arXiv:1304.5144v2 [math.GR] 20 Jun 2016

Locally normal subgroups
of totally disconnected groups.
Part I: General theory
Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace∗1 , Colin D. Reid†2 , and George A. Willis‡2
1

Université catholique de Louvain, IRMP, Chemin du Cyclotron 2, bte L7.01.02,
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique
2
School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle,
Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia

April 22, 2015

Abstract
Let G be a totally disconnected, locally compact group. A closed subgroup of
G is locally normal if its normaliser is open in G. We begin an investigation
of the structure of the family of closed locally normal subgroups of G. Modulo
commensurability, this family forms a modular lattice LN (G), called the structure
lattice of G. We show that G admits a canonical maximal quotient H for which the
quasi-centre and the abelian locally normal subgroups are trivial. In this situation
LN (H) has a canonical subset called the centraliser lattice, forming a Boolean
algebra whose elements correspond to centralisers of locally normal subgroups. If
H is second-countable and acts faithfully on its centraliser lattice, we show that the
topology of H is determined by its algebraic structure (and thus invariant by every
abstract group automomorphism), and also that the action on the Stone space of
the centraliser lattice is universal for a class of actions on profinite spaces. Most of
the material is developed in the more general framework of Hecke pairs.

Contents
1 Introduction

3

∗

F.R.S.-FNRS research associate, supported in part by the ERC (grant #278469)
Supported in part by ARC Discovery Project DP120100996
‡
Supported in part by ARC Discovery Project DP0984342
†

1

2 Locally normal subgroups
2.1 Definition and first properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Local equivalence and the structure lattice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 Quasi-centralisers and their
3.1 Motivation . . . . . . . .
3.2 The quasi-centre . . . . .
3.3 Quasi-centralisers . . . . .
3.4 C-stability . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Local C-stability . . . . .

stability properties
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

8
8
9
13
13
14
16
19
23

4 Direct decomposition of locally normal subgroups
26
4.1 Local decomposition lattices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2 Locally finitely decomposable t.d.l.c. groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5 The
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

centraliser lattice and weakly decomposable actions
The centraliser lattice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Weakly decomposable actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Faithful weakly decomposable groups . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Topologically free actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 Some radicals of locally compact groups
6.1 The quasi-hypercentre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Relation with the quasi-hypercentre of subgroups
6.3 Other radicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4 Canonical completions of Hecke pairs . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

33
33
39
42
47

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

48
48
49
53
60

7 Restrictions on the group topology
62
7.1 The structure lattice and refinements of the group topology . . . . . . . . 62
7.2 A group topology derived from the centraliser lattice . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
7.3 Subgroups abstractly generated by compact locally normal subgroups . . 66
Bibliography

69

Index

71

2

1

Introduction

The aim of the present article is to establish foundations for a study of general nondiscrete totally disconnected locally compact (t.d.l.c.) groups in terms of their local
structure. We define a canonical lattice in terms of this local structure that, in the case
of a p-adic Lie group, is equivalent to the lattice of ideals in the Lie algebra. Inspired by
earlier work of J. Wilson [27] on just-infinite groups and by Barnea–Ershov–Weigel [2]
on abstract commensurators of profinite groups, we develop properties of this lattice.
This article, which concerns general t.d.l.c. groups, is the first in a series. The second
paper in the series [8] uses the tools developed here to study the more special class of
compactly generated t.d.l.c. groups with few normal subgroups and, in particular, those
that are topologically simple.
Most of the definitions and results in this first part apply more generally to a Hecke
pair (G, U ), that is a group G with a commensurated subgroup U , in a way that depends
only on the (abstract) commensurability class of U as a subgroup of G. Although our
principal interest is in t.d.l.c. groups, we will state and prove results in this more general
framework in situations where it is unnecessary to use the topology of the group. For
example, in the case G = U , most of the results we obtain will be valid for residually
finite groups in general, with profinite groups as a special case.

1.1

Background

Since the solution of Hilbert’s fifth problem by Gleason, Montgomery–Zippin and Yamabe, connected locally compact groups are known to have a far-reaching structure theory,
ensuring notably that they are all projective limits of connected Lie groups. This deep
result extends the powerful machinery of Lie theory to all connected locally compact
groups, thereby yielding decomposition theorems and classification results.
In contrast, the solution of Hilbert’s fifth problem yields no information about totally
disconnected locally compact groups, that is, those in which the connected component
of each element is a singleton. Understanding this case would go a long way towards an
understanding of general locally compact groups because each general group is an extension of a totally disconnected group by a connected one. While a rather rich and deep
theory was developed for some special classes of t.d.l.c. groups (profinite groups, reductive groups over local fields, p-adic analytic groups, . . . ), for a long time the only general
result known was van Dantzig’s theorem, which asserts that compact open subgroups
exist and form a basis of identity neighbourhoods. Since the class of t.d.l.c. groups
includes all discrete groups, it seemed during this time that no meaningful structure
theory could be developed beyond the connected or almost connected case.
Three developments over the last twenty years have changed the situation. First, new
general results were obtained with the aid of the scale function, introduced by Willis
3

in [26]. The scale function on the t.d.l.c. group G measures the effect on compact
open subgroups of conjugation by elements of G; it takes positive-integer values and is
non-trivial only when G is not discrete. The scale function and associated ideas elicit
significant new features of general non-discrete t.d.l.c. groups such as tidy subgroups,
contraction groups, parabolic subgroups, etc. and have resolved several open questions.
A complementary approach was initiated by Barnea–Ershov–Weigel [2], based on the
following observation: since any two compact open subgroups of a t.d.l.c. group G are
commensurate, G admits a natural homomorphism to the group of abstract commensurators of its compact open subgroups. By definition, abstract commensurators can be
recovered from any compact open subgroup and are thus purely local objects depending
only on arbitrarily small identity neighbourhoods of G. This observation thus produces
a local approach to t.d.l.c. groups.
The third development is that techniques for isolating the non-discrete case from the
discrete one have been found. At the global level, Caprace–Monod [7] identified simple
pieces of a t.d.l.c. group G under the hypothesis that G has no discrete quotients while,
at the local level, Burger–Mozes [6] introduced, in analogy with the kernel of the adjoint
representation of a Lie group, the quasi-centre of G, which contains in particular any
discrete normal subgroup of G. The former of the two motivates the focus of our next
paper [8] on simple groups, while the latter was important in the approach introduced
in [2] and is developed further in Sections 3 and 6 below as part of the foundation for a
general theory of the local structure of t.d.l.c. groups.

1.2

Locally normal subgroups and their centralisers

The central concept in the general local theory is that of a locally normal subgroup
of a t.d.l.c. group, that is, a subgroup whose normaliser has finite index in an open
subgroup. A major part of [2] focuses on t.d.l.c. groups in which every open compact
subgroup is (hereditarily) just infinite; this corresponds exactly to the condition that
every non-trivial compact locally normal subgroup is open. Away from this case, the
arrangement of (closed) locally normal subgroups becomes more complex.
The intersection of two locally normal subgroups is locally normal. Moreover, if H and
K are closed locally normal subgroups of G, then they admit respective compact open
subgroups H ′ < H and K ′ < K which normalise each other, and such that the product
H ′ K ′ , which is also a compact subgroup, is locally normal. It is thus natural to consider
the collection of all compact locally normal subgroups modulo the equivalence relation
given by local equivalence: two subgroups H and K are locally equivalent if their
intersection H ∩K is open in both H and K. In this way, the collection of all equivalence
classes of compact locally normal subgroups of G, which is denoted by LN (G), endowed
with the partial ordering induced by the inclusion of subgroups, is easily seen to form a
modular lattice. We call it the structure lattice of G. There are two elements that we

4

regard as trivial (assuming G is non-discrete): the minimum element, which is the class
of the trivial subgroup, and the maximum element, which is the class of compact open
subgroups. The symbols 0 and ∞ will be used to denote the minimum and maximum
elements respectively of any bounded lattice, including LN (G). A non-trivial subset of
a bounded lattice is one that contains elements other than 0 and ∞.
Its structure lattice is a local invariant of a t.d.l.c. group G, since it is determined by any
open compact subgroup, which admits a natural action of the topological automorphism
group of G. In case G is a p-adic Lie group, the structure lattice LN (G) is canonically isomorphic to the lattice of ideals in the Qp -Lie algebra of G (see Proposition 2.5
below). Hence the structure lattice may be viewed as a group theoretic analogue for
arbitrary t.d.l.c. groups of the lattice of ideals in the p-adic case. Although it is difficult to determine the structure lattice of a particular t.d.l.c. group G explicitly, the
action of G on LN (G) provides an important tool for elucidating the overall structure
of G. Moreover, under the right conditions we obtain two natural G-invariant subsets
of LN (G) that are Boolean algebras when equipped with the induced order and, when
non-trivial, constitute valuable additional tools. The first is the local decomposition
lattice LD(G), which consists of all direct factors of open compact subgroups of G up
to equivalence. The second is the centraliser lattice LC(G): an element of LC(G) is
given by the equivalence class of the centraliser CU (K) for some open compact subgroup
U of G and closed normal subgroup K of U . In general, the structure lattice depends on
the topology of the open compact subgroups of G, but the centraliser and decomposition
lattices depend only on the Hecke pair structure (G, U ), where U is any open compact
subgroup of G.
Following Burger–Mozes [6], we define the quasi-centre QZ(G) of a locally compact
group G to be the collection of all elements whose centraliser is open (see Lemma 3.1
below for its basic properties).
Theorem I. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group.
(i) (See Theorem 4.5) Suppose that G has trivial quasi-centre. Then LD(G) is a
Boolean algebra.
(ii) (See Theorem 5.2) Suppose in addition that G has no non-trivial abelian locally
normal subgroups. Then LC(G) is a Boolean algebra and LD(G) is a subalgebra of
LC(G).
This opens up a new perspective: using the Stone representation theorem, a group action
on a Boolean algebra A can equivalently be regarded as a group action by homeomorphisms on a topological space S(A), called the Stone space of A, that is profinite, in
other words, compact and totally disconnected. An important property of the G-actions
on the Stone spaces of LD(G) and LC(G) is encapsulated in the following definition.
Let G be a locally compact group and X be a profinite space on which G acts faithfully
5

by homeomorphisms. The G-action is called weakly decomposable if for every nonempty clopen subset α ( X, the stabiliser of α in G is open, and the pointwise stabiliser
of α is non-trivial. Say that G is faithful weakly decomposable if it admits a faithful
weakly decomposable action on some profinite space.
Theorem II (See Theorem 5.18). Let G be a t.d.l.c. group such that QZ(G) = 1.
(i) Suppose that the only abelian locally normal subgroup of G is trivial, and suppose
that G acts faithfully on LC(G). Then the induced action of G on S(LC(G)) is a
faithful weakly decomposable action.
(ii) Suppose X is a profinite space with a faithful weakly decomposable action of G.
Then the only abelian locally normal subgroup of G is trivial and there exists a
G-equivariant continuous surjective map from S(LC(G)) to X.
In particular, if G is faithful weakly decomposable, then S(LC(G)) is the unique maximal
compact G-space for which the action is faithful and weakly decomposable.

1.3

Radical theory

The hypotheses of Theorem I are satisfied by all compactly generated, topologically
simple t.d.l.c. groups: for (i) this is Theorem 4.8 of [2], and for (ii) this will be proved
in [8, Theorem A]. We will show, by developing a suitable ‘radical theory’, that an
arbitrary t.d.l.c. group has a canonical maximal quotient which satisfies the hypotheses
of Theorem I(i) or (ii).
Theorem III. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group.
Then G has closed characteristic subgroups QZ∞ (G) ≤ R[A] (G) ≤ G with the following
properties:
(i) (See Theorem 6.2) QZ∞ (G) is the unique smallest closed normal subgroup N of G
such that G/N has trivial quasi-centre.
(ii) (See Theorem 6.11) R[A] (G) is the unique smallest closed normal subgroup M of
G such that G/M has trivial quasi-centre and no non-trivial abelian locally normal
subgroups.
In case G is a p-adic Lie group, R[A] (G) is the unique largest closed normal subgroup
whose Lie algebra is the soluble radical of Lie(G); see Proposition 6.18 below.
Both QZ∞ (G) and R[A] (G) are well behaved with respect to open subgroups, in the sense
that QZ∞ (H) = QZ∞ (G)∩H and R[A] (H) = R[A] (G)∩H for any open subgroup H of G
6

(see Propositions 6.3 and 6.15). Thus if the canonical quotients provided by Theorem III
turn out to be trivial, we have additional local information about the structure of G.
For instance it is easily seen that if R[A] (G) = G, then the open compact subgroups of
G are Fitting-regular in the sense of [22].

1.4

Group topologies

We now specialise to the case of first-countable t.d.l.c. groups and give some results on
the relationship between the commensurated compact subgroups and the compact locally
normal subgroups. For instance (Lemma 7.4), a closed subgroup K of a first-countable
profinite group U is commensurated by U if and only if U normalises an open subgroup
of K. Hence, any compact commensurated subgroup of a first-countable t.d.l.c. group
G is commensurate with a locally normal subgroup, whose commensurability class is
thus a G-fixed point in LN (G). As a consequence, the commensurated compact locally
normal subgroups have an interpretation in terms of group topologies.
Theorem IV (See § 7.1). Let G be a first-countable t.d.l.c. group. Then there is a
natural bijection between the elements of LN (G) that are fixed by the action of G, and
refinements of the topology of G that are locally compact and compatible with the group
structure.
When G is faithful weakly decomposable, we obtain a topological rigidity result of a
similar kind to those for semisimple Lie groups over real and p-adic fields given in [17]
and [19].
Theorem V (See Theorem 7.6). Let G be a second-countable t.d.l.c. group with trivial
quasi-centre, and suppose that G is faithful weakly decomposable. Then the topology of
G is the coarsest group topology on G for which it is a Baire space. In particular, it is
preserved by every automorphism of G as an abstract group. Consequently, the topology
of G is the unique σ-compact locally compact group topology on G, and the set of all
locally compact group topologies of G is in natural bijection with the set of fixed points
of G acting on LN (G) by conjugation.

Acknowledgements
We express our gratitude to John Wilson for numerous comments which helped in improving the presentation of this paper. We thank Corina Ciobotaru, David Hume,
Thierry Stulemeijer and Phillip Wesolek for their careful reading of an earlier draft of
the manuscript.

7

2

Locally normal subgroups

2.1

Definition and first properties

Let G be a t.d.l.c. group, which is assumed to be Hausdorff by convention. Then van
Dantzig’s theorem [13, Theorem II.7.7] asserts that the open compact subgroups of G
form a base of identity neighbourhoods. Denote this set by B(G). Any two elements of
B(G) are commensurate, as an elementary topological argument shows. Hence, letting
U be any open compact subgroup of G, the pair (G, U ) satisfies the following condition.
A Hecke pair (of groups) (G, U ) is a group G together with a commensurated subgroup U of G, that is, U ∩ gU g −1 has finite index in U for all g ∈ G.
Most of our arguments will be made in terms of general Hecke pairs, as the results then
apply directly to residually finite groups and not just to their profinite completions.
When specialising to the case that U is an open compact subgroup of the t.d.l.c. group
G, we will say that (G, U ) is a t.d.l.c. Hecke pair.
Given a Hecke pair (G, U ), a locally normal subgroup of (G, U ) is a subgroup K of G
such that the normaliser NU (K) has finite index in U . A subgroup K of G is bounded
if K ∩ U is commensurate with K. When (G, U ) is t.d.l.c., subgroups that are bounded
and closed are precisely the compact ones.
The most elementary properties of locally normal subgroups collected in the following
will frequently be used without comment.
Lemma 2.1. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and K, L be subgroups of G.
(i) If K and L are locally normal, so is K ∩ L.
(ii) If (G, U ) is t.d.l.c. and K is compact and locally normal, so is every open subgroup
of K.
(iii) If K is locally normal, so is the centraliser CV (K) for any V ≤ G commensurate
with U .
(iv) If K is bounded, then there is V ≤ G commensurate with U that contains K. If
K is also locally normal, then V may be chosen to normalise K. When (G, U ) is
t.d.l.c. and K is compact and locally normal, then we can take V ∈ B(G).
Proof. (i) is clear since K ∩ L is normalised by NU (K) ∩ NU (L).
(ii) An open subgroup of K may be written as K ∩ U for some U ∈ B(G). Since any
element of B(G) is locally normal, (ii) follows from part (i).

8

(iii) Let W = U ∩ V . If K is locally normal, then CV (K) is a subgroup of V , so that
NW (K) ≤ NW (CV (K)) and we have
|U : NU (CV (K))| ≤ |U : W ||W : NW (CV (K))| ≤ |U : W ||W : NW (K)| < ∞;
hence CV (K) is locally normal.
T
(iv) If K is bounded, then W = k∈K kU k−1 is commensurate with U and normalised
by K, so that V = KW is a subgroup commensurate with U and containing K. If K
locally normal, then W = NU (K) is commensurate with U and V = KW is a subgroup
commensurate with U and containing K as a normal subgroup. When (G, U ) is t.d.l.c.
and K is compact and locally normal, then W open and compact with either definition,
and so V is an open compact subgroup of G.
Notice that the converse to Lemma 2.1(ii) does not hold: namely, the fact that K is
compact and contains a locally normal subgroup as an open subgroup does not generally
imply that K itself is locally normal, since otherwise all finite subgroups of G would be
locally normal and hence contained in the quasi-centre QZ(G).

2.2

Local equivalence and the structure lattice

Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let H be a subgroup of G. Write [H] for the class of all
subgroups K of G such that K ∩ U is commensurate with H ∩ U and say that H and K
are locally equivalent if [H] = [K]. Although H might not be bounded, and such will
be the case in later arguments, it is the bounded subgroups of [H] that are of interest.
There is a natural partial ordering on local equivalence classes, given by [H] ≥ [K] if
H ∩ K ∩ U has finite index in K ∩ U . Note that, when (G, U ) is t.d.l.c. and H is closed,
the closed subgroups in [H] are those that have an open subgroup in common with H.
A subgroup H in G is locally equivalent to the trivial subgroup if and only if H ∩ U
is finite; in the t.d.l.c. case, this occurs if and only if H is discrete. We shall later be
interested in subgroups H of t.d.l.c. groups G such that H ∩ U = 1 for all U ∈ B(G).
Since every compact (and hence every finite) subgroup of G is contained in some open
compact subgroup, the latter property holds if and only if H is discrete and torsion-free.
For a given a Hecke pair (G, U ), let LN (G, U ) denote the set of local equivalence classes
of subgroups of G that have locally normal representatives. Unless otherwise stated,
when choosing a representative of α ∈ LN (G, U ), we only take representatives that are
bounded and locally normal. Then the partially ordered set LN (G, U ) is a lattice. The
greatest lower bound and least upper bound of α, β ∈ LN (G, U ) are respectively
α ∧ β = [H ∩ K] and α ∨ β = [HK],
where representatives H ∈ α and K ∈ β are chosen such that H, K E V for some V ≤ U
of finite index. That [H ∩ K] and [HK] are independent of how H, K and V are chosen
9

and that they are respectively the greatest lower bound and least upper bound of α and
β is easily verified. We call (LN (G, U ), ≤) the abstract structure lattice of (G, U ).
If (G, U ) is a t.d.l.c. Hecke pair, write LN (G) for the set of elements of LN (G, U ) that
have compact locally normal representatives. Then LN (G) is a sublattice of LN (G, U )
that does not depend on the choice of U so long as it is compact and open. We define
LN (G) with the induced operations to be the structure lattice of G.
It is clear that LN (G, U ) is determined entirely by the group structure of U , so effectively
LN (G, U ) = LN (U, U ). We retain the notation LN (G, U ) in order to distinguish the
abstract (Hecke pair) structure lattice from the topological structure lattice LN (G),
which is more useful in the study of t.d.l.c. groups.
Example 2.2.
(a) Let T be a regular tree of finite degree d, with d ≥ 3, and let G = Aut(T ). Then
G is a t.d.l.c. group, with topology generated by the pointwise stabilisers of finite
subtrees of T . Let F be a finite subtree of T , let U be the pointwise stabiliser of F ,
and let T1 , . . . , Tn be the connected components of T − F . Then U decomposes as a
direct product
U = K1 × K2 × · · · × Kn
where Ki is the pointwise stabiliser in G of all vertices outside Ti . Evidently Ki
is compact and normal in U , so it is locally normal in G, and since each tree Ti
is infinite and G induces an infinite group of automorphisms on it, each group Ki
is infinite. Thus the given decomposition of U provides 2n distinct elements of the
structure lattice of G. By varying the finite tree F , we see that LN (G) is infinite in
this case.
(b) Let G = Qnp for n ≥ 2. Then the every subgroup of G is locally normal, since G is
abelian. The compact subgroups of G are all isomorphic to Zm
p where 0 ≤ m ≤ n. It
is easily seen that two compact subgroups of G are commensurate if and only if they
span the same subspace of G regarded as a Qp -vector space, and conversely every
Qp -subspace of G is spanned by a compact subgroup. Consequently, the structure
lattice of G is naturally isomorphic to the lattice of Qp -subspaces of G. In particular,
LN (G) is uncountable.
(c) At the other extreme, let G be any t.d.l.c. group with a hereditarily just infinite
open subgroup U , for instance G = Qp or G = PSLn (Qp ). Then given a closed
locally normal subgroup K, the intersection K ∩ U is normal in an open subgroup
of U , and hence K is either finite or open. Hence LN (G) is the two-element lattice.
When G is a t.d.l.c. group, the lattice structure of LN (G) is preserved by the topological automorphism group Aut(G) of G. More generally, the structure of LN (G, U ) is
preserved by those automorphisms of G that preserve the commensurability class of U .
10

In particular, G acts on LN (G) (when defined) and LN (G, U ) by conjugation. If U is
infinite, there are two ‘trivial’ elements of LN (G, U ) and of LN (G), namely the class of
the trivial group, denoted by 0, and the class of the subgroups containing a subgroup of
U of finite index, denoted by ∞.
The use of the term structure lattice is borrowed from J. Wilson ([27]), whose ideas
developed in the context of just infinite groups were an important source of inspiration
for the present work. The structure lattice is a purely ‘local’ invariant of a t.d.l.c. group,
that is, it is completely determined by any open compact subgroup. It is also built out
of lattices of normal subgroups of open compact subgroups in a natural sense. Similar
observations apply more generally to the abstract structure lattice.
Lemma 2.3. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair.
(i) Let X be a finite subset of LN (G, U ), and let L be the sublattice generated by X.
Then there is a subgroup V of U of finite index and a choice of representatives Y for
the elements of X, so that every element of Y is a normal subgroup of V , and L is
isomorphic to the lattice of subgroups of V generated by Y modulo commensuration.
If L ⊆ LN (G), then we can take V ∈ B(G).
(ii) Let I be a lattice identity that is satisfied by the normal subgroup lattice of V
(modulo commensuration), for every finite index subgroup V of U . Then I is
satisfied by LN (G, U ). In particular, LN (G, U ) is a modular lattice.
T
Proof. (i) Let X = {[K1 ], . . . , [Kn ]}, let V =
NU (Ki ), and let Li = V ∩ Ki for
i ∈ {1, . . . , n}. Then Y = {L1 , . . . , Ln } consists of normal subgroups of V , and the
meet and join operations in L can evidently be given by [Ki ] ∧ [Kj ] = [Li ∩ Lj ] and
[Ki ] ∨ [Kj ] = [Li Lj ] = [hLi , Lj i]. Thus the map L 7→ [L] gives a surjective map from the
lattice generated by Y to L, and two subgroups have the same image if and only if they
are commensurate. If (G, U ) is t.d.l.c. and L ⊆ LN (G), then we can choose K1 , . . . , Kn
to be closed, so V is closed, and hence V ∈ B(G).
(ii) This is immediate from (i), recalling that the lattice of normal subgroups in any
group is modular (see [14, Theorem 8.3]).
If G is a t.d.l.c. group and U is an open compact subgroup, we see that LN (G) is
a sublattice of LN (G, U ). (In particular, LN (G) inherits the modular property from
LN (G, U ).) In general, elements of LN (G) may have non-closed representatives, since
a finite index subgroup of a profinite group is not necessarily closed. However, we can
recognise the elements of LN (G) inside LN (G, U ) by the existence of closed representatives (without reference to normalisers).
Proposition 2.4. Let (G, U ) be a t.d.l.c. Hecke pair and let α ∈ LN (G, U ). Then
α ∈ LN (G), that is, α has a compact locally normal representative, if and only if there
is closed subgroup H of G such that [H] = α.
11

Proof. If α ∈ LN (G), then certainly α has a closed representative. It remains to show the
converse. Suppose H is a closed subgroup of G such that [H] = α. Since α ∈ LN (G, U ),
there is some bounded locally normal subgroup K of G such that [K] = α. We see that
H ∩ U is closed and [H ∩ U ] = α, so we may assume H ≤ U . Now H ∩ K has finite index
in K, so the image of K in U/H is a finite set of cosets, say k1 H, . . . , kn H. Since H is
closed, there is a sufficiently small open normal subgroup V of U such that the cosets
k1 H, . . . , kn H remain pairwise distinct modulo V . It then follows that
H ∩ K ∩ V = K ∩ V.
Note that K ∩ V is locally normal and [K ∩ V ] = α. So by replacing K by K ∩ V , we
may assume K ≤ H. Since H is a closed subgroup of G, we in fact have K ≤ H. Now
K has finite index in K, since K is commensurate with H, so [K] = α; moreover, the
normaliser of K in G is a closed subgroup containing NG (K), so the normaliser of K is
open. Hence K is the desired compact locally normal representative of α.
We have seen that the structure lattice LN (G) of a t.d.l.c. group G is a modular lattice
that can be recovered from any identity neighbourhood in G. In the special case where
G is a p-adic Lie group, the structure lattice can be described in terms of the Qp -Lie
algebra of G, as follows.
Proposition 2.5. Let G be a p-adic Lie group. Then the structure lattice LN (G) is
G-equivariantly isomorphic to the lattice of ideals in the Qp -Lie algebra Lie(G).
Indeed, that proposition readily follows from the following known properties of the Lie
correspondence in p-adic Lie groups.
Proposition 2.6. Let G be a p-adic Lie group, and g = Lie(G) denote its Qp -Lie
algebra.
(i) For any two closed subgroups H1 , H2 ≤ G, we have [H1 ] = [H2 ] if and only if
Lie(H1 ) = Lie(H2 ).
(ii) If H ≤ G is closed with NG (H) open, then Lie(H) is an ideal.
(iii) If h is an ideal of g, then there exists a compact locally normal subgroup H with
Lie(H) = h.
Proof. We first recall that every closed subgroup of G is a Lie group, whose Lie algebra
is a subalgebra of g, see [5, Ch. III, §8, Th. 2].
We next observe that every vector subspace of g is closed: this is easily seen by induction on dimension, using the fact that every proper open subgroup of Qp is compact.
Therefore, every Lie subalgebra of g is the Lie algebra of a closed subgroup of G by [5,
Ch. III, §7, Th. 2].
12

This being recorded, assertion (i) now follows from [5, Ch. III, §7, Th. 2], while assertions
(ii) and (iii) follow from [5, Ch. III, §7, Prop. 2].

3

Quasi-centralisers and their stability properties

3.1

Motivation

Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair. Our principal aim in the present section and Sections 4 and
5 is to obtain two subsets of the structure lattice of (G, U ), namely the local decomposition lattice LD(G, U ) and the centraliser lattice LC(G, U ) that are Boolean
algebras, provided that (G, U ) satisfies some unavoidable hypotheses. The local decomposition lattice will have as representatives the direct factors of finite index subgroups of
U ; more generally, one can define the local decomposition lattice LD(G, U ; K) relative
to a locally normal subgroup K, with representatives given by those direct factors of
finite index subgroups of K that are locally normal in G. The centraliser lattice will
have as representatives the centralisers of all locally normal subgroups. Here are some
observations that will lead us to the required hypotheses.
1. Given a direct factor K of a group U , observe that there may be many different
subgroups L such that K × L = U : consider for instance the direct factorisations
of U = Z2p as Zp × Zp . However, if the centre of U is trivial, then K has a unique
complement, namely L = CU (K).
2. A priori, the map
LN (G, U ) → LN (G, U ); [K] 7→ [CG (K)]
is not well-defined: given a locally normal subgroup K and a finite index subgroup
V of U , it could be the case that CG (K ∩ V ) lies in a local equivalence class
that is strictly above the local equivalence class of CG (K). So instead, we will
define a subgroup QCG ([K]) that is the union of all centralisers of representatives
of [K], and then define [K]⊥ to be [QCG ([K])]. We will see that under suitable
conditions, every representative of [K] actually has the same centraliser, so the
map [K] 7→ [CG (K)] is in fact well-defined.
3. There is a natural approach to obtaining a Boolean algebra from a bounded lattice
L, provided that L is pseudocomplemented. A pseudocomplementation is a
function ⊥ : L → L such that:
(∗) For all α, β ∈ L, we have α ∧ β = 0 if and only if β ≤ α⊥ .
If a pseudocomplementation exists, it is necessarily unique. Moreover, the set
A = {α⊥ | α ∈ L} forms a Boolean algebra, with the restriction of ⊥ serving as
the complementation map on A (in particular, ⊥3 = ⊥). We will obtain hypotheses
13

such that LN (G, U ) is pseudocomplemented, and the pseudocomplementation will
be given by [K] 7→ [CG (K)].
These observations lead naturally to the definitions of the quasi-centre (see 3.2), quasicentralisers (see 3.3) and C-stability (see 3.4). The purpose of the present section (Section 3) is to perform the technical groundwork needed to verify that the definitions have
the properties we desire of them.
Since the lattices we are describing are ‘local’ invariants of the Hecke pair (G, U ), for the
proofs, there will be no loss of generality in assuming G = U , and we may freely replace
G or U by a finite index subgroup when it is convenient to do so.

3.2

The quasi-centre

As observed in §3.1, to ensure unique complementation in the local decomposition lattice of the Hecke pair (G, U ), we need the finite index subgroups of U (or at least all
sufficiently small finite index subgroups of U ) to have trivial centre. When (G, U ) is
a t.d.l.c. Hecke pair, this becomes the question as to whether the quasi-centre of G,
defined as the set of all elements whose centraliser is open, is discrete. The notion of
quasi-centre is due to Burger–Mozes [6]; its basic properties are as follows.
Lemma 3.1. Let G be a locally compact group. Then:
(i) QZ(G) is a (not necessarily closed) characteristic subgroup of G.
(ii) QZ(O) ≤ QZ(G) for any open subgroup O ≤ G.
(iii) For any closed normal subgroup N of G, the image of QZ(G) under the projection
to G/N is contained in QZ(G/N ).
(iv) QZ(G) contains every discrete subgroup of G whose normaliser in G is open. In
particular, all discrete normal subgroups and all finite locally normal subgroups are
contained in QZ(G).
(v) For any discrete normal subgroup N of G, we have QZ(G)/N = QZ(G/N ). In
particular, if QZ(G) is discrete, then QZ(G/QZ(G)) = 1.
Proof. (i) For all g, h ∈ G, we have CG (gh) ≥ CG (g) ∩ CG (h). This implies that gh ∈
QZ(G) as soon as g, h ∈ QZ(G). Part (i) follows.
(ii) Let O ≤ G be open. Since CG (g) ≥ CO (g) for any g ∈ G, so that CG (g) is open as
soon as CO (g) is so. Part (ii) follows.
(iii) Clear since the projection G → G/N is an open map.
14

(iv) Let H be a discrete subgroup of G such that NG (H) is open and let V be an open
compact subgroup of NG (H). Consider h ∈ H. Since the V -conjugacy class of h is
compact, thus finite, h is centralised by an open subgroup of V and so h ∈ QZ(G) as
claimed.
(v) Let N ≤ G be a discrete normal subgroup. We have N ≤ QZ(G) by (iv) and
QZ(G)/N ≤ QZ(G/N ) by (iii). Let now g ∈ G such that gN ∈ QZ(G/N ). Thus there
is U ∈ B(G) such that [g, U ] ⊂ N . Since N is discrete, there exists also V ∈ B(G)
with V ∩ N = 1. Since the commutator map x 7→ [g, x] is continuous, we may, upon
replacing U by a sufficiently small open subgroup, assume that [g, U ] ⊂ V . We deduce
that [g, U ] = 1, whence g ∈ QZ(G). This confirms that QZ(G)/N ≥ QZ(G/N ), and the
required assertion follows.
Given a general Hecke pair (G, U ), we define the quasi-centre of G with respect
to U , denoted by QZ(G, U ), to be the set of all elements of G that have finitely many
U -conjugates. When (G, U ) is a t.d.l.c. pair, this is equal to the quasi-centre of G as
defined previously and we will adopt the notation QZ(G) for the quasi-centre of G with
respect to U in the general case as well when there is no ambiguity about the choice
of U . Subgroups H of G are understood to have the Hecke pair structure (H, H ∩ U ),
so QZ(H) is the set of all elements of H that have finitely many (H ∩ U )-conjugates.
Note that QZ(H) is a normal subgroup of H, and agrees with the usual definition of
the quasi-centre for topological groups in the case that (G, U ) is t.d.l.c. and H is closed.
When H is bounded with respect to (G, U ), observe that QZ(H) is just the union of all
finite conjugacy classes of H.
Note that a version of Lemma 3.1(iv) also holds for Hecke pairs (G, U ):
Lemma 3.2. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let H ≤ G. Suppose that there is a finite
index subgroup V of U such that V ≤ NG (H) and H ∩ V = 1. Then H ≤ QZ(G).
Proof. Let x ∈ H. Then there is a finite index subgroup W of V such that xW x−1 ≤ V ,
since V is commensurated by G. Given w ∈ W , we have [x, w] ∈ H, since H is normalised
by W , and also [x, w] ∈ xW x−1 W ⊆ V . Thus [x, w] ∈ H ∩ V , so [x, w] = 1. Hence
x ∈ CG (W ) ≤ QZ(G).
The quasi-centre has a useful characterisation in the case that it is locally equivalent to
the trivial group.
Corollary 3.3. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair. Suppose that QZ(G) ∈ [1], that is, there
exists a finite index subgroup V of U such that QZ(G) ∩ V = 1. Then QZ(G) is the
unique largest locally normal representative of [1]. In particular, if QZ(G) = 1, then the
trivial group is the only locally normal representative of [1] in G.
Proof. Follows immediately from Lemma 3.2.
15

Observe that if V is a finite index subgroup of U , then QZ(V ) = QZ(G) ∩ V . So in
taking the local approach, to prove results about Hecke pairs (G, U ) with QZ(G) ∈ [1],
we are usually free to assume that QZ(G) = 1.

3.3

Quasi-centralisers

Generalising the quasi-centre, we introduce a notion of the centraliser of a subgroup that
depends only on its local equivalence class.
Definition 3.4. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair, let H and K be subgroups of G and let C
be the class of subgroups of K ∩ U of finite index. The quasi-centraliser of K in H is
given by
[
QCH (K) :=
CH (L).
L∈C

Clearly the quasi-centraliser QCH (K) contains the centraliser CH (K). Moreover, the
quasi-centraliser is a subgroup of G, since CH (L1 )CH (L2 ) ⊆ CH (L1 ∩ L2 ). Similarly we
have QCH (K) = QCH (L) for any finite index subgroup L of K ∩ U , so that QCH (K)
depends only on the local equivalence class α = [K] and we can write QCH (α) without
ambiguity. Some caution is required in saying that two subgroups ‘quasi-commute’, as
the relation A is contained in the quasi-centraliser of B is not symmetric. We see that
QZ(H) = QCH (H).
We emphasise that the quasi-centraliser of a subgroup
Q need not be closed, even in the
context of`profinite groups. For example, if G = N S3 , then QCG (G) is the dense
subgroup N S3 . However, it is the case that QCG (H) = QCG (H) in this context.
Lemma 3.5. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair, such that G is a topological group and U is
open in G. Let H be a subgroup of G. Then
QCG (H) = QCG (H).
Proof. It may be assumed that H ≤ U and hence, since U is an open subgroup and
therefore closed, that H ≤ U . Hence, to compute the quasi-centralisers, we may work
with finite index subgroups of H and H.
Let K ≤ H have finite index. Then K∩H has finite index in H and CG (K∩H) ≥ CG (K).
Hence QCG (H) ≥ QCG (H). On the other hand, if L has finite index in H, then L has
finite index in H and CG (L) = CG (L). Hence QCG (H) ≤ QCG (H)
In the context of t.d.l.c. groups, the definition of the quasi-centraliser can be reformulated
as follows.

16

Lemma 3.6. Let (G, U ) be a t.d.l.c. Hecke pair and H, K be subgroups of G. Then we
have
[
QCH (K) :=
CH (K ∩ V ).
V ∈B(G)

Proof. In view of Lemma 3.5, we have QCH (K) = QCH (K). Moreover, for any V ∈
B(G) we have K∩V = K ∩ V because V is open, which yields CH (K∩V ) = CH (K ∩ V ) =
CH (K ∩ V ). We may therefore assume that K is closed.
S
For any
S V ∈ B(G), we have CH (K ∩ V ) ≥ CH (K ∩ U ∩ V ), so that V ∈B(G) CH (K ∩
V ) = V ∈B(G) CH (K ∩ U ∩ V ). Given a finite index subgroup L ≤ K ∩ U , we have
CH (L) = CH (L). Moreover, since K is closed and since L is an open subgroup of K ∩ U
there exists V ∈ B(G) with K ∩ U ∩ V = L. Denoting by C be the class of subgroups of
K ∩ U of finite index, we infer that
[
[
QCH (K) =
CH (L) =
CH (K ∩ U ∩ V )
L∈C

V ∈B(G)

as required.
The following observation is borrowed from [2, Prop. 2.6].
Lemma 3.7. Let G be a group, let U and V be subgroups of G, and let W ≤ U ∩ V .
Suppose θ : U → V is an (abstract) isomorphism such that θ(x) = x for all x ∈ W , and
suppose also that CG (W ∩ g−1 W g) = 1 for all g ∈ U . Then U = V and θ = idU .
Proof. Let g ∈ U and let x ∈ W ∩ g −1 W g. Then
gxg −1 = θ(gxg −1 ) = θ(g)θ(x)θ(g −1 ) = θ(g)xθ(g−1 ),
so g−1 θ(g) centralises x. This shows that g−1 θ(g) ∈ CG (W ∩ g−1 W g) = 1. Thus
g = θ(g).
In the following lemmas, we obtain some consequences of the hypothesis that a given
subgroup H of G has trivial quasi-centre.
Lemma 3.8. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and H be a subgroup of G such that QZ(H) = 1.
Then:
(i) QCG (H) ∩ NG (H) = CG (H);
(ii) Every finite locally normal subgroup of G has trivial intersection with H.

17

Proof. For part (i), let t ∈ QCG (H) ∩ NG (H). Then conjugation by t induces an automorphism, θt , of H that fixes pointwise some finite index subgroup, K, of H ∩ U . Since
K is commensurated by H and QZ(H, H ∩ U ) = 1, we have CH (K ∩ g−1 Kg) = 1 for
all g ∈ H and so, by Lemma 3.7, θt = idH , that is, t ∈ CG (H). The reverse inclusion is
clear.
For part (ii), let K be a finite locally normal subgroup of G. Then there is a subgroup
V of G that is commensurate to U such that K ≤ V ≤ NG (K). Let H ′ = H ∩ V and
let K ′ = H ∩ K. Then K ′ is finite and normal in H ′ , and therefore contained in the
quasi-centre of H ′ . However, H ′ has trivial quasi-centre, and so K ′ is trivial.
Lemma 3.9. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let H and K be subgroups of G such that
QZ(H) = 1. Suppose that |H ∩ K|, |H : NH (K)| and |K : NK (H)| are all finite. Then
NK (H) = CK (H).
Proof. Set A = NH (K) and B = NK (H), so that A and B normalise each other. We
have A ∩ B ≤ H ∩ K, so that A ∩ B is finite by hypothesis. Since A ∩ B is normal in A,
we infer that A ∩ B is centralised by a finite index subgroup of A, hence by a finite index
subgroup of H since |H : A| is finite by hypothesis. Therefore A ∩ B ≤ QZ(H) = 1.
Since A and B normalise each other, it follows that they commute. Hence B centralises
a finite index subgroup of H, which implies that B ≤ QCG (H). Since B also normalises
H, we deduce that B ≤ CG (H) by Lemma 3.8(i).
Lemma 3.10. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and H be a subgroup of G such that NU (H)
has finite index in U .
(i) Suppose (G, U ) is t.d.l.c. (as defined in §2.1 above), H is closed and QZ(H) is
discrete and torsion-free. Then QCG (H) is closed and H ∩ QCG (H) is discrete
and torsion-free. In particular, QCG (H) cannot be dense in G unless H is discrete
and torsion-free.
(ii) Let V be a subgroup of G that is commensurate with U . If QZ(H) ∩ V = 1, then
QCG (H) is locally equivalent to CG (H ∩ V ). In particular, we have
QCG (QCG (H)) = QCG (CG (H ∩ V )) = QCG (CV (H ∩ V )).
Proof. (i) Let V be any open compact subgroup of G. Then QZ(H ∩ V ) = 1 because
QZ(H) is discrete and torsion-free and QZ(H ∩V ) ≤ QZ(H). Therefore, by Lemma 3.8(i)
and because QCG (H ∩ V ) = QCG (H),
QCG (H) ∩ NG (H ∩ V ) = CG (H ∩ V ).

(1)

In particular, QCG (H) ∩ (H ∩ V ) ≤ Z(H ∩ V ) = 1. Hence H ∩ QCG (H) intersects
trivially any open compact subgroup of G and is therefore a discrete and torsion-free.
18

That QCG (H) is closed follows from (1) by noting that NG (H ∩ V ) is open because it
contains NU (H) ∩ V and that CG (H ∩ V ) is closed.
(ii) Let W = NV (H). Since QZ(H) ∩ V = 1, it follows that QZ(H ∩ V ) = 1, and
Lemma 3.8(i) implies that
QCG (H ∩ V ) ∩ W ≤ QCG (H ∩ V ) ∩ NG (H ∩ V ) = CG (H ∩ V ).
On the other hand, the inclusion CG (H ∩ V ) ∩ W ≤ QCG (H ∩ V ) ∩ W holds because
CG (H ∩V ) ≤ QCG (H ∩V ). Since QCG (H ∩V ) = QCG (H), we infer that QCG (H)∩W =
CG (H ∩ V ) ∩ W and hence that [QCG (H)] = [CG (H ∩ V )].

3.4

C-stability

Recall that one of our aims is to use the map K 7→ QCG (K) to define a pseudocomplementation on LN (G, U ), or at least on a subset of LN (G, U ). Observe that any
pseudocomplementation ⊥ on a lattice L satisfies the following identity:
2

α⊥ ∧ α⊥ = 0 ∀α ∈ L.

(2)

The following property applied to locally normal subgroups, closely related to the identity
(2), will prove to be the key criterion for our purposes.
Definition 3.11. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let H be a subgroup of G. Say H is
C-stable in G if
R(H) := QCG (H) ∩ QCG (CG (H)) ∈ [1].

We shall mostly be interested in the case that H is contained in a subgroup commensurate
with U . The following shows that, in that case, C-stability could have equivalently been
defined to mean that QCV (HCG (H)) = 1 for some finite index subgroup V of U . In the
t.d.l.c. case, this is equivalent to requiring that QCG (HCG (H)) be discrete.
Lemma 3.12. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let H be a bounded subgroup of G. Then
R(H) = QCG (H) ∩ QCG (CG (H)) = QCG (HCG (H)).
Proof. Let x ∈ QCG (HCG (H)), so x centralises some finite index subgroup K of
HCG (H) ∩ U . Then H ∩ K has finite index in H ∩ U and CG (H) ∩ K has finite index in
CG (H)∩U and x centralises both subgroups. Hence x ∈ QCG (H) and x ∈ QCG (CG (H)).
Conversely, consider x ∈ QCG (H)∩QCG (CG (H)) and let V be a subgroup commensurate
to U such that H ≤ V . Then there are subgroups L of finite index in H ∩ U and M of
finite index in CU ∩V (H) such that
x ∈ CG (L) ∩ CG (M ).
19

Hence x centralises the group LM . Since L has finite index in H and M has finite
index in CV (H), we thus have that x centralises a finite index subgroup of HCV (H).
Finally, the condition that H ≤ V implies that HCV (H) = HCG (H) ∩ V , and the latter
group is commensurate with HCG (H) ∩ U . Hence x centralises a finite index subgroup
of HCG (H) ∩ U as required.
We also note the role of the quasi-centre of (G, U ) as a whole in C-stability. Given any
subgroup H of G, then
QCG (H) ∩ QCG (CG (H)) ≥ QZ(G),
and equality holds in the case H = G. So if QZ(G) ∈ [1], then G is C-stable in itself,
and moreover, every subgroup of G commensurate to U is C-stable in G. If instead
QZ(G) 6∈ [1], then G does not have any C-stable subgroups. So in proving properties of
C-stable subgroups of a Hecke pair (G, U ), we may assume QZ(G) ∈ [1].
In particular, the following is an immediate consequence of Corollary 3.3:
Corollary 3.13. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let H be a C-stable locally normal
subgroup of G. Then
R(H) = QCG (H) ∩ QCG (CG (H)) = QZ(G).
The next lemma records the most basic properties of C-stable subgroups.
Lemma 3.14. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let H be a C-stable subgroup of G.
(i) Let K be a subgroup of H that is commensurate with H ∩ U . Then K is C-stable
in G.
(ii) QZ(H) ∈ [1]; indeed, QZ(H) ≤ QCG (H) ∩ QCG (CG (H)).
(iii) If H ∩ U is finite, then H ≤ QCG (H) ∩ QCG (CG (H)).
Proof. Let V be a subgroup of G that is commensurate with U .
(i) Since K is commensurate with H ∩ U , we have QCG (K) = QCG (H). Since K ≤ H,
we have CG (K) ≥ CG (H), so that QCG (CG (K)) ≤ QCG (CG (H)). Therefore
QCG (K) ∩ QCG (CG (K)) ≤ QCG (H) ∩ QCG (CG (H)) ∈ [1].
(ii) We have QZ(H) = QCH (H) ≤ QCG (H). Moreover, any g ∈ QZ(H) belongs to H
and therefore commutes with CG (H), so that QZ(H) ≤ CG (CG (H)) ≤ QCG (CG (H)).
Therefore
QZ(H) ≤ QCG (H) ∩ QCG (CG (H)) ∈ [1].
(iii) If H ∩ U is finite, then QZ(H) = H, so H ≤ QCG (H). Clearly also H is contained
in QCG (CG (H)).
20

For each integer n > 0, we define inductively
n
Cn+1
H (K) = CH (CH (K))

n
QCn+1
H (α) = QCH (QCH (α)),

and

where H and K are subgroups of G and α is either a subgroup, or a local equivalence class
of subgroups. For convenience we also adopt the convention C0H (K) = K = QC0H (K).
The following is elementary, and will be used frequently without comment.
Lemma 3.15. Let G be a group and let H be a subgroup of G. Then
C2G (H) ≥ H

and

C3G (H) = CG (H).

The following lemma gives a useful relationship between n-th centralisers and n-th quasicentralisers in the context of C-stable subgroups.
Lemma 3.16. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair, let H be a subgroup of G. As before, we set
R(H) = QCG (H)∩QCG (CG (H)). Let n ≥ 0 and let V be a subgroup of G commensurate
with U .
(i) If L is a subgroup of G that contains a finite index subgroup of U , then R(Cn+1
L (H)) ≤
R(CnL (H)). In particular, if H is C-stable, then so is CnL (H).
(ii) Suppose that H is C-stable and locally normal in G. Let V be a subgroup of G
commensurate with U such that QZ(G) ∩ V = 1. Then we have
QCV (QCnG (H)) = Cn+1
V (H ∩ V ).
In particular, QCV (H) = CV (H ∩ V ).
′
Proof. (i) Fix n ≥ 0, let H ′ = CnL (H) and let K = Cn+1
L (H) = CL (H ). On the one hand
H ′ ∩L is locally equivalent to H ′ and contained in CG (K), so QCG (CG (K)) ≤ QCG (H ′ );
on the other hand we also have QCG (K) = QCG (CG (H ′ )). Hence

QCG (K) ∩ QCG (CG (K)) ≤ QCG (H ′ ) ∩ QCG (CG (H ′ )),
n
in other words, R(Cn+1
L (H)) ≤ R(CL (H)). Thus if H is C-stable, then so are the groups
n
CL (H) for n ≥ 0.

(ii) Without loss of generality H ≤ V , since neither side of the desired equation is
affected by replacing H by H ∩ V , and H ∩ V retains the properties of being C-stable
and locally normal in G. Thus QZ(H) = 1 by Lemma 3.14(ii) and Corollary 3.13.
First suppose that n = 0: we must show that QCV (H) commutes with H. Consider
x ∈ QCV (H), so that x ∈ CV (K) for some finite index subgroup K of H ∩ U . Then
K has finite index in H and, replacing K by its core in H, we may assume that K is
normal in H.
21

Moreover, K is C-stable by Lemma 3.14(i), and it follows from part (i) and Lemma 3.14(ii)
that QZ(CV (K)) = 1.
Now CV (K) ∩ H = 1 since QZ(H) = 1. Also, H normalises CV (K) since H ≤ V and
since H normalises K. Furthermore H is locally normal, so that H is normalised by some
finite index subgroup W of U ∩ V such that W is normal in V . Hence H is normalised
by CW (K). Thus
[H, CW (K)] ≤ H ∩ CW (K) ≤ H ∩ CV (K) = 1,
so that H centralises CW (K). As CW (K) is a subgroup of CV (K) of finite index, we
see that H centralises CV (K) by Lemma 3.8(i), and in particular H centralises x. This
concludes the proof for n = 0.
For the general case, note first that CnV (H) is C-stable by part (i), has trivial quasi-centre
by Lemma 3.14(ii) and is also locally normal by Lemma 2.1(iii). Therefore, by repeated
applications of Lemma 3.10(ii), recalling that H ≤ V , we have the equation
n
n
QCn+1
V (H) = QCV (QCV (H)) = QCV (CV (H)).

The desired conclusion follows, since by the base case n = 0, we have
QCV (CnV (H)) = CV (CnV (H)).
We are now able to define a partial map α 7→ [QCG (α)] on the abstract structure lattice.
Corollary 3.17. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let K be a C-stable locally normal
subgroup of G. Suppose QZ(G) ∩ U = 1. Then for every finite index subgroup L of
K ∩ U , we have
QCU (K) = CU (L).
In particular we have [CG (K ∩ U )] = [CU (K ∩ U )] = [QCG (K)], so that the local equivalence class [CU (K)] depends only on [K].
Proof. By Lemma 3.16(ii), we have QCU (K) = CU (K ∩ U ).
Let now L be a finite index subgroup of K ∩ U . By definition of the quasi-centraliser,
we have QCG (K) = QCG (K ∩ U ) = QCG (L) ≥ CG (L). Since L ≤ K ∩ U , we also
have CG (L) ≥ CG (K ∩ U ). Intersecting with U and combining this with the observation
above, we obtain
QCU (K) = QCU (L) ≥ CU (L) ≥ CU (K ∩ U ) = QCU (K).
Therefore all those subgroups coincide, which yields the desired assertion.

22

3.5

Local C-stability

The previous section motivates the following definition.
Definition 3.18. A Hecke pair (G, U ) is called locally C-stable if all locally normal
subgroups of G are C-stable in G.
We can now establish the following theorem, which characterises locally C-stable Hecke
pairs under the assumption that U is residually finite; in particular, we obtain a characterisation of those t.d.l.c. Hecke pairs that are locally C-stable. We also obtain several
stability properties of quasi-centralisers; to avoid unnecessary complications, we state
these under the assumption that G has trivial quasi-centre. In view of Lemma 3.1(v)
this hypothesis is harmless: indeed if G is locally C-stable, then QZ(G) is discrete, so
that G/QZ(G) is locally C-stable and has trivial quasi-centre.
Theorem 3.19. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair such that U is residually finite.
Then G is locally C-stable if and only if QZ(G) ∈ [1] and every bounded abelian locally
normal subgroup of G is contained in QZ(G) (see §2.1 for the definition of the term
bounded).
Moreover, if G is locally C-stable and QZ(G) = 1, then every locally normal subgroup H
of G has the following properties:
(i) QZ(H) = 1.
(ii) QCG (H) = CG (H). In particular CG (H) depends only on [H].
(iii) Given a locally normal subgroup K of G, then H and K commute if and only if
H ∩ K = 1.
The proof requires some properties of subnormal subgroups of residually finite groups,
given in the following lemma.
Lemma 3.20. Let G be a group and let K be a normal subgroup of G.
(i) If M is an abelian minimal normal subgroup of K, then the normal closure of M
in G is abelian.
(ii) If M is a finite perfect normal subgroup of K and G is residually finite, then
|G : CG (M )| is finite.
Proof. (i) Let g ∈ G. Since M is a minimal normal subgroup of K, then either M =
gM g−1 , in which case [M, gM g−1 ] = 1 since M is abelian, or M ∩ gM g−1 = 1, in which
case [M, gM g−1 ] ≤ M ∩ gM g −1 = 1 since M and gM g−1 are normal subgroups of K. In
23

either case, we see that M commutes with gM g−1 , so every G-conjugate of M commutes
with every G-conjugate of M . Hence the normal closure of M in G is abelian.
(ii) Since M is finite and G is residually finite, there is a normal subgroup H of G
of finite index such that the quotient map G → G/H restricts to an injective map
M → G/H. In particular, M ∩ H = 1. Now consider [H, K]: this is a subgroup of
H ∩ K that is normal in G. Thus [H, K] and M are subgroups of G that normalise each
other and have trivial intersection, so [H, K, M ] = 1, where [H, K, M ] = [[H, K], M ]. In
particular, [H, M, M ] = 1, since M is a subgroup of K; equivalently [M, H, M ] = 1. By
the Three Subgroups Lemma (see [12, Theorem 10.3.5]), we have [M, M, H] = 1. But
M is perfect, so M = [M, M ], and hence [M, H] = [M, M, H] = 1, demonstrating that
H ≤ CG (M ).
Proof of Theorem 3.19. Suppose that G has an abelian locally normal subgroup L such
that L 6≤ QZ(G). Then L 6∈ [1] by Lemma 3.2, and moreover
L ≤ QCG (L) ∩ QCG (CG (L)),
so L is not C-stable in G.
From now on, we may suppose that QZ(G) ∈ [1] and every non-trivial abelian bounded
locally normal subgroup A of G is contained in QZ(G); in particular, every such A is
finite. If (G, U ) is t.d.l.c., it is enough to consider compact locally normal subgroups,
since the closure of an abelian locally normal subgroup is an abelian locally normal
subgroup.
We now claim that for every bounded locally normal subgroup L of G, then QZ(L) ≤
QZ(G). If L is finite, then L ≤ [1] by the fact that U is residually finite, so L ≤ QZ(G)
by Lemma 3.2. Given a bounded locally normal subgroup L of G, then the quasi-centre
of L is characteristic in L, so the quasi-centre is itself bounded locally normal. Let V be
a finite index subgroup of U such that QZ(G) ∩ V = 1. To show QZ(L) ≤ QZ(G), it is
enough to show that QZ(L) is finite, and hence it is enough to show that QZ(L ∩ V ) is
finite. Thus we may assume that L is an infinite subgroup of V such that L = QZ(L).
By replacing V with NV (L), we may assume L E V .
Since G has no infinite abelian bounded locally normal subgroup, the centre of L is
finite. By ([1], Proposition 3 and Theorem 2), it follows that L is the union of its finite
normal subgroups, so there exists a minimal finite normal subgroup M of L. Then M
is characteristically simple, so either M is abelian or M is perfect. If M is abelian,
then the normal closure N of M in V is a bounded locally normal subgroup of G, and
N is abelian by Lemma 3.20(i), so N = 1; if M is perfect, then |V : CV (M )| is finite
by Lemma 3.20(ii), so M ≤ QZ(G) = 1. In either case, we have a contradiction to
the assumption that M is non-trivial. This contradiction proves the claim that every
bounded locally normal subgroup L of G has quasi-centre contained in QZ(G).

24

We next claim that for any bounded locally normal subgroup L of G, we have
QCG (LCG (L)) ≤ QZ(G).
This implies that L is C-stable in view of Lemma 3.12.
Let V be a finite index subgroup of U such that QZ(G) ∩ V = 1 and V ≤ NG (L), and
let W be a subgroup
S of G commensurate to U such that L E W . Then L ∩ V has finite
index in L, so L = ni=1 (L ∩ V )li for some finite set of elements {l1 , . . . , ln } of L. Hence
(LCG (L)) ∩ W = LCW (L) =

n
[

(L ∩ V )CW (L)li =

m
n [
[

(L ∩ V )CV (L)li wj ,

i=1 j=1

i=1

where {w1 , . . . , wm } is a finite subset of W . Consequently QCG (LCG (L)) = QCG (K),
where K = (L ∩ V )CV (L).
Notice that CV (K) ≤ M ∩ CV (M ), where M = CV (L). In particular, CV (K) is abelian,
and moreover it is bounded and locally normal in G since CV (K) E V . It must thus
be contained in QZ(G) by hypothesis. Hence CV (K) ≤ QZ(G) ∩ V = 1. On the other
hand QZ(K) = 1 by the first part of the proof above. Therefore, by Lemma 3.8(i) we
have QCV (K) = CV (K) = 1. In particular, the group generated by QCG (K) and V is a
semidirect product QCG (K) ⋊ V . Given g ∈ QCG (K), there is a finite index subgroup
Y of V such that Y gY g−1 is contained in Y . We see that ygy −1 g−1 ∈ QCG (K) ∩ V = 1
for all y ∈ Y , so g ∈ CG (Y ) ≤ QZ(G). Thus QCG (K) ≤ QZ(G), as desired, and the
claim is proved.
It remains to prove that every locally normal subgroup H satisfies the assertions (i), (ii)
and (iii), under the assumption that QZ(G) = 1.
Let V = NU (H). Then H ∩ V is bounded locally normal, so
QZ(H) ∩ V = QZ(V ) ≤ QZ(G).
Hence QZ(H) is normalised by V and has trivial intersection with V , so QZ(H) ≤ QZ(G)
by Lemma 3.2, which proves (i).
Let H̃ = QCG (H). Since QZ(H) = 1, Lemma 3.8(i) ensures that
QCG (H) ∩ NG (H) = CG (H),
in other words NH̃ (H) = CG (H). Now NH̃ (H) contains a finite index subgroup L say
of H̃ ∩ U , so
H ≤ CG (L) ≤ QCG (H̃).
Moreover the definition H̃ = QCG (H) implies that H normalises H̃, and also that H̃
is locally normal. Then QZ(H̃) = 1 by (i), and we infer from Lemma 3.8(i) that H
centralises H̃. Hence H̃ = CG (H) and (ii) holds.
25

Let K be a locally normal subgroup of G. If K ≤ CG (H), then certainly H ∩ K = 1 by
property (i). Conversely, suppose H ∩K = 1. Then there is a finite index subgroup W of
U such that H ∩ W normalises K ∩ W , and hence H ∩ W ≤ CG (K ∩ W ) by Lemma 3.9.
Hence H ∩ W ≤ QCG (K), but then by property (ii) we have H ∩ W ≤ CG (K). Hence
by the same argument K ≤ QCG (H) = CG (H), proving (iii).

4
4.1

Direct decomposition of locally normal subgroups
Local decomposition lattices

Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let H be a bounded C-stable locally normal subgroup of
G. In this section, we will obtain Boolean algebras corresponding to the decomposition
of finite index subgroups of H into direct factors.
Lemma 4.1. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair, let H be a bounded locally normal subgroup
of G with trivial quasi-centre, let K be a subgroup of H of finite index and let L be a
direct factor of K. Then L is C-stable in (H, H). Moreover CK (L) is the unique direct
complement of L in K and L = C2K (L).
If H is C-stable in G, then L is also C-stable in G.
Proof. Let K = L × M . Then LCH (L) is a finite index subgroup of H, so
QCH (LCH (L)) = QZ(H) = 1.
Thus L is C-stable as a subgroup of H by Lemma 3.12. In particular, L has trivial centre;
we see that CK (L) = M , and similarly CK (M ) = L. In addition LCG (L) contains K
and also contains CG (K), so KCG (K) ≤ LCG (L).
If H is C-stable in G, then K is C-stable in G by Lemma 3.14(i), and thus by Lemma 3.12,
QCV (LCG (L)) ≤ QCV (KCG (K)) = 1
for every subgroup V of G commensurate with U . In this case L is C-stable in G.
Lemma 4.2. Let G be a group such that Z(G) = 1, let K be a direct factor of G, and
let H be a subgroup of G such that H = C2G (H). Then H = (H ∩ K) × CH (K).
Proof. We have G = K × CG (K); let π1 and π2 be the projections onto K and CG (K)
respectively associated with this decomposition. Then H ≤ π1 (H) × π2 (H). Moreover
π1 (H) and π2 (H) are centralised by CG (H), so contained in H. Thus H = π1 (H) ×
π2 (H), which implies π1 (H) = H ∩ K and π2 (H) = CH (K).

26

Definition 4.3. Given a group H and a subgroup K of H, say K is an almost direct
factor of H if there is a finite index subgroup L of H such that K is a direct factor of
L.
Let H be a bounded locally normal subgroup of G, such that the quasi-centre of H
is finite. Define the local decomposition lattice LD(G, U ; H) of G at H to be the
subset of LN (G, U ) consisting of elements [K] where K is locally normal in G and K is
an almost direct factor of H.
In the case that G is a t.d.l.c. group and U is an open compact subgroup of G, we will
write LD(G; H) to mean LD(G, U ; H).
Lemma 4.4. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair, let H be a bounded locally normal subgroup
of G, and let K be a locally normal subgroup of G that is commensurate with H. Then
LD(G, U ; H) = LD(G, U ; K) as subsets of LN (G, U ).
Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume that K is a finite index subgroup of
H.
It is clear from the definition that LD(G, U ; K) ⊆ LD(G, U ; H). Conversely, suppose
the finite index subgroup L of H decomposes as L1 × L2 with L1 and L2 locally normal
in G. Then Li ∩ K is locally normal, and has finite index in Li for i ∈ {1, 2}. Hence
(L1 ∩ K) × (L2 ∩ K) has finite index in K, so [L1 ] = [L1 ∩ K] and [L2 ] = [L2 ∩ K] are
contained in LD(G, U ; K).
Consequently, it makes sense to write LD(G, U ; α) where α is any element of LN (G, U )
that has a representative with trivial quasi-centre, and this lattice admits an action
of Gα by conjugation. The case α = [U ] is of particular interest, and we will define
LD(G, U ) := LD(G, U ; [U ]).
As the name suggests, the local decomposition lattice is a sublattice of LN (G, U ), but
more is true:
Theorem 4.5. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let α ∈ LN (G, U ) have a bounded locally
normal representative H with trivial quasi-centre. Then LD(G, U ; α) is a sublattice of
LN (G, U ), and internally it is a Boolean algebra (relative to the maximum α), with
complementation map ⊥α : β 7→ [QCH (β)]. If (G, U ) is t.d.l.c. and α has a closed
representative, then LD(G; α) is a sublattice of LN (G).
We will prove the following separately, as it will be reused later.
Lemma 4.6. Let M be a meet-semilattice with a least element 0. Suppose ⊥ : M 7→ M
is an order-reversing involution such that for all α, β ∈ M, α ∧ β = 0 if and only if β ≤
α⊥ . Then M is a Boolean algebra, with minimum 0 and maximum 0⊥ , complementation
given by ⊥ and join operation given by α ∨ β = (α⊥ ∧ β ⊥ )⊥ .
27

Proof. Let γ ∈ M. The existence of an order-reversing involution ensures that M is a
lattice, with maximum and join as given. For all α ∈ M we have α∨α⊥ = (α⊥ ∧α)⊥ = 0⊥
and clearly α ∧ α⊥ = 0, so α⊥ is a complement of α relative to the maximum element
0⊥ .
It remains to show that M is distributive. We first show
α ∧ β ≤ γ ⇔ α ≤ β ⊥ ∨ γ,

(3)

for all α, β, γ ∈ M. Using the properties of ⊥ in the hypothesis, we have α ∧ β ≤ γ if
and only if α ∧ β ∧ γ ⊥ = 0, while α ≤ β ⊥ ∨ γ if and only if δ = 0 where δ = α ∧ (β ⊥ ∨ γ)⊥ .
Now δ = α ∧ β ∧ γ ⊥ , so (3) is proved.
Now let α, β, γ, δ ∈ M. By (3) we have
(α ∨ δ) ∧ β ≤ γ ⇔ α ∨ δ ≤ β ⊥ ∨ γ ⇔ (α ≤ β ⊥ ∨ γ and δ ≤ β ⊥ ∨ γ).
Using (3) again we have α ≤ β ⊥ ∨ γ ⇔ α ∧ β ≤ γ and δ ≤ β ⊥ ∨ γ ⇔ δ ∧ β ≤ γ. Finally,
the conjunction of the inequalities α ∧ β ≤ γ and δ ∧ β ≤ γ is given by the inequality
(α ∧ β) ∨ (δ ∧ β) ≤ γ, proving the distributive law.
Proof of Theorem 4.5. Fix a bounded locally normal representative H of α, such that H
has trivial quasi-centre. Then every finite index subgroup of H has trivial quasi-centre.
Let K and L be almost direct factors of H such that K and L are locally normal in G.
Then KCH (K) and LCH (L) both have finite index in H, and K ∩CH (K) = L∩CH (L) =
1. We may replace K with C2H (K) and so assume K = C2H (K), since this substitution
does not affect the commensurability class of K or its status as an almost direct factor
of H that is locally normal in G. Let M = LCH (L) and let K2 = K ∩ M . Then
K2 = CM (CH (K)). Since K is C-stable in H by Lemma 4.1, in fact CH (K) = CH (K2 )
by Corollary 3.17; in turn, CH (K) has the same centraliser in H as CM (K) for the same
reason. So in fact K2 = C2M (K2 ). It follows by Lemma 4.2 that K2 ∩ L is a direct factor
of K2 . In turn, K2 is a direct factor of K2 CH (K), which has finite index in H. Thus
K2 ∩ L is an almost direct factor of H.
By a similar argument, there is a finite index subgroup R of CH (K) that factorises as
(R ∩ L) × CR (L), so there is a finite index subgroup of H that factorises as
K2 × (R ∩ L) × CR (L).
The first two factors are contained in K2 L, while the last factor centralises K2 L; additionally K2 L ∩ CR (L) ≤ QZ(H) = 1. It follows that K2 L is an almost direct factor
of H. Finally, note that K2 and L are both bounded and locally normal, and this
property is inherited by both their intersection and their product. We conclude that
[K2 ∩ L], [K2 L] ∈ LD(G, U ; α), so LD(G, U ; α) is a sublattice of LN (G, U ).

28

By Lemma 3.10, [QCH (K)] has a representative CH (K); this also represents an element
of LD(G, U ; α), so ⊥α preserves LD(G, U ; α). One has [K] ∧ β = 0 for β ∈ LD(G, U ; α)
whenever β ≤ [K]⊥α , since QZ(K) = 1, and conversely [K]∧β = 0 implies by Lemma 3.9
that some representative of β centralises a representative of [K], so in this case β ≤
[K]⊥α . It is also clear that ⊥α is an order-reversing involution on LD(G, U ; α). Thus
LD(G, U ; α) is a Boolean algebra by Lemma 4.6.
Now suppose (G, U ) is t.d.l.c. and that α has a closed representative. Then by Proposition 2.4, α has a compact locally normal representative H2 , and moreover from the
proof, H2 can be taken to be the closure of a finite index subgroup of H. We see that
H ∩ H2 has trivial quasi-centre. Since H ∩ H2 is a dense subgroup of H2 of finite index,
we have QCG (H2 ) = QCG (H ∩ H2 ). In particular, H2 has trivial quasi-centre. We now
follow the same argument as before, with H2 in place of H, and see that every element
of LN (G; α) has a representative of the form L = C2H2 (K), where K is locally normal.
Since centralisers are closed, it follows that L is compact and locally normal in G, so
LN (G; α) ⊆ LN (G); since LN (G; α) is a sublattice of LN (G, U ), it is also a sublattice
of LN (G).
Proof of Theorem I (i). Since G has trivial quasi-centre, the quasi-centraliser QCG (U )
of any open compact subgroup of G is trivial. In particular, U is C-stable in G, so by
Theorem 4.5, the lattice LD(G; [U ]) = LD(G) is a Boolean algebra.
In the case of a topological group G and a subgroup H, there naturally arises the
question of how direct factors of H relate to direct factors of H. Put another way, one
can consider the quasi-factors of a topological group, meaning the direct factors of its
dense subgroups. If H is compact and centreless, there is good control of this situation.
As a result, we obtain a relationship between decomposition lattices of t.d.l.c. groups
and their dense subgroups.
Lemma 4.7. Let G be a compact topological group such that Z(G) = 1 and let D be a
dense subgroup of G. Let K be a direct factor of D. Then
G = CG (K) × C2G (K),
and K = C2G (K) ∩ D.
In particular, the map K 7→ C2G (K) defines an injective homomorphism from LD to LG ,
where LD is the lattice of direct factors of D and LG is the lattice of direct factors of G.
Proof. Since centralisers are closed, we have CG (D) = 1.
Let D = K × L. Then Z(L) ≤ CG (D) = 1, so CD (L) = K. Similarly, CD (K) = L.
Thus D is contained in the set E = CG (K)CG (L). We see that both CG (K) and CG (L)
are closed in G, hence compact, so E is compact, hence closed. Since E is also dense,
it follows that E = G. Each of the subgroups CG (K) and CG (L) is normalised by
29

D, and hence by G, since the normaliser of a closed subgroup is closed. Moreover,
CG (K) ∩ CG (L) = CG (D) = 1. Hence
G = CG (K) × CG (L).
We see that Z(CG (K)) ≤ Z(G) = 1, so in fact CG (L) = C2G (K). It follows that
C2G (K) ∩ D = CD (L) = K.
The remaining conclusions are clear.
Proposition 4.8. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group such that QZ(G) = 1 and let D be a dense
subgroup of G. Let U be an open compact subgroup of G, and let R be a commensurated
subgroup of D that is also a dense subgroup of U . Let H be a bounded locally normal
subgroup of the Hecke pair (D, R). Then QZ(D) = 1; moreover the following assertions
hold.
(i) If H has trivial quasi-centre, then H has trivial quasi-centre. Moreover the map
2 (K)] defines an injective order-preserving map from LD(D, R; H) to
[K] 7→ [CH
LD(G, U, H).
(ii) If H has trivial quasi-centre, then LD(G, U ; H) is embedded in LD(D, R; H) as
a sublattice in a natural way. If H is closed in G, then this embedding is an
isomorphism.
Proof. We have QCG (U ) ≤ QZ(G) = 1, so QCG (R) = 1 by Lemma 3.5. In particular,
every finite index subgroup of R has trivial centraliser in D. Thus QZ(D) = 1.
Since H is locally normal in (D, R), without loss of generality we may assume H ≤ R.
(i) We have QCG (H) = QCG (H) by Lemma 3.5. Suppose QZ(H) = 1. Then QZ(H) = 1.
Let K be an almost direct factor of H that is locally normal in (D, R). Then NG (K)
contains a finite index subgroup of R, so NG (K) contains a finite index subgroup of
R = U ; thus K is compact and locally normal in (G, U ). We see from Lemma 4.7
that the map φ : [K] 7→ [C2H (K)] defines an order-preserving map from LD(D, R; H)
2 (K), where M is any finite index
to LD(G, U, H ). Moreover, we have K = M ∩ CH
subgroup of H of which K is a direct factor, so φ is injective.
(ii) If K is an almost direct factor of H that is locally normal in (G, U ), then it is also
locally normal in (D, R), since R ≤ U . We can therefore regard LD(G, U ; H) as a subset
of LD(D, R; H), consisting of those elements α ∈ LD(D, R; H) such that there exists a
representative K of α such that NG (K) contains a finite index subgroup of U . Moreover,
LD(G, U ; H) forms a sublattice of LD(D, R; H), since the meet and join operations for
LD(G, U ; H) and LD(D, R; H) are essentially the same (in both cases, the meet is the
30

class of the intersection of representatives, and the join is the class of the product of
suitably-chosen representatives).
If H is closed in G, then every almost direct factor K of H has finite index in a closed
almost direct factor C2H (K), and we see that C2H (K) is locally normal in (G, U ) if and
only if it is locally normal in (D, R), in other words LD(D, R; H) = LD(G, U ; H).
It is clear that the relation “A is a direct factor of B” is transitive. A similar transitivity
applies to local decomposition lattices:
Lemma 4.9. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let α, β ∈ LN (G, U ) have bounded locally
normal representatives with trivial quasi-centre. Then LD(G, U ; α) ⊆ LD(G, U ; β) if
and only if α ∈ LD(G, U ; β).
Proof. Suppose α ∈ LD(G, U ; β). Then there is a representative H of α and a representative K of β such that H is a direct factor of K. It follows that all almost direct
factors of H are also almost direct factors of K.

4.2

Locally finitely decomposable t.d.l.c. groups

The following are natural properties to consider in the context of local decomposition
lattices:
Definition 4.10. Let H be a group. Say H is finitely decomposable if
H = H1 × · · · × Hn
for some n ≥ 1, such that each Hi is indecomposable, i.e. all of whose direct product
decompositions are trivial. Given a t.d.l.c. group G, say G is locally finitely decomposable if every open compact subgroup of G is finitely decomposable.
Proposition 4.11. Let G be a group such that Z(G) = 1.
(i) Suppose G = G1 × · · · × Gn for some n ≥ 1, such that each Gi is indecomposable.
Then {G1 , . . . , Gn } is precisely the set of indecomposable direct factors of G and
every direct factor of G is a product of some subset of {G1 , . . . , Gn }. In particular,
Aut(G) acts on {G1 , . . . , Gn } and there are exactly 2n direct factors of G.
(ii) Suppose that G is compact and not finitely decomposable. Then G is topologically
isomorphic to an infinite Cartesian product of closed subgroups. In particular, G
has uncountably many closed direct factors up to commensurability.
Proof. For any direct factor H of G, then CG (H) is the complement of H and thus also
a direct factor, so H = CG (CG (H)). Suppose G = G1 × · · · × Gn for some n ≥ 1, such
31

that each Gi is indecomposable. Let K be a direct factor of G. Then
Q G = KCG (K),
and K ∩ CG (K) ≤ Z(G) = 1. Let I = {i | Gi 6≤ CG (K)}. Then K ≤ i∈I Gi , since K is
centralised by the remaining factors. Given i ∈ I, then K ∩ Gi is a direct factor of both
K and Gi , Q
by Lemma 4.2, so K = Gi by the fact that K and Gi are indecomposable.
Thus K = i∈I Gi .
Suppose G is compact and not finitely decomposable. We shall define a family {Gi,j }1≤j≤i
of non-trivial subgroups as follows, so that for all n, G = Gn,1 × · · · × Gn,n and Gn,n is
not finitely decomposable.
Set G1,1 = G. Suppose we have G = Gn,1 ×· · ·×Gn,n for some n. Choose some non-trivial
direct decomposition Gn,n = Hn × Kn , ensuring that Kn is not finitely decomposable
(this is always possible, as by induction Gn,n is not finitely decomposable). Now set
Gn+1,n = Hn , Gn+1,n+1 = Kn and Gn+1,j = Gn,j for 1 ≤ j < n.
T
Let K = ∞
j=1 Gj,j . We claim now that
G∼
=K×

∞
Y

Gj+1,j .

j=1

The decomposition G = Gn,1 × · · · × Gn+1,n+1 gives a continuous epimorphism
G →
Qn
Q
n
G
=
G
with
kernel
G
,
and
we
note
from
the
construction
that
n+1,j
n+1,j
n+1,n+1
j=1
Qj=1
n
G
.
These
epimorphisms
are
compatible
with
each
other
as
n
varies
so
that
j=1 j+1,j
Q
they generate an inverse system, with a limit homomorphism φ : L
G → ∞
j=1 Gj+1,j .
∞
G
We see that ker φ is precisely K. In addition φ(CG (K)) contains
j=1 j+1,j , since
Q
Gj+1,j centralises Gn+1,n+1 for all 1 ≤ j ≤ n, so φ(CG (K)) = ∞
G
j=1 j+1,j . In particular
G = KCG (K): this implies K ∩ CG (K) ≤ Z(G) = 1, so in fact G = K × CG (K). The
restriction of φ to CG (K) is consequently bijective, Q
giving the desired isomorphism. We
now obtain uncountably many direct factors Q
GJ = j∈J Gj+1,jQby letting J range over
all subsets of N. For two such direct factors j∈J1 Gj+1,j and j∈J2 Gj+1,j to be commensurate, the symmetric difference of the sets J1 and J2 must be finite. This defines
an equivalence relation on the power set of N whose equivalence classes are countable,
so there must be uncountably many equivalence classes.
Corollary 4.12. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group with QZ(G) = 1.
(i) G is locally finitely decomposable if and only if G has a basis of identity neighbourhoods consisting of open compact subgroups that are finitely decomposable.
(ii) Suppose G is first-countable. Then G is locally finitely decomposable if and only if
LD(G) is countable.
Proof. (i) The necessity of the condition is obvious. Conversely, if G is not locally
finitely decomposable, then G has some open compact subgroup V which is not finitely
decomposable. Since G has trivial quasi-centre, the group V must be center-free, and is
32

thus an infinite Cartesian product of closed subgroups by Proposition 4.11. Now, any
open subgroup W of V contains infinitely many direct factors of V ; those factors are
then also direct factors of W , and hence W cannot be finitely decomposable.
(ii) Suppose that G is locally finitely decomposable. Since LD(G) = LD(U ) for any
open compact subgroup U , we may assume that G is compact. In this case G has only
countably many open subgroups, each with only finitely many direct factors, and thus
LD(G) is countable.
Conversely, suppose LD(G) is countable. Then given an open compact subgroup U of
G, the direct factors of U fall into countably many commensurability classes. Thus U is
finitely decomposable by Proposition 4.11.
Proposition 4.13. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group and let H be a C-stable compact locally
normal subgroup that is locally finitely decomposable. Then LD(G; H) = LD(H); indeed
LD(G; H) contains LD(K) for every almost direct factor K of H.
Proof. It is clear that LD(G; H) ⊆ LD(H). Let L be an open subgroup of H, and let K
be a direct factor of L. Then NG (L) is open in G by Lemma 2.1(ii), and it preserves the
set X of indecomposable direct factors of L; since X is finite, there is an open subgroup
R of NG (L) that normalises every indecomposable direct factor of L. In turn K is a
product of indecomposable direct factors of L, so it is normalised by R. Hence K is
locally normal, so represents an element of LD(G; H). Hence LD(G; H) = LD(H), and
LD(H) contains LD(H; K) by Lemma 4.9. In turn, K is locally finitely decomposable,
because given an open subgroup M of K, the direct factors of M are also direct factors
of M CH (K), which is an open subgroup of H. Hence LD(H; K) = LD(K).

5
5.1

The centraliser lattice and weakly decomposable actions
The centraliser lattice

It would be useful to combine all the local decomposition lattices of (G, U ) (which are
not necessarily individually preserved by the action of G) into a single Boolean algebra
admitting a G-action. There are two difficulties here: one is that the property of having
trivial quasi-centre may not be well-behaved under intersections, and the other is that
we need a unified notion of complementation. To avoid the first difficulty and overcome
the second, we restrict our attention to locally C-stable Hecke pairs (G, U ) in the sense
of §3.5. Recall from Theorem 3.19 that under the assumption that U is residually finite,
these are precisely the Hecke pairs with trivial quasi-centre and no non-trivial abelian
locally normal subgroups. The resulting lattice will not be a sublattice of LN (G, U ) in
general (because the join operation is different), but it arises from the structure lattice
in a natural way.

33

Definition 5.1. Let (G, U ) be a locally C-stable Hecke pair. Define the map
⊥ : LN (G, U ) → LN (G, U ) : α 7→ [QCG (α)].
This is well-defined by Theorem 3.19, since there exists a finite index subgroup V of U
such that QZ(V ) = 1, and we have
[QCG (α)] = [QCV (α)] = [CG (K)]
for every locally normal representative K of α contained in V . The centraliser lattice LC(G, U ) is defined to be the set {α⊥ | α ∈ LN (G, U )} together with the map
⊥ restricted to LC(G, U ), the partial order inherited from LN (G, U ) and the binary
operations ∧c and ∨c given by:
α ∧c β = α ∧ β
α ∨c β = (α⊥ ∧ β ⊥ )⊥ .
In general we will write ∨ instead of ∨c in contexts where it is clear that we are working
inside the centraliser lattice.
Given a t.d.l.c. group G, we define LC(G) := LC(G, U ), where U is some open compact
subgroup of G. (The choice of U here is inconsequential.)
Theorem 5.2. Let (G, U ) be a locally C-stable Hecke pair, such that U is residually
finite.
(i) The poset LC(G, U ) is a Boolean algebra and ⊥2 : LN (G, U ) → LC(G, U ) is an
idempotent surjective lattice homomorphism. If G is t.d.l.c., then
LC(G) = {α⊥ | α ∈ LN (G)} ⊆ LN (G).
2

(ii) Fix α ∈ LN (G, U ) and let θ be the map on LN (G, U ) given by β 7→ β ⊥ ∧ α.
Then θ is an idempotent order-preserving map, and θ(LN (G, U )) = θ(LC(G, U )) ⊇
LD(G, U ; α). Moreover, θ −1 (LD(G, U ; α)) ∩ LC(G, U ) is a subalgebra of LC(G, U ).
We need the following basic group theoretic facts.
Lemma 5.3. Let G be a group such that every normal subgroup has trivial centre, in
other words that G has no non-trivial abelian normal subgroups. Then the following
equations are satisfied for any normal subgroups A and B of G.
(i) C2G (A ∩ B) = C2G (A) ∩ C2G (B);
(ii) CA (B) = CA (A ∩ B);
(iii) CA (CG (B)) = CA (CA (B)).
34

Proof. (i) Let K = C2G (A) and let L = C2G (B). It is clear that
CG (CG (A ∩ B)) ≤ CG (CG (A)CG (B)) = K ∩ L,
so it suffices to show that K ∩ L centralises CG (A∩ B). For this it is enough to show that
M = CG (A∩ B)∩ K ∩ L = 1, since all subgroups under consideration are normal. We see
that M ∩ A ∩ B ≤ Z(A ∩ B) = 1, so M ∩ A centralises B, in other words M ∩ A ≤ CG (B).
Then M ∩ A is centralised by L, so M ∩ A is central in M , so M ∩ A = 1, and hence
M ≤ CG (A). Since K centralises CG (A) and contains M , we see that M is central in
CG (A) and hence trivial, as required.
(ii) Notice that CA (A ∩ B) is normal in G and has trivial intersection with A ∩ B
(since Z(A ∩ B) = 1). Therefore [CA (A ∩ B), B] ⊂ CA (A ∩ B) ∩ B = 1, whence
CA (A ∩ B) ≤ CA (B). The reverse inclusion is clear.
(iii) This a special case of (ii), using the normal subgroups A and CG (B) instead of A
and B.
Proof of Theorem 5.2. Since we are concerned only with properties of a local nature, we
are free to replace G and U with a finite index subgroup V of U (which can be assumed
to be open in the t.d.l.c. case) such that QZ(V ) = 1. In other words, we may assume
that G has trivial quasi-centre.
(i) Let A be a bounded locally normal subgroup of G, let α = [A], and let V be a
subgroup of G commensurate with U such that A E V . By Lemma 3.16, CnV (A) is then
3
2
n
a representative of α⊥ . We deduce α⊥ ≥ α and α⊥ = α⊥ from Lemma 3.15. In
particular, ⊥ acts as an involution on LC(G, U ), so ⊥2 (LN (G, U )) = LC(G, U ). In the
2
2
t.d.l.c. case, we note that CU (CV (A)) is a closed representative of α⊥ , so α⊥ ∈ LN (G),
and since ⊥3 = ⊥, it follows that ⊥(LN (G)) = ⊥(LN (G, U )) =: LC(G) and that LC(G)
is contained in LN (G).
It is clear that ⊥ is order-reversing (so ⊥2 is order-preserving). Let α, β ∈ LN (G, U )
and choose representatives A and B of α, β respectively that are normal in a subgroup
V that is commensurate with U . Then we have CV (AB) = CV (A) ∩ CV (B), so that
(α ∨ β)⊥ = α⊥ ∧ β ⊥ .

(4)

This shows that LC(G, U ) is a meet-sublattice of LN (G, U ). Since the only abelian
normal subgroup of V is the trivial one, it also follows from Lemma 5.3(i) that ⊥2 is
compatible with the meet operation.
By Lemma 3.9, α ∧ β = 0 if and only if B centralises A, which amounts to saying that
β ≤ α⊥ . Hence LC(G, U ) is a Boolean algebra by Lemma 4.6.
We see that ⊥2 is compatible with the join operations in passing from LN (G, U ) to
LC(G, U ) as follows, using (4):
2

2

3

2

3

α⊥ ∨c β ⊥ = (α⊥ ∧ β ⊥ )⊥ = (α⊥ ∧ β ⊥ )⊥ = (α ∨ β)⊥ .
35

Hence ⊥2 is a lattice homomorphism.
(ii) It is clear that θ(LN (G, U )) = θ(LC(G, U )), since ⊥2 is a projection of LN (G, U )
to LC(G, U ). It is also clear that θ is order-preserving. Given β ∈ LN (G, U ) we have
2

4

2

2

2

θ 2 (β) = (β ⊥ ∧ α)⊥ ∧ α = β ⊥ ∧ α⊥ ∧ α = β ⊥ ∧ α,
so θ 2 = θ.
Let A be a bounded locally normal representative of α and let K be a direct factor of
A. Choose V commensurate with U such that both A and K are normal in U . Then
2
K = C2A (K), so K = CA (CV (K)) by Lemma 5.3(iii). In other words, [K] = β ⊥ ∧ α
2
where β = β ⊥ is the element [C2V (K)] = [QC2U (K)] of LC(G, U ). Thus θ(LC(G, U ))
contains LD(G, U ; α).
Let L = θ −1 (LD(G, U ; α)) ∩ LC(G, U ). Then L is closed under meets in LC(G, U ),
by the fact that ⊥2 is compatible with the meet operation. Furthermore L is closed
under complementation in LC(G, U ), since the complement of β ∧ α in LD(G, U ; α) is
(β ∧ α)⊥ ∧ α by Theorem 4.5. Using Lemma 5.3(ii) we see that
(β ∧ α)⊥ ∧ α = [CA (A ∩ B)] = [CA (B)] = β ⊥ ∧ α,
where A and B are representatives of α and β respectively that normalise each other.
So L is a subalgebra of LC(G, U ).
Theorem I (ii) now follows from Theorem 5.2 together with Theorem 3.19.
Let (G, U ) be a locally C-stable Hecke pair such that QZ(G) = 1. Then each element α
of the centraliser lattice has a canonical ‘global’ representative, namely QCG (α⊥ ). This
subgroup is the unique largest locally normal representative of α. If (G, U ) is t.d.l.c.,
then QCG (α⊥ ) is closed, but not necessarily compact.
We can consider the set L = {QCG (α) | α ∈ LN (G, U )}, ordered by inclusion, as
the global centraliser lattice of (G, U ). As a Boolean algebra, it is G-equivariantly
isomorphic to LC(G, U ). The elements of L also have a more direct characterisation
using Theorem 3.19, as follows:
Proposition 5.4. Let (G, U ) be a locally C-stable Hecke pair such that U is residually
finite and QZ(G) = 1. Then the set of subgroups L := {QCG (α) | α ∈ LN (G, U )} enjoys
the following properties:
(i) If H ∈ L, then H = C2G (H) and H is locally normal. Indeed H ∩ R = C2R (H),
where R is any locally normal subgroup of G.
(ii) Let K be a subgroup of G such that CG (K) is locally normal. Then CG (K) ∈ L.
If K is locally normal, in fact CG (K) = QCG ([K]) and C2G (K) = QCG ([K]⊥ ).
36

Proof. Let α ∈ LN (G, U ), let H = QCG (α). Since α is an element of LN (G, U ), then
|U : Uα | is finite; in turn Uα normalises H, since H is defined as a subgroup of G in
terms of α. Hence |U : NU (H)| is finite, so that H is locally normal.
Let L = QCG (α⊥ ). Then L = CG (H) by Theorem 3.19. The same argument shows that
H = CG (L), so H = C2G (H). Now let M = CG (H), and suppose R is a locally normal
subgroup of G. Then R ∩ M is locally normal and hence centreless, since G is locally
C-stable and QZ(G) = 1. Then CR (R ∩ M ) ≥ H ∩ R, since M centralises H. Moreover,
we have
CR (R ∩ M ) ∩ M = CR (R ∩ M ) ∩ (R ∩ M ) ≤ Z(R ∩ M ) = 1.
Thus CR (R ∩ M ) and M are locally normal subgroups that intersect trivially, so they
commute by Theorem 3.19(iii), so that CR (R ∩ M ) = CR (M ), and hence CR (R ∩ M ) ≤
C2G (H) = H. This proves (i).
Now let K be a locally normal subgroup of G. Then CG (K) = QCG ([K]) by Theorem 3.19, so in particular CG (K) ∈ L. Setting L = CG (K), the same argument shows
that CG (L) = QCG (α⊥ ). More generally, if K is a subgroup of G such that CG (K) is
locally normal, then CG (K) = C3G (K), and in turn C3G (K) is the centraliser of a locally
normal subgroup C2G (K) of G, so CG (K) ∈ L. This completes the proof of (ii).
As a consequence of Proposition 5.4 and Lemma 4.2, we obtain information about the
decomposability of centralisers in G.
Corollary 5.5. Let (G, U ) be a locally C-stable Hecke pair such that U is residually
finite and QZ(G) = 1. Let A and B be locally normal subgroups of G. Suppose that
B = K × L for some subgroups K and L. Then
CB (A) = CK (A) × CL (A).
Proof. Let H = CG (A) and let R = CB (A). Then R = C2B (H) by Proposition 5.4;
consequently R ≥ C2B (R), so in fact R = C2B (R). Thus by Lemma 4.2, R ∩ K and R ∩ L
are complementary direct factors of R, giving the required factorisation.
Similar to Proposition 4.8, there is a relationship between the centraliser lattice of a
t.d.l.c. group and that of its dense subgroups, viewed as Hecke pairs.
Proposition 5.6. Let G be a locally C-stable t.d.l.c. group such that QZ(G) = 1 and let
D be a dense subgroup of G. Let U be an open compact subgroup of G, and let R be a
commensurated subgroup of D that is also a dense subgroup of U .
(i) The Hecke pair (D, R) is locally C-stable, with QZ(D) = 1.
(ii) Let L be the global centraliser lattice of (G, U ) and let L′ be the global centraliser
lattice of (D, R). Then there is an injective D-equivariant order-preserving map
from L′ to L given by K 7→ C2G (K).
37

Proof. Given a locally normal subgroup L of D, then L and CG (L) are both closed
and locally normal in G; in particular, CG (L) ∈ L by Proposition 5.4. Assuming L is
non-trivial, then since L cannot be finite or abelian, neither can L. In addition, we have
QZ(D) = 1 by Proposition 4.8. This proves (i) in view of Theorem 3.19.
Given K ∈ L′ , then CG (K) ∈ L as above, hence C2G (K) ∈ L. Thus θ : K 7→ C2G (K) is a
map from L′ to L. Clearly θ is D-equivariant and order-preserving. Since K = C2D (K),
we see that K = θ(K) ∩ D as follows:
K ≤ θ(K) ∩ D = C2G (K) ∩ D ≤ CG (CD (K)) ∩ D = C2D (K) = K.
Thus θ is injective. This proves (ii).
Example 5.7. In general, given a t.d.l.c. group G, the centraliser lattice of a dense
subgroup of G does not determine the centraliser lattice of G. Let F be a non-abelian
free group (with the discrete topology), and consider F as a Hecke pair (F, F ). It is clear
that F is locally C-stable, so we can define the centraliser lattice LC(F, F ). Since CF (x)
is cyclic for all x ∈ F r {1}, in fact LC(F, F ) = {0, ∞}. Likewise LC(F̂p ) = {0, ∞},
where F̂p is the pro-p completion of F . However, there are many pro-p groups P with
dense free subgroups such that LC(P ) is large. For instance, if P is a pro-p branch
group, then by results of J. Wilson, P acts faithfully on LC(P ), and P contains a dense
non-abelian free subgroup. (See [27].)
The global centraliser lattice is a natural frame of reference for considering quasi-factors
of a locally C-stable t.d.l.c. group that has trivial quasi-centre. In contrast to the compact
case considered in Lemma 4.7, a closed quasi-factor of a non-compact t.d.l.c. group G
need not be a direct factor of G. (See [7], Appendix II.)
Proposition 5.8. Let G be a locally C-stable t.d.l.c. group with QZ(G) = 1. Let K be a
closed normal subgroup of G, and suppose KCG (K) is dense in G. Let α = [K]. Then
there is a dense subgroup of G of the form QCG (α)× QCG (α⊥ ), where both direct factors
are closed and normal in G. In addition, the following are equivalent:
(i) G = K × CG (K);
(ii) G = QCG (α) × QCG (α⊥ );
(iii) α ∈ LD(G);
2

(iv) α⊥ ∈ LD(G).
Proof. We have QCG (α) = CG (K) and QCG (α⊥ ) = C2G (K) by Proposition 5.4; in
particular, both QCG (α) and QCG (α⊥ ) are closed. Since K is normal, both QCG (α)
and QCG (α⊥ ) are normal in G. Since Z(G) = 1, we see that both K and CG (K) have
trivial centre. This ensures that the subgroup generated by QCG (α) and QCG (α⊥ ) is a
direct product.
38

Let U be an open compact subgroup of G and let L be a direct factor of G. Then
2
L = C2G (L), so [L] = [L]⊥ . Moreover, the topology of G is generated as a product
topology by the topologies of L and CG (L). In particular
(L ∩ U ) × CU (L)
is open in G, hence has finite index in U . Thus L ∩ U is an almost direct factor of U , so
α = [L ∩ U ] ∈ LD(G). Thus (i) implies (iii) and (ii) implies (iv).
On the other hand, let L be a closed normal subgroup of G such that LCG (L) is dense
and [L] ∈ LD(G).
(L ∩ U ) × CU (L ∩ U )
is open in U , since it is a closed subgroup of finite index, and moreover CU (L ∩ U ) =
CU (L) by Theorem 3.19. Hence LCG (L) contains an open subgroup of G. Since LCG (L)
is also dense, we conclude that G = L × CG (L). So (iii) implies (i) and (iv) implies (ii).
It is clear that (i) implies (ii), since K ≤ QCG (α⊥ ) and CG (K) = QCG (α). Conversely
if (ii) holds, then K × CG (K) is a closed subgroup of G = QCG (α) × QCG (α⊥ ), since K
is closed in QCG (α⊥ ) and CG (K) = QCG (α). Since K × CG (K) is also dense, it follows
that (i) holds. This completes the proof that (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) are equivalent.
Corollary 5.9. Let G be a locally C-stable t.d.l.c. group such that LC(G) = LD(G) and
such that QZ(G) = 1. Then every closed quasi-factor of G is a direct factor of G.

5.2

Weakly decomposable actions

Let A be a Boolean algebra. Then by the Stone representation theorem, A defines
a profinite space (that is, a compact totally disconnected space), the Stone space
S(A) of A, whose points are the ultrafilters of A, with clopen subsets corresponding to
elements of A. Conversely, given a profinite space X, the set A(X) of clopen subsets of X
forms a Boolean algebra. This correspondence produces a natural isomorphism between
Aut(A) and Aut(S(A)). In practice we will often find it convenient to abuse notation
and treat elements of A as subsets of S(A), identifying α ∈ A with
S(α) := {p ∈ S(A) | α ∈ p} ∈ A(S(A)).
Given α ∈ A and p ∈ S(A), the expressions ‘α ∈ p’ and ‘p ∈ α’ can therefore be taken
to be synonymous. A partition P of α ∈ A is a finite subset of A such that the join
of P is α and the meet of any two distinct elements of P is 0; a partition of A is just a
partition of ∞ in A.
Definition 5.10. Let G be a topological group acting on a set Ω. Say that the action
of G on Ω is smooth if every point stabiliser is open; this implies that for every open
compact subgroup U of G, the orbits of U on Ω are all finite. Note that if the action is
smooth, then G is orbit-equivalent to any of its dense subgroups.
39

The following fact shows the relevance of smooth actions for t.d.l.c. groups:
Lemma 5.11. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group, let X be a profinite space and A a Boolean
algebra.
(i) If G acts on X by homeomorphisms, and if the G-action is continuous with respect
to the topology of uniform convergence, then the corresponding G-action on the
Boolean algebra of clopen subsets of X is smooth.
(ii) If G acts on A by automorphisms, and if the G-action is smooth, then the corresponding G-action on the Stone space S(A) is continuous with respect to the
topology of uniform convergence. In particular, the action map (g, x) 7→ gx is a
continuous map from G × S(A) to S(A).
Proof. Let U ∈ B(G) and let X = X1 ∪ · · · ∪ Xn be a clopen partition of S(A).
If G acts on X by homeomorphisms, and if the G-action is continuous with respect to
the topology of uniform convergence, then for any net (gα ) converging to the identity in
G, for all i and each x ∈ Xi , we have gα (x) ∈ Xi for all
T sufficiently large α. Therefore
gα eventually belongs to the common stabiliser H = ni=1 GXi , which is thus an open
subgroup of G. It follows that H ∩ U is open in G, and so it therefore UXi = U ∩ GXi .
Thus (i) holds.
Assume now that G acts smoothly on A by automorphisms
and set X = S(A). Since
Tn
the action is smooth, the common stabiliser V = i=1 UXi is open in U . Thus any net
(gα ) converging to the identity in G eventually belongs to V and thus stabilises each Xi .
Thus (gα ) uniformly converges to the identity in the space of homeomorphisms of X.
In particular the action of G on S(A) is jointly continuous (see [16, Chapter 7]). This
proves (ii).
As before, let G be a group acting on a set Ω. Given X ⊆ Ω, the rigid stabiliser of X
is the subgroup
ristG (X) := {g ∈ G | gx = x for all x ∈ Ω r X}.
Similarly, if G acts on a Boolean algebra A, then given α ∈ A we define
ristG (α) := {g ∈ G | gβ = β for all β ≤ α⊥ }.
(Equivalently, one could define ristG (α) to be the rigid stabiliser of the subset of S(A)
corresponding to α.)
Notice that if A is a subalgebra of LC(G) or of LD(G), then QCG (α) ≤ ristG (α⊥ ) for
all α ∈ A.
40

Lemma 5.12. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group acting smoothly on a Boolean algebra A and let
υ ⊆ S(A). Then ristG (υ) is closed.
Proof. It suffices to show that Gp is closed for all p ∈ S(A). This is immediate from
Lemma 5.11.
Related to the notion of rigid stabilisers is that of (weakly, locally) decomposable
actions. The centraliser and local decomposition lattices account for all faithful actions
of this kind of a t.d.l.c. group (if any such actions exist).
Definition 5.13. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair such that G acts on a Boolean algebra
A, with kernel K. Say the action is weakly decomposable if, for every α ∈ A r {0},
the U -orbit of α is finite and ristG (α)/K is non-trivial. Note that the fact that U has
finite orbits ensures that U K/K is residually finite. Moreover, taking α = ∞, we see
that G/K must be non-trivial. Say the action is locally decomposable if it is weakly
decomposable and if, for all α ∈ A, the product ristU (α)ristU (α⊥ ) has finite index in U .
Given an action of G by homeomorphisms on a profinite space X, we say the action is
weakly or locally decomposable if the action of G on the algebra of clopen subsets of X
is weakly or locally decomposable respectively.
Say a Hecke pair (G, U ) is faithful weakly decomposable if QZ(G) = 1 and G admits
a faithful weakly decomposable action on a Boolean algebra. (We require that QZ(G) = 1
to avoid degenerate situations, such as Hecke pairs of the form (G, 1).)
A property closed related to the weakly decomposable property has been considered by
R. Möller and J. Vonk ([20]), referred to in [20] as property H. In particular, the authors
give a criterion for obtaining non-discrete topologically simple t.d.l.c. groups, of a kind
that we will study further in [8]. As can easily be seen from the definitions, Property H
and weakly decomposable are related as follows:
Proposition 5.14. Let G be a group of automorphisms of a thick locally finite tree T ,
let v be a vertex of T and let U = Gv . Then (G, U ) is a Hecke pair, and the action of G
on T has property H in the sense of [20] if and only if the action of G on the space of
ends of T is weakly decomposable.
Here are some basic properties of weakly decomposable actions. We state them for actions on profinite spaces; of course these can be translated via the Stone correspondence
into corresponding statements for actions on Boolean algebras.
Lemma 5.15. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair such that G acts by homeomorphisms on a
profinite space X. Assume that the action is weakly decomposable with kernel K. Then:
(i) X has no isolated point.
41

(ii) If QZ(G/K) = 1, then for every non-empty clopen set α ⊆ X, we have [ristG (α)] >
[K].
(iii) Suppose QZ(G/K) = 1. Then for any two clopen subsets α, β, we have α 6= β if
and only if [ristG (α)] 6= [ristG (β)].
Proof. There is no loss of generality in replacing (G, U ) by the Hecke pair (G/K, U K/K),
so we may assume that the action is faithful. Since the action is weakly decomposable,
it is clear that |X| > 1.
(i) If a point x ∈ X is isolated, its complement is a non-empty clopen set whose rigid
stabiliser is trivial, contradicting the assumption that the action is weakly decomposable.
(ii) Let α ⊆ X be a non-empty clopen subset. Then Gα contains a finite index subgroup V
of U , and contains ristG (α) as a normal subgroup; by assumption ristG (α) is non-trivial.
Since QZ(G) = 1, it follows from Lemma 3.2 that ristU (α) is infinite, so [ristU (α)] > 0.
(iii) Assume that α 6= β. Upon swapping α and β, we may assume that α 6≤ β. Then
α∧β ⊥ 6= 0 so that ristU (α∧β ⊥ ) is an infinite bounded locally normal subgroup contained
in ristU (α). On the other hand, ristU (α ∧ β ⊥ ) ∩ ristU (β) = 1. Hence [ristG (α)] 6=
[ristG (β)].

5.3

Faithful weakly decomposable groups

We now study the rigid stabilisers of the G-action on the centraliser and local decomposition lattices. Of particular interest is the case of faithful actions of G.
In general, if a group G acts on a Boolean algebra A with an invariant subalgebra A′ ,
then ristG (α) could be larger when defined in terms of the action on A′ than it is when
defined in terms of the action on A. However, this ambiguity does not arise in the case of
faithful actions on subalgebras of the centraliser lattice: the rigid stabilisers turn out to
be exactly the corresponding elements of the global centraliser lattice discussed earlier.
Proposition 5.16. Let (G, U ) be a locally C-stable Hecke pair and let A be a G-invariant
subalgebra of LC(G, U ) on which G acts faithfully. Then QZ(G) = 1. Moreover, the
following hold.
(i) For each α ∈ A, we have ristG (α) = QC2G (α) = CG (QCG (α)) = QCG (α⊥ ).
(ii) If G is a topological group and U is open in G, then the action of G on A is smooth.
(iii) For each α ∈ A, we have α = [ristG (α)].
(iv) The action of G on A is weakly decomposable, and if A is a subalgebra of LD(G, U )
the action is locally decomposable.
42

Proof. Observe that for any Hecke pair (G, U ), the quasi-centre of G fixes every element
of LN (G, U ) by conjugation. Thus to have a faithful action on a subalgebra of LC(G, U ),
we must have QZ(G) = 1. Note also that U has finite orbits on A.
(i) We see that QCG (α⊥ ) ≤ ristG (α) and QCG (α) ≤ ristG (α⊥ ). In particular, ristG (α)
centralises QCG (α), so ristG (α) ≤ CG (QCG (α)). By Proposition 5.4, in fact
CG (QCG (α)) = QC2G (α) = QCG (α⊥ ).
Hence ristG (α) = CG (QCG (α)) = QC2G (α). This proves (i).
(ii) For each α ∈ A, then ristG (α) is closed by (i), so Gα = NG (ristG (α)) is closed. Since
moreover |U : Uα | is finite, we conclude that Uα is open in U , and hence Gα is open in
G.
2

(iii) Follows from (i) and the fact that α = α⊥ , see Theorem 5.2(i).
(iv) It is clear from (iii) that the action is weakly decomposable. If A is a subalgebra of
LD(G, U ), note that for all α ∈ A there are representatives K of α and L of α⊥ such
that KL has finite index in U . Consequently ristG (α)ristG (α⊥ ) contains a finite index
subgroup of U .
Corollary 5.17. Let (G, U ) be a locally C-stable Hecke pair and let A be a G-invariant
subalgebra of LC(G, U ) on which G acts faithfully. Let K be a locally normal subgroup
2
of G, and let α = [K]⊥ . Suppose α ∈ A. Then the set of points in S(A) moved by K
forms an open dense subset of α.
Proof. Let υ be the set of points in S(A) moved by K. We have K ≤ ristG (α) by
Proposition 5.4 and Proposition 5.16(i), which ensures that υ ⊆ α. Suppose υ is not
dense in α. Then υ is contained in a proper clopen subset β of α. But then K ≤ ristG (β),
so [K] ≤ [ristG (β)] = β < α, a contradiction.
A Hecke pair (G, U ) with trivial quasi-centre that admits a faithful weakly decomposable
action is locally C-stable. Moreover, the faithful locally or weakly decomposable actions
are controlled by LD(G, U ) and LC(G, U ) respectively.
Theorem 5.18. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair.
(i) Suppose that G has a faithful weakly decomposable action on some Boolean algebra
A. Then the following are equivalent:
(a) QZ(G) = 1;
(b) The action of U is weakly decomposable, and every non-trivial normal subgroup
of G has non-trivial intersection with U ;

43

(c) G is locally C-stable, and A is G-equivariantly isomorphic to a subalgebra of
LC(G, U ) (indeed, the set of rigid stabilisers of A form a subalgebra of the
global centraliser lattice).
(ii) Every G-equivalence class of faithful locally decomposable actions of G (if there are
any) occurs as the action of G on a subalgebra of LD(G, U ).
We begin the proof of Theorem 5.18 with two lemmas.
Lemma 5.19. Let A, N be subgroups of a group G. Assume that N is normal, and
contains an element x ∈ N such that [A, xAx−1 ] = 1. Then N contains [A, A].
Proof. Let a, b, c ∈ A. Since a and b commute with xcx−1 , we have [a, b] = [a, bxcx−1 ].
Setting c = b−1 , we infer that [a, b] = [a, [b, x]], which belongs to N since N is normal.
Lemma 5.20. Let U be a residually finite group acting faithfully on an atomless Boolean
algebra A. Let K be a non-trivial normal subgroup of U and let α ∈ A r {0} be such
that gα ∧ α = 0 for some g ∈ K.
(i) If K is abelian, then ristU (α) is abelian.
(ii) If K is finite, then ristU (α) is finite-by-abelian (and hence centre-by-finite).
In either case, there exists β ∈ A such that 0 < β ≤ α and ristU (β) = 1, so the action
of U on A is not weakly decomposable.
Proof. We see that K ∩ ristU (α) and K ∩ ristU (gα) are conjugate subgroups of K, and
also that ristU (α)∩ristU (gα) = 1 since U acts faithfully on A. Moreover, by Lemma 5.19,
K ∩ ristU (α) contains R = [ristU (α), ristU (α)].
Suppose K is abelian. Then the conjugation action of K on its subgroups is trivial, so
K ∩ristU (α) = K ∩ristU (gα); since ristU (α)∩ristU (gα) = 1, it follows that K ∩ristU (α) =
ristK (α) = 1. Thus R = [ristU (α), ristU (α)] is trivial and ristU (α) is abelian.
Suppose instead that K is finite. In particular, R = [ristU (α), ristU (α)] is finite, so
ristU (α) has a finite index subgroup Z such that Z ∩ R = 1. We see that [ristU (α), Z] ≤
Z ∩ R = 1, so Z is central in ristU (α) and hence ristU (α) is centre-by-finite.
Since A is atomless, there is a strictly descending sequence (αi )i∈N of non-zero elements
of A such that α0 = α. If ristU (α) is finite, then there exist i, j ∈ N with i < j such
that ristU (αi ) = ristU (αj ), and thus ristU (β) is trivial, where β = αi ∧ α⊥
j . Thus we
may suppose that ristU (α) is infinite. Let Z be a central subgroup of ristU (α) of finite
index. Since U acts faithfully on A, there must be some β ∈ A r {0} and z ∈ Z such
that zβ ∧ β = 0; it follows that β ≤ α, since ristU (α) fixes α⊥ pointwise as a subspace
of S(A). Now ristU (β) and ristU (zβ) are subgroups of ristU (α) that are Z-conjugate,
so ristU (β) = ristU (zβ), and hence ristU (β) = 1 since zβ ∧ β = 0.
44

Proof of Theorem 5.18. (i) Let A be a Boolean algebra equipped with a faithful weakly
decomposable action of G. Then A is atomless by Lemma 5.15. We also see that U is
residually finite, since U has finite orbits on A.
Suppose QZ(G) = 1. Then given a non-trivial subgroup K of G such that |U : NU (K)| is
finite, then K ∩ U is infinite. In particular, ristU (α) is infinite for every α ∈ A r {0}, so
the action of V on A is weakly decomposable, for every subgroup V of G commensurate
with U . Hence (a) implies (b). Moreover, by Lemma 5.20, V has no non-trivial finite or
abelian normal subgroups. Hence G is locally C-stable, by Theorem 3.19.
Let α ∈ A and let β = α⊥ . Then ristG (α) and ristG (β) commute. Let x ∈ CG (ristG (β)).
We claim that x ∈ ristG (α), in other words, the set υ of points moved by x is a
subset of α. If not, then υ ∩ β contains some γ ∈ A, since υ is an open subset of
S(A). Indeed there is some δ ∈ A such that 0 < δ ≤ γ and xδ 6= δ. The fact that
the action is weakly decomposable ensures that ristG (δ) and ristG (xδ) are not locally
equivalent by Lemma 5.15(iii), so x does not commensurate ristG (δ), and in particular
x 6∈ QCG (ristG (δ)). Since ristG (δ) ≤ ristG (β), we have a contradiction. This shows that
ristG (α) = CG (ristG (α⊥ )).

(5)

By Proposition 5.4, ristG (α) is an element of the global centraliser lattice of G. We
therefore have a map
θ : A → LC(G, U ); θ(α) = [ristG (α)].
By Lemma 5.15, θ is injective, and (5) shows that θ is compatible with complementation;
θ is also compatible with meets. Hence θ is a homomorphism of Boolean algebras.
From the above argument, we conclude that (a) implies (b) and (c).
In the other direction, it is clear that (c) implies (a). Suppose instead that (b) holds. By
Lemma 5.20, U has no non-trivial virtually abelian normal subgroups. This implies that
the quasi-centre of U is trivial, in other words, QZ(G) ∩ U = 1. Since every non-trivial
normal subgroup of G intersects U non-trivially, we conclude that QZ(G) = 1. Hence
(b) implies (a). This completes the proof of (i).
(ii) If the action of G on A is locally decomposable, then ristU (α) × ristU (β) has finite
index in U , so ristU (α) is an almost direct factor of U for all α ∈ A. So in this case θ(A)
is contained in LD(G, U ).
Corollary 5.21. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group with QZ(G) = 1 and let U be an open compact
subgroup of G. Then every faithful weakly decomposable action of G (if there are any)
on a profinite space is continuous with respect to the topology of uniform convergence.
Proof. By Theorem 5.18, G is locally C-stable and by Proposition 5.16, the action of G on
LC(G) is smooth. The conclusion now follows from Theorem 5.18 and Lemma 5.11.
45

Proof of Theorem II. (i) This follows from Proposition 5.16.
(ii) By Theorem 5.18 (i), there is a G-equivariant embedding ρ of the algebra A of clopen
subsets of X into LC(G). This embedding ρ then corresponds, via the contravariant
functor provided by the Stone representation theorem, to a G-equivariant quotient map
ρ∗ from S(LC(G)) to X.
Another consequence of Theorem 5.18 is that if (G, U ) is locally C-stable and has a
faithful action on its centraliser lattice, then both properties are inherited by subgroups
with large normalisers.
Proposition 5.22. Let (G, U ) be a faithful weakly decomposable Hecke pair. Let H be
a locally normal subgroup of G. Then the Hecke pair (H, H ∩ U ) is locally C-stable and
H has a faithful weakly decomposable action on a principal ideal of LC(G, U ); this ideal
is H-equivariantly isomorphic to a subalgebra of LC(H, H ∩ U ).
Proof. The existence of a faithful weakly decomposable action ensures that U is residually finite. By Proposition 5.16 and Theorem 5.18, (G, U ) is locally C-stable and has
2
a faithful weakly decomposable action on A = LC(G, U ). Let α = [H]⊥ and let I be
the ideal of A generated by α. By Corollary 5.17, the set of points in S(A) moved
by H forms an open dense subset of α. Since G acts faithfully on A, it follows that
H acts faithfully on I. Since I is a principal ideal, it is a Boolean algebra in its own
right. We have QZ(H) := QZ(H, H ∩ U ) = 1 by Theorem 3.19. Given 0 < β ∈ I,
3
then ristG (β) = QCG (β ⊥ ). Since β ⊥ > α⊥ = α⊥ , we see that [ristG (β)] > [QCG (H)].
If ristH (β) = 1, then 0 = [ristG (β) ∩ H] = [ristG (β)] ∧ [H] = β ∧ [H]. Hence [H] ≤ β ⊥
3
so that α ≤ β ⊥ = β ⊥ . Since β ≤ α, we obtain β = 0, a contradiction. Thus the action
of H on I is weakly decomposable. Hence by Theorem 5.18, H is locally C-stable and
I is H-equivariantly isomorphic to a subalgebra of LC(H, H ∩ U ).
Corollary 5.23. Let (G, U ) be a faithful weakly decomposable Hecke pair and let H be
a subgroup of G. Suppose there is a sequence of subgroups
H = H1 ≤ H2 ≤ · · · ≤ Hn = G
such that
|Hi+1 ∩ U : NHi+1 (Hi ) ∩ U |
is finite for 1 ≤ i < n. Then either H = 1 or (H, H ∩ U ) is faithful weakly decomposable.
In particular, QZ(H) = 1.
Proof. Follows from Proposition 5.22 by induction.

46

5.4

Topologically free actions

For groups acting on topological spaces, there is a natural notion of actions that are in
some sense the opposite of weakly decomposable:
Definition 5.24. Let G be a group acting faithfully on a topological space X. The
action is locally faithful at x ∈ X if for every neighbourhood O of x, the pointwise
stabiliser of O in G is trivial. The action is topologically free if it is locally faithful at
every point in X.
Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair and let G act by homeomorphisms on a profinite space X,
such that U has finite orbits on the set of clopen subsets of X. Clearly, if the action of
G on X is weakly decomposable, then it is not locally faithful at any point. In general,
the action of (G, U ) on X may be neither weakly decomposable nor locally faithful at
any point, even if the action is minimal. For example, given a (faithful, minimal) weakly
decomposable action of (G, U ) on X, then (G × Z/2Z, U ) has a (faithful, minimal) action
on the disjoint union of two copies of X that is not weakly decomposable, but has no
locally faithful point: this is achieved by letting G act identically on each copy of X and
Z/2Z swap the two copies of X. If G admits a non-inner automorphism φ of order 2,
then one could construct a similar example of an action of (H, U ), where this time
H = G ⋊ hφi has trivial quasi-centre with respect to U . As a concrete example, let T
be a regular rooted tree, let G be the derived subgroup of Aut(T ), and let X be the
set of ends of T . Then (G, G) is a Hecke pair; the G-action on X is faithful, minimal
and weakly decomposable, and the G-orbit of any clopen subset is finite. The outer
automorphism group Out(G) contains (and is in fact equal to) Aut(T )/G, which is an
infinite direct product of cyclic groups of order 2. In particular Out(G) contains many
involutions, which can be lifted to involutions in Aut(G).
However, with a stronger restriction on the group structure of U , we can ensure the
existence of locally faithful points. This property may be regarded as the antithesis of
the faithful weakly decomposable property. The following definition and proposition are
inspired by [21], which uses similar methods to comprehend the actions of free groups
on rooted trees.
Definition 5.25. Let U be group. Say U has the virtually normal intersection
property (VNIP) if for any two non-trivial subgroups K, L of U such that NU (K) and
NU (L) have finite index in U , the intersection K ∩ L is infinite.
If (G, U ) is locally C-stable, one sees that U has VNIP if and only if LC(G, U ) is trivial.
Proposition 5.26. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair, let X be a profinite space on which G
acts faithfully by homeomorphisms, let A be the Boolean algebra of clopen subsets of X,
and suppose that U has finite orbits on A. Suppose that QZ(G) = 1 and that U has
VNIP. Then the set of points in X at which G acts locally faithfully is non-empty and
closed. In particular, if the action of G on X is minimal, then it is topologically free.
47

Proof. Let Y be the set of points at which G acts locally faithfully. We see from the
definition that X r Y is open and hence Y is closed, since if G does not act locally
faithfully at some p ∈ X, then there is an open neighbourhood O of p such that the
pointwise stabiliser of O is non-trivial, and hence G does not act locally faithfully at any
point in O.
Suppose Y = ∅. Then for each p ∈ X, we can find αp ∈ A such that p ∈ αp and ristG (α⊥
p )
))
has
is non-trivial. Since U has finite orbits on A, the normaliser V = NU (ristG (α⊥
p
)
to
be
infinite.
Since
finite index in U ; the fact that QZ(G) = 1 then forces ristV (α⊥
pW
every point in X is covered by some αp , by compactness weThave ni=1 αpi = ∞ for some
p1 , . . . , pn ∈ X. Since U has VNIP, the intersection K = ni=1 ristU (α⊥
pi ) is non-trivial.
W
V
But ni=1 αpi = ∞, in other words ni=1 α⊥
=
0,
so
K
acts
trivially
on
A, contradicting
pi
the hypothesis that G acts faithfully on A. Hence Y must be non-empty.
Clearly Y is G-invariant, so if the action of G on X is minimal, then Y = X.

6

Some radicals of locally compact groups

6.1

The quasi-hypercentre

In previous sections, we found it useful to assume that the groups under consideration
have trivial quasi-centre. Of course, there is no reason in general for a t.d.l.c. group to
have this property; more interesting, however, is the question of which locally compact
groups G have a non-trivial Hausdorff quotient G/K such that QZ(G/K) = 1.
To address this issue, we need to introduce the following definitions.
Definition 6.1. Let G be a locally compact group. A subgroup K of G is quasihypercentral in G if, whenever N is a closed normal subgroup of G such that K 6≤ N ,
then KN/N has non-trivial intersection with QZ(G/N ).
The quasi-hypercentre of G, denoted by QZ∞ (G), is the intersection of all closed
normal subgroups N of G such that QZ(G/N ) = 1.
By Lemma 3.1, we have QZ(G) ≤ QZ∞ (G). If moreover QZ(G) is discrete, then
Lemma 3.1 ensures that QZ(G/QZ(G)) = 1 so that QZ(G) = QZ∞ (G) in this case.
The main properties of the quasi-hypercentre are collected in the following.
Theorem 6.2. Let G be a locally compact group. Then:
(i) QZ∞ (G) is a closed characteristic subgroup.
(ii) The quotient G/QZ∞ (G) has trivial quasi-centre. In particular QZ∞ (G) is the
unique minimal closed normal subgroup of G with this property.
48

(iii) QZ∞ (G) is the unique largest quasi-hypercentral subgroup of G.
Proof of Theorem 6.2. (i) is clear by the definition of the quasi-hypercentre.
(ii) Set H = QZ∞ (G) and let N be the set of all closed normal subgroups N of G such
that QZ(G/N ) = 1. Let x ∈ G, and suppose xH ∈ QZ(G/H). For any N ∈ N , the
group G/N is a quotient of G/H, so that xN ∈ QZ(G/N ) by Lemma
T 3.1(iii). Since
QZ(G/N ) = 1 by the definition of N , we infer that x ∈ N . Thus x ∈ N ∈N N = H. In
other words G/H has trivial quasi-centre, as desired.
(iii) Since QZ(G/H) = 1 by part (ii), it follows that every quasi-hypercentral subgroup
of G is contained in H. It remains to show that H itself is quasi-hypercentral. Let M
be a closed normal subgroup of G not containing H. Then N = H ∩ M does not contain
H. Therefore, by the definition of H, the quasi-centre of G/N is non-trivial and, hence,
there is some element x of G such that x 6∈ N and xN ∈ QZ(G/N ). Since QZ(G/H) = 1
by part (ii), in fact we have x ∈ H r N = H r M . Since N ≤ M , the group G/M
is a quotient of G/N , and we deduce from Lemma 3.1(iii) that x is an element of H
whose image in G/M is non-trivial and contained in QZ(G/M ). We conclude that H is
quasi-hypercentral in G, as desired.
Recall that the quasi-centre QZ(G) is characteristic but need not be closed. Theorem 6.2
ensures that if QZ(G) is non-trivial, then QZ∞ (G) is a non-trivial closed characteristic
subgroup (that could be the whole of G).

6.2

Relation with the quasi-hypercentre of subgroups

We now specialise to t.d.l.c. groups. The goal is to establish the following stability
properties of the quasi-hypercentre by passage to subgroups.
Proposition 6.3. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group and H be a subgroup of G.
(i) If H is closed and normal in G, then QZ∞ (H) ≥ QZ∞ (G) ∩ H.
(ii) If H is open in G, then QZ∞ (H) = QZ∞ (G) ∩ H.
The proof of that proposition requires some preparations and will be given at the end
of the subsection. We shall need additional definitions.
Recall that given two normal subgroups K ≥ L of an abstract group G, the centraliser
of K modulo L is defined by
CG (K/L) = {g ∈ G | [g, K] ⊂ L},
where we define [u, g] = ugu−1 g −1 . The centraliser CG (K/L) is a normal subgroup of
G, since it coincides with the preimage in G of the centraliser CG/L (K/L). We shall
49

need to quasify this notion as follows. (Recall that B(G) denotes the set of open compact
subgroups of G.)
Definition 6.4. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group and let K and L be closed subgroups. The
quasi-centraliser of K modulo L is defined by
QCG (K/L) = {g ∈ G | there is U ∈ B(G) such that [g, U ∩ K] ⊂ L.}

The following shows that QCG (K/L) is a normal subgroup of G provided that L is
normal in K and that K and L are both ‘quasi-normal’ in G:
Lemma 6.5. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group and let K and L be non-trivial subgroups of G
such that L E K. Assume that gKg −1 ∈ [K] and gLg −1 ∈ [L] for all g ∈ G. Then:
(i) QCG (K/L) = QCG (K ′ /L′ ) for all K ′ ∈ [K] and L′ ∈ [L].
(ii) QCG (K/L) is a non-trivial normal subgroup of G.
Proof. (i) It is clear from the definition that QCG (K/L) is invariant under replacing K
with a subgroup of G that is locally equivalent to K.
Let M = V ∩ L for some open compact subgroup V of G. Certainly QCG (K/M ) ⊆
QCG (K/L). On the other hand, given g ∈ QCG (K/L) and an open compact subgroup
U of G such that [u, g] ∈ L for all u ∈ U ∩ K, there is an open subgroup W of V such
that W gW g−1 is a subset of V . Thus for all w ∈ W ∩ K we have [w, g] ∈ V ∩ L = M ,
so QCG (K/M ) = QCG (K/L). Hence QCG (K/L) is invariant under replacing L with a
subgroup of G that is locally equivalent to L. This proves (i).
(ii) We see that L ≤ QCG (K/L), since [K, L] ≤ L, so QCG (K/L) is non-trivial.
Let g, h ∈ QCG (K/L) and let U and V be open compact subgroups of G such that
[u, g] ∈ L for all u ∈ U ∩ K and [v, h] ∈ L for all v ∈ V ∩ K. Then for u ∈ U ∩ V we have
[u, g−1 h] = ug −1 hu−1 h−1 g = g −1 [g, u][u, h]g ∈ g −1 Lg.
Since g−1 Lg ∈ [L] by hypothesis, we deduce from (i) that g −1 h ∈ QCG (K/g−1 Lg) =
QCG (K/L), so QCG (K/L) is a subgroup of G. By definition, we have
gQCG (K/L)g−1 = QCG (gKg−1 /gLg −1 )
for all g ∈ G. Therefore QCG (K/L) is normal in G by (i).
We note the following facts separately as they will be used again later.

50

Lemma 6.6. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group. Suppose that to every open compact subgroup
U we have assigned a closed normal subgroup R(U ), such that the following statements
hold:
(a) Given two open compact subgroups U and V of G, then R(U ) is commensurate with
R(V ). If V = gU g −1 then R(V ) = gR(U )g −1 .
(b) Given an open compact subgroup U of G, then the quotient U/R(U ) has trivial quasicentre.
Let U ∈ B(G) and set K = QCG (U/R(U )). Then:
(i) K = QCG (V /R(V )) for any V ∈ B(G).
(ii) K ∩ V = R(V ) for every V ∈ B(G).
(iii) K is a closed normal subgroup of G.
(iv) QZ(G/K) = 1.
Proof. (i) Condition (a) ensures that the set {R(U ) | U ∈ B(G)} lies in a single commensurability class of subgroups of G, so that R(U ) is a compact locally normal subgroup of
G such that [R(U )] does not depend on U . It follows from Lemma 6.5 that K is normal
in G and does not depend on the choice of U . Thus (i) holds.
(ii) By the definition of K, we see that K ∩ U consists of those elements of U whose
image in U/R(U ) is quasi-central. By condition (b), we thus have K ∩ U = R(U ). Hence
(ii) follows from (i).
(iii) We have already noted that K is normal in G as a consequence of Lemma 6.5. Since
K ∩ U = R(U ) is closed in U by (ii), it follows that K is closed in G.
(iv) Let x ∈ G such that xK ∈ QZ(G/K); then x centralises V K/K for some open
compact subgroup V of G, but this ensures in turn that x ∈ QCG (V /R(V )) = K by (ii),
so xK is trivial. Hence QZ(G/K) = 1.
Proof of Proposition 6.3. (i) We see that the quasi-hypercentre of a t.d.l.c. group is a
characteristic subgroup, so QZ∞ (H) is normal in G. Let K = CG (H/QZ∞ (H)) be the
centraliser of H modulo QZ∞ (H). Since H and QZ∞ (H) are closed normal subgroups
of G, so is K. Moreover K ∩ H = QZ∞ (H), since H/QZ∞ (H) has trivial quasi-centre.
Consequently the quotient G/K of G has a normal subgroup HK/K ∼
= H/QZ∞ (H)
whose quasi-centre is trivial by Theorem 6.2. Since
QZ(G/K) ∩ HK/K ≤ QZ(HK/K) = 1,

51

we infer that QZ(G/K) is a normal subgroup of G/K with trivial intersection with
HK/K. Therefore HK/K and QZ(G/K) commute. On the other hand the definition
of K implies that HK/K has trivial centraliser in G/K. It follows that QZ(G/K) = 1.
Therefore K ≥ QZ∞ (G), and thus QZ∞ (H) = K ∩ H ≥ QZ∞ (G) ∩ H.
(ii) Let Q = QZ∞ (G). Note that H/(Q ∩ H) ∼
= HQ/Q, and HQ/Q is an open subgroup
of G/Q; thus QZ(HQ/Q) ≤ QZ(G/Q) = 1, so H/(Q ∩ H) has trivial quasi-centre. By
Theorem 6.2, we conclude that Q ∩ H ≥ QZ∞ (H).
Combining this with part (i), we see that QZ∞ (O) = QZ∞ (G) ∩ O in the case that O is
an open normal subgroup of G.
Let now V ≤ U be compact open subgroups of G. Let O be the core of V in U , so that
O is an open normal subgroup of both V and U . By the preceding paragraph, we have
QZ∞ (U ) ∩ O = QZ∞ (O) = QZ∞ (V ) ∩ O.
In particular QZ∞ (U ) and QZ∞ (V ) are commensurate. This implies that for all U, V ∈
B(G), the groups QZ∞ (U ) and QZ∞ (V ) are commensurate.
Define R(U ) := QZ∞ (U ) for every profinite group U . We have just checked that condition (a) from Lemma 6.6 is satisfied, and so is condition (b) by Theorem 6.2. Hence,
given V ∈ B(G), the group K = QCG (V /QZ∞ (V )) is a closed normal subgroup of G that
does not depend on the choice of V . Moreover Lemma 6.6 ensures that QZ(G/K) = 1,
so K ≥ Q. Also K ∩ V = QZ∞ (V ) ≤ Q ∩ V , where the latter containment was observed
in the first paragraph above. It follows that Q contains an open subgroup of K, so
K/Q is a discrete normal subgroup of G/Q; since QZ(G/Q) = 1, this forces K = Q by
Lemma 3.1.
This shows that QZ∞ (G) = QCG (V /QZ∞ (V )) for any open compact subgroup V of G.
In particular, if H is any open subgroup of G, we may replace V by V ∩ H and deduce
that
QZ∞ (G) ∩ H = QCG (V /QZ∞ (V )) ∩ H = QCH (V /QZ∞ (V )) = QZ∞ (H).
This confirms (ii).
Remark 6.7. We have shown that the local equivalence class of the quasi-hypercentre
is unchanged by passing to an open subgroup. In particular for any open subgroup H of
G and any V ∈ B(H), the group QZ∞ (H) is locally equivalent to QZ∞ (V ), so we have
QZ∞ (G) = QCG (V /QZ∞ (V )) = QCG (H/QZ∞ (H)).
Remark 6.8. In general, the quasi-hypercentre of an arbitrary closed subgroup of a
t.d.l.c. group bears no relation to that of the group itself. For instance, any profinite
group H can be embedded as a closed subgroup of the Cartesian product G of its finite
continuous images, in which case QZ∞ (G) = G since QZ(G) is dense in G. On the other
52

hand H can be embedded in a semidirect product K⋊H (where K is an infinite Cartesian
product of copies of the free profinite group on 2 generators, for instance, and H permutes
the terms of this product) of such a form that QZ∞ (K ⋊ H) = QZ(K ⋊ H) = 1.
The following question is natural.
Question 6.9. If H is a closed normal subgroup of G contained in QZ∞ (G), does it
follow that H is quasi-hypercentral in G?
We can at least say that H is quasi-hypercentral in itself; in other words, given any
proper closed normal subgroup K of H, then QZ(H/K) is non-trivial.

6.3

Other radicals

We have seen that locally compact groups admit a unique largest quotient with trivial
quasi-centre. In a similar manner, for some classes of profinite group there is a unique
largest quotient that has no non-trivial compact locally normal subgroups in the given
class. In particular, a motivation for eliminating virtually abelian locally normal subgroups in this way is the centraliser lattice described in Section 5.1.
Definition 6.10. Let C be a class of profinite groups. Say C is stable if the following
conditions hold:
(a) C contains all abelian profinite groups, as well as all finite simple groups;
(b) Given a group U ∈ C and a closed normal subgroup K of U , then K ∈ C and
U/K ∈ C;
(c) Given a profinite group U that is a (possibly non-direct) product of finitely many
closed normal C-subgroups, then U ∈ C;
(d) C is stable under isomorphisms, i.e. it contains the whole isomorphism class of each
of its elements.
Given a profinite group U , write C(U ) for the closed subgroup generated by all normal
C-subgroups of U .
Given a stable class C, a t.d.l.c. group G is C-semisimple if QZ(G) = 1 and the only
locally normal subgroup of G belonging to C is the identity subgroup. For a profinite
group U , a subgroup K of U is called C-regular in U if for every closed normal subgroup
L of U not containing K, the image of K in U/L contains a non-trivial locally normal
C-subgroup of U/L. For a t.d.l.c. group G and closed subgroup H, say H is C-regular
in G if U ∩ H is C-regular in U for all open compact subgroups U of G.

53

Write [A] for the smallest stable class; note that by Fitting’s Theorem, all groups in this
class are virtually nilpotent. However, the class of [A]-regular t.d.l.c. groups is larger
than just the locally [A] groups; for example, all t.d.l.c. groups with virtually soluble open
compact subgroups are [A]-regular. In a recent paper ([25, Theorem 1.11]), P. Wesolek
has shown that every second-countable [A]-regular t.d.l.c. group can be constructed
from profinite groups and countable discrete groups by a (possibly transfinite) sequence
of extensions and countable increasing unions. On the other hand, we shall see in
Proposition 6.17 below that a t.d.l.c. group is [A]-semisimple if and only if it is locally
C-stable with trivial quasi-centre.
Another example of a stable class (within the class of profinite groups) is the class of
profinite groups that are topologically generated by pronilpotent normal subgroups and
quasisimple subnormal subgroups; for this class C, then C(U ) is the generalised proFitting subgroup of U . The regular and semisimple classes associated to this class are
discussed in [22].
Here is the main theorem for this section.
Theorem 6.11. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group and let C be a stable class of topological groups.
Then G has a uniquely defined closed normal subgroup RC (G), the C-regular radical
of G, that is characterised by either of the following properties:
(i) RC (G) is the unique largest locally normal subgroup of G that is C-regular in G;
(ii) G/RC (G) is C-semisimple, and given any closed normal subgroup N of G such that
G/N is C-semisimple, then N ≥ RC (G).
The proof will be given at the end of the section. The following classical fact is well
known.
Lemma 6.12 (Dietzmann’s Lemma). Let G be a group and Σ be a finite subset consisting
of torsion elements. If Σ is invariant under conjugation, then hΣi is finite.
Proof. See [11] or [18, p. 154].
For the remainder of this section, C is a stable class of profinite groups. We need to
check that the local and global definitions of C-regularity are not in conflict; this will be
ensured by part (v) of the following lemma.
Lemma 6.13. Let U be a profinite group.
(i) Suppose that C(U ) = 1. Then U is C-semisimple.

54

(ii) Let N be the set of all closed normal subgroups N of U such that U/N is Csemisimple, and define K = R(U ) to be the intersection of N . Then U/K is
C-semisimple.
(iii) Let N be a non-trivial closed normal subgroup of U such that N does not contain
any non-trivial closed normal C-subgroups of U . Then U/CU (N ) is a non-trivial
C-semisimple image of U .
(iv) Let V ≥ K ≥ L be closed normal subgroups of U and suppose K is C-regular in U .
Then L is C-regular in U and K is C-regular in V .
(v) Let K be a closed normal subgroup of U , let V be an open subgroup of U and let
L ≤ K be a closed normal subgroup of U that has finite index in K. Then the
following are equivalent: (a) K is C-regular in U ; (b) L is C-regular in U ; (c)
K ∩ V is C-regular in V .
Proof. (i) Let H be a non-trivial finite locally normal subgroup of U . Then by Dietzmann’s Lemma, H is contained in a finite non-trivial normal subgroup K of U ; there is
then a characteristic subgroup M of K that is a direct power of a finite simple group, so
that M is a normal C-subgroup of U . Thus the condition C(U ) = 1 ensures that every
non-trivial locally normal subgroup of U is infinite.
Let H be an infinite locally normal C-subgroup of U , and let V be a closed normal
subgroup of U of finite index that is contained in NU (H). By intersecting with V , we
may assume H ≤ V . Let K be the smallest closed normal subgroup of U containing
H. Then K is topologically generated by the set of conjugates of H in U , which is a
finite set of normal subgroups of K (since K ≤ V ), so K is a normal C-subgroup of U ,
contradicting the assumption that C(U ) = 1.
It remains to show that QZ(U ) = 1. If not, then there is some open normal subgroup
V of U such that CU (V ) > 1. Then CU (V ) is normal in U , hence infinite, so that
Z(V ) = CU (V ) ∩ V is infinite as well. But then Z(V ) is a non-trivial abelian normal
subgroup of U , so 1 < Z(V ) ≤ C(U ), a contradiction.
(ii) We may assume K = 1. By (i) it suffices to show that C(U ) = 1. Let H be a
non-trivial closed normal subgroup of U such that H ∈ C. Then there is some N ∈ N
such that H 6≤ N . But then the image of H in U/N is a non-trivial normal C-subgroup,
contradicting the hypothesis that U/N is C-semisimple.
(iii) Let K = CU (N ). We must have Z(N ) = 1, since otherwise Z(N ) would be a
non-trivial normal C-subgroup of U ; thus K ∩ N = 1. As a consequence, U/K has
a normal subgroup N K/K isomorphic to N , and in particular U/K 6= 1; moreover,
CU/K (N K/K) = 1. Let H/K be a non-trivial normal C-subgroup of U/K. Then
H/K ∩ N K/K is non-trivial since N K/K has trivial centraliser. Since H > K, we then
have L > 1 where L = H ∩ N . Now L is isomorphic to (H ∩ N K)/K, so L is a normal

55

C-subgroup of U contained in N , a contradiction. Thus no such subgroup H/K of U/K
exists, so C(U/K) = 1; by part (i), it follows that U/K is C-semisimple.
(iv) If L is not C-regular in U , then there is some closed normal subgroup M of U
not containing L such that LM/M does not contain any non-trivial closed normal Csubgroups of U/M . It follows by part (iii) that there is a closed normal subgroup R of
U containing M but not L such that U/R is C-semisimple. But then every C-regular
closed normal subgroup of U must be contained in R, so K is not C-regular in U . This
confirms that L is C-regular in U as soon as K is so.
Let N be a closed normal C-subgroup of V that does not contain K, and let R be the
core of N in U . Then KR/R contains a non-trivial locally normal C-subgroup S/R of
U/R. Since S > R, there is some u ∈ U such that S 6≤ uN u−1 . Since S ≤ KR E U , we
infer that u−1 Su ≤ KREV . Thus u−1 SuN/N is a non-trivial locally normal C-subgroup
of V /N that is contained in KN/N . This confirms that K is C-regular in V .
(v) We have already seen in (iv) that (a) implies (b). In the other direction, suppose
that (b) holds and let M be a closed normal subgroup of U that does not contain K.
If KM/M is finite, then it certainly contains a non-trivial normal C-subgroup of U/M .
If KM/M is infinite, then LM/M is also infinite and so contains a non-trivial normal
C-subgroup of U/M . Thus (a) and (b) are equivalent.
Given the equivalence of (a) and (b), from now on we may assume K ≤ V . Suppose K
is C-regular in one of U and V . Then K is C-regular in the core W of V in U by (iv). Let
Y be either U or V . Given a closed normal C-subgroup R of Y not containing K, then
R∩W is a normal C-subgroup of W not containing K. It follows that K(R∩W )/(R∩W )
contains a non-trivial locally normal C-subgroup S/(R ∩ W ) of W/(R ∩ W ), so KR/R
contains the non-trivial locally normal C-subgroup SR/R of W/R; note that SR/R is
also locally normal in Y /R. Thus K is C-regular in Y , so (a) and (c) are equivalent.
Proof of Theorem 6.11. Assume for the moment that G is profinite.
Let N be the set of all closed normal subgroups of G such that G/N is C-semisimple,
and let K be the intersection of N . Then K satisfies property (ii) of the theorem by
Lemma 6.13 (ii). It is clear from the construction that K contains every subgroup of G
that is C-regular in G.
Let N be a closed normal subgroup of G not containing K. If KN/N is abelian, then it
is a locally normal C-subgroup of G/N . If KN/N is non-abelian, let L = CG (KN/N ) be
the centraliser of KN modulo N . Note that L does not contain K, so by the definition
of K, the quotient G/L cannot be C-semisimple. It then follows by Lemma 6.13 (iii) that
KN/N contains a non-trivial closed normal C-subgroup of G/N . Thus K is C-regular
in G.
We have proved the theorem in the profinite case. Now let G be an arbitrary t.d.l.c.
group. We have already obtained a C-regular radical for the compact subgroups of G.
56

Moreover, the C-regular radicals of the open compact subgroups satisfy the hypotheses
of Lemma 6.6: this is clear from Lemma 6.13 (v) and the fact that the C-regular radical
is the unique largest C-regular normal subgroup. Let U be an open compact subgroup of
G and define R = RC (G) := QCG (U/RC (U )). Then by Lemma 6.6, R is a closed normal
subgroup of G that does not depend on the choice of U , such that QZ(G/R) = 1 and
R ∩ U = RC (U ).
The open compact subgroups of G/R are of the form U R/R for U an open compact
subgroup of G; U R/R is isomorphic to U/U ∩ R = U/RC (U ), so U R/R is C-semisimple.
Hence G/R is C-semisimple; in particular RC (G/R) = 1.
Let N be a closed normal subgroup of G such that G/N is C-semisimple. Then by the
profinite case of the theorem, we have N ≥ RC (U ) for every open compact subgroup
U of G; this ensures that RN/N is a discrete normal subgroup of G/N . But G/N has
trivial quasi-centre, so all discrete normal subgroups are trivial. Thus N ≥ R. We have
now shown that property (ii) holds, which is clearly a characterisation of the C-regular
radical.
Given an open compact subgroup V of G, then the V ∩ R is C-regular in V by the
profinite case of the theorem. Hence R is C-regular in G. The fact that G/R is Csemisimple then ensures that R is the largest C-regular locally normal subgroup of G:
given K ≤ G such that K 6≤ R and K is locally normal in G, then KR/R is non-discrete
(since QZ(G/R) = 1), so KR/R ∩ U R/R is non-trivial for every open compact subgroup
U of G, but clearly KR/R does not contain any non-trivial locally normal C-subgroup
of U R/R.
Theorem III now follows immediately from Theorems 6.2 and 6.11.
Theorem 6.11 also has the following consequence:
Corollary 6.14. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group. Then at least one of the following holds:
(i) G is [A]-regular;
(ii) there is a closed characteristic normal subgroup R of G such that G/R is nondiscrete and [A]-semisimple.
In particular, consider a topologically characteristically simple t.d.l.c. group G. Then G
is either [A]-regular or [A]-semisimple.
As in the case of the quasi-hypercentre (see Proposition 6.3), the C-regular radical enjoys
stability properties with respect to certain closed subgroups.
Proposition 6.15. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group and let C be a stable class of profinite
groups.

57

(i) Let H be a closed normal subgroup of G. Then RC (H) ≥ RC (G) ∩ H.
(ii) Let H be an open subgroup of G. Then RC (H) = RC (G) ∩ H.
Proof. (i) Let U be an open compact subgroup of G. Then RC (U ) is C-regular in U , so
RC (U ) ∩ H is C-regular in U ∩ H by Lemma 6.13 (iv). Thus RC (U ) ∩ H ≤ RC (U ∩ H).
At the global level, we have QCH (G/(RC (U ) ∩ H)) = QCH (G/RC (U )) since H is normal
in G, so [g, h] ∈ H whenever g ∈ G and h ∈ H. Hence we have
RC (H) =
≥
=
=

QCH (G/RC (U ∩ H))
QCH (G/(RC (U ) ∩ H))
QCH (G/RC (U ))
RC (G) ∩ H.

(ii) We can obtain both RC (H) and RC (G) ∩ H as QCH (U/RC (U )), where U is an open
compact subgroup of G that is contained in H.
We finish this section by linking it with our previous discussion of locally C-stable t.d.l.c.
groups.
Note the following variant of Lemma 3.7, giving a condition under which a locally normal
subgroup has trivial centraliser in G.
Lemma 6.16. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair such that QZ(G) = 1 and let L be a locally
normal subgroup of G such that CU (L) is finite. Then:
(i) CG (L) = 1.
(ii) Let H and K be subgroups of G containing L, such that H ∩ K contains a finite
index subgroup V of U . Suppose θ : H → K is an isomorphism such that θ(x) = x
for all x ∈ L and such that θ(V ) is commensurate with V . Then H = K and
θ = idH .
Proof. Observe that CU (L) is finite and normalised by a finite index subgroup of U , so
in fact CU (L) ≤ QZ(U ) = 1.
We now prove (ii). We may assume V ≤ NG (L). Choose a finite index subgroup W of
V such that W θ(W ) is contained in V . Let g ∈ W and let x ∈ L. Then
gxg −1 = θ(gxg −1 ) = θ(g)θ(x)θ(g −1 ) = θ(g)xθ(g−1 ),
so g−1 θ(g) centralises x. This shows that g −1 θ(g) ∈ CV (L) = 1. Thus g = θ(g), that is,
θ fixes W pointwise.
We may now apply Lemma 3.7, since CG (W ∩ g−1 W g) ≤ QZ(G) = 1 for all g ∈ G. Thus
H = K and θ = idH . Part (ii) follows.
58

By applying (ii) to the automorphisms of G induced by conjugation by elements of
CG (L), we infer that CG (L) ≤ Z(G) = 1, thereby confirming (i).
Proposition 6.17. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group such that QZ(G) = 1. The following are
equivalent:
(i) G is locally C-stable;
(ii) For every compact locally normal subgroup H of G and open compact subgroup U
of G we have CG (HCU (H)) = 1;
(iii) G has no non-trivial abelian locally normal subgroups;
(iv) G is [A]-semisimple.
Proof. Suppose G is locally C-stable. Then (ii) follows from Lemma 6.16(i).
Suppose (ii) holds and let H be an abelian locally normal subgroup of G. Let U be any
open compact subgroup of G and let K = H ∩ U . Then K ≤ CG (KCU (K)) = 1, so H
is discrete. Since QZ(G) = 1, we conclude that H is trivial.
Suppose (iii) holds. If G is not [A]-semisimple, then there is an open compact subgroup
U of G such that U has a non-trivial normal [A]-subgroup H, by Lemma 6.13(i). But we
see by hypothesis that U has no non-trivial finite or abelian locally normal subgroups,
so by the construction of [A], there is no way to obtain a normal [A]-subgroup. Thus G
is [A]-semisimple.
Now suppose that G is [A]-semisimple. In particular, QZ(G) = 1 and there are no
non-trivial compact abelian locally normal subgroups. Then G is locally C-stable by
Theorem 3.19.
The following illustration of the above discussion also provides a justification for the
choice of terminology.
Proposition 6.18. Let G be a p-adic Lie group with Lie algebra g = Lie(G). Let also
R = R[A] (G) be the the [A]-regular radical of G.
Then Lie(R) coincides with the solvable radical r of g, and R is the largest closed normal
subgroup of G with Lie algebra r. It coincides with the kernel of the G action on g/r.
In particular R is locally soluble, and G is [A]-semisimple if and only if its Lie algebra
g is semisimple.
Proof. By Proposition 2.6, every ideal of g is the Lie algebra of a compact locally normal
subgroup of G. In particular G has a compact locally normal subgroup K whose Lie
algebra is the soluble radical r of g. By [5, Ch. III, §9, Cor. to Prop. 6], the group K
59

has a soluble open subgroup, say K0 . By Lemma 2.1 there is a compact open subgroup
U of G containing K0 as a normal subgroup.
By Theorem 6.11 and Proposition 6.15(ii), we have K0 = Lie(K0 ) ≤ R[A] (U ) = R ∩ U .
Since U/K0 is a compact p-adic Lie group whose Lie algebra g/r is a direct product of
simple (non-abelian) Lie algebras, it follows from Proposition 2.6 that U is virtually a
direct product of hereditarily just finite profinite groups that are not virtually abelian.
In particular U has trivial quasi-centre (see Proposition 5.1 in [2]) and no non-trivial
abelian locally normal subgroup. Therefore U is [A]-semisimple by Proposition 6.17, so
that K0 = Lie(K0 ) ≤ R[A] (U ) = R ∩ U . In particular K0 is an open subgroup of R that
is soluble, and we have r = Lie(K0 ) = Lie(R).
Any closed normal subgroup of G with Lie algebra r is locally solvable by [5, Ch. III,
§9, Cor. to Prop. 6], hence [A]-regular, and thus contained in R by Theorem 6.11. Thus
R is the largest such subgroup. It follows that R is the kernel of the G-action on g/r (a
short and complete argument showing this can be found in the proof of Lemma 6.4 in
[10]).
The remaining assertions are now clear.
The [A]-regular radical has been used recently to analyse the global structure of t.d.l.c.
group admitting an open subgroup which has a continuous faithful finite-dimensional
representation over a local field: by [9, Theorem R.1], the [A]-regular radical of such a
group is the largest closed normal subgroup that is locally soluble (i.e. that has a soluble
open subgroup).

6.4

Canonical completions of Hecke pairs

The radical theory developed so far in this section is specific to t.d.l.c. groups, as the
topology plays an important role. However, results about t.d.l.c. groups naturally have
consequences for Hecke pairs in general, due to the existence of a universal ‘completion’
for Hecke pairs that generalises the well-known profinite completion of a group. A
construction is given in [4] and a proof of universality in [23].
Theorem 6.19. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair, such that G is a topological group (possibly
discrete) and U is closed in G. Then there is an essentially unique group homomorphism
θ : G → ĜU , the localised profinite completion!of a Hecke pair of G at U , where
ĜU is a topological group, such that the following properties hold:
(i) The image of θ is dense, the restriction θ|U of θ to U is continuous, and θ(U ) is
an open profinite subgroup of ĜU .
(ii) Let R be a topological group and let φ : G → R be a group homomorphism. Suppose
60

that φ|U is continuous and φ(U ) is profinite. Then there is a unique continuous
homomorphism ψ : ĜU → R such that φ = ψθ.
By composing with the appropriate quotient map, we also have canonical homomorphisms with related universal properties for t.d.l.c. groups with trivial quasi-centre,
respectively locally C-stable t.d.l.c. groups with trivial quasi-centre, that follow immediately from the results we have so far.
Corollary 6.20. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair, such that G is a topological group (possibly
discrete) and U is closed in G. Let
θ1 : G → ĜU /QZ∞ (ĜU ) and θ2 : G → ĜU /R[A] (ĜU )
be the canonical homomorphisms obtained from Theorem 6.19, Theorem 6.2 and Theorem 6.11. Set G1 = ĜU /QZ∞ (ĜU ) and G2 = ĜU /R[A] (ĜU ). Then the homomorphisms
θi are characterised by the following properties:
(i) The image of θi is dense, the restriction θi |U of θi to U is continuous, and θi (U )
is an open profinite subgroup of Gi . Moreover, QZ(G1 ) = QZ(G2 ) = 1, and G2 is
locally C-stable.
(ii) Let R be a t.d.l.c. group and let φ : G → R be a group homomorphism. Suppose
that φ|U is continuous and φ(U ) is profinite. If QZ(R) = 1, then there is a unique
continuous homomorphism ψ1 : G1 → R such that φ = ψ1 θ1 . If in addition R is
locally C-stable, then there is a unique continuous homomorphism ψ2 : G2 → R
such that φ = ψ2 θ2 .
Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair, equipped with the discrete topology, such that U is residually
finite. Two questions arise at this point:
Question 6.21. If (G, U ) has trivial quasi-centre, is θ1 : G → ĜU /QZ∞ (ĜU ) necessarily
injective? Equivalently, does (G, U ) necessarily admit a dense embedding into a t.d.l.c.
group with trivial quasi-centre?
Question 6.22. If (G, U ) is locally C-stable with trivial quasi-centre, is θ2 : G →
ĜU /R[A] (ĜU ) necessarily injective? Equivalently, does (G, U ) necessarily admit a dense
embedding into a locally C-stable t.d.l.c. group with trivial quasi-centre?
Both questions are of a local nature: if (G, U ) has trivial quasi-centre, then by Lemma 3.2,
every non-trivial normal subgroup of G has infinite intersection with U . Thus θi is injective for i ∈ {1, 2} if and only if θi |U is injective. The questions can thus be restated
as follows:
Question 6.23. Let U be a residually finite group with trivial quasi-centre. Can U be
densely embedded in a profinite group P , such that P has trivial quasi-centre?
Question 6.24. Let U be a residually finite group with no non-trivial virtually abelian
normal subgroups. Can U be densely embedded in a profinite group P , such that P has
no non-trivial virtually abelian normal subgroups?
61

7

Restrictions on the group topology

7.1

The structure lattice and refinements of the group topology

In this section, we investigate the structural significance of fixed points in the action of
a t.d.l.c. group G on its structure lattice. Of course, if G has a closed normal subgroup
K that is neither discrete nor open, then [K] is a non-trivial fixed point in LN (G).
Especially interesting, however, is the question of whether a compactly generated, topologically simple t.d.l.c. group can have non-trivial fixed points in LN (G). We shall return
to this question in the second paper [8], elaborating on the results of the present chapter. Most results we shall obtain here are for t.d.l.c. groups that are first-countable or
σ-compact; it is known (see [15]) that a compactly generated (or even σ-compactly generated) t.d.l.c. group without non-trivial compact normal subgroups is second-countable
(and hence also first-countable and σ-compact).
Our first goal is to prove Theorem IV, giving a general connection between the structure
lattice and group topologies for first-countable t.d.l.c. groups.
Definition 7.1. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group and let µ be a commensurability class (or
subset of a commensurability class) of compact subgroups of G. The localisation of
G at µ is the t.d.l.c. group H, unique up to isomorphism, that admits a continuous
embedding φ : H → G, such that for some (any) K ∈ µ, φ(H) = CommG (K) and
φ−1 (K) is an open compact subgroup of H. This group topology on H is called the
localised topology at µ; it is denoted by T(µ) .
Thus, as an abstract group, the localisation of G at µ coincides with CommG (K) so that
the localisation of G at µ is nothing but (CommG (K), T(µ) ).
Starting with a t.d.l.c. group G, one sees that the t.d.l.c. groups with the same group
structure as G but a finer topology are precisely the groups of the form (G, T(µ) ), where
µ is a G-invariant commensurability class of compact subgroups of G. If G is firstcountable, we can in fact classify these topological refinements of G using the structure
lattice: this is the purpose of Theorem IV.
First we recall a result of Caprace–Monod [7]. Recall that a t.d.l.c. group G is residually
discrete if the intersection of all open normal subgroups of G is trivial.
Proposition 7.2 ([7] Corollary 4.1). Let G be a compactly generated t.d.l.c. group. Then
the following are equivalent:
(i) G is residually discrete;
(ii) G has a base of neighbourhoods of the identity consisting of subsets that are invariant under conjugation;

62

(iii) G has a base of neighbourhoods of the identity consisting of open compact normal
subgroups.
Corollary 7.3. Let G be a residually discrete locally compact group and let x ∈ G. Then
the open subgroups of G normalised by x form a base of neighbourhoods of the identity.
Lemma 7.4. Let U be a first-countable profinite group and let K be a closed subgroup
of U . Then U commensurates K if and only if U normalises an open subgroup of K.
Proof. Certainly, if U normalises an open subgroup of K then U commensurates K.
Conversely, suppose U commensurates K. Let µ be the commensurability class of K.
Then U(µ) is residually discrete, so by Corollary 7.3
[
U = {NU (L) | L ≤o K}.
Now K is first-countable, so it has countably many open subgroups; thus we have expressed U as a union of countably many subgroups, each of which is closed for the given
topology on U . By the Baire Category Theorem, at least one of these, say NU (L), must
be open in U . Thus L has finitely many T
conjugates in U , and we have U = CommU (L)
since L is commensurate with U . Hence u∈U uLu−1 is a closed subgroup of L of finite
index and thus an open subgroup of K.
Proof of Theorem IV. Let T be the given topology of G and let T ′ be a refinement of
T compatible with the group structure. By van Dantzig’s theorem, under T ′ there is
a subgroup K of G that is open and compact; it follows that K is compact under T .
Moreover, the set of such subgroups forms a commensurability class µ that is invariant
under conjugation in G. In particular, given a subgroup U of G that is open and compact
under T , then by Lemma 7.4, U normalises a subgroup L ∈ µ. Thus µ corresponds to
an element α = [L] of LN (G); we have G = Gα since µ is G-invariant, and see that the
topology T ′ is exactly the topology T(α) .
Conversely, let α ∈ LN (G) that is fixed by G. Then G admits a locally compact
topological refinement by declaring those representatives of α that are closed in T to be
open, in other words, the group (G, T(α) ), which by definition has the same underlying
group structure as G.
Note that none of the group topologies in Theorem IV are σ-compact, except possibly
the original topology of G, since a closed subgroup of a profinite group is either open or
of uncountable index.

7.2

A group topology derived from the centraliser lattice

Let A be a Boolean algebra, and equip Aut(A) with the coarsest group topology such
that the stabiliser of α is open, for all α ∈ A. Then Aut(A) is a totally disconnected
63

group. Given a group G acting faithfully on A, write GA for the closure of G in Aut(A),
equipped with the subspace topology.
Of particular interest is the case in which an infinite commensurated subgroup U of G
(perhaps G itself) has finite orbits. In this case, we see that U is residually finite and U A
is profinite, so the group hG, U A i can be equipped with a t.d.l.c. topology that extends
the topology of U A .
Theorem 7.5. Let (G, U ) be a Hecke pair with trivial quasi-centre and let A be a Boolean
algebra on which G has a faithful, weakly decomposable action. Let E be the subgroup of
Aut(A) generated by G and U A . Then E commensurates U A , so that E can be equipped
with a t.d.l.c. group topology by extending the topology of U A (so that U A is embedded
as an open subgroup). Moreover, the following holds:
(i) As a t.d.l.c. group, E is locally C-stable and faithful weakly decomposable.
(ii) As a locally compact topological group, E is characterised as follows:
Given a locally compact group L and an injective homomorphism θ : G → L with
dense image such that θ(U ) is an open subgroup of L, then there exists a unique
continuous surjective homomorphism φ : L → E such that the composition φθ is
the embedding of G in E.
(iii) If |G : U | is countable, the following characterisation also applies:
Given a topological group L that is a Baire space and an injective homomorphism
θ : G → L such that L = hθ(G), θ(U )i, then there exists a unique continuous
homomorphism φ : L → E such that the composition φθ is the embedding of G in
E.
Proof. Let V = U A . Given g ∈ G, we see that gU g −1 contains a finite index subgroup of
U , which ensures that gV g−1 contains an open subgroup of V . Thus E can be equipped
with a t.d.l.c. group topology by extending the topology of U A .
Certainly E acts faithfully on A, and the action of E on A is weakly decomposable with
respect to V . Given x ∈ QZ(E), then x centralises a finite index subgroup of U , and
hence xristU (α)x−1 is commensurate with ristU (α), for all α ∈ A. This implies that x
acts trivially on A, so x = 1. Thus E is locally C-stable by Theorem 5.18.
Let us suppose we have a homomorphism θ : G → L as in either (ii) or (iii), with (G, U )
and A satisfying the necessary hypotheses. We will prove (ii) and (iii) together, except
where it is necessary to divide into cases.
Given α ∈ A, let Rα = θ(ristG (α)) and let Kα = CL (Rα⊥ ). Then Kα is a closed subgroup
of L, for all α ∈ A. Moreover, we have Rα ≤ Kα , but Kα ∩ Rα⊥ is trivial. This ensures
that Kα ∩ θ(G) = Rα ; in particular, given α, β ∈ A such that α 6= β, then Rα 6= Rβ since
the action of G is weakly decomposable, so Kα 6= Kβ . Now set Nα = NL (Kα ). Then Nα
64

is closed in L, since Kα is closed. Moreover, Nα ∩ θ(G) = Nθ(G) (Rα ) = θ(NG (ristG (α))).
We see that Nα ∩ θ(U ) has finite index in θ(U ), so Nα ∩ P has finite index in P , where
P = θ(U ).
In case (ii), it follows that Nα ∩ P is open in P , and hence Nα is open in L, since P
is open in L. In case (iii), Nα is a closed subgroup of L of countable index, and hence
open by the Baire category theorem. In either case, we conclude that Nα is open in L,
as is any finite intersection of subgroups Nα . Therefore the set {Kα | α ∈ A} ordered
by inclusion forms a Boolean algebra A′ on which L acts smoothly, so that θ(U ) is
orbit-equivalent to P on the finite subsets of A′ . The natural map Kα 7→ α induces
a continuous homomorphism ψ : L → Aut(A) such that ψθ is the given action of G
on A. In case (ii), ψ(P ) has a dense subgroup in common with U A , and both groups
are compact, so ψ(P ) = U A . In case (iii), UA is dense in ψ(P ), so ψ(P ) ≤ U A . In
either case, ψ(L) is generated by ψθ(G) and ψ(P ), so ψ(L) ≤ E, and hence ψ restricts
to a continuous homomorphism φ : L → E with the required properties (in particular,
φ is surjective in case (ii)). Moreover, in both cases the required properties specify φ
uniquely, since the condition on φθ ensures that φ is uniquely specified on a dense subset
of L.
We see from Theorem 7.5(i) that the embedding G → E is not dependent on the choice of
A, only on G and the commensurability class of U . Thus if (G, U ) is any faithful weakly
decomposable Hecke pair, we may define E to be the centraliser lattice completion
(LC-completion) of (G, U ), denoted ĜLC . For example, if G is a branch group, regarded
as a Hecke pair (G, G), then ĜLC is the congruence completion of G in the sense of
[3].
Theorem 7.5 is of interest even if (G, U ) is t.d.l.c., as it has implications for the topologies
that are compatible with the group structure of G. In this case, G = ĜLC as topological
groups. Notice that if G is second-countable, then |G : U | is countable.
In particular, we can prove a slightly more general form of Theorem V.
Corollary 7.6. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group that is faithful weakly decomposable. Let L be
a topological group and let θ : L → G be an abstract group isomorphism, such that one
of the following conditions holds:
(i) L is a t.d.l.c. group, and there exists an open compact subgroup U of L such that
θ(U ) is open and compact in G.
(ii) G is second-countable and the topology of L is a Baire space.
Then θ is continuous.
In particular, if G is second-countable, then the topology of G is the unique σ-compact
locally compact topology compatible with the group structure (in particular, it is preserved
65

by every automorphism of G as an abstract group), and the set of all locally compact
group topologies of G is in natural bijection with the set of fixed points of G acting on
LN (G) by conjugation.
Proof. By applying Theorem 7.5 to the group isomorphism θ −1 : G → L, we see that
there exists a continuous group homomorphism φ such that φθ −1 = idG . Clearly φ = θ.
In particular, if G is second-countable, then the topology of G is the coarsest group
topology on G that forms a Baire space, so in particular it is the coarsest locally compact
Hausdorff group topology on G. The remaining assertions follow from Theorem IV.

7.3

Subgroups abstractly generated by compact locally normal subgroups

Let G be a locally compact group. Recall that the group Aut(G) of homeomorphic automorphisms carries a natural Hausdorff group topology, called the Braconnier topology
(see Appendix I in [7]). Basic identity neighbourhoods in Aut(G) are provided by the
sets

A(K, U ) = α ∈ Aut(G) | ∀x ∈ K, α(x) ∈ U x and α−1 (x) ∈ U x ,
where K runs over compact subsets of G and U runs over identity neighbourhoods
of G. In particular, for each compact open subgroup U < G, the stabiliser {α ∈
Aut(G) | α(U ) = U } is an identity neighbourhood in Aut(G).
In what follows, automorphism groups of locally compact groups will always be implicitly
endowed with the Braconnier topology.
Lemma 7.7. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group, let I be a directed set, and let (Un )n∈I be a net
of open compact subgroups in G forming a base of identity neighbourhoods, such that
Ui < Uj whenever i > j. Let (αn )n∈I be a net in Aut(G) such that limn∈I αn (x) = x for
all x ∈ G.
If for each m ∈ I, there is some n0 ∈ I such that αn (Um ) = Um for all n ≥ n0 , then
(αn )n∈I converges to the identity with respect to the Braconnier topology.
Proof. Let K ⊂ G be a compact subset and U < G an identity neighbourhood.
Choose
S
Um ⊂ U . We can find a finite subset {x1 , . . . , xk } ⊂ K such that K ⊂ ki=1 Um xi . Since
(αn ) converges pointwise to the identity, so does the sequence (α−1
n ). Hence we may find
−1
n0 such that αn (xi ) ∈ Um xi and αn (xi ) ∈ Um xi for all n ≥ n0 .
Let now x ∈ K. Choose i such that Um x = Um xi . Thus we have
αn (x) ∈ αn (Um x) = αn (Um xi ) = Um αn (xi ) = Um xi = Um x.

66

Similarly, we get α−1
n (x) ∈ Um x. This shows that αn belongs to A(K, Um ) ⊂ A(K, U )
for all n ≥ n0 . Thus (αn ) converges to the identity with respect to the Braconnier
topology.
Definition 7.8. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group and let α ∈ LN (G). Define the compact
locally normal closure LN(G, α) of α in G to be the group generated by all compact
locally normal representatives of α.
We remark that LN(G, α) is a (not necessarily closed) subgroup of G with open normaliser, and if α is fixed by G then LN(G, α) is normal in G. If G is locally C-stable with
trivial quasi-centre and α ∈ LC(G), then it follows from Proposition 5.4 that LN(G, α)
is an open subgroup of QCG (α⊥ ), which in turn is a closed subgroup of Gα , and the
normaliser of LN(G, α) is exactly Gα .
Proposition 7.9. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group and let α be a fixed point of G in LN (G).
Let D = LN(G, α). Then the natural homomorphism G → Aut(D, T(α) ) induced by the
G-action by conjugation is continuous.
Proof. Since G commensurates the open compact subgroups of (D, T(α) ), it follows that
the homomorphism ϕ : G → Aut(D, T(α) ) induced by the conjugation action indeed takes
its values in the group of homeomorphic automorphisms of (D, T(α) ). Let (gn )n∈I ⊂ G
be a net converging to the identity in G.
Let us first show that ϕ(gn ) converges pointwise to the trivial automorphism. Let x ∈ D.
Let L1 , . . . , Lk beTcompact locally normal representatives of α such that x ∈ L1 L2 . . . Lk .
Then the group ki=1 NG (Li ) is open in G, and therefore contains gn for all sufficiently
large n. In particular, for such a large n, we have ϕ(gn ).x = gn xgn−1 ∈ L1 L2 . . . Lk . The
latter product being compact with respect to the localised topology T(α) , it follows that
the net of commutators (gn xgn−1 x−1 )n∈I is bounded in (D, T(α) ). Therefore, all we need
to show is that 1 is its only accumulation point.
Suppose for a contradiction that some subnet ([gf (n) , x])n∈I ′ converges to z 6= 1. Choose
a compact locally normal representative L of α which is sufficiently small so that z 6∈ L.
We have [gf (n) , x] ∈ Lz for all large n. In particular [gf (n) , x] ∈ Oz, where O is any open
compact subgroup of G containing L. Since z 6∈ L, we may choose O small enough so
that it does not contain z. Then O and Oz are disjoint so that [gf (n) , x] 6∈ O for all large
n. Since O is an open subgroup of G, we deduce that ([gf (n) , x])n∈I ′ does not converge
to the identity in G, which is absurd.
Let now L be a compact locally normal representative of α and let (Un )n∈I be as in
Lemma 7.7; we may assume Un ≤ NG (L) for all n ∈ I. Then the groups Lm = L ∩ Um
form a basis of identity neighbourhoods in (D, T(α) ). Clearly, for each m ≥ 0, we have
gn ∈ NG (Lm ) for all sufficiently large n. Lemma 7.7 now implies that ϕ(gn ) converges
to the identity with respect to the Braconnier topology.

67

Corollary 7.10. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group, and let α be a fixed point of G in LN (G).
Let D be an abstract normal subgroup of G generated by compact locally normal representatives of α, and let H = Γ.D where Γ is a discrete normal subgroup of G. Then
the natural homomorphism G → Aut(H, T(α) ) induced by the G-action by conjugation is
continuous.
Proof. Note that Γ is a discrete normal subgroup of (H, T(α) ), and we have H = Γ.D.
Note also that D is an open subgroup of LN(G, α) with respect to the localised topology
T(α) , so the Braconnier topology on Aut(D, T(α) ) is compatible with the Braconnier
topology on Aut(LN(G, α), T(α) ).
Let (gn ) be a net tending to the identity in G; let K ⊂ H be T(α) -compact and V ≤ H
be a T(α) -compact open subgroup. We need to show that [gn , K] ∪ [gn−1 , K] is contained
in V for all sufficiently large n. Since H = Γ.D, it suffices to deal with the case when
K = γC with γ ∈ Γ and C ⊂ D is T(α) -compact. For n large enough, we have [gn , γ] = 1
since Γ is contained in the quasi-center of G. Therefore [gn , γC] = γ[gn , C]γ −1 . Observe
that W = γ −1 V γ is a compact open subgroup of (H, T(α) ). By Proposition 7.9, we have
[gn , C] ⊂ W for all sufficiently large n. Hence [gn , γC] ⊂ V for all large n. The argument
with gn−1 instead of gn is similar.
In general, a compact subgroup of a t.d.l.c. group that is commensurate with a locally
normal subgroup need not itself be locally normal. For example, if G has trivial quasicentre, then the only finite locally normal subgroup is the trivial one, but G may still
have non-trivial finite subgroups. Proposition 7.9 leads to an interesting criterion for
compact subgroups to be locally normal.
Proposition 7.11. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group and let α ∈ LN (G). Let L be a compact
subgroup of G such that [L] = α. Then L is locally normal in G if and only if L ≤
LN(G, α).
Proof. If L is locally normal, then L ≤ LN(G, α) by definition.
Assume conversely that L ≤ LN(G, α). Since Gα is open, it follows that a subgroup
of G contained in Gα is locally normal in G if and only if it is locally normal in Gα .
Moreover, every locally normal representative of α is contained in Gα . Thus we have
LN(G, α) = LN(Gα , α), and there is no loss of generality in assuming that G = Gα .
Let D be the group LN(G, α) equipped with the localised topology T(α) . Note that
L is compact with respect to T(α) . Thus L is an open compact subgroup of D. In
particular the collection A(L, L) of automorphisms of D which stabilise L is an identity
neighbourhood with respect to the Braconnier topology on Aut(D). Since the natural
map G → Aut(D) is continuous by Proposition 7.9, there must be an open subgroup of
G that normalises L.

68

If U is an open compact subgroup of G that fixes α, there is a useful description of
LN(G, α) ∩ U .
Proposition 7.12. Let G be a t.d.l.c. group, let α ∈ LN (G) and let U be an open
compact subgroup of G such that U fixes α. Let L be a closed subgroup of U such that
[L] ≤ α. Then L ≤ LN(G, α) if and only if there is a closed normal subgroup M of U
such that L ≤ M and [M ] = α.
Proof. By Lemma 7.4, there is a normal subgroup N of U such that [N ] = α; by
definition, N ≤ LN(G, α).
Let L be a closed subgroup of U such that [L] ≤ α. Suppose L ≤ LN(G, α). By replacing
L with LN we may assume N ≤ L. By Proposition 7.11, L is locally normal in G. In
particular, L/N is a finite locally normal subgroup of U/N , so NU/N (L/N ) has finite
index in U/N , and hence CU/N (L/N ) has finite index in U/N . Now by Dietzmann’s
Lemma, it follows that the normal closure M/N of L/N in U/N is finite and hence
closed, so M is a closed normal subgroup of U such that [M ] = α.
Corollary 7.13. Let U be a profinite group and let L be a closed subgroup. Assume that
L is commensurated and locally normal in U . Then the abstract normal closure of L in
U is closed, and contains L as a finite index subgroup.
Proof. Let N be the abstract normal closure of L. Since α = [L] is fixed by G by
hypothesis, we have N ≤ LN(G, α). The previous proposition therefore implies that α
has a representative M that is normal in U and contains L. Thus M is closed, the index
of L in M is finite and we have L ≤ N ≤ M . Therefore N is closed and contains L as a
finite index subgroup.

References
[1] R. Baer, Finiteness properties of groups, Duke Math. J. 15 (1948), no. 4, 1021–1032.
[2] Y. Barnea, M. Ershov, T. Weigel, Abstract commensurators of profinite groups,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 363 (2011), no. 10, 5381–5417.
[3] L. Bartholdi, O. Siegenthaler, P. Zalesskii, The congruence subgroup problem for
branch groups, Israel Journal of Mathematics 187 (2012), Issue 1, 419–450.
[4] V. V. Belyaev, Locally finite groups with a finite nonseparable subgroup (Russian)
Sibirsk. Mat. Zh. 34 (1993), no. 2, 23–41, 226, 233. Translation in Siberian Math.
J. 34 (1993), no. 2, 218–232 (1994)

69

[5] N. Bourbaki, Groupes et algèbres de Lie. Chapitre II: Algèbres de Lie libres.
Chapitre III: Groupes de Lie. Actualités Scientifiques et Industrielles, No. 1349.
Hermann, Paris, 1972. 320 pp.
[6] M. Burger, Sh. Mozes, Groups acting on trees: from local to global structure, Publ.
Math. IHÉS 92 (2000), 113–150.
[7] P-E. Caprace, N. Monod, Decomposing locally compact groups into simple pieces,
Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 150 Nr. 1 (2011), 97–128.
[8] P-E. Caprace, C. D. Reid and G. A. Willis, Locally normal subgroups of totally disconnected groups. Part II: Compactly generated simple groups, preprint,
http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1401.3142.
[9] P-E. Caprace, T. Stulemeijer, Totally disconnected locally compact groups
with a linear open subgroup, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (to appear),
http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.8184.
[10] R. Cluckers, Y. Cornulier, N. Louvet, R. Tessera, A. Valette, The Howe-Moore
property for real and p-adic groups, Math. Scand. 109 (2011), no. 2, 201–224.
[11] A. P. Dietzmann, On the criteria of non-simplicity of groups. C. R. (Dokl.) Acad.
Sci. URSS, n. Ser. 44 (1944), 89–91.
[12] M. Hall Jr., The theory of groups. Reprinting of the 1968 edition. Chelsea Publishing
Co., New York, 1976.
[13] E. Hewitt and K. A. Ross, Abstract harmonic analysis, Berlin-Göttingen-Heidelberg
1963.
[14] N. Jacobson, Basic algebra. I. Second edition. W. H. Freeman and Company, New
York, 1985.
[15] S. Kakutani, K. Kodaira, Über das Haarsche Mass in der lokal bikompakten Gruppe.
Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 20, (1944). 444–450.
[16] J. L. Kelley, General topology. Reprint of the 1955 edition. Graduate Texts in
Mathematics, No. 27. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1975.
[17] L. Kramer, The topology of a semisimple Lie group is essentially unique, Adv. Math.
228 (2011), no. 5, 2623–2633.
[18] A. G. Kurosh, The theory of groups. Translated from the Russian and edited by K.
A. Hirsch. Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1960.
[19] R. McCallum, Rigidity of the group topology for p-adic semisimple groups and
automorphism groups of trees, http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1210.1405.

70

[20] R. G. Möller, J. Vonk, Normal subgroups of groups acting on trees and automorphism groups of graphs, J. Group Theory 15 (2012), no. 6, 831–850.
[21] V. Nekrashevych, Free subgroups in groups acting on rooted trees, Groups Geom.
Dyn. 4 (2010), no. 4, 847–862.
[22] C. D. Reid, The generalised Fitting subgroup of a profinite group, Communications
in Algebra 41 (2013), no. 1, 294–308.
[23] C. D. Reid, The profinite completion of a group localised at a subgroup,
http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1208.3554.
[24] G. Schlichting, Operationen mit periodischen Stabilisatoren, Arch. Math. (Basel)
34 (1980), no. 2, 97–99.
[25] P. Wesolek, Elementary totally disconnected locally compact groups, Proc. London
Math. Soc. (to appear).
[26] G. A. Willis, The structure of totally disconnected, locally compact groups, Math.
Ann. 300 (1994), no. 2, 341–363.
[27] J. S. Wilson, On Just Infinite Abstract and Profinite Groups, ch. 5 of New Horizons
in Pro-p groups, editors M. du Sautoy, D. Segal, A. Shalev, Birkhäuser, 2000.

71

