arXiv:1509.01870v4 [math.OA] 24 May 2017

AN INTRINSIC CHARACTERIZATION OF
C*-SIMPLICITY
MATTHEW KENNEDY
Abstract. A group is said to be C*-simple if its reduced C*algebra is simple. We establish an intrinsic (group-theoretic) characterization of groups with this property. Specifically, we prove
that a discrete group is C*-simple if and only if it has no nontrivial amenable uniformly recurrent subgroups. We further prove
that a group is C*-simple if and only if it satisfies an averaging
property considered by Powers.

1. Introduction
A group is said to be C*-simple if its reduced C*-algebra is simple,
meaning that it has no non-trivial proper closed two-sided ideals. It has
been an open problem for some time to determine an intrinsic grouptheoretic characterization of groups that are C*-simple, along the lines
of Murray and von Neumann’s characterization of groups that give rise
to factorial von Neumann algebras as groups with the infinite conjugacy
class property.
It is not difficult to see that a C*-simple group necessarily has no
non-trivial normal amenable subgroups, and based on a great deal of
accumulated evidence, it was thought that this condition might be sufficient. However, in a major breakthrough, Le Boudec [18] constructed
examples showing that this is not the case.
The main result in this paper is an intrinsic group-theoretic characterization of C*-simplicity in terms of subgroups that we call recurrent.
A subgroup H of a discrete group G is recurrent if and only if there
exists a finite subset F ⊂ G \ {e} such that F ∩ gHg −1 6= ∅ for all
g ∈ G (see Section 5).
Theorem 1.1. A discrete group is C*-simple if and only if it has no
amenable recurrent subgroups.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 46L35; Secondary 20F65,
37A20, 43A07.
Key words and phrases. discrete group, reduced C*-algebra, C*-simplicity.
Author supported by NSERC Grant Number 418585.
1

2

M. KENNEDY

We prove this result by analyzing the dynamics of the conjugation
action of a group on its space of subgroups and invoking the dynamical
characterization of C*-simplicity from [16]. The study of this action
underlies the theory of uniformly recurrent subgroups introduced by
Glasner and Weiss [9]. Using their terminology, Theorem 1.1 is equivalent to the following result (see Section 4).
Theorem 1.2. A discrete group is C*-simple if and only if it has no
non-trivial amenable uniformly recurrent subgroups.
The notion of a uniformly recurrent subgroup can be viewed as a
topological analogue of the measure-theoretic notion of an invariant
random subgroup introduced by Abért, Glasner and Virág [1]. Many
rigidity results in ergodic theory, and in particular results about the
rigidity of characters on groups, can be viewed as results about the
non-existence of certain invariant random subgroups. From this perspective, Theorem 1.2 can be viewed as a kind of rigidity phenomenon
in topological dynamics.
The theory of C*-simplicity began with Powers’ theorem [22] that
free groups on two or more generators are C*-simple. The key insight
underlying Powers’ proof is that the left regular representation of these
groups satisfies a very strong averaging property.
Definition 1.3. A discrete group G is said to have Powers’ averaging
property if for every element a in the reduced C*-algebra C∗λ (G) and
every ǫ > 0 there are g1 , . . . , gn ∈ G such that
n
1X
λg aλ−1 − τλ (a)1 < ǫ,
n i=1 i gi
where τλ denotes the canonical tracial state on C∗λ (G).
It is straightforward to show that any group satisfying Powers’ averaging property is C*-simple. In fact, prior to the publication of [16]
and [2], essentially the only method for establishing the C*-simplicity
of a given group was to show, often with great difficulty, that the group
satisfied some variant of Powers’ averaging property.
The next (perhaps somewhat surprising) result demonstrates the remarkable depth of Powers’ insight. It turns out that every C*-simple
group necessarily satisfies Powers’ averaging property.
Theorem 1.4. A discrete group is C*-simple if and only if it satisfies
Powers’ averaging property.
In addition to this introduction there are five other sections. In Section 2 we briefly review preliminary material. In Section 3 we clarify

AN INTRINSIC CHARACTERIZATION OF C*-SIMPLICITY

3

the relationship between C*-simplicity and the unique trace property,
and obtain some technical results about the dual space of the reduced
C*-algebra of a discrete group. In Section 4 we prove the characterization of C*-simplicity in terms of uniformly recurrent subgroups. In
Section 5 we prove the main result characterizing C*-simplicity in terms
of amenable recurrent subgroups. Finally, in Section 6 we prove that a
group is C*-simple if and only if it has Powers’ averaging property.
New developments. Since the first draft of this paper appeared
in September 2015, a number of related developments have occurred.
First, Haagerup [11] independently obtained Theorem 1.4.
Second, Theorem 1.2 has been applied by Le Boudec and Matte Bon
to study the C*-simplicity of groups of homeomorphisms of the circle,
and in particular Thompson’s groups F , T and V . They proved that
Thompson’s group V is C*-simple, and proved that the non-amenability
of Thompson’s group F is equivalent to the C*-simplicity of T .
Third, Bryder and the author [5] applied similar ideas to study the
maximal ideals of reduced (twisted) crossed products over C*-simple
groups. In particular, we established a bijective correspondence between maximal ideals of the underlying C*-algebra and maximal ideals
of the reduced crossed product.
Finally, Kawabe [17] extended the methods introduced in this paper to undertake a systematic study of the ideal structure of reduced
crossed products. In particular, he obtains necessary and sufficient
conditions for a commutative C*-algebra equipped with an action of a
discrete group to separate ideals in the corresponding reduced crossed
product. We also mention a recent paper of Bryder [4] that applies
similar ideas to investigate the structure of reduced crossed products
of noncommutative C*-algebras.
Acknowledgements. The author is grateful to Adrien Le Boudec,
Emmanuel Breuillard, Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace, Kenneth Davidson,
Eli Glasner, Mehrdad Kalantar, Narutaka Ozawa and Sven Raum for
many helpful comments and suggestions.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. The reduced C*-algebra. Let G be a discrete group with identity element e. Let λ denote the left regular representation of G on the
Hilbert space ℓ2 (G). The reduced C*-algebra C∗λ (G) is the norm closed
algebra generated by the image of G under λ.

4

M. KENNEDY

Let {δg | g ∈ G} denote the standard orthonormal basis for ℓ2 (G).
Then every element a ∈ C∗λ (G) has a Fourier expansion
X
a=
αg λ g ,
g∈G

uniquely determined by αg = haδe , δg i for g ∈ G.
A linear functional φ on C∗λ (G) is said to be a state if it is unital and
positive, i.e. φ(1) = 1 and φ(a) ≥ 0 for every a ∈ C∗λ (G) with a ≥ 0.
If, in addition, φ(ab) = φ(ba) for all a, b ∈ C∗λ (G), then φ is said to
be tracial. The C*-algebra C∗λ (G) is always equipped with a canonical
tracial state τλ defined by τλ (a) = haδe , δe i.
For general facts about group C*-algebras, crossed products and completely positive maps, we refer the reader to Brown and Ozawa’s book
[3].
2.2. C*-simplicity and the unique trace property. A discrete
group G is said to be C*-simple if the reduced C*-algebra C∗λ (G) has
no closed non-trivial two-sided ideals. If τλ is the unique tracial state
on C∗λ (G), then G is said to have the unique trace property.
The C*-simplicity of G is equivalent to the following property: every
representation of G that is weakly contained in the left regular representation is actually weakly equivalent to the left regular representation.
In recent work with Kalantar [16], we established the following dynamical characterization of C*-simplicity.
Theorem 2.1. A discrete group is C*-simple if and only if it has a
(topologically) free boundary action.
In more recent work with Breuillard, Kalantar and Ozawa [2], we
applied Theorem 2.1 to prove that many groups are C*-simple. We
observed that certain strong group-theoretic conditions are imposed
on any group that does not have a topologically free boundary action.
However, we also observed that these conditions do not characterize
C*-simplicity.
In addition, we established the following characterization of the unique
trace property.
Theorem 2.2. A discrete group has the unique trace property if and
only if it has no non-trivial normal amenable subgroups. In particular,
every discrete C*-simple group has the unique trace property.
It is well known that a C*-simple discrete group necessarily has no
normal amenable subgroups (see e.g. [6]).

AN INTRINSIC CHARACTERIZATION OF C*-SIMPLICITY

5

2.3. Group actions. Let G be a discrete group. A compact Hausdorff
space X is said to be a G-space if G acts by homeomorphisms on X.
This is equivalent to the existence of a group homomorphism from G
into the group of homeomorphisms on X. For g ∈ G and x ∈ X we
will write gx for the image of x under g.
A C*-algebra A is said to be a G-C*-algebra if G acts by automorphisms on A. This is equivalent to the existence of a group homomorphism from G into the group of automorphisms of A. For g ∈ G and
a ∈ A we will write ga for the image of a under g.
An example of a G-C*-algebra is provided by the C*-algebra C(X)
of continuous functions on a G-space X. The G-action on C(X) is
given by
(gf )(x) = f (g −1x),

g ∈ G, f ∈ C(X), x ∈ X.

Another example of a G-C*-algebra is provided by the reduced C*algebra C∗λ (G). The G-action on C∗λ (G) is given by
ga = λg aλ−1
g ,

g ∈ G, a ∈ A.

If A is a G-C*-algebra, then the dual space A∗ , equipped with the
weak* topology, is a G-space with respect to the action
(gφ)(a) = φ(g −1 a),

g ∈ G, a ∈ A, φ ∈ A∗ .

If A is unital, then the state space S(A) of A is a weak*-closed Ginvariant subset of A∗ . In particular, if X is a G-space, then the space
P (X) of probability measures on X is a G-space since it can be identified with the state space S(C(X)) of C(X).
A G-space X is said to be a G-boundary if for every µ ∈ P (X) and
x ∈ X, the point mass δx belongs to the weak* closure of the orbit
Gµ. There is always a unique boundary ∂F G called the Furstenberg
boundary of G [8, Section 4] that is universal in the sense that for every
G-boundary X, there is a surjective G-equivariant map from ∂F G onto
X.
A convex G-space K is said to be affine if
g(αx + (1 − α)y) = αgx + (1 − α)gy,
for all g ∈ G, 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 and x, y ∈ K. If, in addition, K contains
no proper affine G-space, then K is said to be minimal. By Zorn’s
lemma, every affine G-space contains a minimal affine G-space. We
will frequently use the fact from [10, Theorem III.2.3] that if K is a
minimal affine G-space, then the closure cl ex K of the set of extreme
points of K is a G-boundary.

6

M. KENNEDY

3. Boundary maps and boundary states
In [2], it was shown that a group has the unique trace property,
meaning that its reduced C*-algebra has a unique tracial state, if and
only if it has no non-trivial normal amenable subgroups. In particular,
every C*-simple group has the unique trace property. While the results
of Le Boudec [18] imply that the converse does not hold, questions
remain about the exact relationship between C*-simplicity and the
unique trace property. In this section, we will completely resolve these
questions.
Let G be a discrete group with Furstenberg boundary ∂F G. By
identifying the scalars with the the constant functions in C(∂F G), every tracial state on the reduced C*-algebra C∗λ (G) can be viewed as a
G-equivariant unital completely positive map from C∗λ (G) to C(∂F G).
The existence of the canonical trace τλ on C∗λ (G) ensures that there is
always at least one such map.
The next result gives a complete description of the G-equivariant
unital completely positive maps from C∗λ (G) to C(∂F G) in terms of
G-boundaries in the state space S(C∗λ (G)) of the reduced C*-algebra
C∗λ (G), i.e. weak* compact G-invariant subsets of S(C∗λ (G)) that are
G-boundaries.
Since the canonical tracial state τλ is G-invariant, the singleton
{τλ } is trivially a G-boundary in S(C∗λ (G)). We will say that a Gboundary X ⊂ S(C∗λ (G)) is non-trivial if X 6= {τλ }. Note that if φ
is a non-canonical tracial state on C∗λ (G), then the singleton {φ} is
G-equivariant, and hence is a non-trivial G-boundary.
Proposition 3.1. For a discrete group G, there is a bijective correspondence between G-equivariant unital completely positive maps from
C∗λ (G) to C(∂F G) and G-boundaries in the state space of C∗λ (G).
Proof. Let Φ : C∗λ (G) → C(∂F G) be a G-equivariant unital completely
positive map and let Φ∗ : P (∂F G) → S(C∗λ (G)) denote the restriction
of the adjoint of φ to the space P (∂F G) of probability measures on
∂F G. By [10, Proposition III.2.4], the range K = Φ∗ (P (∂F G)) of Φ∗
is a minimal affine G-space, and by [10, Theorem III.2.3], the closure
X = cl ex K of the set of extreme points of K is a G-boundary.
Conversely, if X ⊂ S(C∗λ (G)) is a G-boundary, then by the universality of ∂F G, there is a surjective G-equivariant map φ : ∂F G → X. By
contravariance, φ induces a G-equivariant unital completely positive
map Φ : C∗λ (G) → C(∂F G) defined for a ∈ C∗λ (G) by
Φ(a)(x) = φ(x)(a),

x ∈ ∂F G.

AN INTRINSIC CHARACTERIZATION OF C*-SIMPLICITY

7

Proposition 3.2. For a discrete group G there is a G-equivariant unital completely positive map φ : C∗λ (G) → C(∂F G) satisfying φ(λs ) =
χFix(s) for s ∈ G, where Fix(s) = {x ∈ ∂F G : sx = x} denotes the set
of points in ∂F G that are fixed by s for s ∈ G.
Proof. For x ∈ ∂F G, since the stabilizer subgroup Gx is amenable (cf.
[2, Proposition 2.7]), the indicator function χGx extends by linearity to
a state on C∗λ (G) that we continue to denote by χGx . The set X =
{χGx : x ∈ ∂F G} ⊂ S(C∗λ (G)) is the image of ∂F G under the map
taking x to χGx . This map is G-equivariant, and it is not difficult to
check that it is continuous using the fact from [16, Remark 3.16] that
∂F G is extremally disconnected. Hence X is a boundary in the state
space of C∗λ (G), and it is easy to check that the map φ : C∗λ (G) →
C(∂F G) is the corresponding G-equivariant unital completely positive
map constructed as in Proposition 3.1.
Proposition 3.3. For a discrete group G the only G-equivariant unital
completely positive map from C∗λ (G) to C(∂F G) is the canonical trace
τλ if and only if the action on ∂F G is free.
Proof. The forward direction follows from the fact that the map constructed in Proposition 3.2 agrees with the canonical trace on C∗λ (G) if
and only if the action on ∂F G is free.
For the other direction, let φ : C∗λ (G) → C(∂F G) be a G-equivariant
unital completely positive map. Suppose the action on ∂F G is free.
Then for s ∈ G \ {e} and x ∈ ∂F G, there is a clopen set U ⊂ ∂F G
such that x ∈ U and x ∈
/ sU. Let χU ∈ C(∂F G) denote the indicator
function for U. Since C(∂F G) belongs to the multiplicative domain of
φ,
φ(λs )(x) = φ(λs )(x)χU (x) = φ(λs χU )(x) = φ(χsU λs )(x)
= χsU (x)φ(λs )(x) = 0.
Hence φ(λs ) = 0, and it follows that φ agrees with the canonical trace
on C∗λ (G).
By [16, Theorem 6.2], the freeness of the action on ∂F G is equivalent
to the C*-simplicity of G. Hence Proposition 3.3 implies the following
result, which roughly says that a discrete group is C*-simple if and only
if the only “trace-like” map on its reduced C*-algebra is the canonical
tracial state.
Theorem 3.4. A discrete group G is C*-simple if and only if the only
G-equivariant unital completely positive map from C∗λ (G) to C(∂F G) is
the canonical trace τλ .

8

M. KENNEDY

Remark 3.5. If G is a non-C*-simple discrete group with the unique
trace property, then Theorem 3.4 implies the existence of a G-equivariant
unital completely positive map from C∗λ (G) to C(∂F G) that is not
scalar-valued.
Combining Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 3.4 gives the following result.
Theorem 3.6. A discrete group G is C*-simple if and only if there are
no non-trivial G-boundaries in the state space of C∗λ (G).
Observe that Theorem 3.6 clarifies the relationship between C*-simplicity
and the unique trace property. In particular, since non-canonical traces
give rise to non-trivial boundaries in the state space of the reduced C*algebra, Theorem 3.6 implies the result from [2, Corollary 4.3] that
discrete C*-simple groups have the unique trace property.
Corollary 3.7. A discrete group G is C*-simple if and only if for
every state φ on C∗λ (G), the weak* closed convex hull of Gφ contains
the canonical trace τλ on C∗λ (G).
Proof. By Theorem 3.6, G is C*-simple if and only if the only Gboundary in the state space of C∗λ (G) is the singleton {τλ }. The result
follows from the fact that for every state φ on C∗λ (G), the weak* closed
convex hull of Gφ contains a minimal affine G-space K, and by [10,
Theorem III.2.3], the closure cl ex K of the set of extreme points of K
is a G-boundary.
More generally, we need to consider boundaries in the dual C∗λ (G)∗ of
i.e. weak* compact G-invariant subsets that are G-boundaries.
We will say that a G-boundary X ⊂ C∗λ (G)∗ is non-trivial if X 6= {φ},
where φ is a scalar multiple of the canonical tracial state τλ .
The next result strengthens Theorem 3.6.
C∗λ (G),

Theorem 3.8. A discrete group G is C*-simple if and only if there are
no non-trivial G-boundaries in the dual space of C∗λ (G).
Proof. One direction is clearly implied by Theorem 3.6.
For the other direction, suppose G is a C*-simple discrete group. Let
K be a minimal affine G-space in C∗λ (G)∗ and fix φ ∈ K. We must show
that φ is a scalar multiple of the canonical trace τλ .
By the Hahn-Jordan decomposition for bounded linear functionals
in C*-algebras, we can write φ = φ1 − φ2 + i(φ3 − φ4 ), where each φi is
a non-negative scalar multiple of a state on C∗λ (G).

AN INTRINSIC CHARACTERIZATION OF C*-SIMPLICITY

9

By Corollary 3.7, the weak* closed convex hull of Gφ1 contains
φ1 (1)τλ . Hence there is a net (Fj ) of finite subsets of G such that
1 X
gφ1 → φ1 (1)τλ .
|Fj | g∈F
j

By applying compactness P
and passing to a subnet, we can assume that
for each i = 2, 3, 4, |F1j | g∈Fj gφi also converges to a non-negative
multiple of a state, say ψi . Hence φ1 (1)τλ − ψ2 + i(ψ3 − ψ4 ) ∈ K.
Since τλ is G-invariant, it follows by the same argument that φ1 (1)τλ −
ψ2 (1)τλ + i(ψ3′ − ψ4′ ) ∈ K, where ψ3′ and ψ4′ are non-negative multiplies
of states. Applying this argument two more times, we conclude that
K contains a scalar multiple of τλ . Since K is minimal and τλ is Ginvariant, the result now follows.
Applying Theorem 3.8 and arguing as in the proof of Corollary 3.7
gives the following result.
Corollary 3.9. A discrete group G is C*-simple if and only if for every
bounded linear functional φ on C∗λ (G), the weak* closed convex hull of
Gφ contains φ(1)τλ , where τλ denotes the canonical trace on C∗λ (G).
4. Uniformly recurrent subgroups
Let G be a discrete group and let S(G) denote the compact space of
subgroups of G equipped with the Chabauty topology, which coincides
with the product topology on {0, 1}G .
Convergence in the Chabauty topology can be described in the following way: a net of subgroups (Hi ) < G converges in the Chabauty
topology to a subgroup H < G if
(1) every h ∈ H eventually belongs to Hi and
(2) for every subnet (Hj ), ∩j Hj ⊂ H.
The space S(G) is a G-space with respect to the conjugation action
of G. Let Sa (G) denote the G-subspace of amenable subgroups of G.
It is clear that Sa (G) is G-invariant. By [24], Sa (G) is closed.
The notion of a uniformly recurrent subgroup of G was recently introduced by Glasner and Weiss [9] as a topological-dynamical analogue of
the notion of an invariant random subgroup. A G-subspace X ⊂ S(G)
is said to be a uniformly recurrent subgroup of G if it is minimal, i.e. if
{gHg −1 | g ∈ G} is dense in X for every H ∈ X. If X ⊂ Sa (G), then
X is said to be amenable. If X 6= {{e}}, where {e} denotes the trivial
subgroup of G, then X is said to be non-trivial.
Theorem 4.1. A discrete group G is C*-simple if and only if it has
no non-trivial amenable uniformly recurrent subgroups.

10

M. KENNEDY

Proof. (⇐) Suppose that G is not C*-simple. Let X = {Gx | x ∈
∂F G}, where Gx denotes the stabilizer subgroup of a point x ∈ ∂F G.
Then X is the image of ∂F G under the map taking x to Gx . This map is
G-equivariant, and it is not difficult to check that it is continuous using
the fact from [16, Remark 3.16] that ∂F G is extremally disconnected.
Since ∂F G is compact and minimal, X is also compact and minimal.
Furthermore, by [2, Lemma 2.3], Gx is amenable for each x ∈ ∂F G.
Hence by [24], X ⊂ Sa (G), and thus X is an amenable uniformly
recurrent subgroup.
By [16, Theorem 6.2], since G is not C*-simple, the G-action on ∂F G
is not topologically free. In particular, Gx 6= {e} for some x ∈ ∂F G,
and hence X is non-trivial.
(⇒) Suppose that G has a non-trivial amenable uniformly recurrent
subgroup X. Fix H ∈ X. Then H is amenable and by minimality,
X = cl{gHg −1 | g ∈ G}. Since H is amenable, the indicator function
χH extends to a state φ on C∗λ (G).
For finite F ⊂ G \ {e}, let UF = {H ∈ S(G) : H ∩ F = ∅}. Then the
family {UF : F ⊆ G \ {e} finite} is a neighborhood basis for the trivial
subgroup {e} in S(G). Since X is non-trivial, {e} ∈
/ X. Hence there is
finite F ⊂ P
G \ {e} such that F ∩ gHg −1 6= ∅ for all g ∈ G.
Let a = s∈F λs ∈ C∗λ (G). Then for g ∈ G,
(gφ)(a) =

X

χgHg−1 (s) = |F ∩ gHg −1| ≥ 1.

s∈F

Letting K be a minimal affine G-subspace of the closed convex hull
of Gφ, it follows that for every ψ ∈ K, ψ(a) ≥ 1. By [10, Theorem
III.2.3], the closure Y = cl ex K of the set of extreme points of K is a Gboundary, and Y does not contain the canonical trace τλ . In particular,
the state space of C∗λ (G) contains a non-trivial G-boundary, and the
result now follows by Theorem 3.6.
Remark 4.2. Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace and Adrien Le Boudec kindly
suggested the following alternative proof of the forward implication of
Theorem 4.1.
Suppose that G has a non-trivial amenable uniformly recurrent subgroup X. Fix H ∈ X. Then H is amenable and by minimality,
X = cl{gHg −1 | g ∈ G}. Consider the space P (∂F G) of probability measures on ∂F G. Fix x ∈ ∂F G and let δx ∈ P (∂F G) denote the
corresponding point mass. By the amenability of H, there is a probability measure µ ∈ P (∂F G) fixed by H. Since ∂F G is a boundary, there
is a net (gi ) ∈ G such that limi gi µ = δx .

AN INTRINSIC CHARACTERIZATION OF C*-SIMPLICITY

11

By compactness, after passing to a subnet we can suppose that
gi Hgi−1 converges to K ∈ S(G), and since X is non-trivial, K 6=
{e}. By the definition of the Chabauty topology, this implies that
∩i gi Hgi−1 6= {e}. Fix g ∈ ∩i gi Hgi−1 \ {e}. Then ggi µ = µ for each i. It
follows that gδx = δx and hence gx = x. Thus G does not act freely on
∂F G, and it follows from [16, Theorem 6.2] that G is not C*-simple.
Remark 4.3. The proof of Theorem 4.1 actually implies the following
result: a discrete group G is not C*-simple if and only if the family of
point stabilizers {Gx | x ∈ ∂F G} is a non-trivial amenable uniformly
recurrent subgroup for G. In fact, this family is a G-boundary, since it
is the image of the Furstenberg boundary under a G-equivariant map.
Example 4.4. For any non-trivial amenable group G, the singleton
{G} is a non-trivial amenable uniformly recurrent subgroup, and hence
by Theorem 4.1, we obtain the well known fact that a non-trivial
amenable group is never C*-simple.
Example 4.5. Let G be a discrete group with only countably many
amenable subgroups and no non-trivial normal amenable subgroups.
It was shown in [2, Theorem 3.8] that G is C*-simple. We will give
another proof using Theorem 4.1.
Let X be an amenable uniformly recurrent subgroup. We must show
that X is trivial. By assumption, X is a countable set, and hence it has
an isolated point, say H. By compactness and minimality, finitely many
conjugates of the open set {H} cover X. Hence X consists of finitely
many conjugates of H. Since X is G-invariant, it follows that H is
almost normal, i.e. H has finitely many conjugates in G. Equivalently,
the normalizer NG (H) of H has finite index in G.
Since NG (H) has finite index, there is a subgroup N0 < NG (H)
that is normal as a subgroup of G and has finite index in G. For
g ∈ G, let Ng = N0 ∩ gHg −1. Then each Ng is amenable and normal
in N0 . Let N < G denote the subgroup generated by all of the Ng .
Then N is amenable since it is generated by finitely many amenable
subgroups that are normal in N0 . Moreover, N is normal in G. Hence
by assumption N is trivial. In particular, Ne = N0 ∩ H is trivial.
Since N0 has finite index in G, it follows that H is finite. Therefore,
the conjugacy class of every element in H must be finite, i.e. H must be
a subgroup of the FC-center of G. But since the FC-center is amenable
and normal in G, it is trivial by assumption. Hence H is trivial, and
it follows that X is trivial. By Theorem 4.1, we conclude that G is
C*-simple.
This result applies to Tarski monster groups and torsion-free Tarski
monster groups, which were shown to be C*-simple in [16, Corollary

12

M. KENNEDY

6.6] and [2, Corollary 3.9] respectively. In addition, by [14], this result
applies to the family of free Burnside groups B(m, n) for m ≥ 2 and n
odd and sufficiently large, which were recently shown to be C*-simple
by Olshanskii and Osin [20].
Remark 4.6. An invariant random subgroup of a discrete group G is
a G-invariant probability measure µ on the space of subgroups S(G),
which can be viewed as the distribution of a random subgroup of G.
This notion was introduced by Abért, Glasner and Virág [1].
If µ is supported on the G-subspace Sa (G) of amenable subgroups
of G, then µ is said to be amenable. If µ 6= δ{e} , where δ{e} denotes the
point mass corresponding to the trivial subgroup {e}, then µ is said to
be non-trivial.
A group with the unique trace property, and in particular any C*simple group (see [2, Corollary 4.3]), does not have non-trivial amenable
invariant random subgroups. This can be seen by invoking [25, Theorem 5.14], which implies that a non-trivial amenable invariant random
subgroup gives rise to a non-canonical tracial state on the reduced C*algebra as in the proof of Theorem 4.1.
Thus while Le Boudec’s examples from [18] of non-C*-simple groups
with the unique trace property do not have non-trivial amenable invariant random subgroups, they do have non-trivial amenable uniformly
recurrent subgroups.
5. Recurrent subgroups
In the literature on C*-simplicity, various algebraic properties of a
group (Powers’ property, weak Powers’ property, etc.) have been singled out because they imply that the group has Powers’ averaging property, and hence that it is C*-simple (see Section 6). In fact, prior to
[16], essentially the only way to establish the C*-simplicity of a given
group in practice was to show that it had some variant of these properties. However, it is known that these properties are not equivalent
to C*-simplicity. In fact, they typically imply the existence of nonabelian free subgroups (see e.g. [6]), whereas examples of C*-simple
groups that do not contain non-abelian free subgroups are now known
(see [20] and [16]).
In this section, by unraveling the definition of a uniformly recurrent
subgroup from Section 4 and invoking Theorem 4.1, we will establish
a more algebraic characterization of C*-simplicity in terms of the existence of amenable subgroups of the following type.
Definition 5.1. Let G be a discrete group. A subgroup H < G is
said to be recurrent if the trivial subgroup {e} does not belong to the

AN INTRINSIC CHARACTERIZATION OF C*-SIMPLICITY

13

closure Conj(H) ⊂ S(G) of the set Conj(H) = {gHg −1 | g ∈ G} of
subgroups conjugate to H, where the closure is taken in the Chabauty
topology.
Proposition 5.2. Let G be a discrete group and let H < G be a
subgroup. The following are equivalent:
(1) The subgroup H is recurrent.
(2) For every net (gi ) in G there is a subnet (gj ) such that
\
gj Hgj−1 6= {e}.
j

(3) There exists a finite subset F ⊂ G \ {e} such that
F ∩ gHg −1 6= ∅ ∀g ∈ G.
(4) There exists a finite subset F ⊂ G \ {e} such that
F ∩ K 6= ∅ ∀K ∈ Conj(H).
Proof. The result follows from the description of the Chabauty topology from Section 4, and the fact that the family {UF : F ⊂ G \
{e} finite} is a neighborhood basis for the trivial subgroup {e} in S(G),
where for F ⊂ G \ {e}, UF = {H ∈ S(G) : H ∩ F = ∅}.
Theorem 5.3. A discrete group is C*-simple if and only if it has no
amenable recurrent subgroups.
Proof. (⇒) Suppose that H < G is an amenable recurrent subgroup,
so that {e} ∈
/ Conj(H). Then letting X ⊂ Conj(H) be a minimal
G-subspace, X is a non-trivial amenable uniformly recurrent subgroup.
It follows from Theorem 4.1 that G is not C*-simple.
(⇐) Suppose that G is not C*-simple. Then by Theorem 4.1, G has
a non-trivial amenable uniformly recurrent subgroup X ⊂ S(G). By
minimality X = Conj(H) for some amenable subgroup H < G. Since
X is non-trivial, {e} ∈
/ X. Hence by Proposition 5.2, H is recurrent.
Remark 5.4. In this remark we consider the relationship between
recurrent subgroups and normalish subgroups as introduced in [2].
For a discrete group G, a subgroup H < G is said to be normalish if
for any finite sequence g1 , . . . , gn ∈ G, the intersection of the conjugates
∩n gn Hgn−1 is infinite. In particular, every infinite normal subgroup is
normalish.
A key result in [2, Theorem 2.12] implies that a discrete group with
no non-trivial finite normal subgroups and no amenable normalish subgroups is C*-simple. However, C*-simple groups can have amenable

14

M. KENNEDY

normalish subgroups (see Example 5.5). Hence by Theorem 5.3, amenable
normalish subgroups are not necessarily recurrent.
On the other hand, infinite recurrent subgroups are not necessarily
normalish. For instance, if G is a discrete group and H < G is a
subgroup with only finitely many conjugates, then H is always recurrent, but H is normalish if and only if it contains an infinite normal
subgroup.
However, the following strengthening of Theorem 5.3 does hold: a
discrete group is C*-simple if and only if it has no amenable recurrent
subgroups that are either finite normal or normalish.
To see this, recall from Remark 4.3 that a discrete group G is not
C*-simple if and only if {Gx | x ∈ ∂F G} is a non-trivial amenable
uniformly recurrent subgroup for G. In this case, by minimality it
follows from Proposition 5.2 that each Gx is recurrent, and it follows
from [2, Lemma 2.10] that each Gx is amenable and normalish. In this
way, we obtain [2, Theorem 2.12].
Example 5.5. In this example we consider the Baumslag-Solitar group
BS(m, n) for |m| =
6 |n| and |m|, |n| ≥ 2, defined by
BS(m, n) = ha, t | t−1 am t = an i.
The cyclic subgroup hai is clearly amenable, and it was observed in
[2, Section 3.7] that it is normalish. However, it is easy to check that
it is not recurrent. In fact, by [7], BS(m, n) is C*-simple, and hence
by Theorem 5.3 it has no amenable recurrent subgroups.
Example 5.6. In this example we consider Le Boudec’s recent example
[18] of non-C*-simple groups with the unique trace property.
Let T be a locally finite tree with boundary ∂T . For a fixed vertex v
in T , points in ∂T correspond to geodesic rays in T starting at v. Let
Aut(T ) denote the automorphism group of T , and let G < Aut(T ) be
a subgroup.
Suppose G has the property that if T ′ is one of the two trees obtained
by deleting an edge of T , then there is a non-trivial element g ∈ G that
fixes every vertex in T ′ . Fix x ∈ ∂T , and let Gx = {g ∈ G | gx = x}
denote the corresponding stabilizer subgroup in G. We will show that
Gx is recurrent.
Let (gn ) ∈ G be a sequence of elements and let xn = gn x. Then
gn Gx gn−1 = Gxn . By local finiteness, there is an edge f incident to
v such that there is a subsequence (xnk ) with the property that the

AN INTRINSIC CHARACTERIZATION OF C*-SIMPLICITY

15

geodesic ray corresponding to each xnk contains f . Then by the assumptions on G,
\
\
Gxnk 6= {e}.
gnk Gx gn−1
=
k
k

k

Hence Gx is recurrent.
Le Boudec’s examples arise as enlargements of groups acting on
their Bass-Serre tree, and satisfy all of the above properties. In addition, they have the property that stabilizer subgroups corresponding
to points in the boundary are amenable. Hence by Theorem 5.3, these
groups are not C*-simple.
Furthermore, Le Boudec shows that these groups act minimally and
contain two hyperbolic elements without common fixed points. This
is well known to imply that there are no non-trivial amenable normal
subgroups. Hence by the characterization in [2, Theorem 4.1], these
groups have the unique trace property.
Example 5.7. In this example, we consider the Thompson groups F
and T , viewed as subgroups of homeomorphisms acting on the interval
[0, 1]. We recall that F arises as the stabilizer subgroup of T corresponding to the point 0.
We will show that F is recurrent as a subgroup of T . To see this,
let (gn ) ∈ T be a sequence of elements. We must show there is a
subsequence (gnk ) such that
\
gnk F gn−1
6= {e}.
k
For x ∈ [0, 1], let Tx < T denote the stabilizer subgroup corresponding
to x. Then F = T0 . Let xn = gn (0). Then gn F gn−1 = Txn . Let (xnk )
be a convergent subsequence. Then there is a dyadic interval I in [0, 1]
such that xnk ∈
/ I for all k. Taking f ∈ T such that f fixes every point
in [0, 1] \ I but does not fix some point in I, we see that f ∈ Txnk for
each k. Hence F is recurrent.
By Theorem 5.3, it follows that if T is C*-simple, then F is nonamenable. Thus we obtain another proof of Haagerup and Olesen’s
result [12] that if T is C*-simple, then F is non-amenable.
6. Powers’ averaging property
In this section we will establish the equivalence between C*-simplicity
and Powers’ averaging property. The first result is an equivalence between C*-simplicity and a kind of “weak” averaging property.

16

M. KENNEDY

Proposition 6.1. A discrete group G is C*-simple if and only if for
every bounded linear functional φ on the reduced C*-algebra C∗λ (G) and
every a ∈ C∗λ (G),
inf |φ(b) − φ(1)τλ (a)| = 0,

b∈K

where K denotes the norm closed convex hull of {λg aλg | g ∈ G}.
Proof. By Corollary 3.9, G is not C*-simple if and only if there is a
bounded linear functional φ on C∗λ (G) such that φ(1)τλ does not belong
to the weak* closed convex hull of Gφ. By the Hahn-Banach separation
theorem, this is equivalent to the existence of a ∈ C∗λ (G) such that
inf |φ(b) − φ(1)τλ (a)| > 0,

b∈K

where K denotes the norm closed convex hull of {λg aλg | g ∈ G}.
Definition 6.2. A discrete group G is said to have Powers’ averaging
property if for every element a in the reduced C*-algebra C∗λ (G) and
ǫ > 0 there are g1 , . . . , gn ∈ G such that
n

1X
λg aλ−1 − τλ (a)1 < ǫ,
n i=1 i gi
where τλ denotes the canonical tracial state on C∗λ (G).
Theorem 6.3. A discrete group is C*-simple if and only if it has Powers’ averaging property.
Proof. (⇐) If G has Powers’ averaging property, then the following
argument of Powers [22] implies that G is C*-simple. Let I be a closed
two-sided closed ideal of C∗λ (G). By the faithfulness of τλ , if I 6= {0},
then there is a ∈ I such that τλ (a) = 1. Applying Powers’ averaging
property shows that 1 ∈ I. Hence I = C∗λ (G) and we see that C∗λ (G)
has no non-trivial proper closed two-sided ideals.
(⇒) Suppose that G is C*-simple and fix a ∈ C∗λ (G). Let K denote
the norm closed convex hull of {λg aλ−1
g | g ∈ G}. We must show that
τλ (a)1 ∈ K. Suppose to the contrary that τλ (a)1 ∈
/ K. Then by the
Hahn-Banach separation theorem there is a bounded linear functional
φ on C∗λ (G) such that
inf |φ(b) − φ(1)τλ (a)| > 0.

b∈K

Since G is C*-simple, this contradicts Proposition 6.1.

AN INTRINSIC CHARACTERIZATION OF C*-SIMPLICITY

17

References
[1] M. Abért, Y. Glasner, and B. Virág, Kesten’s theorem for invariant random
subgroups, Duke Mathematical Journal 163 (2014), 465-488.
[2] E. Breuillard, M. Kalantar, M. Kennedy, and N. Ozawa, C*-simplicity and
the unique trace property for discrete groups, arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.2518
(2014).
[3] N. Brown and N. Ozawa, C*-algebras and finite-dimensional approximations,
Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 88, American Mathematical Society,
Providence, RI., 2008.
[4] R.S. Bryder, Injective envelopes and the intersection property, arXiv preprint
arXiv:1704.02723 (2017).
[5] R.S. Bryder and M. Kennedy, Reduced twisted crossed products over C*-simple
groups, International Mathematics Research Notices, to appear.
[6] P. de la Harpe, On simplicity of reduced C*-algebras of groups, Bulletin of the
London Mathematical Society 39 (2007), 1-26.
[7] P. de la Harpe and J.P. Préaux, C*-simple groups: amalgamated free products,
HNN extensions, and fundamental groups of 3-manifolds, Journal of Topology
and Analysis 3 (2011), 451-489.
[8] H. Furstenberg, Boundary theory and stochastic processes on homogeneous
spaces, Harmonic analysis on homogeneous spaces, Proceedings of the Symposium of Pure Mathematics, vol. 26, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI., 1973.
[9] E. Glasner and B. Weiss, Uniformly recurrent subgroups, Contemporary Mathematics 631 (2015), 63-75.
[10] S. Glasner, Proximal flows, Lectures Notes in Mathematics, vol. 517, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1976.
[11] U. Haagerup, A new look at C*-simplicity and the unique trace property of a
group (2015), arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.05880.
[12] U. Haagerup and K.K. Olesen, Non-inner amenability of the Thompson groups
T and V (2016), arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05086.
[13] M. Hamana, Injective envelopes of C*-dynamical systems, Tohoku Mathematical Journal 37 (1985), 463-487.
[14] S.V. Ivanov, The free Burnside groups of sufficiently large exponents, International Journal of Algebra and Computation 4 (1994), 1-308.
[15] S.V. Ivanov and T. Omland, C*-simplicity of free products with amalgamation
and radical classes of groups, Journal of Functional Analysis 272 (2017), 37123741.
[16] M. Kalantar and M. Kennedy, Boundaries of reduced C*-algebras of discrete
groups, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, to appear.
[17] T. Kawabe, Uniformly recurrent subgroups and the ideal structure of reduced
crossed products, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (2017),
arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.03413.
[18] A. Le Boudec, C*-simplicity and the amenable radical, Inventiones Mathematicae, to appear.
[19] A. Le Boudec and N. Matte Bon, Subgroup dynamics and C*-simplicity
of groups of homoemorphisms, Annales Scientifiques de l’École normale
supérieure, to appear.

18

M. KENNEDY

[20] A.Y. Olshanskii and D.V. Osin, C*-simple groups without free subgroups,
Groups, Geometry and Dynamics 8 (2014), 933-983.
[21] D. Pitts, Structure for regular inclusions, arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.6413
(2012).
[22] R. Powers, Simplicity of the C*-algebra associated with the free group on two
generators, Duke Mathematical Journal 42 (1975), 151-156.
[23] J. Renault, Cartan Subalgebras in C*-Algebras., Bulletin of the Irish Mathematical Society 61 (2008), 29-63.
[24] I. Schochetman, Nets of subgroups and amenability, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 29 (1971), 397-403.
[25] R.D. Tucker-Drob, Shift-minimal groups, fixed price 1, and the unique trace
property, arXiv preprint arXiv:1211.6395 (2012).
Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
E-mail address: matt.kennedy@uwaterloo.ca

