Bounded normal generation is not equivalent to
topological bounded normal generation

arXiv:1801.01329v1 [math.GR] 4 Jan 2018

Philip A. Dowerk∗ and François Le Maître†
January 8, 2018

Abstract
We show that some derived L1 full groups provide examples of non simple
Polish groups with the topological bounded normal generation property. In
particular, it follows that there are Polish groups with the topological bounded
normal generation property but not the bounded normal generation property.

1

Introduction

The study of how quickly the conjugacy class of a non-central element generates the
whole group has often turned out to be useful in understanding both the algebraic
and topological structure of the given group. For example, such results on involutions by Broise [Bro67] were crucial in de la Harpe’s proof of simplicity of projective
unitary groups of some von Neumann factors [dlH79], while analogous results by
Ryzhikov [Ryz85] are used in the proof automatic continuity of homomorphisms
for full groups of measure-preserving equivalence relations by Kittrell and Tsankov
[KT10].
A group G has bounded normal generation (BNG) if the reunion of the conjugacy
classes of any nontrivial element and of its inverse generate G in finitely many steps.
Observe that any group with bounded normal generation is simple. Bounded normal
generation already appears in Fathi’s result that the group of measure-preserving
transformations of a standard probability space is simple [Fat78], but the name was
only given recently in [Dow15, DT15].
Obtaining bounded normal generation with a sharp number of steps is a crucial
point of the seminal article [LS01] by Liebeck and Shalev concerning bounds on the
diameter of the Cayley graph of a finite simple group. Other applications of bounded
normal generation can be found in the first named author’s work together with Thom
[Dow15, DT15] concerning invariant automatic continuity and the uniqueness of
Polish group topologies for projective unitary groups of certain operator algebras,
in particular for type II1 von Neumann factors.
∗
†

Research supported by ERC CoG No. 614195 and by ERC CoG No. 681207.
Research supported by Projet ANR-14-CE25-0004 GAMME.

1

The notion of bounded normal generation can be topologized: a topological
group G has topological bounded normal generation if the conjugacy classes of every
nontrivial element and of its inverse generate a dense subset of G in finitely many
steps. This definition was introduced in [Dow15] to give a clean structure to the proof
of bounded normal generation for projective unitary groups of II1 factors: prove
topological bounded normal generation via some finite-dimensional approximation
methods in the strong operator topology, then use some commutator tricks and
results on symmetries to obtain bounded normal generation.
However, it is a priori not clear whether bounded normal generation and topological bounded normal generation are the same properties. Basic examples of non
simple topologically simple groups such as the symmetric group over an infinite set
or the projective unitary group of an infinite dimensional Hilbert space actually fail
topological bounded normal generation (see Cor. 2.6). In fact, this problem was
left open in [Dow15] and is the main point of this article: we provide examples that
separate bounded normal generation from its topological counterpart. Actually, we
show that there are Polish groups which have topological bounded normal generation
but which are not even simple.
The groups that serve our purposes are called derived L1 full groups, introduced
by the second named author in [LM16] as a measurable analogue the derived groups
of small topological full groups. Let us now state our main result, see Section 2 for
definitions.
Theorem A (see Thm. 4.4). The derived L1 full group of any hyperfinite ergodic
graphing has topological bounded normal generation.
In the above theorem we can moreover estimate how many products of conjugacy
classes of a non-trivial element and its inverse in the derived L1 full group we need
to generate a dense subset, see Thm. 4.4.
We do not know wether one can remove the hyperfiniteness asumption in Theorem A. As a concrete example of this result, one can consider the derived L1 full
group of a measure-preserving ergodic transformation, which was already known to
be non-simple but topologically simple [LM16]. Using reconstruction-type results,
we can show that this provides many examples of non simple groups with topological
bounded normal generation.
Theorem B (see Cor. 5.4). There are uncountably many pairwise non-isomorphic
Polish groups which have topological bounded normal generation but fail to be simple
(in particular they fail bounded normal generation).
The article is structured as follows: in Section 2 we provide preliminaries around
bounded normal generation and define derived L1 full groups of graphings, in Section
3 we show that for hyperfinite graphings these groups contain a dense subgroup in
which every element is a product of two involutions, in Section 4 we use this to
prove Theorem A (see Thm. 4.4) and finally in Section 5 we prove a reconstruction
theorem for derived L1 full groups and use it to prove Theorem B (see Cor. 5.4).

2

2

Preliminaries

2.1

Topological bounded normal generation

If G is a group and g ∈ G, we write g ±G = {hgh−1 : h ∈ G} ∪ {hg −1 h−1 : h ∈ G}.
Given a subset A of G, we moreover write A·n for the set of products of n elements
of A, that is
A·n = {a1 · · · an : a1 , ..., an ∈ A}.
The following definitions are taken from [Dow15, DT15].
Definition 2.1. A group G has bounded normal generation (BNG) if for every
non-trivial g ∈ G, there is n(g) ∈ N such that
g ±G

·n(g)

= G.

A function n : G \ {1} → N satisfying the above assumption is then called a normal
generation function.
Observe that BNG implies simplicity. An example of a simple group without
BNG is given by finitely supported permutations of signature 1 on an infinite set.
Let us now define the topological version of BNG.
Definition 2.2. A topological group G has topological bounded normal generation (TBNG) if for every non-trivial g ∈ G, there is n(g) ∈ N such that
(g ±G )·n(g) = G.
We still call a function n : G \ {1} → N satisfying the above assumption a normal
generation function.
The purpose of this paper is to exhibit examples of non-simple topological groups
with TBNG. Let us first explain why the first examples of non simple topologically
simple groups which come to mind actually fail TBNG.
Definition 2.3. Let G be a topological group. A lower semi-continuous invariant length function on G is a map l : G → [0, +∞] such that
(i) l(1G ) = 0;
(ii) l(g −1 ) = l(g) for all g ∈ G;
(iii) l(gh) 6 l(g) + l(h) for all g, h ∈ G;
(iv) l(ghg −1) = l(h) for all g, h ∈ G;
(v) for all r > 0, the set l−1 ([0, r]) is closed.
Such a function is unbounded if for all K ∈ N there is g ∈ G such that l(g) ∈
]K, +∞[.

3

Example 2.4. On the symmetric group over a discrete set X endowed with the
pointwise convergence topology, one can let l(g) be the cardinality of the support of
g. If X is infinite, then such a length function is unbounded.
On the unitary group of a Hilbert space endowed with the strong topology, one
can let l(g) be the minimum over λ ∈ S1 of the rank of (g −λidH ) or of the trace class
norm of (g − λidH ). If the Hilbert space is infinite dimensional, then such a length
function is unbounded and quotients down to an unbounded lower semi-continuous
length function on the projective unitary group.
Observe that if we have an invariant length function on G then the group of
elements of finite length is a Fσ normal subgroup of G. Moreover, we have the
following straightforward proposition.
Proposition 2.5. If a topological group G admits an unbounded lower semi-continuous
invariant length function, then it fails TBNG.
Proof. Let l be an unbounded lower semi-continuous invariant length function on G.
By unboundness we find g ∈ G with l(g) ∈]0, +∞[ (in particular g is non-trivial).
Fix n ∈ N and let N = n · l(g). Observe that (g ±G )·n ⊆ l−1 ([0, N]), and since the
latter is closed we also have (g ±G )·n ⊆ l−1 ([0, N]). Since l is unbounded, l−1 ([0, N])
is not equal to G and we conclude that for every n ∈ N we have (g ±G )·n 6= G. So G
fails TBNG.
Applying this proposition to our two examples, we get the following.
Corollary 2.6. The symmetric group over an infinite discrete set fails TBNG for
the topology of pointwise convergence. The projective unitary group of an infinitedimensional Hilbert space fails TBNG for the strong topology.
Remark. The fact that the projective unitary group of an infinite-dimensional
Hilbert space fails TBNG can also be seen via generalized projective s-numbers
as in [Dow15, p. 80-81].
Let us conclude this section by introducing another natural topological version
of BNG. Define strong topological bounded normal generation (STBNG) for
a topological group G by asking that for every non-trivial g ∈ G, there is n(g) ∈ N
such that
·n(g)

g ±G
= G.
·n

Since we always have g ±G
⊆ (g ±G )·n , STBNG implies TBNG. In a compact
group finite pointwiseproducts
·n of closed subsets are compact hence closed, so we
±G
actually always have g
= (g ±G )·n . Hence STBNG is equivalent to TBNG
for compact groups. However it is not true in general that √
products of closed sets
are closed (for instance in G = R consider A = B = N ∪ − 2N), so the following
question is natural.
Question 2.7. Is it true in general that TBNG is equivalent to STBNG ?

4

2.2

Derived L1 full groups

Let (X, µ) be a standard probability space. We will ignore null sets, in particular we
identify two Borel functions on (X, µ) if they are the same up to a null set. Given
A, B Borel subsets of X, a partial isomorphism of (X, µ) of domain A and range
B is a Borel bijection f : A → B which is measure preserving for the measures
induced by µ on A and B respectively. We denote by dom f = A its domain, and
by rng f = B its range. Note that in particular, µ(dom f ) = µ(rng f ). When
dom f = rng f = X we say that f is a measure-preserving transformation and
we denote by Aut(X, µ) the group of such transformations.
A graphing is a countable set of partial isomorphisms of (X, µ), often denoted
Φ = {ϕ1 , ..., ϕk , ...} where the ϕk ’s are partial isomorphisms. It generates a measure preserving equivalence relation RΦ , defined to be the smallest equivalence
relation such that ϕ(x) RΦ x for every ϕ ∈ Φ.
Every graphing Φ induces a natural graph structure on X where we connect x to
y whenever there is ϕ ∈ Φ such that y = ϕ(x). The connected components of this
graph are precisely the RΦ classes, and we thus have a graph metric dΦ : RΦ → N
given by
dΦ (x, y) = min{n ∈ N : ∃ϕ1 , ..., ϕn ∈ Φ, ǫ1 , ..., ǫn ∈ {−1, +1}, y = ϕǫnn ◦ · · · ◦ ϕǫ11 (x)}.
The full group of the measure-preserving equivalence relation RΦ is the group of
all measure-preserving transformations T such that for all x ∈ X we have (x, T (x)) ∈
RΦ . We denote it by [RΦ ].
The L1 full group of the graphing Φ is the group of all T ∈ [RΦ ] such that
Z
dΦ (x, T (x))dµ(x) < +∞.
X

It is denoted by [Φ]1 . It has a natural complete separable right-invariant metric d˜Φ
given by
Z
˜
dΦ (T, U) =
dΦ (T (x), U(x))dµ(x).
X

We refer the reader to [LM16] for proofs and more background.
Definition 2.8. The derived L1 full group of a graphing Φ is the closure of the
derived group of the L1 full group of Φ. It is denoted by [Φ]′1 .
A graphing is aperiodic if all its connected components are infinite. Recall that
all the involutions from [Φ]1 actually belong to [Φ]′1 as soon as Φ is aperiodic (see
[LM16, Lem. 3.10]). The following result will be strengthened in the next section
for hyperfinite graphings.
Theorem 2.9 ([LM16, Thm. 3.13]). Let Φ be an aperiodic graphing. Then its
derived L1 full group [Φ]′1 is topologically generated by involutions.

5

3

Products of two involutions in the derived L1 full
group of hyperfinite graphings

Definition 3.1. A measure-preserving equivalence relation is called finite if all its
equivalence classes are finite.
It is hyperfinite if it can be written as an increasing union of measure-preserving
equivalence relations Rn whose equivalence classes are finite.
A graphing Φ is hyperfinite if the equivalence relation it generates is hyperfinite.
Let Φ be a hyperfinite graphing, our aim is to show that its derived L1 full
group contains a dense subgroup all whose elements are products of two involutions.
Our proof uses the exact same ideas as the proof that L1 full groups of hyperfinite
graphings are amenable [CLMT]; we provide full details for the reader’s convenience.
Lemma 3.2. Let Φ be an aperiodic graphing and suppose
that RΦ is written as an
S
increasing union of equivalence relations Rn . Then n∈N [Rn ] ∩ [Φ]′1 is dense in [Φ]′1 .

Proof.SBy we only need to be able to approximate involutions from [Φ]′1 by elements
from n∈N [Rn ] ∩ [Φ]′1 . But this is immediate from the dominated convergence theorem
and the fact that
S
S the U-invariant sets An = {x ∈ X : xRn U(x)} satisfy
A
=
X
since
n∈N n
n Rn = RΦ .
Definition 3.3. Given a graphing Φ, we say that the RΦ -classes have a uniformly
bounded Φ-diameter if there is N ∈ N such that for any (x, y) ∈ RΦ we have
dΦ (x, y) 6 N.

Lemma 3.4. Let Φ be an aperiodic graphing, let R be a finite subequivalence relation
of RΦ whose equivalence classes have a uniformly bounded Φ-diameter. Then [R] is
a subgroup of [Φ]′1 .
Proof. The fact that there is a uniform bound M on the diameter of the R-classes
ensures us that [R] is a subgroup of [Φ]1 . Moreover all the elements of [R] are
periodic and hence belong to [Φ]′1 .
Lemma 3.5. Let R be an equivalence relation. Suppose that there is n ∈ N such
that all the R-classes have cardinality at most n. Then [R] is locally finite.
Proof. Let U1 , ..., Uk ∈ [R] for some arbitrary k ∈ N. By using a Borel linear order
on X, we can identify in an R-invariant manner the R orbit of each x ∈ X with
a set of the form {1, ..., mx } with mx 6 n. For each x ∈ X there are only finitely
many ways that the marked group generated by hU1 , ..., Uk i can act on the finite
set {1, ..., mx }. So we get a finite partition of X into R-invariant sets such that
on each atom of this partition, the marked group hU1 , ..., Uk i acts on each orbit the
same way, and we thus embed hU1 , ..., Uk i in a finite product of finite permutation
groups.
Theorem 3.6. Let Φ be a hyperfinite graphing. Then [Φ]′1 contains a dense locally
finite subgroup, all whose elements are products of two involutions.

6

Proof. By definition we may write RΦ as an increasing union of finite equivalence
relations Rn . It is well known that we can moreover assume that each Rn has
equivalence classes of size at most n. Let us show that we can moreover assume
each Rn has equivalence classes of uniformly bounded Φ-diameter and cardinality.
We first find an increasing sequence of integers (ϕ(n))n∈N such that for all n ∈ N,
µ({x ∈ X : |[x]Rn | > ϕ(n) or diamΦ ([x]Rn ) > ϕ(n)}) <

1
.
2n

Then by the Borel-Cantelli lemma, for almost all x ∈ X there are only finitely
many n ∈ N such that |[x]Rn | > ϕ(n) or diamΦ ([x]Rn ) > ϕ(n). So if we define new
equivalence relations Sn by (x, y)S∈ Sn if (x, y) ∈ Rn and diamΦ ([x]Rn ) 6 ϕ(n)
and |[x]Rn | 6 ϕ(n), we still have n∈N Sn = R and the Sn -classes have a uniformly
bounded diameter and
wanted.
S cardinality as
′
By Lemma 3.2, n∈N [Sn ] ∩ [Φ]1 is dense in [Φ]′1 . But Lemma 3.4 yields that
[Sn ] ∩ [Φ]′1 = [Sn ]. Since Sn is finite and all its classes have cardinality at most ϕ(n),
[Sn ] is locally finite by Lem. 3.5. Finally each element S
of [Sn ] is a product of two
involutions by [Kec10, Sublemma 4.3]. So the subgroup n∈N [Sn ] is as wanted.

4

Topological bounded normal generation for derived L1 full groups

In this section, we will prove that derived L1 full groups of ergodic amenable graphings have TBNG. A key tool will be Thm. 3.6, but we also need a better understanding of products of conjugates of involutions.
Lemma 4.1 ([LM16, Lem. 3.21]). Let Φ be an ergodic graphing, and let U ∈ [Φ]1
be an involution whose support has measure α 6 1/2. Then the closure of the [Φ]′1
conjugacy class of U contains all involutions in [Φ]1 whose support has measure α
and is disjoint from the support of U.
Lemma 4.2. Let Φ be an ergodic graphing, let U ∈ [Φ]1 be an involution whose
support has measure α < 1/3. Then the closure of the [Φ]′1 conjugacy class of U
contains all involutions in [Φ]1 whose support has measure α.
Proof. Let V ∈ [Φ]1 have a support of measure α. Observe that µ(supp U ∪
supp V ) < 2/3. By ergodicity, we find an involution W ∈ [RΦ ] whose support
has measure 1/3 and is disjoint from supp U ∪ supp V . By shrinking down W , we
may actually assume that W ∈ [Φ]1 and that µ(supp W ) = α.
By the previous lemma W belongs to the closure of the conjugacy class of U and
V belongs to the closure of the conjugacy class of W so V belongs to the closure of
the conjugacy class of U.
Lemma 4.3. Let Φ be an ergodic graphing and let U ∈ [Φ]1 be an involution whose
support has measure α < 1/3. Then every involution whose support has measure
6 2α is the product of 2 elements from the closure of the [Φ]′1 conjugacy class of U.

7

Proof. Let V ∈ [Φ]1 be an involution whose support has measure β 6 2α. Cut
the support of V into two disjoint V -invariant sets A1 and A2 of measure β/2, and
let W ∈ [Φ]1 be an involution with support of measure α − β/2 disjoint from the
support of V (in particular, W commutes with V ).
Then V = VA1 VA2 = (VA1 W )(VA2 W ) and by the previous lemma both VA1 W
and VA2 W belong to the closure of the conjugacy class of U.
Theorem 4.4. Let Φ be a hyperfinite ergodic graphing. Then [Φ]′1 has TBNG. A
7
⌉.
normal generation function is given by n(T ) = 2 + 2⌈ 2µ(supp
T)
Proof. Let T ∈ [Φ]′1 . Let A ⊆ supp T be a maximal subset such that A and T (A)
are disjoint. Then by maximality supp T ⊆ T −1 (A) ∪ A ∪ T (A), and thus µ(A) >
µ(supp T )/3.
We may now find an involution U ∈ [Φ]1 whose support is contained in A and
has measure µ(supp T )/7. Now [T, U] is an involution whose support has measure
µ(supp[T, U]) = 2µ(supp T )/7 < 1/3.
Let V be an arbitrary involution, we cut down its support into V -invariant
pieces of measure µ(supp[T, U]) plus a remaining piece of measure < µ(supp[T, U]).
Observe that V is equal to the product of the transformations it induces on these
1
7
pieces. There are at most ⌈ µ(supp[T,U
⌉ = ⌈ 2µ(supp
⌉ such pieces, and by Lem.
])
T)
4.2 and Lem. 4.3 applied to the involutions induced by V on the pieces, we can
7
then write V as a product of at most 1 + ⌈ 2µ(supp
⌉ elements of the closure of the
T)
conjugacy class of [T, U].
Since there is a dense subgroup of [Φ]′1 whose elements are products of 2 involu′
tions, we have a dense subgroup of [Φ]′1 all whose elements are in (T ±[Φ]1 )k where


7
k =2 1+⌈
⌉
2µ(supp T )
So [Φ]′1 has TBNG.
Remark. To get STBNG via the same approach, we would need to know that each
element of [Φ]′1 is a product of at most k involutions for some fixed k. We do not
know wether this is true, and we also cannot exclude that every element of the
derived L1 full group is a product of two involutions.
Corollary 4.5. Let T be an ergodic measure-preserving transformation. Then [T ]′1
has TBNG but is not simple.
Proof. By [Dye59, Thm. 1] the graphing {T } is hyperfinite, so by Theorem 4.4 the
derived L1 full group [Tα ]′1 has TBNG. But by [LM16, Thm. 4.26] we also have that
[T ]′1 is not simple.

5

Reconstruction for the derived L1 full group

Recall that two measure-preserving transformations T and T ′ are conjugate if
there is a measure-preserving transformation S such that T = ST ′ S −1 or T −1 =
ST ′S −1 . In [LM16] it was shown that when the L1 full groups of two ergodic
8

measure-preserving transformations T and T ′ are isomorphic, then T and T ′ are
flip-conjugate. The purpose of this section is to prove the same result for the derived L1 full group.
Let us first note that by [LM16, Prop. 3.16] and a reconstruction theorem of
Fremlin as stated in [LM16, Thm. 3.17], we have the following result:
Lemma 5.1. Let Φ and Ψ be a aperiodic graphings, and let ρ : [Φ]′1 → [Ψ]′1 be a
group isomorphism. Then there is a non-singular transformation S such that for all
U ∈ [Φ]′1 we have ρ(U) = SUS −1 .
In the ergodic case, we can upgrade this as in [LM16, Cor. 3.18].
Corollary 5.2. Let Φ and Ψ be a ergodic graphings, and let ρ : [Φ]′1 → [Ψ]′1 be a
group isomorphism. Then there is a measure-preserving transformation S such that
for all U ∈ [Φ]′1 we have ρ(U) = SUS −1 .
Proof. Same as the proof of [LM16, Cor. 3.18].
We then have the following reconstruction theorem, whose proof is inspired from
a similar result of Bezuglyi and Medynets for topological full groups [BM08, Lem.
5.12].
Theorem 5.3. Let Ta and Tb be two ergodic measure-preserving transformations.
Then the following are equivalent:
(i) Ta and Tb are flip-conjugate;
(ii) [Ta ]′1 and [Tb ]′1 are topologically isomorphic.
(iii) [Ta ]′1 and [Tb ]′1 are abstractly isomorphic;
Proof. The only non-trivial implication is (iii)⇒(i). Let ρ : [Ta ]′1 → [Tb ]′1 be a group
isomorphism. By the previous corollary we find a measure-preserving transformation
S such that for all U ∈ [Ta ]′1 one has
ρ(U) = SUS −1 .
We then find A, B ⊆ X such that X = A ⊔ Ta (A) ⊔ B ⊔ Ta (B) ⊔ Ta2 (B) (see e.g.
[LM16, Prop. 2.7]) and let
A1 = A, A2 = Ta (A), A3 = B, A4 = Ta (B), A5 = Ta2 (B).
Consider then the involutions U1 , · · · , U5 defined by

if x ∈ Ai
 Ta (x)
Ui (x) =
Ta−1 (x) if x ∈ Ta (Ai )

x
else.

These involutions all belong to the L1 full group of Ta , so they actually belong to
[Ta ]′1 by [LM16, Lem. 3.10]. Now for every x ∈ Ai we have Ta (x) = Ui (x) so for
every x ∈ S(Ai ) we have STa S −1 (x) = SUi S −1 (x). Since for each i ∈ {1, ..., 5} we
9

have SUi S −1 ∈ [Tb ]′1 6 [Tb ]1 , we conclude that STa S −1 can be obtained by cutting
and pasting finitely many elements of [Tb ]1 , hence STa S −1 ∈ [Tb ]1 .
By the same argument we also have Tb ∈ [STa S −1 ]1 so Tb and STa S −1 share the
same orbits. Belinskaya’s theorem (as stated in [LM16, Thm. 4.1]) now implies that
Ta and Tb are flip-conjugate.
Corollary 5.4. There is a continuum of pairwise non-isomorphic non-simple Polish
groups having TBNG. In particular, TBNG does not imply BNG.
Proof. Consider, for an irrational α ∈]0, 1/2[, the rotation Tα (x) = x mod 1. By
Cor. 4.5 the derived L1 full groups [Tα ]′1 have TBNG and are not simple. Moreover
all those groups are non-isomorphic by the previous theorem and the fact that two
irrational rotations Tα and Tβ are conjugate iff α = ±β mod 1.

References
[BM08] Sergey Bezuglyi and Konstantin Medynets. Full groups, flip conjugacy, and
orbit equivalence of Cantor minimal systems. Colloq. Math., 110(2):409–
429, 2008.
[Bro67] Michel Broise. Commutateurs dans le groupe unitaire d’un facteur. J.
Math. Pures Appl. (9), 46:299–312, 1967.
[CLMT] Alessandro Carderi, François Le Maître, and Todor Tsankov. On L1 full
groups of finitely generated groups. in preparation.
[dlH79] Pierre de la Harpe. Simplicity of the projective unitary groups defined by
simple factors. Comment. Math. Helv., 54(2):334–345, 1979.
[Dow15] Philip A. Dowerk. Algebraic and topological properties of unitary groups of
II1 factors. PhD thesis, University of Leipzig, 2015.
[DT15] Philip A. Dowerk and Andreas Thom.
Bounded Normal Generation and Invariant Automatic Continuity.
preprint available at
http: // arxiv. org/ abs/ 1506. 08549 , 2015.
[Dye59] Henry A. Dye. On groups of measure preserving transformation. I. Amer.
J. Math., 81:119–159, 1959.
[Fat78] Albert Fathi. Le groupe des transformations de [0, 1] qui préservent la
mesure de Lebesgue est un groupe simple. Israel J. Math., 29(2-3):302–
308, 1978.
[Kec10] Alexander S. Kechris. Global aspects of ergodic group actions, volume 160 of
Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society,
Providence, RI, 2010.
[KT10] John Kittrell and Todor Tsankov. Topological properties of full groups.
Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 30(2):525–545, 2010.
10

[LM16] François Le Maître. On a measurable analogue of small topological
full groups. preprint available at http: // arxiv. org/ abs/ 1608. 07399 ,
2016.
[LS01]

Martin W. Liebeck and Aner Shalev. Diameters of finite simple groups:
sharp bounds and applications. Ann. of Math. (2), 154(2):383–406, 2001.

[Ryz85] Valerii V. Ryzhikov. Representation of transformations preserving the
Lebesgue measure, in the form of a product of periodic transformations.
Mat. Zametki, 38(6):860–865, 957, 1985.

11

