arXiv:1608.07258v1 [math.DS] 25 Aug 2016

Centralizers in the Group of Interval Exchange
Transformations
Daniel Bernazzani
Abstract
Let T be an m-interval exchange transformation. By the rank of T
we mean the dimension of the Q-vector space spanned by the lengths of
the exchanged subintervals. We prove that if T satisfies Keane’s infinite
distinct orbit condition and rank(T ) > 1 + ⌊m/2⌋ then the only interval
exchange transformations which commute with T are its powers. The
main step in our proof is to show that the centralizer of T is torsion-free
under the above hypotheses.

1

Introduction

An interval exchange transformation (IET) is a bijective map T : [0, 1) → [0, 1)
defined by partitioning the unit interval [0, 1) into finitely many subintervals
and then rearranging these subintervals by translation.
The set of all IETs forms a group G under composition. Given T ∈ G,
let C(T ) denote the centralizer of T and let hT i denote the cyclic subgroup
generated by T . Novak [5] proved that, under some mild hypotheses on T , the
quotient C(T )/hT i is finite. However, there are examples of IETs which satisfy
the hypotheses of Novak’s theorem but for which C(T )/hT i is nontrivial.
In this paper, we will show that for a typical IET T , we have C(T ) = hT i.
Recall that an IET T is said to be minimal if for each x ∈ [0, 1), the orbit
OT (x) = {T n(x) : n ∈ Z} is dense in [0, 1). Recall also that an IET is said to
be of rotation type if there exists α ∈ R such that T (x) = x + α (mod 1) for all
x ∈ [0, 1).
Theorem 1.1. Let T be a minimal IET which is not of rotation type. Suppose
that the lengths of the exchanged subintervals are linearly independent over Q.
Then C(T ) = hT i.
Theorem 1.1 is a special case of a more general result which will be stated in
the third section of this paper.
We will denote n-fold compositions T ◦ · · · ◦ T by T n . We will say that T
has an nth root in G if there exists S ∈ G such that T = S n . If T is minimal,

1

then the existence of a nth root for some n ≥ 2 implies that C(T ) 6= hT i. In a
previous paper [1], the author proved that IETs typically do not have nontrivial
roots. In particular, the following was proven.
Theorem 1.2. Let T be an IET satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem 1.1. Then
T does not have an nth root in G for any n ≥ 2.
Though the non-existence of roots is weaker than the statement that C(T ) =
hT i, our proofs of the results in this paper depend on the results in [1].
In addition to the papers already mentioned, there have been several other
recent papers which concern the group G. Novak [6] classified continuous one
parameter flows in G. Vorobets [9] gave several characterizations of the commutator subgroup of G. Boshernitzan [2] characterized the subgroup of G generated
by finite order elements and rotations. There is also a longstanding open question regarding G: could a subgroup of G be isomorphic to a non-abelian free
group? Novak [7] showed that certain elements of G cannot belong to such a
subgroup. Dahmani, Fujiwara, and Guirardel [3] proved that non-abelian free
subgroups of G are rare if they do exist.

2

Rank and Admissibility

In this section we introduce some definitions and notation which will allow us
to properly state our results. We begin by giving the formal definition of an
IET. The permutation group of the set {1, 2, . . . , m} will be denoted by Sm .
Definition 2.1. Let m ∈ N. Let π ∈ Sm and let λ = (λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λm ) be a
vector in the simplex
∆m =



(λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λm ) ∈ R

m

: λi > 0,

X
i

Let
β0 = 0 and βj =

j
X


λi = 1 .

λj for 1 ≤ j ≤ m.

i=1

The set {β0 , β1 , . . . , βm } partitions [0, 1) into m subintervals of the form Ij =
[βj−1 , βj ). Define T(π,λ) : [0, 1) → [0, 1) by
T(π,λ) (x) = x −

X
i<j

λi

!

+

X

π(i)<π(j)

!

λi , for x ∈ Ij .

The map T(π,λ) rearranges the intervals Ij by translation according to the permutation π. We will refer to any map constructed in this manner as an m-IET.
For convenience, we sometimes drop the reference to π and λ and simply denote
the map T(π,λ) by T .
2

The next definition is central to our work.
Definition 2.2. Let T be an IET. Let γ1 < γ2 < · · · < γm−1 be the points
at which T is discontinuous. Let γ0 = 0 and γm = 1. Let lj = γj − γj−1 for
j = 1, 2, . . . , m We will refer to the dimension of the Q-vector space spanned by
l1 , l2 , . . . , lm as the rank of T . This will be denoted by rank(T ).
There is a subtlety related to definition 2.2: the data (π, λ) which goes into
the definition of an IET does not always reflect the number of discontinuities.
The discontinuities T(π,λ) are clearly contained in the set {β1 , β2 , . . . , βm−1 }.
However, it is possible that T is continuous at some of these points. Whether
or not T is continuous at these points depends on the permutation π. More
specifically, if 1 ≤ i ≤ m − 1, then T(π,λ) is discontinuous at βi if and only if
π(i + 1) 6= π(i) + 1. This motivates the following definition.
Definition 2.3. We will say that π ∈ Sm is admissible if π(i + 1) 6= π(i) + 1
for 1 ≤ i ≤ m − 1.
For example, the permutation τ = (4213) ∈ S4 is admissible, while the
permutation σ = (4231) ∈ S4 is not. The following result, which is proven in
[1], shows that there is no loss of generality in only considering IETs defined by
admissible permutations.
Proposition 2.1. Let T be an IET with precisely m − 1 discontinuities. There
exists an admissible permutation π ∈ Sm and a vector λ ∈ ∆m , both of which
are unique, such that T = T(π,λ) .
If T(π,λ) is an m-IET defined by an admissible permutation π ∈ Sm , then the
discontinuities of T are precisely the points β1 , β2 , . . . , βm−1 , so rank(T ) is equal
to the dimension of the Q-vector space spanned by λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λm . If, however,
π is not admissible, then rank(Tπ,λ) ) is not necessarily equal to the dimension
of the Q-vector space spanned by λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λm .

3

The Centralizer of a Typical IET

It is entirely possible that the centralizer
C(T ) = {S ∈ G : ST = T S}
of a minimal IET T is uncountable. Indeed, if T is a minimal 2-IET with
permutation (21), then there exists some irrational α ∈ R such that T acts on
[0, 1) by x 7→ x + α (mod 1). Any two such maps commute with one another,
so C(T ) is uncountable.
Remark 3.1. In fact, for any m ≥ 2 there exist examples of minimal m-IETs
which have an uncountable centralizer. The examples given on page 7 of [1]
have this property.
3

Though the above examples might suggest otherwise, it is unusual for a
minimal IET to have a large centralizer. If T ∈ G , let d(T n ) denote the
number of discontinuities of T n . Novak [5] showed that for a given T ∈ G, there
are only two possibilities for the growth rate of d(T n ): the sequence d(T n ) is
either bounded independently of n or else grows linearly in n. In the case of
linear growth, Novak showed that C(T ) cannot be too large. See Proposition
5.3 of [5] for the proof of the following result.
Theorem 3.1. (Novak) Suppose that T is minimal and d(T n ) grows linearly
in n. Then hT i has finite index in C(T ).
In this paper, we will make use of a special case of Novak’s result. We need
the following definition.
Definition 3.1. Let T be an m-IET. Let β1 , β2 , . . . , βm−1 be as in Definition
2.1. We say that T satisfies the infinite distinct orbit condition (i.d.o.c.) if each
of the orbits OT (β1 ), OT (β2 ), . . . , OT (βm−1 ) is infinite and OT (βi )∩OT (βj ) = ∅
for i 6= j.
The infinite distinct orbit condition was originally formulated by Keane, who
showed that any IET which satisfies it and exchanges two or more intervals is
minimal [4].
As Novak indicates (see page 2 of [5]), any IET T satisfying the i.d.o.c. will
exhibit linear discontinuity growth, provided that T is not a 2-IET. This implies
the following.
Corollary 3.1. (Novak) Let m ≥ 3. Suppose that T is an m-IET defined by
an admissible permutation. If T satisfies the i.d.o.c., then hT i has finite index
in C(T ).
Proof. By the above, it suffices to show that T is not a 2-IET. This follows
from the assumption that m ≥ 3 and and that T is defined by an admissible
permutation.
If an IET satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 3.1, then C(T ) is countable.
However, it is not necessarily true that C(T ) = hT i. For example, let S be an
IET satisfying the hypotheses of Corollary 3.1. Let T = S n for some n ≥ 2.
Then it is not hard to see that T satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 3.1, but
C(T ) 6= hT i, since S ∈ C(T ) and S 6∈ hT i.
As the preceding example shows, one obstruction to having C(T ) = hT i
is the existence of a nth root for some n ≥ 2. In a previous paper [1], the
author showed that most IETs do not have nontrivial roots. In particular,
the following result was proven. Notice that if T is an m-IET defined by an
admissible permutation, then 1 ≤ rank(T ) ≤ m.
Theorem 3.2. Let T be a minimal m-IET defined by an admissible permutation. Suppose that rank(T ) > 1 + ⌊m/2⌋. Then T does not have an nth root in
G for any n ≥ 2.
4

A second obstruction to having C(T ) = hT i is the presence of torsion in
C(T ). For example, let S be an 3-IET which is defined by an admissible permutation and which satisfies the i.d.o.c. By rescaling, we can imagine S acting
on [0, 21 ) while leaving the interval [ 12 , 1) fixed. Let P be the 2-IET of order two
which interchanges [0, 12 ) and [ 12 , 1). The map P SP acts on [ 21 , 1) as a 3-IET
and leaves [0, 21 ) fixed. Since the supports of S and P SP are disjoint, S and
P SP commute with one another. Consider the map T = P SP SP = SP S. It is
not difficult to see that T is minimal. It is also not hard to see that d(T n ) ∼ 4n,
so T exhibits linear discontinuity growth. However, P commutes with T and
P 6∈ hT i, since T has infinite order. Hence C(T ) 6= hT i.
In the present work, we establish a condition which guarantees that C(T ) is
torsion-free.
Theorem 3.3. Let T be an m-IET defined by an admissible permutation. Suppose that T satisfies the i.d.o.c. and that rank(T ) > 1 + ⌊m/2⌋. Then the only
element of C(T ) which has finite order is the identity.
The proof of Theorem 3.3 will be given in the next section of this paper.
We will now establish the main result of this paper by combining Corollary 3.1
with Theorems 3.2 and 3.3.
Theorem 3.4. Let T be an m-IET defined by an admissible permutation.
Suppose that T satisfies the i.d.o.c. and that rank(T ) > 1 + ⌊m/2⌋. Then
C(T ) = hT i.
Proof. Let S ∈ C(T ). By Corollary 3.1, there exists n ∈ N such that S n ∈ hT i,
say S n = T m .
We will prove that S ∈ hT i by induction on n. If n = 1 there is nothing to
prove. Suppose that n ≥ 2. Let p be a prime dividing n, say n = up. Write
m = qp + r, where 0 ≤ r < p. We claim that r = 0. If not, then there exists k
such that kr ≡ 1 (mod p), say kr = 1 + tp. Then
S upk = S nk = T mk = T kqp+kr = T kqp+tp+1 .
p
Since T commutes with S it follows that S uk T −(kq+t) = T . This contradicts
Theorem 3.2. Therefore r = 0 and m = qp. Hence S up = S n = T m = T qp .
p
By rearranging, we see that S u T −q = I, where I denotes the identity map.
u −q
By Theorem 3.3, S T
= I. Therefore S u = T q . Since u < n, it follows by
induction that S ∈ hT i.
Finally, we observe that Theorem 1.1 is a direct consequence of Theorem 3.4.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. Let T be a minimal IET which is not of rotation type.
Suppose that the lengths of the exchanged subintervals are linearly independent
over Q. Let m−1 be the number of discontinuities of T . The assumption that T
is not of rotation type implies that T has at least two discontinuities. So m ≥ 3.
Choose λ ∈ ∆m according to Proposition 2.1. The assumption that the lengths
5

of the exchanged subintervals are linearly independent over Q implies that the
dimension of the Q-vector space spanned by λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λm is m. According to a
well-known result of Keane [4], T satisfies the i.d.o.c. Moreover, by the remarks
following Proposition 2.1, rank(T ) = m. Since m ≥ 3, rank(T ) > 1 + ⌊m/2⌋, so
Theorem 3.4 implies that C(T ) = hT i.

4

Proof of Theorem 3.3

This section is divided into several subsections. In the first two, we briefly
explain some machinery which will be used in our proof of Theorem 3.3. The
proof itself will be given in the third subsection. Given an IET T , D(T ) will
denote the set of points at which T is discontinuous.

4.1

The First Return Map

Let A denote the set algebra consisting of finite unions of half-open intervals
[a, b) contained in [0, 1). If J ∈ A, let E(J) denote the set of endpoints of the
connected components of J. For example, if J = [0, 31 ) ∪ [ 54 , 56 ), then E(J) =
{0, 13 , 54 , 65 }. It is well-known that if T is an IET and J ∈ A then the first return
map to J is an IET. The following lemma is a precise formulation of this fact
(see, e.g. section four of [8] for a proof).
Lemma 4.1. Let T be an IET. Suppose that J ∈ A and that E(J) ∩ D(T ) = ∅.
Let P ⊆ J consist of those points x in the interior of J for which there exists
an n ≥ 1 such that T j (x) ∈
/ J ∪ D(T ) ∪ E(J) for 0 < j < n and T n (x) ∈
D(T ) ∪ E(J). The set P is finite. Therefore P ∪ E(J) partitions J into finitely
many subintervals J1 , J2 , . . . , Jk . There exist positive integers m1 , m2 , . . . , mk
such that
(1) for each i, the restriction of T j to Ji is a translation for 1 ≤ j ≤ mi
(2) for each i, T j (Ji ) ∩ J = ∅ for 0 < j < mi
(3) for each i, T mi translates Ji onto a subinterval of J
(4) the intervals T mi (Ji ), 1 ≤ i ≤ k, are pairwise disjoint
mi −1
It should be noted that if J is as in Lemma 4.1., then the set B := ∪ki=1 ∪j=0
T j (Ji ) is T -invariant (that is, T (B) = B). So it must be that B = [0, 1) if T is
minimal.

Definition 4.1. Suppose that J ∈ A satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma 4.3.
For each x ∈ J, let nJ (x) = inf{n ≥ 1 : T n (x) ∈ J}. According to the lemma,
nJ (x) = mi for x ∈ Ji . The map TJ : J → J defined by TJ (x) = T nJ (x) (x) is
the first return map to J. The integers m1 , m2 , . . . , mk are the return times.

6

4.2

Fundamental Discontinuities

Suppose that T is minimal. Let p ∈ D(T ) and assume that T n (p) 6∈ D(T ) for
all n < 0. Since OT (p) is infinite, there exists a smallest positive integer Np
such that T n (p) 6∈ D(T ) ∪ {0} for n ≥ Np . If T Np is continuous at p, then all
of the iterates T n for n ≥ Np are continuous at p. On the other hand, if T Np
is discontinuous at p, then all of the iterates T n for n ≥ Np are discontinuous
at p. This dichotomy was originally observed by Novak in his study of the
discontinuity growth rate of IETs (see page 7 of [5]). Following Novak, we
classify the points in D(T ) according to the following scheme:
Definition 4.2. Let T be minimal. We will say that p ∈ D(T ) is a fundamental
discontinuity if T n (p) 6∈ D(T ) for all negative n and T n is discontinuous at
p for all sufficiently large positive n. We will denote the set of fundamental
discontinuities by Df (T ).
We will need to make use of a fact proven by Novak (see the proof of Proposition 5.3 in [5]).
Lemma 4.2. (Novak) Suppose that T is minimal and that S ∈ C(T ). Then S
permutes the orbits of the fundamental discontinuities of T . More precisely, for
each p ∈ Df (T ), there exists q ∈ Df (T ) such that S(OT (p)) = OT (q).
We will also need the following fact.
Lemma 4.3. Suppose that T satisfies the i.d.o.c. Then every discontinuity of
T , with the possible exception of T −1 (0), is a fundamental discontinuity.
Proof. Let p ∈ D(T ) and suppose that p 6= T −1 (0). Since T satisfies the
i.d.o.c., T n (p) 6∈ D(T ) for all n < 0. Let n ≥ 1. Since T satisfies the i.d.o.c., T
is continuous at all points in the forward orbit of p. Since T (p) is contained in
the interior of [0, 1), it follows that T n−1 is a translation on some open interval
containing T (p). Combining this with the fact that T is discontinuous at p, it
follows that T n is discontinuous at p. Since this is true for all n ≥ 1, p is a
fundamental discontinuity of T .

4.3

The Proof

The strategy behind our proof of Theorem 3.3 is simple enough, but the details
are somewhat cumbersome, so we will explain the main idea first. Suppose
that T is a minimal m-IET defined by an admissible permutation. Suppose
that S ∈ C(T ) has finite order q. Let K ⊆ [0, 1) be an interval which is small
enough so that the translates K, S(K), . . . S q−1 (K) are disjoint. Notice that
q−1 i
the set J := ∪i=0
S (K) is S-invariant, since S has order q. Let J1 , J2 , . . . , Jk
be the subintervals of J which are exchanged by the first return map TJ . Let
l1 , l2 , . . . , lk denote the lengths of J1 , J2 , . . . , Jk , respectively. As we will see, the
fact that S permutes the orbits of the fundamental discontinuities of T implies
7

that the first return map TJ to J has a certain q-fold symmetry: there are
approximately only k/q different lengths appearing among l1 , l2 , . . . , lk . This
will allow us to conclude that rank(T ) is approximately m/q.
The remainder of this section will be spent elaborating on the details of the
strategy outlined above.
Lemma 4.4. Let T be a minimal IET and let S ∈ C(T ). If S has a fixed point,
then S = I.
Proof. Let F be the set of fixed points of S. The definition of an IET implies
that F is a finite union of half-open intervals. Since T commutes with S, the
set F must be T -invariant. Since T is minimal, F = [0, 1).
Theorem 4.1. Suppose that T is a minimal IET. Let df denote the number of
fundamental discontinuities. Let dnf denote the number of discontinuities which
are not fundamental. If S ∈ C(T ) has finite order q, then
(1) q divides df
(2) rank(T ) ≤

df
+ dnf + 1
q

Proof. It follows from Definition 4.2 that distinct fundamental discontinuities
must belong to different T -orbits. Therefore Lemma 4.2 implies that the map
S induces a Z/qZ action on the set Df (T ). Let g : Df (T ) → Df (T ) be the map
induced by S. To be clear, this means that g(x) is the unique y ∈ Df (T ) such
that S(x) ∈ OT (y).
Since Df (T ) is partitioned into g-orbits, the first claim of the theorem will
follow if we can show that each g-orbit has size exactly q.
Let x ∈ DN R (T ). Let x = x0 , x1 , x2 , . . . , xq−1 be the g orbit of x. We
must show that the points x0 , x1 , x2 , . . . , xq−1 are all distinct. To see this,
suppose that that xi = xj where 0 ≤ i < j < q. Then, by the definition of
g, S j−i (xi ) = T k (xi ) for some k. The map S j−i T −k fixes xi , so Lemma 4.4
implies that S j−i T −k = I. So S j−i = T k . Since T has infinite order, this is a
contradiction unless k = 0. So S j−i = I. Since 0 < j − i < q this contradicts
the fact that S has order q.
We will now prove the second claim of the theorem. For clarity, suppose first
that every discontinuity of T is fundamental.
Let x1 , x2 , . . . , xk be representatives for the distinct g-orbits in Df (T ) =
D(T ). Thus
D(T ) = {g j (xi ) : 1 ≤ i ≤ k and 0 ≤ j ≤ q − 1}.
By the definition of g, for each pair of integers i, j satisfying 1 ≤ i ≤ k and
0 ≤ j < q − 1, there exists an integer ni,j such that S(g j (xi )) = T ni,j (g j+1 (xi )).

8

Choose N so that
N >1+

q−2
k X
X

|ni,j |.

(1)

i=1 j=0

Let K = [a, b) be some subinterval of [0, 1) such that the restriction of S to
each of the sets S i (K) for i = 0, 1, . . . , q − 1 is a translation. By shrinking K,
we can assume that each of the sets S i (K) for i = 0, 1, . . . , q − 1 is a connected
q−1 i
component of the set J := ∪i=0
S (K). Since S has order q, J is S-invariant.
By shrinking K further, we can assume that none of the points in the set
{T j (xi ) : 1 ≤ i ≤ k and − N ≤ j ≤ N }
belong to J.
Let M1 be the largest negative integer such that T M1 (x1 ) ∈ J. Let M2 be the
smallest positive integer such that T M2 (x1 ) ∈ J. By construction, M1 < −N
and M2 > N . By shrinking K further, we can assume that the endpoints of the
q connected components of J are precisely the points S i (T Mj (x1 )) for j = 1, 2
and i = 0, 1, . . . , q − 1.
Let
C1 = {T j (x1 ) : M1 < j < M2 }.
For i = 2, 3, . . . , k, let
Ci = {T j (xi ) : −N ≤ j ≤ N }.
Each set Ci is just a finite segment of the T -orbit of xi . By construction, none
of the points of ∪ki=1 Ci belong to J. Notice that
S(C1 ) = {T j (g(x1 )) : M1 + n1,0 < j < M2 + n1,0 }
and that
S(Ci ) = {T j (g(xi )) : −N + ni,0 < j < N + ni,0 }
for i = 2, 3, . . . , k. Thus each set S(Ci ) is a finite segment of the T -orbit of
g(xi ). Since J is S-invariant, none of the points in ∪ki=1 S(Ci ) belong to J.
Moreover, a glance at the inequality (1) shows that our choice of N ensures
that g(xi ) ∈ S(Ci ) for i = 1, 2, . . . , k. Therefore the discontinuities g(xi ) for
i = 1, 2, . . . , k do no belong to J. More generally, if 1 ≤ v ≤ q − 1, then


v−1
v−1
X
X
S v (C1 ) = T j (g v (x1 )) : M1 +
n1,r < j < M2 +
n1,r
r=0

and
S v (Ci ) =



T j (g v (xi )) : −N +

v−1
X
r=0

r=0

ni,r < j < N +

v−1
X
r=0

ni,r



for i = 2, 3, . . . , k. Since the set J is S-invariant, none of the points in the
q−1 k
set ∪v=0
∪i=1 S t (Ci ) belong to J. Our choice of N guarantees that D(T ) ⊆
q−1 k
∪v=0 ∪i=1 S v (Ci ). So J ∩ D(T ) = ∅.
9

We now apply Lemma 4.1 to the set J. We claim that the set P described in
Lemma 4.1 consists of exactly df points. Indeed, if p ∈ Df (T ) = D(T ) then the
first point in the backward T -orbit of p which belongs to the interior of J must
belong to the set P . Conversely, every point in P arises in this way. Since the
orbits of the fundamental discontinuities are distinct, it follows that |P | = df ,
as claimed.
Since |P | = df and J has exactly q connected components, it follows that P ∪
E(J) partitions J into q + df subintervals J1 , J2 , . . . , Jq+df . Let l1 , l2 , . . . , lq+df
denote the lengths of J1 , J2 , . . . , Jq+df , respectively. Let m1 , m2 , . . . , mq+df be
q+d
j
i −1
the return times for the map TJ . The set A := ∪i=1 f ∪m
j=0 T (Ji ) is T invariant. Since T is minimal, it must be that A = [0, 1). Moreover, each of
the intervals T j (Ji ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ q + df and 0 ≤ j ≤ mi − 1 must be contained
in one of the intervals on which T is continuous. For if this were not the case,
then some x ∈ D(T ) would have to belong to the forward orbit of a point in the
interior of one of the intervals Ji . This point would then have to belong to P , a
contradiction. It follows that each of the intervals on which are exchanged by T
must be a disjoint union of some of the intervals T j (Ji ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ q + df and
0 ≤ j ≤ mi − 1. These intervals are themselves just translates of the intervals
Ji for for 1 ≤ i ≤ q + df . Therefore rank(T ) is at most equal to the number of
distinct lengths appearing among l1 , l2 , . . . , lq+df .
We claim that the set P is S-invariant. To see this, note that the points in P
are precisely those points in the interior of J whose forward T -orbit encounters
one of the segments S v (Ci ) before returning to J. By construction, the forward
orbit of a point x encounters a segment or returns to J at exactly the same time
that that forward T -orbit of S(x) encounters the segment S v+1 (Ci ) or returns
to J. It follows that x ∈ P if and only if S(x) ∈ P . In other words, P is
S-invariant.
Since the partition P ∪E(J) which determines the intervals J1 , J2 , . . . , Jq+df
is S-invariant, and S acts on the q connected components of J by translation,
it follows that there are at most
df
q + df
=
+1
q
q
different lengths appearing among l1 , l2 , . . . , lq+df . By our previous observations, it follows that
df
rank(T ) ≤
+1
q
which is exactly what we wanted to show.
In the case when some of the discontinuities are not fundamental, we can
proceed as we did above. The only difference is that for each non-fundamental
discontinuity, there might be an additional point in the set P . This point divides
one of the intervals Jt into two intervals, and increases the rank of T by at most
one. Our previous estimate on the rank is therefore increased by at most dnf .

10

Thus
rank(T ) ≤

df
+ 1 + dnf .
q

This completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem 3.3. Let T be an m-IET defined by an admissible permutation.
Suppose that T satisfies the i.d.o.c. Assume that S ∈ C(T ) has finite order
q ≥ 2. We have to prove that rank(T ) ≤ 1 + ⌊m/2⌋.
Since T is defined by an admissible permutation, D(T ) = m − 1. Lemma
4.3 tells us that there are two possibilities: either df = m − 1 and dnf = 0 or
df = m − 2 and dnf = 1. In the first case, Theorem 4.1 tells us that
rank(T ) ≤ 1 +

m−1
m
≤1+ .
q
2

Since rank(T ) is an integer, it follows that rank(T ) ≤ 1 + ⌊m/2⌋. In the second
case, Theorem 4.1 tells us that
rank(T ) ≤ 2 +

m−2
m
m−2
≤2+
=1+ .
q
2
2

Once again, we conclude that rank(T ) ≤ 1 + ⌊m/2⌋.

5

Concluding Remarks

Theorem 3.4 confirms that a typical IET has a trivial centralizer. However,
there are still many natural questions concerning centralizers in G which remain
unanswered. For instance, let T be an IET satisfying the hypothesis of Theorem
3.4. Could T 2 have a square root different from T ? Does T 2 have torsion in its
centralizer? Since T 2 obviously has a square root, Theorem 3.2 implies that T 2
does not satisfy the hypotheses of Theorems 3.3 and 3.4. Therefore the results
of this paper do not apparently help answer these questions.
The author believes that both of the questions in the preceding paragraph
have a negative answer. In fact, the author thinks it likely that the following is
true.
Conjecture 5.1. Let T be an IET which satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem
3.4. Then, for any n ≥ 2, C(T n ) = C(T ) = hT i.

6

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Michael Boshernitzan for reading several drafts
of this paper and making many helpful suggestions.

11

References
[1] D. Bernazzani, Most interval exchanges have no roots, arXiv:1602.02613
(2016).
[2] M. Boshernitzan, Subgroup of interval exchanges generated by torsion elements and rotations, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 144
(2016), 2565–2573.
[3] F. Dahmani, K. Fujiwara, V. Guirardel, Free groups of interval exchange
transformations are rare, Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics, 7 (2013), 883–
910.
[4] M. Keane, Interval exchange transformations, Mathematische Zeitschrift
141 (1975), 25–31.
[5] C. Novak, Discontinuity growth of interval exchange maps, Journal of Modern Dynamics 3 (2009), 379–405.
[6] C. Novak, Continuous interval exchange actions, Algebraic & Geometric
Topology 10 (2010) 1609–1625.
[7] C. Novak, Interval exchanges that do not embed in free groups,
arXiv:1007.3940 (2010).
[8] M. Viana, Ergodic theory of interval exchange maps, Revista Matemática
Complutense 19 (2006), 7–100.
[9] Y. Vorobets, Notes on the commutator group of the group of interval exchange transformations, arXiv:1109.1352 (2011).

12

