arXiv:1701.05987v2 [math.GR] 9 Oct 2017

Dynamics of isolated left orders
Shigenori Matsumoto

Abstract. A left order of a countable group G is called isolated if it is an
isolated point in the compact space LO(G) of all the left orders of G. We study
properties of a dynamical realization of an isolated left order. Especially we
show that it acts on R cocompactly. As an application, we give a dynamical
proof of the Tararin theorem which characterizes those countable groups which
admit only finitely many left orders. We also show that the braid group B3
admits countably many isolated left orders which are not the automorphic
images of the others.

1. Introduction
Throughout this paper, all the groups considered are countable. Given a group
G, a total order <λ on G is called a left order if for any f, g, h ∈ G, f <λ g implies
hf <λ hg. An element g ∈ G is called λ-positive if g >λ e. The set of all the
λ-positive elements is called the positive cone of λ and is denoted by Pλ . It is a
subsemigroup and Pλ ⊔ Pλ−1 = G \ {e}.
Given a left order <λ , we define λ : G \ {e} → {±1} by λ(g) = 1 if and only if
g ∈ Pλ . Then we have
(1.1)

λ(f ) = 1, λ(g) = 1 ⇒ λ(f g) = 1, and λ(f −1 ) = −λ(f ).

Conversely given a map λ : G \ {e} → {±1} which satisfies (1.1), we get a left
order <λ by setting f <λ g if λ(f −1 g) = 1. The map λ is also refered to as a left
order. Thus the set LO(G) of the left orders on G is viewed as a closed subset
of the space {±1}G\{e} with the pointwise convergence topology. This yields a
totally disconnected compact metrizable topology on LO(G) (metrizable since G is
countable). It is either finite or uncountably many [8]. We call λ ∈ LO(G) isolated
if it is an isolated point in the space LO(G).
Given λ ∈ LO(G), there is defined a dynamical realization
ρλ : G → Homeo+ (R)
based at x0 ∈ R such that f <λ g if and only if f x0 < gx0 . We discuss its fundamental properties in Section 2. Especially we show that the dynamical realization
is tight at the base point. See Definition 2.1.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 20F65. secondary 20F05.
Key words and phrases. left orderable groups, isolated left orders.
The author is partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) No. 25400096.
1

2

SHIGENORI MATSUMOTO

In this paper, we are mainly interested in isolated orders, since in this case,
the dynamical realizations display a certain kind of rigidity, and vice versa. In
[10] Theorems 1.2 and 1.3, the relation between the isolation of left orders and the
rigidity of the dynamical realization is described, as well as for circular orders.
An action ρ : G → Homeo+ (R) is said to be cocompact if there is a compact
interval I such that any orbit ρ(G)x intersects I. Our first result, proved in Section
3, is the following.
Theorem 1. If λ ∈ LO(G) is isolated, then its dynamical realization ρλ is
cocompact.
In fact if the group G is finitely generated, the dynamical realization is cocompact for any left order, isolated or not. Therefore Theorem 1 is mainly concerned
with non finitely generated groups. By Theorem 1, the dynamical realization of an
isolated order admits a minimal set M, which is shown to be unique unless G ∼
= Z.
In Section 4, we show that if M = R, then the group is rational (Theorem 4.1).
Given λ ∈ LO(G), a subgroup H of G is called λ-convex, if whenever h1 , h2 ∈ H,
g ∈ G and h1 <λ g <λ h2 , we have g ∈ H. The set of convex subgroups is totally
ordered by the inclusion. The following theorem is shown in Section 5.
Theorem 2. If λ ∈ LO(G) is isolated, then there are only finitely many λconvex subgroups.
This is known to specialists (see for example [4] Exercise 3.3.15). However, our
strategy of the proof is different from that mentioned in [4].
Theorem 2 enables us to define the maximal sequence of convex subgroups of
an isolated left order. As an application of our method, we give a dynamical proof
of the Tararin theorem which characterizes the groups with finitely many left orders
in Section 6. In Section 7, the maximal Tararin subgroup of an isolated left order
is defined, and is shown to be equal to the Conradian soul [12].
Last sections 8 and 9 are more or less independent of the previous sections.
Dubrovina-Dubrovin [2] constructed an isolated order λn on the braid group Bn ,
n ≥ 3. In section 9, we show:
Theorem 3. There are countably many isolated orders in LO(B3 ) which are
not the automorphic images 1 of the others.
The method is a modification of the proof of [10] Theorem 1.4. The following
theorem is the starting point of the proof of Theorem 3. Let
G = ha, b | a2 = b3 i,

G = hα, β | α2 = β 3 = ei,

and q : G → G the surjective homomorphism defined by q(a) = α and q(b) = β.
Notice that G is isomorphic to B3 , and G to P SL(2, Z). We denote by CO(G) the
space of the left invariant circular orders of G (see Section 8). In Section 9, we
show:
Theorem 4. The homomorphism q induces a homeomorphism q∗ : LO(G) →
CO(G).
1Given φ ∈ Aut(G) and λ ∈ LO(G), the left order φ∗ λ ∈ LO(G) defined by g < ∗ g ′ if
φ λ
and only if φ(g) <λ φ(g ′ ) is called an automorphic image of λ. For example, the reciprocal of the
natural order λ of Z is an automorphic image of λ.

3

Isolated left orders are often induced from isolated circular orders of the group
quotiented by the center. See [10] Section 5, for example. The above theorem is
also a typical example. However there is an example of a group with isolated left
orders which admits no center, constructed in [6] 3.2.
Acknowledgement. The author is grateful to Y. Matsuda for stimulating
conversations. Hearty thanks are due to the referee for many helpful suggestions.
2. Dynamical Realization
In this section, we define a dynamical realization of a left order λ ∈ LO(G) and
study its fundamenal properties. Fix an enumeration of G: G = {gi | i ∈ N} such
that g1 = e. We define an order preserving embedding ι : G → R inductively as
follows. Define ι(g1 ) = x0 , where x0 is some point in R. Assume we have defined
ι on the subset {g1 , . . . , gn }, n ≥ 1, and let us define ι(gn+1 ). Order the subset
{g1 , . . . , gn } as
gi1 <λ gi2 <λ · · · <λ gin .
If gn+1 <λ gi1 , define ι(gn+1 ) = ι(gi1 ) − 1,
if gin <λ gn+1 , ι(gn+1 ) = ι(gin ) + 1,
and if gik <λ gn+1 <λ gik+1 , ι(gn+1 ) = (1/2)(ι(gik ) + ι(gik+1 )).
Then we have inf ι(G) = −∞ and sup ι(G) = ∞. The left translation of G
yields an order preserving action of G on ι(G), which extends to a continuous
action on the closure Cl(ι(G)). Extend it further to a continuous action on R by
setting that the action on gaps of Cl(ι(G)) be linear.
This action is called the dynamical realization of λ based at x0 , and is denoted
by ρλ . The dynamical realization depends on the choice of the enumeration of
G. Soon later, we shall show that any two dynamical realizations are mutually
topologically conjugate.
Definition 2.1. An action ρ : G → Homeo+ (R) is called tight at x0 ∈ R if
(1) ρ is free at x0 i.e, the stabilizer at x0 is trivial,
(2) inf ρ(G)x0 = −∞, sup ρ(G)x0 = ∞, and
(3) whenever Cl(ρ(G)x0 )∩[a, b] = {a, b} for any a < b, we have {a, b} ⊂ ρ(G)x0 .
Proposition 2.2. The dynamical realization ρλ based at x0 is tight at x0 .
Proof. All that needs proof is (3). Let a < b be as in (3). The proof is by
contradiction. Assume, to fix the idea, that a 6∈ ρ(G0 )x0 = ι(G). (Notice that
ι(g) = ρλ (g)x0 .) Choose ǫ small enough compared with b − a, and choose ι(g1 ) ∈
(a − ǫ, a) and ι(g2 ) ∈ [b, b + ǫ). Recall that the dynamical realization is defined via
an enumeration of G. One may assume that there is no point in (ι(g1 ), ι(g2 )) ∩ ι(G)
which is enumerated before g1 or g2 , since otherwise one may pass to that point.
Since a ∈ Cl(ι(G)) \ ι(G), there is a point ι(g3 ) in (ι(g1 ), ι(g2 )) ∩ ι(G) which is
enumerated for the first time after g1 and g2 . Then ι(g3 ) is the midpoint of ι(g1 )
and ι(g2 ) and must be fallen in (a, b) since ǫ is small. A contradiction.

Corollary 2.3. The dynamical realizations defined via two different enumerations of G are mutually conjugate by an orientation and base point preserving
homeomorphism of R
Proof. Let ι and ι′ be two embeddings of G obtained by different enumerations of G. There is an orientation preserving bijection h : ι(G) → ι′ (G) defined by

4

SHIGENORI MATSUMOTO

h(ι(g)) = ι′ (g) (g ∈ G). By the tightness, h extends, first of all. to a homeomorphism h : Cl(ι(G)) → Cl(ι′ (G)), and then to a homeomorphism of R linearly on
gaps. The extended h yields the required conjugacy.

The proof of the previous corollary also yields the following result, which will
be used in Section 9.
Corollary 2.4. Let H be the set of the orientaion and base point x0 preserving
topological conjugacy classes of the homomorphisms G → Homeo+ (R) which are
tight at x0 . Then the dynamical realization induces an bijection of LO(G) onto
H.

A left order <λ is called discrete if there is a minimal λ-positive element, and
indiscrete otherwise.
Corollary 2.5. If λ ∈ LO(G) is indiscrete, then the orbit ρλ (G)x0 of the
base point x0 is dense in R.
Proof. Assume Cl(ρλ (G)x0 ) 6= R and let (a, b) be a gap of Cl(ρλ (G)x0 ). Then
by the previous lemma, we have a, b ∈ ρλ (G)x0 . That is, a = ι(g1 ) and b = ι(g2 ) for
some g1 , g2 ∈ G. Then g1−1 g2 is the minimal positive element, and λ is discrete. 
3. Proof of Theorem 1
We begin with two lemmas.
2.1.12).

The first one can be found in [11] (Proposition

Lemma 3.1. Let G be a finitely generated group which acts on R without global
fixed points. Then the action is cocompact.
Proof. We identify R ≈ (0, 1). Let G0 be a finite generating set of G. Define
a = sup sup |sx − x|.
s∈G0 x∈(0,1)

Choose a compact interval J ⊂ (0, 1) such that |J| > a. Given any point x ∈ (0, 1),
we have inf Gx = 0 and sup Gx = 1 since there is no global fixed point. Considering
the Schreier graph of Gx, one can show that Gx ∩ J 6= ∅.

Lemma 3.2. Let G be a group acting on R and let y0 ∈ R. Denote by Gy0 the
stabilizer of G at y0 . Assume Gy0 6= G. Given λ0 ∈ LO(Gy0 ), there are at least
two orders in LO(G) which restrict to λ0 on Gy0 .
Proof. Let µ be the G-invariant order on G/Gy0 given by the natural order
of the orbit Gy0 ≈ G/Gy0 in R. Then λ0 and µ determines a left order on G
lexicographically (Lemma 5.1). If we consider the reciprocal order −µ, we get
another one.

Assume λ ∈ LO(G) is an isolated left order on G. Since we are considering the
pointwise convergence topology, this is equivalent to the following condition (⋆)
(⋆)There is a finite subset S ⊂ Pλ such that λ is the only element in LO(G)
which contains S in its positive cone.
Such a subset S is called a characteristic positive set of λ.
Proof of Theorem 1. By the dynamical realization of the isolated left order
λ, the group G acts on R. Let H be the subgroup of G generated by a characteristic

5

positive set S of λ. If there is no global fixed point by the action of H, then H
acts on R cocompactly by Lemma 3.1, and hence also G, finishing the proof. In the
remaining case, choose a global fixed point y0 of H and consider Gy0 . We have
Gy0 6= G since the dynamical realization has no global fixed point, by its tightness.
By the previous lemma, the restriction of λ to Gy0 extends to two left orders of G.
But we have S ⊂ H ⊂ Gy0 and hence S is contained in the positive cone of both
orders. A contradiction.

Remark 3.3. The condition that λ be isolated is actually necessary for Theorem 1. To show this, let G be the infinite direct sum of Z, i.e,
G = {(an )n∈N | an ∈ Z, an = 0 but for finitely many n}.

Define a left order on G by setting 0 < (an ) if 0 < aN , where N is the largest
number such that aN 6= 0. Then its dynamical realization is not cocompact. To
show this, define for m ∈ N,
Gm = {(an ) | an = 0, ∀n > m}.

Then Gm ’s form an exhausting increasing sequence of convex subgroups. Consider
the dynamical realization ρλ based at x0 . The points
ξn = inf ρλ (Gn )x0 and ηn = sup ρλ (Gn )x0
are fixed points of ρλ (Gn ). They satisfy ξn ց −∞ and ηn ր ∞ by condition (2)
of Definition 2.1, since Gn is exhausting. This implies that ρλ is not cocompact.
Theorem 1 implies that there is a minimal set M for the dynamical realization
of an isolated left order.2 There is a trichotomy for M ([3] Proposition 6.1).
(I) M = R.
(II) M is infinite and discrete in R.
(III) M is locally Cantor. In this case, if X is a nonempty closed subset of R
invariant by the dynamical realization of G, then M ⊂ X. Especially, M is the
unique minimal set.
Lemma 3.4. Let λ ∈ LO(G) be isolated, with M an associated minimal set.
Assume (III) above, or (II) and G 6∼
= Z. Then the base point x0 is contained in a
gap I1 of M, the stabilizer GI1 is nontrivial, and there is no gap of M other than
the orbit of I1 .
Proof. We give a proof only for case (III). Case II can be treated much
easier. Notice that if ρ(G)x0 is discrete, then G ∼
= Z. Assume that the base
point x0 is contained in M and let (a, b) be a gap of M. Since the dynamical
realization ρλ is tight, we have a, b ∈ ρλ (G)x0 . But there is no orientation preserving
homeomorphism leaving M invariant and mapping a to b. The contradiction shows
that x0 is contained in a gap I1 of M.
If GI1 is trivial, then ρλ (G)x0 ∩I1 = {x0 }. Again by the tightness, the boundary
points of I1 must belong to ρλ (G)x0 . A contradiction. The last statement follows
similarly from the tightness.

2 The results of the remaining part of this section (trichotomy, Lemma 3.4 and Corollary
3.5) and Lemma 5.4 (1) (2) hold true whenever the left order λ admits a cocompact dynamical
realization, especially when G is finitely generated. But we shall state it only for an isolated left
order λ.

6

SHIGENORI MATSUMOTO

Corollary 3.5. If G ∼
6 Z, then the minimal set M of the dynamical realization
=
ρλ of an isolated left order λ is unique.
Proof. All that needs proof is the case where M is discrete, since a locally
Cantor minimal set is always unique. We still use the notation of the previous
lemma. If there is another minimal set M′ , then M′ ∩ I1 must be one point, say y0 ,
which is fixed by ρλ (GI1 ). But then ρλ (G)x0 ∩ I1 = ρλ (GI1 )x0 must be contained
in an open subinterval of I1 delimited by y0 , contrary to the tightness.

4. The case M = R
This section is devoted to the proof of the following theorem.
Theorem 4.1. Let λ ∈ LO(G) be isolated and assume that the dynamical
realization ρλ is minimal. Then the group G is isomorphic to an additive subgroup
A of Q such that A 6∼
= Z, and λ is either the natural left order given by A ⊂ Q ⊂ R
or its reciprocal.
This theorem might be known among specialists, but the author cannot locate
it in the literarue.
Let λ be an element of LO(G) which satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem 4.1.
We shall abbreviate the notations ρλ (g)x by gx, and ρλ (G) ⊂ Homeo+ (R) by G.
Let Z be the centralizer of G in Homeo+ (R).
Lemma 4.2. The centralizer Z is an abelian group which acts freely on R.
Proof. For ζ ∈ Z \ {id}, Fix(ζ) is a closed set which is invariant by G. Since
the G-action is minimal, we have Fix(ζ) = ∅. By Hölder’s theorem (e.g, [12]), any
group acting freely on R is abelian.

Let x0 be the base point of the dynamical realization. Choose xn ∈ Gx0 , n ∈ N,
such that xn → x0 , xn 6= x0 . Notice that G acts freely at xn . Let λn ∈ LO(G)
be the order determined by xn : g >λn e if and only if gxn > xn . Then λn → λ
in LO(G). Since λ is isolated, λn = λ for any large n. We assume λn = λ for
all n. Define an order preserving bijection ζn : Gx0 → Gxn by ζn (gx0 ) = gxn .
Since Gx0 = Gxn is dense in R, the map ζn extends to an orientation preserving
homeomorphism of R, denoted by the same letter ζn . Clearly ζn 6= id.
Lemma 4.3. We have ζn ∈ Z.
Proof. Given any g ∈ G, it suffices to show that ζn g = gζn on the dense
subset Gx0 . For any hx0 ∈ Gx0 , we have
ζn g(hx0 ) = ζn ((gh)x0 ) = ghxn = g(hxn ) = gζn (hx0 ),

as is required.



Lemma 4.4. The action of Z is minimal, and is conjugate to translations.
Proof. By Lemmas 4.2 and 4.3, there is an element in Z which acts freely
on R. This implies that the action of Z is cocompact. Let N be a minimal set of
Z. If it is locally Cantor, then N is the unique minimal set, and must be invariant
by G. But G-action is minimal by the assumption. A contradiction. Next assume
N is discrete. Then since the Z-action is free, we must have Z ∼
= Z, contradicting
Lemma 4.3. Therefore Z must act minimally on R.

7

Choose any ζ0 ∈ Z \ {id}. Since the action of the group hζ0 i is free and Z is
abelian, the group Z/hζ0 i acts on R/hζ0 i ≈ S 1 . Since Z/hζ0 i is amenable, there
is an Z/hζ0 i-invariant probability measure. It lifts to a locally finite Z-invariant
measure µ on R. Since the action of Z is minimal, µ is atomless and fully supported.
Thus there is a homeomorphism h such that h∗ µ is the Lebesgue. Conjugating the
Z-action by h, we obtain an action by translations.

Proof of Theorem 4.1. By changing the coordinate, we assume that the
action of Z is by translations. Since the Z-action is minimal, any element of G,
commutng with Z, acts also by translations. Then we have an injective homomorphism φ : G → R defined by the translation length. We shall show that φ embeds
G into Q. Assume not. Then G is a nontrivial direct sum: G = G1 ⊕ G2 . Given
any a ∈ R, we obtain a homomorphism φa : G → R by setting φa = φ on G1 and
φa = aφ on G2 . There is a arbitrarily near 1 such that φa is injective. But φa yields
a left order different from λ and arbitrarily near λ. This contradicts the assumption
that λ is isolated, finishing the proof that G is isomorphic to an additive subgroup
A of Q. The last statement of the theorem follows at once.

5. Convex subgroups
We shall prove Theorem 2 in this section. First we begin with fundamental
properties of convex subgroups. For the definition of convex subgroups, see Introduction. We begin with a well known easy fact.
Lemma 5.1. Let H be a subgroup of G. For any λ0 ∈ LO(H) and any Ginvariant total order λ1 on G/H, there is a unique order λ ∈ LO(G) such that H is
λ-convex, that λ|H = λ0 , and that for g 6∈ H, g >λ e if and only if gH >λ1 H. 
Such an order λ is said to be determined lexicographically by λ0 and λ1 .
Lemma 5.2. Let λ ∈ LO(G) and H a λ-convex subgroup of G. Then there is a
G-invariant total order λ1 on G/H such that λ is determined lexicographically by
λ|H and λ1 .
Proof. Define a total order λ1 on G/H by setting g1 H <λ1 g2 H if e <λ g1−1 g2
and g1−1 g2 6∈ H. The convexity of H shows that this is a well defined G-invariant
order.

If G is isomorphic to Z or if the minimal set of the dynamical realization of λ
is minimal, then there is no proper λ-convex subgroups, and Theorem 2 holds true.
Henceforth in this section we work under the following assumption.
S.

Assumption 5.3. (1) λ ∈ LO(G) is isolated with a characteristic positive set
(2) G is not isomorphic to Z.
(3) The minimal set M of the dynamical realization is not R.

Denote by I1 = (y0 , z0 ) the gap of M which contains the base point x0 (Lemma
3.4), and by G1 the stabilizer of I1 .
Lemma 5.4. (1) G1 is proper and nontrivial.
(2) G1 is the maximal proper λ-convex subgroup of G.
(3) The restricted order λ|G1 is isolated with characteristic positive set S ∩ G1 .
(4) S ∩ (G \ G1 ) 6= ∅.

8

SHIGENORI MATSUMOTO

Proof. The subgroup G1 is clearly proper. It is nontrivial by Lemma 3.4.
Also G1 is convex. Let H be an arbitrary proper λ-convex subgroup of G. We shall
show that H ⊂ G1 . Consider first the case where M is discrete. By looking at the
action of G on M, one can define a surjective homomorphism φ : G → Z such that
Ker(φ) = G1 . If φ(H) is nontrivial, then clearly we have H = G since H is convex.
If φ(H) is trivial, then H ⊂ G1 , as is required.
So in the rest, we assume that M is locally Cantor. Let H be the convex hull
of Hx0 in R. Then H is a bounded open interval of R. The boundedness follows
from the convexity and the properness of H. The convexity of H implies that for
any g ∈ G, we have either gH = H or gH ∩ H = ∅. Thus the closed set
[
X = R\
gH
g∈G

is G-invariant and nonempty. Therefore we have M ⊂ X, which implies H ⊂ I1 ,
showing that H ⊂ G1 .
Let us show that S ∩ G1 is a characteristic positive set of λ|G1 . If not, there
is a left order λ′0 (λ′0 6= λ|G1 ) of G1 such that S ∩ G1 is contained in the positive
cone of λ′0 . Let λ1 be the G-invariant total order on G/G1 obtained by Lemma 5.2.
Let λ′ ∈ LO(G) be the order determined lexicographically by λ′0 and λ1 . Then λ′
contains S in its positive cone and λ′ 6= λ, contradicting that S is a characteristic
positive set of λ.
Finally let us show that S ∩ (G \ G1 ) is nonempty. If it is empty, then λ|G1
and −λ1 lexicographically determines λ′ ∈ LO(G), where −λ1 is the reciprocal of
the order λ1 constructed in Lemma 5.2. But S is contained in the positive cone of
λ′ . A contradiction.

Proof of Theorem 2. By Lemma 5.4, we obtain the maximal proper convex
subgroup G1 . If G1 is not isomorphic to Z and the minimal set of λ|G1 is not the
whole R, then we can repeat the process and obtain the second maximal proper
convex subgroup G2 . This process ends at finite steps since each time the number
of elements of positive characteritic set decreases.

Definition 5.5. The sequence
G = G0 > G1 > · · · > Gn > {e}
of all the λ-convex subgroups is called the maximal convex sequence of the isolated
order λ. The number n is called the height of λ.
Thus an isolated left order with minimal dynamical realization has height 0.
Let M0 be the minimal set of G and I1 the gap of M0 containing the base point
x0 . Then the maximal proper λ-convex subgroup G1 is the stabilizer of I1 . By
Lemmas 5.1 and 5.2, λ|G1 is isolated, and there is a minimal set M1 of the G1 action on I1 . Next conside the gap I2 of M1 in I1 containing x0 . Continuing this
way, we get a decreasing sequence of open intervals
R ⊃ I1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ In .
Each subgroup Gi is the stabilizer of Ii , and each Mi is a minimal set of Gi in Ii .
The pair (Ii , Mi ) is called the i-th internal pair associated with the maximal convex
sequence. There are only two possibilities for the last group Gn :
(A) Mn = In ,

9

(B) Gn = Z.
In (A), the order λ is indiscrete and in (B), it is discrete.
As a Corollary of Theorem 4.1, we get the following proposition, which will be
used in the next section.
Proposition 5.6. If an isolated order λ has height 0, i.e, if there is no proper
λ-convex subgroup, then the group G is rational and the order λ is by the natural
order of G ⊂ Q ⊂ R or its reciprocal.
6. Tararin groups
Definition 6.1. A group G is called a Tararin group if |LO(G)| < ∞.

Of course any left order of a Tararin group is isolated. In this section, we
shall give a dynamical proof of the following theorem by Tararin [14]. See also [4]
(Theorem 2.2.12) or [9].
Theorem 6.2. (I) Assume |LO(G)| < ∞. Then the following holds.
(1) There is a unique rational series3
(6.1)

G = G0 ⊲ G1 ⊲ · · · ⊲ Gn ⊲ Gn+1 = {e}.

(The uniqueness implies that each subgroup Gi is characteristic, i.e, invariant by
any automorphism of G. Especially it is a normal subgroup of G.)
(2) There are elements si ∈ Gi \ Gi+1 for each i ∈ {0, 1, . . . , n} such that for
ǫ(i)
any map ǫ : {0, 1, . . . , n} → {±1}, there are exactly one order λǫ such that si is
positive. Moreover
LO(G) = {λǫ | ǫ ∈ {±1}{0,1,...,n} }.
(3) The sequence (6.1) is the maximal convex sequence for any λǫ .
(4) The quotient group Gi /Gi+2 , i ∈ {0, . . . , n − 1}, is not bi-orderable.

(II) Conversely, if a group G admits a rational series (6.1) such that Gi+2 is
a normal subgroup of Gi and Gi /Gi+2 is not bi-orderable (0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1), then
|LO(G)| = 2n+1 .

Proof. First of all let us show (II). We use the following easy fact.
If A is a rational group and φ : A → {±1} is a nontrivial homomorphism, then
for any nontrivial element g ∈ A, there are g0 ∈ A and n ≥ 1 such that g = gon and
φ(g0 ) = −1.
We shall show that G1 is λ-convex for any λ ∈ LO(G) by induction on the
height n of the sequence (6.1). Then G1 is Tararin since otherwise lexicographic
construction would yield infinitely many left orders of G. By the induction hypothesis, this implies that any Gi is λ-convex for any λ ∈ LO(G). Since any
Gi /Gi+1 is rational, and admits only two left orders, one can conclude then that
|LO(G)| = 2n+1 , as is required.
Consider an exact sequence
1 → G1 /G2 → G/G2 → G/G1 → 1.

By the induction hypothesis, G2 is λ|G1 -convex and there is a left order < on
G1 /G2 induced from λ|G1 . One can define a homomorphism φ′ : G → {±1}
according as the conjugation by an element of G preserves the order < on G1 /G2
3Rational series means that for any i, G /G
i
i+1 is a rational group, i.e, an abelian group
embeddable into Q.

10

SHIGENORI MATSUMOTO

or not. (Notice that there are only two orders on G1 /G2 ,) Since G1 /G2 is abelian,
φ′ induces a homomorphism φ : G/G1 → {±1}, which is nontrivial since G/G2 is
not bi-orderable.
To complete the proof, let us show that for any element g ∈ G \ G1 , g >λ e,
we have g −1 <λ G1 <λ g. There exist g0 ∈ G and n ≥ 1 such that g ≡ g0n mod G1
and φ′ (g0 ) = −1. Then for any h ∈ G1 \ G2 , h >λ e if and only if g0−1 hg0 <λ e.
Assume for a while that g0 >λ e. Then if h >λ e,
e <λ h <λ hg0 <λ g0 .
Applying h successively, we obtain
e <λ h <λ h2 <λ · · · <λ h2 g0 <λ hg0 <λ g0 .

If we put h1 = g0−1 hg0 , then
(6.2)

e <λ h <λ h2 <λ · · · <λ g0 h21 <λ g0 h1 <λ g0 .

By an analogous argument, we have
(6.3)

−1 −2
−2
g0−1 <λ g0−1 h−1
<λ h−1 <λ e.
1 < λ g 0 h1 < λ · · · < λ h

The elements h, h1 ∈ G1 \ G2 are λ|G1 -cofinal by the assumption that G2 is λ|G1 convex and G1 /G2 is rational. Therefore by (6.2) and (6.3), we obtain g0−1 G1 <λ
G1 <λ g0 G1 . For our initial g, since g ±1 G1 = g0±n G1 , we have g −1 G1 < G1 < gG1 ,
as is required. On the other hand, if g0 <λ e, then the same argument shows that
gG1 < G1 < g −1 G1 , contradicting the hypothesis g >λ e. This finishes the proof
of (II).
Now we shall proceed to the proof of (I). For a Tararin group G, let n(G) be
the minimal height of the elements of LO(G). We shall show (I) by the induction
on n(G). Let G be a Tararin group, λ ∈ LO(G) with height n = n(G), and G1
the maximal proper λ-convex subgroup. Then the lexicographic construction shows
that G1 is also Tararin, and n(G1 ) ≤ n − 1. Therefore by the induction hypothesis,
the maximal convex sequence of λ|G1
G1 ⊲ G2 ⊲ · · · ⊲ Gn+1 = {e}

is a unique rational series of G1 and Gi /Gi+2 is not bi-orderable (1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1).
We shall show that G1 is a normal subgroup of G, and G/G1 is a rational group.
But this is clear if the minimal set M of the dynamical realization ρλ is discrete. So
assume M is a locally Cantor set. Let x0 be the base point of ρλ , and choose gk ∈ G
so that ρλ (gk )x0 → ∃y0 ∈ M as k → ∞. One may assume that ρλ (gk )x0 belongs
to a distinct gap of M for each k. The left orders of G induced by the ρλ (G)-orbit
of ρλ (gk )x0 are finite in number. So one may assume, by passing to a subsequence,
that the left orders are the same. By the same argument as in Theorem 4.1, one can
construct order preserving homeomorphisms hk,k′ of Cl(ρλ (G))x0 which commute
with any ρλ (g) such that hk,k′ (ρλ (gk )x0 ) = ρλ (gk′ )x0 . The map hk,k′ leaves the
unique minimal set M of ρλ (G) invariant.
Consider the quotient space R of R obtained by collapsing each gap of M to
a point. Then hk,k′ induces an orientation preserving homeomorphism of R commuting with the induced action of ρλ (G). Let Z be the centralizer of the action on
R induced from ρλ (G) in the space of the orientation preserving homeomorphisms
of R. Then since the induced action of G is minimal, Z acts freely on R. In fact,
if an element of Z has nonempty fixed point set, then the fixed point set must be

11

G-invariant and coincides with R. Thus the action of Z is topologically conjugate
to translations.
By the choices of k, k ′ , there are arbitrarily small translations. That is, the
action of Z must be miminal. This shows that the induced G-action on R itself
is also by translations. Therefore G1 is the kernel of the induced G-action, and is
a normal subgroup of G. Finally, the left order of G/G1 induced by λ must be
isolated, and hence by Theorem 4.1, G/G1 is rational.
Since G1 is a normal subgroup of G, and Gi (i ≥ 2) is a characteristic subgroup
of G1 by the induction hypothesis, Gi , especially G2 , is a normal subgroup of G. We
shall show that H = G/G2 is not bi-orderable. Denote A = G1 /G2 and B = G/G1 .
There is an exact sequence
(6.4)

q

1 → A → H → B → 1.

Notice that H is Tararin, since otherwise lexicographic construction would yield
infinitely many left orders on G. The conjugation yields a homomorphism from H
to Aut(A), which projects to a homomorphism φ : B → Aut(A) since A is abelian.
Any automorphism of A ⊂ Q is the multiplication by a nonzero rational number.
Thus we get φ : B → Q× . If φ is negative valued, then H does not admit a bi-order,
and we are done. If φ is trivial, then projecting H = A × B ⊂ Q2 ⊂ R2 to R along
a one dimensional linear subspace of irrational slope yields an embedding of H into
R, from which we obtain infinitely many left orders on H. A contraction.
Assume φ is positive valued and nontrivial. Let {Bi } be an exhausting increasing sequence of subgroups of B which are isomorphic to Z, and let Hi = q −1 (Bi ).
Then the exact sequence
1 → A → Hi → B i → 1

is split. There is a representation fi : Hi → Aff + (R) to the group of the orientation
preserving affine transformatins of the real line such that A is mapped to translations (by A ⊂ Q itself) and that the split image of Bi is mapped to the homotheties
of ratio φ(Bi ) at some point of R. Two such representations are mutually conjugate by translations (regardless of the choice of the splittings). Therefore we can
arrange so that fi+1 is an extension of fi . As the direct limit, we get a faithful
representation f : H → Aff + (R). By considering the orbit of various points of R at
which f (H) acts freely, we get various left orders of H, leading to a contradiction.
This finishes the proof that H is not bi-orderable.
By the induction hypothesis, the groups Gi /Gi+2 , 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, are also not
bi-orderable. So the sequence
(6.5)

G = G0 ⊲ G1 ⊲ · · · ⊲ Gn ⊲ Gn+1 = {e}

satisfies the hypothesis of (II). We already know that the cardinality of LO(G) is
2n+1 .
Choose si ∈ Gi \ Gi+1 and let S = {s0 , . . . , sn }. For any ǫ : S → {±1}, define
ǫ(si )

S ǫ = {si

| i = 0, . . . , n}.

For any ǫ, we can construct a left order λǫ whose positive cone contains S ǫ ,
lexicographically using sequence (6.5). Such left orders exhaust LO(G), since
|LO(G)| = 2n+1 . This shows that a rational series of G is unique. In fact, any
such series gives birth to a left order lexicographically. The series is the maximal

12

SHIGENORI MATSUMOTO

convex sequence of that order, but all the 2n+1 orders have (6.5) as the maximal
convex sequence.

Remark 6.3. Let (Ii , Mi ) be the i-th internal pair associated with the maximal
convex sequence (6.1) of a Tararin group G. The next subgroup Gi+1 leaves the
gap Ii+1 of Mi in Ii invariant. But because Gi+1 is a normal subgroup of Gi , it
leaves all the iterates of Ii+1 under Gi invariant. By Lemma 3.4, these are the only
gaps of Mi . Therefore Gi+1 acts trivially on Mi . That is, there is an induced
action of Gi /Gi+1 on Mi . If Mi is discrete, then Gi /Gi+1 ∼
= Z, and the action on
Mi is by translation. Assume Mi is locally Cantor. Let Ri be the quotient space
obtained by Ii by collapsing each gap of Mi to a point. It is homeomorphic to R.
The quotient group Gi /Gi+1 acts on Ri minimally and freely. The whole action of
G on R is a “pileup” of translations. Any left order is discrete if and only if the
last group Gn is isomorphic to Z.
7. Maximal convex sequence
We shall raise one more example (other than the Tararin groups) of isolated
orders whose height is as big as possible. Let Bn be the braid group of n strings,
with the standard generators σ1 , · · · , σn−1 . Define
z1 = σ1 · · · σn−1 , z2 = σ2 · · · σn−1 , . . . , zn−2 = σn−2 σn−1 , zn−1 = σn−1 ,
(−1)i−1

. Let Pn be the subsemigroup of Bn generated by yi ’s. Based upon
and yi = zi
a result of P. Dehornoy [1], T. V. Dubrovina and N. I. Dubrovin [2] have shown a
remarkable fact that Pn ⊔ Pn−1 = Bn \ {e}. The left order λn whose positive cone
is Pn is called the Dubrovina-Dubrovin order. Since S = {y1 , . . . , yn−1 } generates
Pn , the order λn is isolated with characteristic positive set S. Moreover λn can be
defined lexicographically as a twist of the Dehornoy order [1], and the subgroups
∗
Bn−k
= hyk , · · · , yn−1 i = hσk , · · · , σn−1 i

are λn -convex. Since |S| = n − 1, they are the only convex subgroups by Lemma
5.4, and the maximal convex sequence is given by
(7.1)

∗
Bn > Bn−1
> · · · > B2∗ > {e}.

The height of λn is n − 2. The order λn is discrete since B2∗ ∼
= Z. The i-th minimal
set Mi of the i-th internal pair (Ii , Mi ) is locally Cantor, since each term in (7.1)
is not a normal subgroup of the previous term. In fact, the sequence (7.1) is,
algebraically, conjugate to the inclusions
Bn > Bn−1 > · · · > B2 > {e},

and each term cannot be normal in the previous term.
We shall construct countably many isolated orders of B3 in Section 9.
For an isolated order λ ∈ LO(G), we can define the maximal Tararin subgroup
Gi in its maximal convex sequence
G > G1 > · · · > Gn > {e}.
For λn , the maximal Tararin subgroup is B2∗ ∼
= Z, and its height is 0. We shall
raise questions about the isolated orders of non Tararin groups.
(7.2)

Question 7.1. Is there a non Tararin group with an isolated order whose
maximal Tararin subgroup has height ≥ 1?

13

Question 7.2. Is there a non Tararin group with an isolated and indiscrete
order?
There is a sufficient condition for a group to be Tararin in terms of an isolated
order on it.
Proposition 7.3. If the maximal convex sequence of an isolated order λ ∈
LO(G) is subnormal,4 then G is a Tararin group.
Proof. The proof is an induction on the height of λ. For height 0, this is true
by Proposition 5.6. Assume the height is ≥ 1 and consider the maximal convex
sequence of λ:
(7.3)

G = G0 ⊲ G1 ⊲ G2 ⊲ · · · ⊲ Gn ⊲ Gn+1 = {e}.

By the induction hypothesis, G1 is a Tararin group and the subsequence of (7.3)
that begins with G1 is the unique rational series in Theorem 6.2. Since each Gi
2 ≤ i ≤ n, is a characteristic subgroup of G1 and since G1 is a normal subgroup
of G, Gi is a normal subgroup of G. By virtue of lemmas 5.1 and 5.2, the order
induced from λ on G/G1 is isolated, and of height 0. Therefore G/G1 is a rational
group, by virtue of Proposition 5.6. That is, the sequence (7.3) is a rational series.
Finally let us show that H = G/G2 is not bi-orderable. Let A = G1 /G2 ,
B = G/G1 and consider the exact sequence
1 → A → H → B → 1.
As in the proof of Theorem 6.2, the conjugation defines a homomorphism φ : B →
Aut(A) ⊂ Q× . If φ is negative valued, then H is not bi-orderable, and we are done.
The order λ induces a left order λ0 of H, which is the lexicographical order
given by the orders of B and A. To fix the idea, assume that these two orders are
the natural one given by the inclusions B ⊂ Q and A ⊂ Q. Notice also that λ0 is
isolated, since λ is isolated.
If φ is trivial, then H = A × B. Consider the embeddings
A × B ⊂ Q 2 ⊂ R2 .

Let πn : R2 → R be the projection along a one dimensional subspace of irrational
slope kn . The projection πn maps A × B injectively to R, and this give a left order
λn of A × B. Clearly λn → λ0 as kn ↓ 0 (the y-coordinate becomes more and more
important). Thus λ0 is not isolated.
If φ is nontrivial and positive valued, there is an embedding φ of H into Aff + (R)
(Proof of Theorem 6.2). Points xn ∈ R at which φ(H) acts freely yield left orders
λn on H. As is observed by C. Rivas [13], we have λn → λ0 as xn → ∞ (the slope
of affine transformations becomes more and more important).

Corollary 7.4. Let λ ∈ LO(G) be isolated of height 1. If the minimal set of
the dynamical realization is discrete, then G is a Tararin group.
Proof. If the minimal set is discrete, then we get a surjective homomorphism
φ : G → Z and its kernel is a convex subgroup. By the previous proposition, G is
a Tararin group.

4each term is a normal subgroup of the previous term

14

SHIGENORI MATSUMOTO

Example 7.5. The above corollary does not hold if we remove the condition
that λ is height 1. Let us construct an example of isolated order λ ∈ LO(G) of
height 2 with discrete minimal set, where G is non Tararin. We start with the
braid group B3 . The subsemigroup P generated by y1 = σ1 σ2 and y2 = σ2−1 is the
positive cone of the Dubrovina-Dubrovin order λ3 . The group B3 is described as
B3 = hy1 , y2 | y2 y12 y2 = y1 i.

There is an automorphism φ of B3 which satisfies φ(y1 ) = y1−1 and φ(y2 ) = y2−1 .
Therefore if we define a group G by
G = hx, y1 , y2 | y2 y12 y2 = y1 , xy1 x−1 = y1−1 , xy2 x−1 = y2−1 i,
then B3 is a subgroup of G [5]. Let P̂ be the subsemigroup of G generated by x
and P . Then we have B3 = P ⊔ P −1 ⊔ {e}, xP = P −1 x, and G = P̂ ⊔ P̂ −1 ⊔ {e}.
To show the last statement, denote by hxi± the subsemigroup generated by x±1 .
Then hxi+ P −1 = P hxi+ ⊂ P̂ and hxi− P = P −1 hxi− ⊂ P̂ −1 . Since B3 is a normal
subgroup of G, we have
G = hxiB3 = (hxi+ ⊔ hxi− ⊔ {e})(P ⊔ P −1 ⊔ {e}),

and each term except {e} is contained either in P̂ or in P̂ −1 .
The left order λ on G determined by P̂ has B3 as a λ-convex normal subgroup.
In fact,
B3−1 x = (P ⊔ P −1 ⊔ {e})x = P x ⊔ P −1 x ⊔ {x} = P x ⊔ xP ⊔ {x} ⊂ P̂ ,

and likewise B3−1 x−1 ⊂ P̂ −1 , which means x−1 <λ B3 <λ < x. Since G/B3 ∼
= Z,
the minimal set associated to λ is discrete. The dynamics of λ is as depicted in
Figure 1.
x

B3
Figure 1. The dotted points form the minimal set M. The element x moves these points one to the right. The intervals bounded
by the points are invariant by B3 . The actions of B3 are opposite
in neighbouring intervals, showing the stability of the action.
A. Navas [12] has defined the Conradian soul Cλ for any λ ∈ LO(G). Let us
recall it briefly. A left order λ ∈ LO(G) of a group G is called Conradian if we have
g −1 hg 2 >λ e whenever g >λ e and h >λ e. Thus a bi-invariant order is Conradian.
Given an action of G on R, a point x ∈ R, is called resilient if there are an element
h of the stabilizer of x and a point y ∈ Gx \ {x} such that hn y → x as n → ∞. It
is shown [12] that λ ∈ LO(G) is Conradian if and only if the dynamical realization
of λ admits no resilient point.
For a general left order λ ∈ LO(G), a subgroup H < G is called λ-Conradian
if the restriction of λ to H is Conradian. The Conradian soul Cλ of λ is defined
to be the maximal convex Conradian subgroup. In other words, it is the union of
all the convex Conradian subgroups. The following proposition is a consequence of
[12], Proposition 4.1, which states that if a group G is non Tararin, a Conradian

15

order of G can never be isolated. But we will give a proof based upon Proposition
7.3.
Proposition 7.6. If λ is isolated, the maximal Tararin subgroup of λ coincides
with the Conradian soul of λ.
Proof. In the maximal convex sequence (7.2) of λ, let Gi be the maximal
Tararin subgroup. It follows from Remark 6.3, that the dynamical realization of
λ|Gi is a pileup of translations, and cannot have a resilient point. Thus Gi is
λ-Conradian. So it suffices to show that Gi−1 is not λ-Conradian, that is, the
dynamical realization of λ|Gi−1 admits a resilient point. It is no loss of generality
to assume that i = 1. That is, we assume that G is not a Tararin group, while its
maximal convex subgroup G1 is. By Proposition 7.3, G1 is not a normal subgroup
of G. Then the minimal set M is not discrete, and the action of G1 on M is
nontrivial. Choose g ∈ G1 which acts nontrivially on M. Since G1 leaves invariant
the gap I1 of M containing the base point x0 , we have Fix(g) ∩ M 6= ∅. Then
there are distinct points x, y ∈ M such that g(x) = x and either g n (y) → x or
g −n (y) → x as n → ∞. Since the action of G on M is minimal, the point y is
accumulated by the orbit of x. This shows that the point x is resilient.

8. Circular orders
In this section, we provide preliminary facts about circular orders.
3

Definition 8.1. For a countable group G, a map c : G → {0, 1, −1} is called
a left invariant circular order of G if it satisfies the following conditions
(1) c(g1 , g2 , g3 ) = 0 if and only if gi = gj for some i 6= j.
(2) For any g1 , g2 , g3 , g4 ∈ G, we have
c(g2 , g3 , g4 ) − c(g1 , g3 , g4 ) + c(g1 , g2 , g4 ) − c(g1 , g2 , g3 ) = 0.

(3) For any g1 , g2 , g3 , g4 ∈ G, we have

c(g4 g1 , g4 g2 , g4 g3 ) = c(g1 , g2 , g3 ).
Definition 8.2. Given a finite set F of G, a configuration of F in S 1 is an
equivalence class of injections ι : F → S 1 , where two injections ι and ι′ is said to be
equivalent if there is an orientation preserving homeomorphism h of S 1 such that
ι′ = hι.
Given a left invariant circular order c of G, the configuration of the set {g1 , g2 , g3 }
of three points is determined by the rule that g1 , g2 , g3 is positioned anticlockwise if
c(g1 , g2 , g3 ) = 1, and clockwise if c(g1 , g2 , g3 ) = −1. By condition (2) of Definition
8.1, this is well defined. But (2) says more. One can show the following proposition
by an easy induction on the cardinality of F .
Proposition 8.3. Given a left invariant circular order of G, the configuration
of any finite set F in S 1 is determined.

Denote by CO(G) the set of all the left invariant circular orders. It is equipped
with a totally disconnected compact metrizable topology, just as LO(G). An isolated left invariant circular order is defined using this topology. If c ∈ CO(G) is
isolated, then there is a finite set S of G, called a determining set, such that any
left invariant circular order which gives the same configuration of S as c is c.

16

SHIGENORI MATSUMOTO

Given c ∈ CO(G), we define a dynamical realization ρc : G → Homeo+ (S 1 )
based at y0 ∈ S 1 as follows. Fix an enumeration of G: G = {gi | i ∈ N} such
that g1 = e. Define an embedding ι : G → S 1 inductively as follows. First, set
ι(g1 ) = y0 and ι(g2 ) = y0 + 1/2. If ι is defined on {g1 , · · · , gn }, then there is
a connected component of S 1 \ {ι(g1 ), . . . , ι(gn )} where the point gn+1 should be
embedded, by virtue of Proposition 8.3. Define ι(gn+1 ) to be the midpoint of that
interval. Using the injection ι, we can define the action of G on S 1 just as in the
case of left orders. The action is called the dynamical realization of c based at
y0 and denoted by ρc . We shall raise fundamental properties of ρc . The proof is
completely parallel to the case of left orders.
Lemma 8.4. The dynamical realization ρc is tight at the base point y0 , i.e, it is
free at y0 and if I is a connected component of S 1 \Cl(ρc (G)y0 ), then ∂I ⊂ ρc (G)y0 .
Lemma 8.5. Two dynamical realizations obtained via different enumerations of
G are mutually conjugate by an orientation and base point preserving homeomorphism of S 1 .
Let M be a minimal set of the dynamical realization ρc of an isolated circular
order c. It is shown by K. Mann and C. Rivas [10] that (unlike left orders) M is
always a proper subset of S 1 . Summarizing with other properties, we get:
Lemma 8.6. If G is not finite cyclic, the minimal set M of the dynamical
realization ρc of any isolated circular order c ∈ CO(G) is unique. It is either a
finite set or a Cantor set.
Lemma 8.7. If G is not finite cyclic and c is isolated, then the base point y0
of the dynamical realization is contained in a gap I of the minimal set M, the
stabilizer GI of I is nontrivial, and there is no gap of M other than the orbit of I.
Definition 8.8. Let c be a circular order of G, isolated or not, and H a nontrivial subgroup of G. H is said to be c-convex if ρc (H) acts with global fixed points,
and ρc (G)y0 ∩ IH = ρc (H)y0 , where IH denotes the connected component of the
complement of the global fixed point set of ρc (H) containig y0 . The configuration
of ρc (H)y0 in IH defines a left order λ on H, which we call the left order on H
induced from c. The trivial subgroup is said to be c-convex.
Formally, this is equivalent to the following.
A subgroup H is c-convex if whenever c(h, e, h′ ) = c(h, g, h′ ) = 1 for some
′
h, h ∈ H and g ∈ G, then g ∈ H. The induced left order λ is defined in such a
way that e <λ h if there is h′ ∈ H such that c(h′ , e, h) = 1.
As shown in [10] Lemma 3.15, there is a unique maximal c-convex subgroup,
which we call the linear part of c. By virtue of Lemmas 8.6 and 8.7, we get the
following lemma.
Lemma 8.9. Assume G is not finite cyclic. Let M be the minimal set of the
dynamical realization of an isolated circular order c ∈ CO(G), and I the gap of
M which contains the base point y0 . Then the linear part of c coincides with the
stabilizer of I.
9. Isolated left orders on B3
In this section, using a method of [10], we construct countably many isolated
left orders on the braid group B3 , which are not the automorphic images of the

17

others. The group B3 has the following representations.
B3

=
=
=

hσ1 , σ2 | σ1 σ2 σ1 = σ2 σ1 σ2 i
hy1 , y2 | y2 y12 y2 = y1 i
ha, b | a2 = b3 i,

where the generators are related by

y1 = σ1 σ2 , y2 = σ2−1 , a = y2 y12 , b = y1 .
The Dubrovina-Dubrovin order λ3 is the unique left order on B3 which satisfies
y1 >λ3 e and y2 >λ3 e, equivalently e <λ3 a <λ3 b. To show the equivalence,
assume y1 >λ3 e and y2 >λ3 e. Then
a = y2 y12 >λ3 e, and a−1 b = y1−2 y2−1 y1 = y1−2 y2−1 (y2 y12 y2 ) = y2 >λ3 e.
The converse is shown similarly.
Henceforth in this section we denote by G the braid group B3 and by G its
quotient by the center. Namely, we put
G = ha, b, t | a2 = b3 = ti,

G = hα, β | α2 = β 3 = ei,

and q : G → G to be the surjective homomorphism satisfying q(a) = α and q(b) = β.
Let τ be the translation of R by 1, and p : R → S 1 = R/hτ i the canonical
projection. Denote by HomeoZ (R) the group of all the homeomorphisms of R
which commute with τ . It is the universal covering group of Homeo+ (S 1 ). Denote
by π : HomeoZ (R) → Homeo+ (S 1 ) the covering map. Let H± be the set of the
orientation and the base point x0 preserving topological conjugacy classes of the
homomorphisms ρ : G → HomeoZ (R) which are tight at x0 and satisfy ρ(t) =
τ ±1 . Since t is cofinal for any left order, H = H+ ∪ H− is identified with LO(G)
±
via dynamical realization (Corollary 2.4). Likewise denote by H the set of the
orientation and the base point y0 = p(x0 ) preserving topological conjugacy classes
of the homomorphisms ρ : G → Homeo+ (S 1 ) which are tight at y0 and satisfy
+
−
rot(ρ(β)) = ±1/3. Then H = H ∪ H is identified with CO(G).
±
Define a map q∗ : H± → H by (q∗ ρ)(g) = π(ρ(g)), where ρ ∈ H± , g ∈ G and
g ∈ G is any element such that q(g) = g. There is a commutative diagram
G
↓q
G
±

ρ

→
q∗ ρ

→

HomeoZ (R)
↓π
Homeo+ (S 1 ).

Define a map π ∗ : H → H± for ρ ∈ G by
• (π ∗ ρ)(a) is the lift of ρ(α) to HomeoZ (R) whose square is τ ±1 , and
• (π ∗ ρ)(b) is the lift of ρ(β) to HomeoZ (R) whose cube is τ ±1 .
Also we have a commutative diagram
G
↓q
G

π∗ ρ

→
ρ

→

HomeoZ (R)
↓π

Homeo+ (S 1 ).

It is clear that q∗ and π ∗ map the conjugacy classes to the conjugacy classes. We
have π ∗ q∗ = q∗ π ∗ = id. Thus we obtain a bijection q∗ : LO(G) → CO(G) and its
inverse π ∗ .
We shall show the following theorem (Theorem 4 in the introduction).

18

SHIGENORI MATSUMOTO

Theorem 9.1. The map q∗ : LO(G) → CO(G) is a homeomorphism.
Proof. Let us show that q∗ is continuous. For any λ ∈ LO(G), let c = q∗ (λ) ∈
CO(G). Choose arbitrary elements g1 , . . . , g n of G and consider their configuration
in S 1 with respect to c. This is the same as the configuration of ρ(g 1 )y0 , . . . , ρ(g n )y0
in S 1 , where ρ ∈ H is a dynamical realization of c. Let ρ = π ∗ (ρ) ∈ H, a dynamical
realization of λ. Choose gi ∈ G such that q(gi ) = g i and e ≤λ gi <λ t (1 ≤ i ≤ n).
The configuration of ρ(g1 )x0 , . . . , ρ(gn )x0 in R coincides with the configuration of
g1 , · · · , gn with respect to λ. Choose any λ′ ∈ LO(G) whose configuration of
e, g1 , · · · , gn , t is the same as λ. Then the configuration of g1 , · · · , gn of q∗ (λ′ ) is
the same as c, showing the continuity of q∗ . Thus the compact sets LO(G) and
CO(G) are homeomorphic by q∗ .

By virtue of the previous theorem, Theorem 3 in the introduction reduces
to the following theorem. This is because any automorphism of G induces an
automorphism of G.
Theorem 9.2. There are isolated circular orders c(k) ∈ CO(G), (k > 0, k ≡
±1mod 6) which are not the automorphic images of the others.
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of this theorem. There is an
isomorphism ι : G ∼
= P SL(2, Z) which satisfies




0 −1
1 1
ι(α) =
, ι(β) =
.
1 0
−1 0

Let us define a homomorphism ρM : G → Homeo+ (S 1 ), called the modular
representation, as the composite
ι

G∼
= P SL(2, Z) ⊂ P SL(2, R) ⊂ Homeo+ (S 1 ),

where the last inclusion is via the identification S 1 ≈ R ∪ {∞}.
For the dynamics of the modular representation ρM , see Figure 2. The open
disk bounded by the circle is the Poincaré half plane H. The element ρM (α) is the
∞
ρM (αβ)

ρM (β)
−1

ω

i

ρM (α)

0
Figure 2.
√
1/2-rotation around i, and ρM (β) the 1/3-rotation around ω = (−1 + −3)/2. The
element ρM (αβ) is a parabolic transformation which fixes the point 0 and moves

19

points on S 1 \ {0} clockwise, as is depicted in Figure 2. The Fuchsian group ρM (G)
is of the first kind, that is, the action ρM is minimal.
Let us define another Fuchsian representation5 ρ : G → Homeo+ (S 1 ), a deformation of ρM . Choose a point ω ′ on the geodesic which passes through i and ω,
but slightly farther than ω from i: d(ω ′ , i) > d(ω, i). See Figure 3. We set ρ(α) to
be the same as ρM (α), the 1/2-rotation around i, and ρ(β) the 1/3-rotation around
ω ′ . We put the base point y0 = 0. The Fuchsian group ρ(G) is of the second kind.
Its limit set M is the unique minimal set of the action ρ and is homeomorphic
to a Cantor set. The fundamental domain P in Figure 3 is to be a closed disk
in Cl(H) = H ∪ S 1 . The translates of P tesselate Cl(H) \ M, and therefore the
translates of the interval P ∩ S 1 tesselate S 1 \ M. In particular y0 (depicted as e
β

α

αβ 2 α

ρ(αβ)

βα
β2

ω′

P

αβ 2

i αP

β2P

σ−
β 2 α e αβ

αβP

αβα

σ+

ρ(αβ)
Figure 3. e indicates the base point y0 = 0 and g indicates the
point ρ(g)y0 . P is a fundamental domain of ρ(G).
in Figure 3) is contained in a gap of M. The element ρ(αβ) is hyperbolic whose
axis is depicted by the dotted line in Figure 3. Let σ− (σ+ ) be the source (resp.
sink) of ρ(αβ). The open interval 6 I1 = (σ− , σ+ ) is a gap of M containing y0 .
Since the translates of P ∩ S 1 tesselate S 1 \ M, there are no gaps of M other than
the translates of I1 . This shows that ρ acts tightly at y0 . Thus ρ is a dynamical
realization of a circular order c ∈ CO(G). The linear part of c is the subgroup hαβi
by Lemma 8.9.
Let us show first of all that c is isolated. In [10], Proposition 3.3, the authors
showed that the dynamical realization is continuous. More precisely, they showed
the following.
5 A Fuchsian representation is a discrete faithful representation into P SL(2, R). We fix an
inclusion P SL(2, R) ⊂ Homeo+ (S 1 ), and consider it as a representation into Homeo+ (S 1 ).
6Given two points x, y ∈ S 1 , we define (x, y) = {t ∈ S 1 | x ≺ t ≺ y}, where ≺ is the
anticlockwise circular order of S 1 .

20

SHIGENORI MATSUMOTO

Proposition 9.3. Given any neighbourhood U of ρ in Hom(G, Homeo+ (S1 )),
there is a neighbourhood V of c in CO(G) such that any element in V has a conjugate of its dynamical realization contained in U .
Let γ1 = β 2 αβα and γ2 = αβαβ 2 . (They generate the commutator subgroup
of G, which is of index 6. But we do not use this.) Below we indicate the point
ρ(g)y0 simply by g. Let
K1− = [αβ 2 , αβ 2 α], K1+ = [β 2 , β 2 α], K2− = [β, βα], K2+ = [αβ, αβα].
Then γ1 (S 1 \K1− ) = Int(K1+ ) and γ2 (S 1 \K2− ) = Int(K2+ ). Define open intervals J1− ,
α

β

αβ 2 α

I3
J2−

J1−

γ2

γ1

αβ 2

βα
β2

I2

I4

J1+

αβα

J2+
I1

σ−

σ+

αβ
e
Figure 4. γ1 = β 2 αβα maps αβ 2 α to β 2 and αβ 2 to β 2 α. γ2 =
αβαβ 2 maps β to αβα and βα to αβ.
β2α

J1+ , J2− and J2+ , slightly bigger than K1− , K1+ , K2− and K2+ . See Figure 4. Recall
the interval I1 , the gap of M containing y0 , and let I2 = ρ(αβ 2 )I1 , I3 = ρ(α)I1
and I4 = ρ(βα)I1 (Figure 4). They are gaps of the minimal set M and the orbit
ρ(G)y0 is discrete in each of them. Especially the point αβ (resp. αβα) is the
leftmost (resp. rightmost) point of ρ(G)y0 ∩ J2+ . More generally, points of ∂Ki± are
extremal in ρ(G)y0 ∩ Ji± . They are called the gardians of the interval with respect
S
to ρ. Notice that there are just two points of ρ(G)y0 outside of i,± Ji± , namely
y0 and ρ(α)y0 (denoted by e and α in Figure 4).
Define a nighbourhood U of ρ in Hom(G, Homeo+ (S1 )) such that each element
′
ρ ∈ U satisfies the following conditions.
(1) ρ′ (γi ) maps the closed set S 1 \ Ji− into the open set Ji+ (i = 1, 2).
(2) The configuration of ρ′ (g)y0 in S 1 for ten elements
(9.1)

g = e, αβ, αβα, αβ 2 , αβ 2 α, α, β, βα, β 2 , β 2 α

is the same as for ρ (Figure 4), as well as their configuration with respect to the
four intervals Ji± .

21

Take a nighbourhood V of c as in Proposition 9.3, and for any c′ ∈ V , let
ρ be a conjugate of a dynamical realization of c′ which is contained in U . Then
by the ping-pong argument, the circular order of the orbit ρ′ (G)y0 is uniquely
determined. Let us show this a bit in detail. Call ten points ρ′ (g)y0 (g as in (9.1))
of the first generation. The images of points of the first generation by γi±1 which
are not themselves of first generation are called of second generation. Then the
configuration of the points of first and second generations are uniquely determined.
In fact, the gardians ρ′ (αβ 2 )y0 and ρ′ (αβ 2 α)y0 of the interval J1− is mapped by
ρ′ (γ1 ) to the gardians ρ′ (β 2 α)y0 and ρ′ (β 2 )y0 of J1+ , and all the other eight points
are mapped into the interval in J1+ boounded by the latter gardians. The same
is true for γ1−1 and γ2±1 . Since γi±1 are orientation preserving, the configuration
of the points of the first and second generation is uniquely determined. Next we
define
points of third generation in a similar way. These points are contained in
S
±
+
J
i,± i . For example, those contained in J1 are the images of the points of second
generation in S 1 \ J1− by ρ′ (γ1 ). The cofiguration of these points, together with
the points of first and second generations, is uniquely determined. Continuing this
way, we see that the natural circular order of the whole orbit ρ′ (G)y0 is uniquely
determined, that is, the same as ρ(G)y0 . This shows that c′ = c, i.e, c is isolated.
Define c(1) in Theorem 9.2 to be this c.
′

For k > 1, denote by pk : S 1 → S 1 the k-fold covering map. A representation
ρ(k) : G → Homeo+ (S 1 ) is called a k-fold lift of ρ if pk ρ(k) (g) = ρ(g)pk holds for
any g ∈ G. There is a k-fold lift ρ(k) of our representaion ρ if and only if k ≡ ±1
mod 6, and it is unique if it exists. Computation shows that if k = 6ℓ ± 1, then
(9.2)

rot(ρ(k) (αβ)) = ∓ℓ/k.

Notice that (k, ℓ) = 1. We fix such k.
Let y0µ , 1 ≤ µ ≤ k, be the lifts of the point y0 by pk . The the natural circular
order of the orbit ρ(k) (G)y0µ in S 1 is the same for any µ. Denote it by c(k) ∈
±
(µ = 1, . . . , k) be the connected
CO(G). Let us show that c(k) is isolated. Let Ji,µ
−1
±
components of pk (Ji ).
Define a nighbourhood U (k) of ρ(k) such that each element ρ′ ∈ U (k) satisfies
the following conditions.
S −
+
into Ji,ν
(i = 1, 2), where ν is
(1) ρ′ (γi ) maps each component of S 1 \ µ Ji,µ
+
(k)
determined so that ρ (γi ) maps the same component into Ji,ν
.
µ
′
1
(2) The configuration of 10k points ρ (g)y0 in S (g as in (9.1) and 1 ≤ µ ≤ k) is
±
the same as ρ(k) . Their configuration relative to Ji,µ
is also the same.
Then the same ping-pong argument shows that the natural circular order of
′
(k)
ρ′ (G)(p−1
is uiquely determined. In particular, the natural
k (y0 )) for ρ ∈ U
µ
′
circular order of ρ (G)y0 is the same as for ρ(k) , showing that c(k) is isolated.
Finally let us show that c(k) ’s are not the automorphic images of the others,
by considering their linear parts. In G = P SL(2, Z), any element of infinite order
is a multiple of a unique primitive element. This can be shown by considering the
modular representaion ρM : the fixed point set of any element of infinite order is
either one point of ∂H or a two point set of ∂H, and the isotropy group of the fixed
point set is infinite cyclic.

22

SHIGENORI MATSUMOTO

As we have seen above, the linear part of c(1) is generated by a primitive
element (αβ)±1 . The equality (9.2) shows that the linear part of c(k) is generated
by (αβ)±k . For different choices of k and k ′ , there is no automorphism of G which
′
maps (αβ)±k to (αβ)±k . This finishes the proof of Theorem 9.2.
Remark 9.4. The left order λ = π ∗ c(1) ∈ LO(G) is the Dubrovina-Dubrovin
order, since it satisfies e <λ a <λ b. It can be shown that λ′ = π ∗ c(5) is the unique
left order which satisfies
(ab)5 t−4 <λ′ e <λ′ a <λ′ (ab)5 t−4 a.
References
[1] P. Dehornoy, From large cardinals to braids via distributive algebra, J. Knot Th. Ram.
4(1995), 33-79.
[2] T. V. Dubrovina and N. I. Dubrovin, On braid groups, Mat. Sb. 192(2001), 693-703.
[3] B. Deroin, V.Kleptsyn, A. Navas and K. Parwani, Symmetric random walks on Homeo+ (R),
Annal. Prob. 41(2013), 2069-2087.
[4] B. Deroin, A. Navas and C. Rivas, Groups, Orders and Dynamics, Preprints,
arXiv:1408.5805v2.
[5] G. Higman, B. H. Neumann and H. Neumenn, Embedding theorems for groups, J. London
Math. Soc. 24(1949), 247-254.
[6] T. Ito, Construction of isolated left orderings via partially central cyclic amalgamations,
Tohoku Math. J. 68 (2016), 49-71.
[7] T. Ito, Isolated orderings on amalgamated free products, To appear in Groups, Geom. Dyn.
[8] P. Linnel, The space of left orders of a group is either finite or uncountable, Bull. London
Math. Soc. 43(2011), 200-202.
[9] V. Kopitov and N. Medvedev, Right ordered groups, Siberian School of Albebra and Logics,
Plenum Publ. Co., New York (1996).
[10] K. Mann and C. Rivas, Group orderings, dynamics and rigidity, arXiv:1607.00054.
[11] A. Navas, Groups of circle diffeomorphisms, Chicago Lectures in Mathematics, 2011.
[12] A. Navas, On the dynamics of left-orderable groups, Anal. Inst. Fourier 60(2010), 1685-1740.
[13] C. Rivas, On spaces of conradian group orderings, J. Group Theory 13(2010), 337-353.
[14] V. Tararin, On groups having a finite number of orders, Dep. Viniti, Moscow, 1991.
Department of Mathematics, College of Science and Technology, Nihon University, 1-8-14 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8308 Japan
E-mail address: matsumo@math.cst.nihon-u.ac.jp

