
The group SL(2, R) admits a lattice F isomorphic to the free group on two generators. By freeness, F lifts to a subgroup Fe of H. Then (Z × Fe × Fe )D is a
lattice in R × H × H, and it obviously contains D, so it factors down to a lattice
in (R × H × H×)/D.
Lemma 5.3. A connected Lie group locally isomorphic to
Rm × SL(2, R)n ,
where m and n are non-negative integers, contains a lattice.
Proof. We first introduce some notation. For any Lie group L, let Z(L) denote the
center of L. We use 1 to denote the neutral element (or 0 for the group R). Let H
be the universal covering group of SL(2, R). Its center Z(H) is infinite cyclic.
e = Rm × H n . Then G
e is a simply connected and connected Lie group, and
Set G
any connected Lie group G locally isomorphic to Rm × SL(2, R)n is of the form
e
e Let π : G
e → G be the
G = G/D
for some discrete central subgroup D of G.
quotient homomorphism π(x) = xD.

e and that
Suppose D ⊆ D′ for some other discrete central subgroup D′ in G
′
e
e
contains a lattice. Then the preimage under G/D → G/D of any lattice in

e ′
G/D
e
G/D′

WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

11

e
e is Z(G)
e = Rm × Z(H)n ≃ Rm × Zn , so
is a lattice in G/D.
The center of G
by Lemma 5.1 we may without loss of generality suppose that D is discrete and
e
cocompact in Z(G).

The quotient H/Z(H) is PSL(2, R), and it is well-known that PSL(2, R) has a lattice
F isomorphic to a free group on two generators (see e.g. [2, Example B.2.5(iv)]).
By the universal property of free groups, there is a subgroup Fe ⊆ H such that the
quotient map H → PSL(2, R) maps Fe bijectively onto F . The preimage of F in H
is Fe Z(H), which is a lattice in H. Also, Fe ∩ Z(H) = {1}.
e We will show that π(Γ) = ΓD/D is a
Consider the subgroup Γ = {0}m × Fen in G.
lattice in G.
e Since it is a countable subgroup, it is enough to see
The group ΓD is discrete in G:
e
e which is closed in G
e
that ΓD is closed in G. Now, ΓD is clearly closed in ΓZ(G),
m
n
e = R × (Fe Z(H)) .
since ΓZ(G)
The group π(Γ) is discrete in G: As π is an open map, π(W ) is an open set in G
and π(Γ) ∩ π(W ) = {1}. Indeed, if w ∈ W and γ ∈ Γ satisfy π(w) = π(γ), then it
follows that w ∈ ΓD so w = 1. Thus, π(Γ) is discrete in G.

The group π(Γ) has finite covolume in G: Let ψ : G → G/Z(G) be the quotient
e is connected, Z(G) = Z(G)/D.
e
homomorphism. As D is discrete and G
We thus
have isomorphisms
e
e ≃ PSL(2, R)n ,
G/Z(G) ≃ G/Z(
G)

and under these isomorphisms ψπ(Γ) = F n . As F is a lattice in PSL(2, R), there
is a Borel set (even a Borel fundamental domain) Ω ⊆ G/Z(G) of finite measure
such that Ω(ψπ(Γ)) = G/Z(G) (see [2, Proposition B.2.4]). By outer regularity, we
may assume that Ω is in addition open (but no longer a fundamental domain). The
inverse image ψ −1 (Ω) ⊆ G is then also open and ψ −1 (Ω)π(Γ) = G. As ψ −1 (Ω) is
open, its characteristic function is lower semicontinuous, and it follows from Weil’s
integration formula for lower semicontinuous functions (see [34, (3.3.13)]) that the
Haar measure of ψ −1 (Ω) is the Haar measure of Ω multiplied by the Haar measure
e the center Z(G) = Z(G)/D
e
of Z(G). As D is cocompact in Z(G),
is compact.
−1
Therefore Z(G) has finite Haar measure, and in conclusion ψ (Ω) has finite Haar
measure.
By [2, Proposition B.2.4] it follows that π(Γ) is a lattice in G, and this completes
the proof.

Theorem 5.4. Let G be a connected Lie group locally isomorphic to
G ≈ R × SO(3)a × SL(2, R)b × SL(2, C)c ,
for a solvable connected Lie group R and integers a, b, c. Then G is weakly amenable
with constant 1, i.e., Λ(G) = 1.
Proof. The strategy of the proof is to reduce the problem to the case where G is
locally isomorphic to the group appearing in Lemma 5.3. This is done in several
steps. We first show how to get rid of the factors SO(3) and SL(2, C). Then we
show how to reduce the radical to an abelian group.

WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

12

Let g be the Lie algebra of G. With r the solvable radical in g, we have (recall
so(3) = su(2))
g = r ⊕ su(2)a ⊕ sl(2, R)b ⊕ sl(2, C)c .
Set s0 = su(2)a ⊕sl(2, C)c ⊆ g and let S0 be the connected semisimple Lie subgroup
of G associated with s0 . Note that the center Z(S0 ) of S0 is finite, since the simply
connected group SU(2)a × SL(2, C)c has finite center.
Set h = r ⊕ sl(2, R)b so that g = h ⊕ s0 , and let H be the connected Lie subgroup
of G associated with h. As [h, s0 ] = 0, the subgroups H and S0 commute, and the
multiplication map ϕ : H × S0 → G is a homomorphism. The image ϕ(H × S0 )
is a connected Lie subgroup of G containing both H and S0 . It follows that ϕ is
surjective and G ≃ (H × S0 )/ ker ϕ.
The kernel ker ϕ is precisely
ker ϕ = {(h, h−1 ) | h ∈ H ∩ S0 }.
Since H and S0 commute, the group H ∩ S0 is central in S0 and hence finite. Then
ker ϕ is also a finite group. By (2.1) and (2.3) we have
Λ(G) = Λ(H × S0 ) = Λ(H)Λ(S0 ).
Note that Λ(S0 ) = 1 by Theorem 3.1, since by Theorem 1.1 both SU(2) and SL(2, C)
are weakly amenable with constant 1 (recall SL(2, C) ≈ SO(1, 3)).
We have thus reduced the problem to the case where G = H is locally isomorphic
to R × SL(2, R)b . Let G = RS be a Levi decomposition of G. Then the closure
S of S in G is a closed connected normal subgroup of G whose Lie algebra is a
subalgebra of g, and the quotient G/S is solvable. By (2.4), it suffices to prove
that S is weakly amenable with constant 1. We may thus suppose that S is a dense
connected Lie subgroup of G.
When S is dense, a theorem of Mostow [28, § 6] shows that G is of the form G = SC
where C is a connected Lie subgroup of the center of G and in the closure of the
center of S. It follows that the solvable radical is abelian and G is locally isomorphic
to Rn × SL(2, R)b for some integer n.
f R)b , where SL(2,
f R) denotes the
If G is simply connected, then G = Rn × SL(2,
universal covering group of SL(2, R). The fact that Λ(G) = 1 is basically [19]
f R) = SU(1,
f 1)) together with the product formula (2.3) (see also The(recall SL(2,
orem 1.1).

The general case can then be deduced from the simply connected case as follows.
e be the universal covering group of G. By Lemma 5.3, there is a lattice Γ in
Let G
e be the preimage of Γ in G
e under the covering homomorphism G
e → G.
G. Let Γ
e is a lattice in G,
e and Γ
e is a central extension of Γ. By (2.5) and (2.6) we
Then Γ
have
e = Λ(G)
e = 1.
Λ(G) = Λ(Γ) ≤ Λ(Γ)
This shows that Λ(G) = 1, and the proof is complete.

Corollary 5.5. Let G be a connected Lie group. If Gd is weakly amenable, then G
is weakly amenable. In this case, Λ(Gd ) = Λ(G) = 1.
Proof. This is immediate from Theorem 4.11 and Theorem 5.4.



WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

13

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the anonymous referee for helpful suggestions and remarks.

References
C ∗ -algebra

[1] Erik Bédos. On the
generated by the left regular representation of a locally compact group. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 120(2):603–608, 1994.
[2] Bachir Bekka, Pierre de la Harpe, and Alain Valette. Kazhdan’s property (T), volume 11 of
New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.
[3] Mohammed E. B. Bekka and Alain Valette. On duals of Lie groups made discrete. J. Reine
Angew. Math., 439:1–10, 1993.
[4] Theodor Bröcker and Tammo tom Dieck. Representations of compact Lie groups, volume 98
of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.
[5] Nathanial P. Brown and Narutaka Ozawa. C ∗ -algebras and finite-dimensional approximations, volume 88 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008.
[6] Pierre-Alain Cherix, Michael Cowling, Paul Jolissaint, Pierre Julg, and Alain Valette. Groups
with the Haagerup property, volume 197 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser Verlag,
Basel, 2001. Gromov’s a-T-menability.
[7] Claude Chevalley. Theory of Lie Groups. I. Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. 8. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1946.
[8] M. Cowling. Rigidity for lattices in semisimple Lie groups: von Neumann algebras and ergodic
actions. Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Politec. Torino, 47(1):1–37 (1991), 1989.
[9] Michael Cowling. Harmonic analysis on some nilpotent Lie groups (with application to the
representation theory of some semisimple Lie groups). In Topics in modern harmonic analysis, Vol. I, II (Turin/Milan, 1982), pages 81–123. Ist. Naz. Alta Mat. Francesco Severi,
Rome, 1983.
[10] Michael Cowling, Brian Dorofaeff, Andreas Seeger, and James Wright. A family of singular
oscillatory integral operators and failure of weak amenability. Duke Math. J., 127(3):429–486,
2005.
[11] Michael Cowling and Uffe Haagerup. Completely bounded multipliers of the Fourier algebra
of a simple Lie group of real rank one. Invent. Math., 96(3):507–549, 1989.
[12] Jean de Cannière and Uffe Haagerup. Multipliers of the Fourier algebras of some simple Lie
groups and their discrete subgroups. Amer. J. Math., 107(2):455–500, 1985.
[13] Yves de Cornulier. Kazhdan and Haagerup properties in algebraic groups over local fields. J.
Lie Theory, 16(1):067–082, 2006.
[14] Yves de Cornulier, Yves Stalder, and Alain Valette. Proper actions of lamplighter groups
associated with free groups. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 346(3-4):173–176, 2008.
[15] Brian Dorofaeff. The Fourier algebra of SL(2, R) ⋊ R n , n ≥ 2, has no multiplier bounded
approximate unit. Math. Ann., 297(4):707–724, 1993.
[16] Brian Dorofaeff. Weak amenability and semidirect products in simple Lie groups. Math. Ann.,
306(4):737–742, 1996.
[17] Uffe Haagerup. An example of a nonnuclear C ∗ -algebra, which has the metric approximation
property. Invent. Math., 50(3):279–293, 1978/79.
[18] Uffe Haagerup. Group C ∗ -algebras without the completely bounded approximation property.
J. Lie Theory, 26(3):861–887, 2016.
[19] Mogens Lemvig Hansen. Weak amenability of the universal covering group of SU(1, n). Math.
Ann., 288(3):445–472, 1990.
[20] Sigurdur Helgason. Differential geometry, Lie groups, and symmetric spaces, volume 80 of
Pure and Applied Mathematics. Academic Press Inc. [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers],
New York, 1978.
[21] Edwin Hewitt and Kenneth A. Ross. Abstract harmonic analysis. Vol. I, volume 115 of
Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical
Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, second edition, 1979. Structure of topological
groups, integration theory, group representations.

WEAK AMENABILITY OF LIE GROUPS MADE DISCRETE

14

[22] Gerald Itzkowitz, Sheldon Rothman, and Helen Strassberg. A note on the real representations
of SU(2, C). J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 69(3):285–294, 1991.
[23] Paul Jolissaint. Proper cocycles and weak forms of amenability. Colloq. Math., 138(1):73–88,
2015.
[24] Anthony W. Knapp. Lie groups beyond an introduction, volume 140 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, second edition, 2002.
[25] Søren Knudby. Weak amenability and simply connected Lie groups. Kyoto J. Math.,
56(3):689–700, 2016.
[26] Søren Knudby and Kang Li. Approximation properties of simple Lie groups made discrete.
J. Lie Theory, 25(4):985–1001, 2015.
[27] Serge Lang. SL2 (R). Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.-London-Amsterdam,
1975.
[28] George Daniel Mostow. The extensibility of local Lie groups of transformations and groups
on surfaces. Ann. of Math. (2), 52:606–636, 1950.
[29] Narutaka Ozawa and Sorin Popa. On a class of II1 factors with at most one Cartan subalgebra.
Ann. of Math. (2), 172(1):713–749, 2010.
[30] Vladimir Platonov and Andrei Rapinchuk. Algebraic groups and number theory, volume 139
of Pure and Applied Mathematics. Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1994. Translated from
the 1991 Russian original by Rachel Rowen.
[31] Sorin Popa and Stefaan Vaes. Unique Cartan decomposition for II1 factors arising from
arbitrary actions of free groups. Acta Math., 212(1):141–198, 2014.
[32] Sorin Popa and Stefaan Vaes. Unique Cartan decomposition for II1 factors arising from
arbitrary actions of hyperbolic groups. J. Reine Angew. Math., 694:215–239, 2014.
[33] M. S. Raghunathan. Discrete subgroups of Lie groups. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg,
1972. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 68.
[34] Hans Reiter and Jan D. Stegeman. Classical harmonic analysis and locally compact groups,
volume 22 of London Mathematical Society Monographs. New Series. The Clarendon Press,
Oxford University Press, New York, second edition, 2000.
[35] V. S. Varadarajan. Lie groups, Lie algebras, and their representations, volume 102 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984. Reprint of the 1974 edition.
[36] Hassler Whitney. Elementary structure of real algebraic varieties. Ann. of Math. (2), 66:545–
556, 1957.
Mathematisches Institut der WWU Münster,
Einsteinstraße 62, 48149 Münster, Germany.

