arXiv:1706.04157v2 [math.LO] 23 Jun 2017

Actions of metric groups and continuous logic
A.Ivanov

∗

March 1, 2018

Abstract We study expressive power of continuous logic in classes
of metric groups defined by properties of their actions. For example we consider properties non-OB, non-FH and non-FR.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 03C52; 22F05.
Keywords: Metric groups, continuous logic.

1

Introduction

Hereditary properties of basic classes of topological groups studied in measurable and geometric group theory have deserved more attention of researches
in recent investigations, see [13], [14], [21]. This is mainly connected with the
tendency of study of such notions as amenability or property (T) of Kazhdan
outside the class of locally compact groups, see [10], [12], [17] and [29].
From this point of view it is natural to verify the behaviour of these
classes under logical constructions. Moreover this task looks quite attractive
because some logical constructions, for example ultraproducts, have become
common in group theory.
On the other hand typical classes of groups studied in geometric group
theory are non-axiomatizable. For example let us consider the following wellknown classes of topological groups.
Definition 1.1
• G ∈ FH if any continuous affine isometric action of
G on a real Hilbert space has a fixed point;
∗
The research is supported
DEC2011/01/B/ST1/01406

by

Polish

1

National

Science

Centre

grant

• G ∈ FR if any continuous isometric action of G on a real tree has a
fixed point;
• G ∈ OB if for any continuous isometric action of G on a metric space
all orbits are bounded.
We remind the reader that an action of G on a metric space X is called
continuous if it is continuous as a 2-argument function G × X → X. When
the action is isometric this is equivalent to the condition that for any x ∈ X
the map g → gx is continuous.
Discrete groups of the class OB are called strongly bounded. Y. de
Cornulier have proved in [6] that they are contained in FH and FR. Moreover
it is also shown in [6] that for any finite perfect group F and an infinite I
the power F I is strongly bounded.
Since F I is locally finite, any its countable subgroup has cofinality ω, i.e.
is the union of a strictly increasing ω-chain of proper subgroups. Since such
groups are outside of FH ∪ FR, any countable elementary subgroup H of F I
witnesses the non-axiomatizability of OB, FH, FR and non-OB, non-FH,
non-FR.
Although this argument is carried out in the discrete case, it can be
applied in many other situations, for example in continuous logic. Thus we
see that the basic logic constructions involving elementary equivalence look
foreign to the properties defined above.
On the other hand note that the properties we look at are formulated
in the language of G-actions. Thus in order to adapt the situation to the
logic approach let us consider the following definition and the corresponding
question after it.
Definition 1.2 Let K be a class of (first-order/continuous) structures. We
say that K is logically analyzable if there is a family of (first-order/continuously)
axiomatizable classes Kα , α ∈ I, in expanded languages with possibly new
sorts, so that
• for each α reducts of structures of Kα to the language of K belong to
K,
• every G ∈ K has an expansion Ĝ belonging to one of these classes Kα .
We now formulate the main question of the paper.
Analyzability Question. Let K be one of the classes OB, FH, FR,
non-OB, non-FH, non-FR or any other class of groups. Is K logically analyzable?
Note that we may consider some other kinds of axiomatizability in this
question, for example the Lω1 ,ω -version of continuous logic.
2

This idea is connected with papers [20], [22], [25] and [28] where the
following Ph. Hall’s notion is investigated. A class of discrete groups K is
called bountiful if for any pair of infinite groups G ≤ H with H ∈ K there
is K ∈ K such that G ≤ K ≤ H and |G| = |K|. Generalizing some logical
observations from [20] it is easy to see that if K is logically analyzable then
K is bountiful (see Section 1.1 for a precise argument).
When one considers topological groups, the definition of bountiful classes
should be modified by replacing cardinality of groups by density character,
i.e. the smallest cardinality of a dense subset of K. Moreover it is natural to
replace the subgroup G in the definition by a set. As a result we formulate
the definition as follows.
Definition 1.3 A class of topological groups K is called bountiful if for any
infinite group H ∈ K and any C ⊆ H there is K ∈ K such that C ⊆ K ≤ H
and the density character of C coincides with the density character of K.
Proposition 1.7(a) in the final part of this section shows that properties
OB, FH and FR are not bountiful. So, as we have already mentioned, it
is easy to see that these classes are not logically analyzable. On the other
hand part 1.7(b) of this proposition states that properties non-OB, non-FH
and non-FR are bountiful, i.e. we may conjecture that the classes non-OB,
non-FH and non-FR are logically analyzable.
The main results of our paper confirm this conjecture under some uniform
continuity assumptions. They are presented in Sections 3 and 4. As a consequence we obtain bountifulness of some uniform versions (i.e. subclasses) of
non-FH and non-FR in the form which is more precise than the statements
of Proposition 1.7(b) below.
Novelty of the approach. When we apply logical methods to properties
involving group actions the basic problem which we face is axiomatization of
the action. Typically unbounded metric spaces are considered in continuous
logic as many-sorted structures of n-balls of a fixed point of the space (n ∈ ω).
Section 15 of [2] contains nice examples of such structures.
If the action of a bounded metric group G is isometric and preserves these
balls we may consider the action as a sequence of binary operations where
the first argument corresponds to G. In such a situation one just fixes a
sequence of continuity moduli for G (for each n-ball). We will see in Section
2 that this approach works well for the negation of property (T) (non-(T))
in the class of locally compact groups.
The situation dramatically changes when the action does not preserve nballs. For example this happens when we study properties FH/non-FH (or
FR/non-FR), where affine actions on Hilbert spaces appear (or non-elliptic
actions on unbounded trees). In Section 3 we present a new approach to such
situations. Using geometric properties of Hilbert spaces and real trees we
3

introduce sequences of ternary predicates and show that under some natural
assumptions on the action, continuity moduli for these predicates can be
defined. This is the crucial element of the paper. It allows us to axiomatize
classes of actions which we consider, see Theorems 3.12 and 3.17.
In Section 4 we slightly simplify the circumstances. Replacing non-OB
by some uniform versions of it we arrive at a situation where instead of
adding new sorts one just adds two continuous predicates to the signature.
This trick can be also applied to non-Roelcke bounded groups, non-Roelcke
precompact groups and non-(OB)k -groups (see [24]).
Uniform continuity. Actions of metric groups which can be analyzed by
tools of continuous logic must be uniformly continuous for each sort appearing
in the presentation of the space by metric balls. This slightly restricts the
field of applications of our results. On the other hand note that in the case of
discrete groups we do not lose generality and moreover our methods become
more powerful. In Section 4.B we analyze some other properties of discrete
groups, for example FA.
Remark 1.4 We mention paper [14] where related questions were studied
in the case of locally compact groups. It is proved in [14] that for any locally
compact group G, the entire interval of cardinalities between ℵ0 and w(G),
the weight of the group, is occupied by the weights of closed subgroups of
G. We remind the reader that the weight of a topological space (X, τ ) is
the smallest cardinality which can be realized as the cardinality of a basis of
(X, τ ). If the group G is metric, the weight of G coincides with the density
character of G. This yields the following version of the Löwenheim-Skolem
Theorem (see Section 1.1).
Let G be a locally compact group which is a continuous structure. Then
for any cardinality κ < density(G) there is a closed subgroup H < G such
that density(H) = κ and H is an elementary substructure of G.
In the rest of this introduction we briefly remind the reader some preliminaries of continuous logic. Since we want to make the paper available for
non-logicians these preliminaries can look too tedious for specialists. On the
other hand we inform the reader that all necessary algebraic terms will be
defined in the introductionary parts of corresponding sections.

1.1

Continuous structures

We fix a countable continuous signature
L = {d, R1 , ..., Rk , ..., F1 , ..., Fl , ...}.

4

Let us recall that a metric L-structure is a complete metric space (M, d)
with d bounded by 1, along with a family of uniformly continuous operations
on M and a family of predicates Ri , i.e. uniformly continuous maps from
appropriate M ki to [0, 1]. It is usually assumed that to a predicate symbol
Ri a continuity modulus γi is assigned so that when d(xj , x′j ) < γi (ε) with
1 ≤ j ≤ ki the corresponding predicate of M satisfies
|Ri (x1 , ..., xj , ..., xki ) − Ri (x1 , ..., x′j , ..., xki )| < ε.
It happens very often that γi coincides with id. In this case we do not mention the appropriate modulus. We also fix continuity moduli for functional
symbols. Each classical first-order structure can be considered as a complete
metric structure with the discrete {0, 1}-metric.
By completeness continuous substructures of a continuous structure are
always closed subsets.
Atomic formulas are the expressions of the form Ri (t1 , ..., tr ), d(t1 , t2 ),
where ti are terms (built from functional L-symbols). In metric structures
they can take any value from [0, 1]. Statements concerning metric structures
are usually formulated in the form
φ=0
(called an L-condition), where φ is a formula, i.e. an expression built from
0,1 and atomic formulas by applications of the following functions:
x/2 , x−̇y = max(x − y, 0) , min(x, y) , max(x, y) , |x − y| ,
¬(x) = 1 − x , x+̇y = min(x + y, 1) , supx and inf x .
A theory is a set of L-conditions without free variables (here supx and inf x
play the role of quantifiers).
It is worth noting that any formula is a γ-uniformly continuous function from the appropriate power of M to [0, 1], where γ is the minimum of
continuity moduli of L-symbols appearing in the formula.
The condition that the metric is bounded by 1 is not necessary. It is
often assumed that d is bounded by some rational number d0 . In this case
the (truncated) functions above are appropriately modified.
We sometimes replace conditions of the form φ−̇ε = 0 where ε ∈ [0, d0 ]
by more convenient expressions φ ≤ ε.
A tuple ā from M n is algebraic in M over A if there is a compact subset
C ⊆ M n such that ā ∈ C and the distance predicate dist(x̄, C) is definable
(in the sense of continuous logic, [2]) in M over A. Let acl(A) be the set of
all elements algebraic over A. In continuous logic the concept of algebraicity
is parallel to that in traditional model theory (see Section 10 of [2]).

5

Axiomatizability in continuous logic.
When one considers classes
axiomatizable in continuous logic it is usually assumed that all operations
and predicates are uniformly continuous with respect to some fixed continuity
moduli. Suppose that C is a class of metric L-structures. Let T hc (C) be the
set of all L-conditions without free variables which hold in all structures of
C. It is proved in [2] (Proposition 5.14 and Remark 5.15) that every model
of T hc (C) is elementary equivalent to some ultraproduct of structures from
C.
Metric groups. Below we always assume that our metric groups are continuous structures with respect to bi-invariant metrics (see [2]). This exactly
means that (G, d) is a complete metric space and d is bi-invariant. Note that
the continuous logic approach takes weaker assumptions on d. Along with
completeness it is only assumed that the operations of a structure are uniformly continuous with respect to d. Thus it is worth noting here that any
group which is a continuous structure has an equivalent bi-invariant metric.
See [15] for a discussion concerning this observation.
Hilbert spaces in continuous logic. We treat a Hilbert space over R
exactly as in Section 15 of [2]. We identify it with a many-sorted metric
structure
({Bn }n∈ω , 0, {Imn }m<n , {λr }r∈R , +, −, hi),
where Bn is the ball of elements of norm ≤ n, Imn : Bm → Bn is the
inclusion map, λr : Bm → Bkm is scalar multiplication by r, with k the
unique integer satisfying k ≥ 1 and k − 1 ≤ |r| < k; futhermore, +, − :
Bn × Bn → B2n are vector addition and subtraction and hi : Bn → [−n2 , n2 ]
is the predicate
of the inner product. The metric on each sort is given by
p
d(x, y) = hx − y, x − yi. For every operation the continuity modulus is
z
standard. For example in the case of λr this is |r|
. Note that in this version
of continuous logic we do not assume that the diameter of a sort is bounded
by 1. It can become any natural number.
Stating existence of infinite approximations of orthonormal bases (by a
countable family of axioms, see Section 15 of [2]) we assume that our Hilbert
spaces are infinite dimensional. By [2] they form the class of models of a complete theory which is κ-categorical for all infinite κ, and admits elimination
of quantifiers.
This approach can be naturally extended to complex Hilbert spaces,
({Bn }n∈ω , 0, {Imn }m<n , {λc }c∈C , +, −, hiRe , hiIm).
We only extend the family λr : Bm → Bkm , r ∈ R, to a family λc : Bm →
Bkm , c ∈ C, of scalar products by c ∈ C, with k the unique integer satisfying
k ≥ 1 and k − 1 ≤ |c| < k.
6

We also introduce Re- and Im-parts of the inner product.
If we remove from the signature of complex Hilbert spaces all scalar products by c ∈ C \ Q[i], we obtain a countable subsignature
({Bn }n∈ω , 0, {Imn }m<n , {λc }c∈Q[i] , +, −, hiRe , hiIm ),
which is dense in the original one:
- if we present c ∈ C by a sequence {qi } from Q[i] converging to c, then the
choice of the continuity moduli of the restricted signature still guarantees
that in any sort Bn the functions λqi form a sequence which converges to λc
with respect to the metric
supx∈Bn {|f M (x) − g M (x)| : M is a model of the theory of Hilbert spaces }.
Löwenheim-Skolem theorem and bountifulness.
rem is one of the main tools of this paper.

The following theo-

Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem. ([2], Proposition 7.3) Let κ be an infinite cardinal number and assume |L| ≤ κ. Let M be an L-structure and
suppose A ⊂ M has density ≤ κ. Then there exists a substructure N ⊆ M
containing A such that density(N) ≤ κ and N is an elementary substructure
of M, i.e. for every L-formula φ(x1 , ..., xn ) and a1 , ..., an ∈ N the values of
φ(a1 , ..., an ) in N and in M are the same.
In the case of discrete {0, 1}-metric this theorem becomes the standard
Löwenheim-Skolem theorem.
Remark 1.5 Let L be a continuous signature. Following Section 4.2 of [11]
we define a topology on L-formulas relative to a given continuous theory T .
For n-ary formulas φ and ψ of the same sort set
dTx̄ (φ, ψ) = sup{|φ(ā) − ψ(ā)| : ā ∈ M, M |= T }.
The function dTx̄ is a pseudometric. The language L is called separable with
respect to T if for any tuple x̄ the density character of dTx̄ is countable. By
Proposition 4.5 of [11] in this case for every L-model M |= T the set of all
interpretations of L-formulas in M is separable in the uniform topology. By
Theorem 4.6 of [11] if in the formulation of the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem
we replace the assumption |L| ≤ κ by the condition that L is separable with
respect to T hc (M) then the statement the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem also
holds for κ = ℵ0 .
As we have already noticed the Q[i]-subsignature of the language of
Hilbert spaces is dense in the standard signature. Thus the original language of Hilbert spaces is separable with respect to the theory of Hilbert
spaces. In particular we may apply the approach of [11] in this important
case.
7

The following corollary of the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem is obvious. It
in particular states that if a class K of first-order/continuous-metric structures is logically analyzable, then K is bountiful.
Corollary 1.6 Let K be a class of first-order/continuous-metric structures.
Assume that there is a family of classes Kα , α ∈ I, in expanded languages
with possibly new sorts, so that
• every G ∈ K has an expansion Ĝ belonging to one of these classes Kα ,
• the reduct of any elementary substructure of such Ĝ belongs to K.
Then K is bountiful.
The following proposition was already mentioned in the introduction as
a kind of motivation of this paper. It can be also considered as a demonstration of our method in the easiest form. The part of the proof concerning
proerty FR can be slightly unclear for an inexperienced reader. Some helpful
preliminaries can be found in the beginning of Section 3.
Proposition 1.7 (a) Classes of discrete members of OB, FH and FR are
not bountiful.
(b) Classes of discrete members of non-OB, non-FH and non-FR are
bountiful.
Moreover statement (a) and (b) also hold in the case of metric groups
which are continuous structures.
Proof. (a) This follows from the theorem of Y. de Cornulier that for any
finite perfect group F and an infinite I the power F I is strongly bounded
and the fact that any countable subgroup of F I has cofinality ω, i.e. does
not belong to FH ∪ FR, see [1], [6] and [21]. In particular such a subgroup
has an isometric action on a metric space with unbounded orbits.
(b) Let us consider the case of groups which are first-order structures
of the class non-OB. Let C ⊆ H with H ∈ non-OB. Take an action of
H on a metric space X with an unbounded orbit. Extend C by countably
many elements witnessing this unboundedness. By the Löwenheim-Skolem
theorem there is a subgroup K of H which is an elementary substructure of
H in the expanded (by constants) language such that C ⊆ K and |C| = |K|.
Since this subgroup contains the distinguished constants its action on X has
unbounded orbits.
The case of non-FH is identical. Indeed, by Theorem 2.2.9 of [1] property
non-FH is equivalent to existence of an affine isometric action of G on a real
Hilbert space so that all (equivalently some) orbits are unbounded.
In the case of non-FR one should use the resut of [27] that each isometry of
a real tree is elliptic (i.e. fixes a point) or hyperbolic (i.e. acts as a non-trivial
translation of some line) and every action of a group of elliptic isometries on
8

a tree has a fixed point or a fixed end. We remind the reader that an end is
an equivalence class of half-lines under the equivalence relation of having a
common half-line. The latter statement is a straightforward generalization of
Exercise 2 of Section 6.5 from [26] (see Section 1 of [7] for the case of R-trees).
When H has a hyberbolic isometry h all orbits of hhi are unbounded. Thus
we apply the argument above arranging that K has a hyberbolic isometry
too. When H consists of elliptic isometries and does not have a global fixed
point, then find a half-line, say L, representing the fixed end and take a
cofinal sequence c1 , c2 , . . . on it. For each ci choose hi ∈ H which does not fix
c1 , . . . , ci . Then any subgroup of H containing all hi does not have a global
fixed point. Indeed, if c is such a point, then consider segments [c, cn ]. All of
them are decomposed into a segment belonging to L and the unique bridge
from c to L. Thus there is n0 such that for all n > n0 segments [c, cn ] contain
cn0 . This contradicts the assumption that cn0 is not fixed by hn with n > n0 .
This argument also works in the case of continuous logic. Since first-order
structures can be viewed as continuous ones there is no need for a continuous
version of (a). We only mention that when one wants to have a non-discrete
examples witnessing (a) one can have this by adding a compact group as a
direct summand. 

2

Non-amenability vs negation of (T)

A. Introduction. It is well-known that closed subgroups of amenable
locally compact groups are amenable. This in particular implies that the class
of amenable locally compact groups which are continuous metric structures
is bountiful. Indeed applying the continuous Löwenheim-Skolem theorem we
see that for any infinite metric group H with a subset C ⊆ H where H
is amenable and locally compact there is an elementary submodel K of H
such that C ⊆ K and the density character of C coincides with the density
character of K. Since K is closed in H it is amenable too.
Remark 2.1 It is worth noting that the class of all discrete amenable groups
is not axiomatizable: there are locally finite countable groups having elementary extensions containing free groups.
Since non-compact amenable locally compact groups do not satisfy property (T) of Kazhdan the argument above suggests that the class of non-(T)
locally compact groups is bountiful too. Corollary 2.6 below is a confirmation of a uniform version of this suggestion. The main result of this section
Theoren 2.5 shows that in the context of continuous logic the class of locally
compact groups with property non-(T) is logically analyzable.
We apply methods anounced in the introduction. The case of non-(T)
is relatively easy, because we only need to consider group actions on Hilbert

9

spaces which preserve n-balls of 0. It can be considered as a warm up before
more difficult cases in Section 3. In the rest of part A of this section we give
necessary algebraic definitions.
Let a topological group G have a continuous unitary representation on a
complex Hilbert space H. A closed subset Q ⊂ G has an almost ε-invariant
unit vector in H if
there exists v ∈ H such that supx∈Q k x ◦ v − v k< ε and k v k= 1.
A closed subset Q of the group G is called a Kazhdan set if there is ε >
0 with the following property: for every unitary representation of G on a
Hilbert space where Q has an almost ε-invariant unit vector there is a nonzero G-invariant vector. If the group G has a compact Kahdan subset then
it is said that G has property (T) of Kazhdan.
Proposition 1.2.1 of [1] states that the group G has property (T) of Kazhdan if and only if any unitary representation of G which weakly contains the
unit representation of G in C has a fixed unit vector.
By Corollary F.1.5 of [1] the property that the unit representation of G in
C is almost contained in a unitary representation π of G (this is denoted
by 1G ≺ π) is equivalent to the property that for every compact subset Q
of G and every ε > 0 the set Q has an almost ε-invariant unit vector with
respect to π.
The following example shows that in the first-order logic property (T) is
not elementary.
Example 2.2 Let n > 2. According Example 1.7.4 of [1] the group SLn (Z)
has property (T). Let G be a countable elementary extension of SLn (Z)
which is not finitely generated. Then by Theorem 1.3.1 of [1] the group G
does not have (T).
B. Unitary representations in continuous logic. In order to treat
analyzability question in the class of locally compact groups satisfying some
uniform version of property non-(T) we need the preliminaries of continuous
model theory of Hilbert spaces from Section 1.1. Moreover since we want to
consider unitary representations of metric groups G in continuous logic we
should fix continuity moduli for the corresponding binary functions G×Bn →
Bn induced by G-actions on metric balls of the corresponding Hilbert space.
This is why we have to consider uniformly continuous versions of the
notion of a Kazhdan set. We define it as follows.
Definition 2.3 Let G be a metric group of diameter ≤ 1 which is a continuous structure in the language (d, ·,−1 , 1). Let F = {F1 , F2 , ...} be a family
of continuity moduli for the G-variables of continuous function G × Bi → Bi .

10

We call a closed subset Q of the group G an F -Kazhdan set if there is
ε with the following property: every F -continuous unitary representation of
G on a Hilbert space with almost (Q, ε)-invariant unit vectors also has a
non-zero invariant vector.
It is clear that for any family of continuity moduli F a subset Q ⊂ G is
F -Kazhdan if it is Kazhdan. We will say that G has property F -non-(T) if
G does not have a compact F -Kazhdan subset.
To study such actions in continuous logic let us consider a class of manysorted continuous metric structures which consist of groups G together with
metric structures of complex Hilbert spaces
(d, ·,−1 , 1) ∪ ({Bn }n∈ω , 0, {Imn }m<n , {λc }c∈C , +, −, hiRe , hiIm ).
Such a structure also contains a binary operation ◦ of an action which is
defined by a family of appropriate maps G×Bm → Bm (in fact ◦ is presented
by a sequence of functions ◦m which agree with respect to all Imn ). When we
add the obvious continuous sup-axioms that the action is linear and unitary,
we obtain an axiomatizable class KGH . Given unitary action of G on H we
denote by A(G, H) the member of KGH which is obtained from this action.
When we fix continuity moduli, say F = {F1 , F2 , . . .}, for the G-variables
of the operations G × Bm → Bm we denote by KGH (F ) the corresponding
subclass of KGH .
S
Definition 2.4 The class {Kδ (F ) : δ ∈ (0, 1) ∩ Q}. Let Kδ (F ) be the
subclass of KGH (F ) axiomatizable by all axioms of the following form
supx1 ,...,xk ∈G inf v∈Bm supx∈S xi Kδ max(k x ◦ v − v k −̇

1
, |1− k v k |) = 0,
n

where k, m, n ∈ ω \ {0} and Kδ = {g ∈ G : d(1, g) ≤ δ}.
It isSeasy to see that the axiom of Definition 2.4 implies that each finite
union ki=1 gi Kδ has an almost n1 -invariant unit vector in H. To see that it
can be written by a formula of continuous logic note that supx∈S xi Kδ can
be replaced by supx with simultaneuos including of the quantifier-free part
together with max(δ −̇d(x, xi ) : 1 ≤ i ≤ k) into the corresponding minformula.
In fact the following theorem shows that the class of F -non-(T) locally
compact groups satisfies the conditions of Corollary 1.6.
Theorem 2.5 Let F = {F1 , F2 , ...} be a family of continuity moduli for Gvariables of continuous function G × Bi → Bi .
(a) In the class of all unitary F -representations of locally compact metric
groups the condition of almost containing the unit representation 1G coincides

11

with with theScondition of having expansions of the form A(G, H) which are
members of {Kδ (F ) : δ ∈ (0, 1) ∩ Q}.
(b) If for every compact subset Q of a locally compact metric group (G, d)
and every ε > 0 there is an expansion of G to a structure from KGH (F ) with
a (Q, ε)-almost invariant unit vector but without non-zero invariant vectors,
then G has a unitary F -representation which almost contains the unit representation 1G but does not fix any vector of norm 1. Moreover any elementary
substructure of the corresponding structure A(G, H) is of the form A(G0 , H0 ),
where G0  G, H0  H, and also almost contains the unit representation
1G0 but does not fix any vector of norm 1.
Proof. (a) Let G be a locally compact metric group and let the ball
Kδ = {g ∈ G : d(g, 1) ≤ δ} ⊆ G be compact. If a unitary F -representation
of G almost contains the unit representation 1G , then considering it as a
structure A(G, H) we see that this structure belongs to Kδ (F ).
On the other hand if some structure of the form A(G, H) belongs to
Kε (F ), then assuming that ε ≤ δ we easily see that the corresponding representation almost contains 1G . If δ < ε, then Kε may be non-compact.
However since Kδ ⊆ Kε any compact subset of G belongs to a finite union of
sets of the form xKε . Thus the axioms of Kε (F ) state that the corresponding
structure A(G, H) defines a representation almost containing 1G .
(b) Choose δ > 0 so that the δ-ball K = {g ∈ G : d(g, 1) ≤ δ} in G is
compact. To see that the group G has a required expansion in Kδ (F ) we
apply the followingSstandard argument (see Proposition 1.2.1 from [1]). For
every finite union gi K and every n fix a unitary representation πn,ḡ of G
without non-zeroSinvariant vectors and with a unit vector which is n1 -invariant
with respect to gi K. Then the direct sum of these representations almost
contains 1G . SIndeed, since every compact subset of G is contained in some
finite union gi K we see that for every compact subset Q ⊂ G and every
ε > 0 the representation has a (Q, ε)-almost invariant unit vector. It is clear
that there are no non-zero G-invariant vectors. Let us denote by M the
corresponding structure from KGH (F ).
To see the last assertion of part (b) note that since the condition d(g, 1) ≤
δ defines a totally bounded complete subset in any elementary extension of
G, the set K above is a definable subset of acl(∅).
Let M0  M and G0 be the sort of M0 corresponding to G. Since the
existence of an invariant unit vector can be written by a continuous formula
we see that M0 does not have such a vector.
It remains to verify that for any compact subset D ⊂ G0 and any ε > 0
the representation M0 always has a (D, ε)-almost invariant unit vector. To
see this note that since G0 ≺ G and K is compact and algebraic, the ball
{g ∈ G0 : d(g, 1) ≤ δ} ⊂ G0 is a compact neighbourhood of 1 which coincides
with K. In particular D is contained in a finite union of sets of the form gK.
The rest follows from the conditions that M0 ∈ Kδ (F ) and G0 ≺ G. 
12

C. Comments. In Theorem 2.5 we cannot axiomatize the class of unitary
F -representations A(G, H) without fixed unit vectors (it cannot be done in
continuous logic). Thus the definition of logical analyzability is satisfied for
property F -non-(T) in a slightly weaker form.
On the other hand applying Corollary 1.6 we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 2.6 Locally compact metric groups which have property F -non(T) form a bountiful class.
It is an open question if the statement of Corollary 2.6 holds for metric
groups which are not locally compact.
Remark 2.7 The author thinks that the following question is basic in this
topic:
Is property (T) bountiful in the class of all metric groups?
Analyzing typical examples of groups with Kazhdan property (T) (for example in [21]) it seems likely that bountifulness of (T) is connected with the
following question:
Does an elementary substructure of a discrete group with property
(T) also have property (T)?
It is natural to consider this question in the case of linear groups, where
property (T) and elementary equivalence are actively studied, see [8] and
[4].
Remark 2.8 Since in the locally compact case non-compact groups with
property (T) are not amenable the following question seems related to Remark 2.7:
Is the class of all non-amenable metric groups bountiful?
One of definitions of non-amenability says that a topological group is
non-amenable if there is a locally convex topological vector space V and
a continuous affine representation of G on V such that some non-empty
invariant convex compact subset K of V does not contain a G-fixed point
([1], Theorem G.1.7).
This statement cannot be expressed in logic because the notion of locally
convex topological vector spaces is not logically formalizable. On the other
hand it is easy to see that if we restrict ourself just by linear representations
on normed/metric vector spaces we obtain a bountiful property which is
stronger than non-amenability. We call this property strong non-FP.
Considering in continuous logic linear G-representations on metric vector
spaces (V, d) we fix continuity moduli for the corresponding binary functions
13

G × Bn → Bn induced by the action on metric balls Bn = {v ∈ V : d(0, v) ≤
n}. Since the action is not necessary isometric, we now need continuity
moduli for Bn -variables too. Thus we define an uniform version strong nonFP as follows.
Definition 2.9 Let G be a metric group of a bounded diameter which is a
continuous structure in the language (d, ·,−1 , 1). Let F = {F1 , F2 , ...} be a
family of continuity moduli for continuous functions G × Bi → Bi .
We say that G has the strong F -non-FP property if there is a metric
vector space V and an F -continuous linear representation of G on V such
that some non-empty invariant convex compact subset K of V does not have
G-fixed points.
To realize our approach in this case we should consider the class of manysorted continuous metric structures which consists of groups G together with
metric structures of metric vector spaces
(G, d, ·,−1 , 1) ∪ ({Bn }n∈ω , {Imn }m<n , d, 0, {λr }r∈R , +, −) ∪ (K, d, I)
and the new sort K corresponding to convex compact subspace of V . It is
mapped by I into B1 so that I preserves the metric.
We use the property that when K is compact for every natural n there is
a number kn such that any subset of K of size kn contains a pair of distance
< n1 . Express this property by a continuous formula, say φn . Note that
any many-sorted structure as above which satisfies some family of the form
{φn : n ∈ ω \ {0}}, has the sort K algebraic from the point of view of
continuous logic, [2]. This implies that any elementary substructure has K
as a compact sort. Now it is easy to verify that the strategy of Theorem 2.5
and Corollary 2.6 works in this context too. In particular we have:
The class of metric groups with the strong F -non-FP property is
bountiful.
Remark 2.10 Let G be a metric group of diameter 1 which is a continuous
structure in the language (d, ·,−1 , 1). Let F be a continuity modulus for
continuous functions G × B → B where B is a metric space of diameter 1.
We say that G is F -non-extremely amenable if there is a compact
metric space B of diameter 1 and an F -continuous action of G on B which
does not have a G-fixed point in B. Using the arguments above it is easy to
see that the following statement holds.
The class of metric groups which are F -non-extremely amenable is bountiful.

3

Unbounded actions

In this section we consider actions which do not preserve n-balls of metric
spaces. This situation is more complicated than the one of Section 2.
14

The following material is standard, [9]. Let (X, d) be a metric space. It
is called pointed if we fix a point from X. A geodesic path joining x ∈ X
to y ∈ X is an isometric map ρ from some closed interval [0, l] ⊂ R to X
such that ρ(0) = x and ρ(l) = y. Let [x, y] = ρ([0, l]). The space (X, d) is
called uniquely geodesic is there is exactly one geodesic path joining x and
y for each x, y ∈ X. Note that the Hilbert space H is uniquely geodesic. A
uniquiely geodesic space is called an R-tree if for any x, y, z the condition
[y, x] ∩ [x, z] = {x} implies [y, x] ∪ [x, z] = [y, z]. A subset S ⊆ X is convex
if (∀x, y ∈ S)[x, y] ⊆ S.
Assume that X is an R-tree. Then a convex subset is also called a subtree. Given x, y, z ∈ X, there is a unique element c ∈ [x, y] ∩ [y, z] ∩ [z, x],
called the median of x, y, z. When c ∈
/ {x, y, z}, the subtree [x, y] ∪ [x, z] ∪
[y, z] is called a tripod. A line is a convex subset containing no tripod and
maximal for inclusion. The betweenness relation B of X is the ternary
relation B(x; y, z) defined by x ∈ (y, z). For any line L and a point a ∈ L
the relation ¬B(a; y, z) is an equivalence relation on L \ {a}. An equivalence
class of this relation together with a is called a half-line.
We say that half-lines L1 and L2 are equivalent if L1 ∩ L2 contains a
half-line. An end is an equivalence class of this relation.
We consider complete uniquely geodesic metric spaces as a many-sorted
metric structures of n-balls of pointed spaces
({Bn }n∈ω , 0, {Imn }m<n , d).
where 0 denotes the fixed point and other symbols are interpreted in the
natural way.
It is shown in [5] that the class of pointed real trees is axiomatizable in
continuous logic by axioms of 0-hyperbolicity and the approximate midpoint
property. We remind the reader that a metric space (X, d) has the approximate midpoint property if for any x, y ∈ X and any rational ε > 0 there
exists z ∈ X such that
|d(x, z) − d(x, y)/2| ≤ ε and |d(y, z) − d(x, y)/2| ≤ ε.
The space (X, d) is called 0-hyperbolic if for any x, y, z, w ∈ X and any
rational ε > 0
min((x · y)w , (y · z)w ) ≤ (x · z)w + ε , where
1
(x · y)w = (d(x, w) + d(w, y) − d(x, y)) (Gromov product).
2
We now give necessary information concerning isometric actions of groups
on real trees. This is taken from [7], [26] and [27].
15

Let T be a real tree. Assume that G has an isometric action on an R-tree
T . We say that g ∈ G is elliptic if it has a fixed point, and hyperbolic
otherwise.
Lemma 3.1 Let G be a group with an isometric action on an R-tree T .
• If g ∈ G is elliptic, its set of fix points T g is a closed convex subset.
• If g is hyperbolic, there exists a unique line Lg preserved by g; moreover,
g acts on Lg by a translation.
• If g is hyperbolic, then for any p ∈ T , [p, g(p)] meets Lg and [p, g(p)] ∩
Lg = [q, g(q)] for some q ∈ Lg .
• If g and h ∈ G are elliptic and T g ∩ T h = ∅, then gh is hyperbolic.
When g is hyperbolic, Lg is called the axis of g.

3.1

Actions and continuity moduli

A. Assumptions. Let a metric group (G, ·,−1 , d) act on (X, d) by isometries, where (X, d) is a uniquely geodesic space. When we consider this
situation we always take the following assumptions. They are necessary to
present the situation in continuous logic.
We firstly fix a point 0 ∈ X, present X as the union of n-balls of 0, and
assume the existence of a function gth : N × [0, 1) → N such that for every
natural m if g ∈ G satisfies d(1, g) = δ < 1, then g takes the ball Bm into
the ball Bgth(n,δ) . We will assume that gth is increasing with respect to the
first argument. Note that when (G, d) is discrete with with the {0, 1}-metric
we can take gth(n, δ) = id(n).
Note that for any pair m < n the action defines a partial map G × Bm →
Bn which is uniformly continuous with respect to the Bm -argument. In
order to present this action in continuous logic we assume that this function
is uniformly continuous with respect to the G-argument too. To do this in a
formal way let us define ternary predicates
◦mn (g, x, y) : G × Bm × Bm → [0, m + n] , m ≤ n ∈ N,
as follows.
Definition 3.2
◦mn (g, x, y) = length([g ◦ x, y] ∩ Bn ), where x ∈ Bm and y ∈ Bm .
In this formula the length is defined with respect to the metric of X. Note
that for x, y ∈ Bm with g ◦ x ∈ Bn we have ◦mn (g, x, y) = d(g ◦ x, y). We
now formulate our basic assumption.
16

Definition 3.3 Let ort : N → N be a function such that for any m, n ∈
N with ort(m) < n there is a continuity modulus for the G-variable of the
predicate ◦mn .
m,n
We fix such a modulus and denote it by γG
.
Remark 3.4 It is worth mentioning here that the assumption of uniform
continuity of the unrestricted function ◦ : G × X → X strongly trivialize
the situation. Indeed, assume that X is an R-tree and g ∈ G acts on X
with non-fixed points. If g is ellipic, fixes x0 and takes some x to y 6= x,
then a half-line starting at x0 and containing x is taken by g to a half-line
containing y. If the first half-line is unbounded the set of values d(z, g ◦ z)
for elements z of this half-line is unbounded too. A similar argument works
in the case of hyperbolic g. In this case one should consider half-lines not
cofinal with the axis of g. We see that for non-discrete (G, d) no condition
of the form d(1, g) < δ bounds the set of values d(z, g ◦ z) if X has infinitely
many pairwise nonequivalent unbounded half-lines. In particular the action
is not uniformly continuous as a binary function.
We now discuss the assumptions of existence of functions gth and ort in
the case of R-trees and in the case of real H separately. We will see below
that in the former case some natural geometric condition guarantees that the
identity function id works for ort. In the latter case function id is not relevant.
However we will give a completely satisfactory answer in this case: the only
assumption that all partial maps G × Bm → Bn defined by the action on H
are uniformly continuous implies the existence of a function ort satisfying
Definition 3.3.
B. The case of R-trees. Let a metric group (G, ·,−1 , d) act on (X, d) by
m,n
isometries, where (X, d) is a pointed R-tree. For any pair m < n let γ̃G
be
a continuity modulus of the G-variable of the partial function G × Bm → Bn .
In Definition 3.5 we formulate a condition which guarantees the assumption of Definition 3.3 in the case ort = id. This will be proved in Lemma 3.7.
In Remark 3.8 we will see that these conditions are equivalent.
Definition 3.5 We say that the action of G on X has hyperbolic continuity moduli if for any h ∈ G, any pair m < n and any rational q > 0 if
x ∈ Bm and y ∈ h(Bm ) \ Bn then
m,n
∀g ∈ G(d(1, g) ≤ γ̃G
(q) → |length([x, y] ∩ Bn ) − length([x, g ◦ y] ∩ Bn)| ≤ q).

In fact this property links the metric of G with the metric of X. For
an illustration consider the case when X is a countable simplicial tree of
finite valency and G ≤ Aut(X) is under a metric defining the pointwise
convergence topology. Then the property of hyperbolic continuity moduli
17

m,n
obviously holds after some correction of γ̃G
if necessary: we only arrange
m,n
that for any g ∈ G with d(1, g) ≤ γ̃G
(q) the set Bn is contained in the set
of fixed points of g. In this case we even have

length([x, y] ∩ Bn ) = length([x, g ◦ y] ∩ Bn ).
Remark 3.6 The property of hyperbolic moduli follows from the condition
that for any n and any q > 0 there exists δ > 0 such that
∀g ∈ G∀y ∈ X(d(1, g) ≤ δ ∧ y ∈
/ Bn → length([y, g ◦ y] ∩ Bn ) ≤ q).
m,n
m,n
Indeed correcting γ̃G
if necessary we can replace δ in this formula by γ̃G
(q).
Now to verify the condition of Definition 3.5 take the median, say c, of the
triple x, y, g ◦ y. If c 6∈ Bn then

length([x, y] ∩ Bn ) = length([x, g ◦ y] ∩ Bn ).
If c ∈ Bn then
|length([x, y] ∩ Bn ) − length([x, g ◦ y] ∩ Bn )| ≤
|length([y, c] ∩ Bn ) + length([c, g ◦ y] ∩ Bn )|,
and the latter value is not greater than q.
S
Lemma 3.7 Assume that a group G acts on X = Bn by isometries and
m,n
the action ◦ has hyperbolic continuity moduli γ̃G
on G. Let A(G, X) be the
corresponding many-sorted metric structures of n-balls of 0
(G, ·, d) ∪ ({Bn }n∈ω , 0, {Imn }m<n , d).
extended by the predicates ◦mn , m < n, as above.
m,n
m,n
Then the predicates ◦mn have continuity moduli γG
= γ̃G
for the Gvariable and id for variables of X.
Proof. Let us consider the first Bm -variable. Assume d(x, x′ ) < ε. Then
d(g◦x, g◦x′ ) < ε. If g◦x, g◦x′ ∈ Bn then obviously |d(g◦x, y)−d(g◦x′, y)| < ε.
Let g ◦ x′ 6∈ Bn and let c be the median of the triple y, g ◦ x, g ◦ x′ . Then
[y, g ◦ x] = [y, c] ∪ [c, g ◦ x] and [y, g ◦ x′ ] = [y, c] ∪ [c, g ◦ x′ ]. If [y, c] contains a
point of distance n from 0 then ◦mn (g, x, y) = ◦mn (g, x′ , y). If [y, c] does not
contain a point of distance n from 0 then
| ◦mn (g, x, y) − ◦mn (g, x′, y)| ≤ |d(g ◦ x, c) − d(g ◦ x′ , c)| < ε.
The case of the second Bm -variable is similar.
m,n
In the case of the variable of G assume that d(g, g ′) ≤ γ̃G
(ε). Then for
′
′
g ◦ x, g ◦ x ∈ Bn we have d(g ◦ x, g ◦ x) ≤ ε and by the triangle inequality,
| ◦mn (g, x, y) − ◦mn (g ′ , x, y)| ≤ ε.
18

If g ′ ◦ x 6∈ Bn then
| ◦mn (g, x, y) − ◦mn (g ′, x, y)| ≤
|length([y, g ′ ◦ x] ∩ Bn ) − length([y, g(g ′)−1 ◦ (g ′ ◦ x)] ∩ Bn )|
and the latter value does not exceed ε by hyperbolicity of continuity moduli.
The remaining case is similar. 
Remark 3.8 Note that Lemma 3.7 also
S holds in the opposite direction.
Assume that a group G acts on X = Bn by isometries and the predicates
m,n
◦mn , m < n, have continuity moduli γG
which are also continuity moduli
of functions G × Bm → Bn defined by the action ◦. Then these continuity
moduli satisfy the condition of hyperbolicity from Definition 3.5.
In terms of Definition 3.5 to see this statement it suffices to consider the
value
| ◦mn (h, h−1 (y), x) − ◦mn (gh, h−1 (y), x)|.
Lemma 3.7 shows that typical G-spaces which are real trees can be considered as continuous metric structures with respect to some functions gth
and ort. Indeed we can define ort(m) = m. In Section 3.2 we demonstrate
that this approach works for logical analyzability of the class non-FR with
respect to actions with some gth and ort defined. In particular
• in Theorem 3.12 we prove that the class of structures A(G, X) as in
Lemma 3.7 (and with fixed gth and ort) is axiomatizable,
• the statement of Proposition 1.7(b) concerning non-FR can be extended
to a statement of logical analyzability, see Theorem 3.15.
Does this approach work in the case of isometric actions on H? It is easy to
see that the definition ort(m) = m cannot be justified in the case of H. We
now discuss this problem and show how our approach should be modified in
this case.
C. The case of Hilbert spaces. Assume that a metric group (G, ·,−1 , d)
acts on the real Hilbert space H by isometries with respect to the metric induced by kk. It is well-known that such isometries are affine transformations
([1], Chapter 2).
We start with the description why in the case of Hilbert spaces the ternary
predicates ◦mn defined above can lose continuity moduli for some m < n. Let
us fix k, l, m ∈ N \ {0} and ε > 0. Let n = m + 1. Take a point y1 of norm
m and a point y2 ∈ Bn \ Bn− kε . Assume that d(y1, y2 ) = l. Let g ∈ G satisfy
g ◦ 0 6∈ Bn , d(g ◦ 0, y2 ) = ε and y2 ∈ [0, g ◦ 0]. Let g ′ ◦ 0 = y2 . Assuming
19

that k, l and m are sufficiently large (in particular the n-sphere bounding
Bn is close to be flat in some domain containing y1 and y2 ) we can arrange
that | ◦mn (g, 0, y1) − ◦mn (g ′, 0, y1)| is close to 1, while d(g ◦ 0, g ′ ◦ 0) = ε.
In particular we do not have a method of defining continuity moduli in this
case.
The following geometric lemma shows how the function ort should be
defined.
Lemma 3.9 For every natural number m there exists a number n > m such
that the following statements hold.
(a) For any positive ε < 21 if v, v1 , v2 ∈ H satisfy min(k v1 k, k v2 k) ≥ n,
k v k≤ m, and k v1 − v2 k< ε, then the distance between the points of the
kk-norm n, say v1′ and v2′ , belonging correspondingly to the segments [v, v1 ]
and [v, v2 ] is smaller than 2ε.
(b) For any positive ε < 12 if v, v1 , v2 ∈ H satisfy max(k v1 k, k v2 k) ≤ m,
k v k> n, and k v1 − v2 k< ε, then the distance between the points of the
kk-norm n, say v1′ and v2′ , belonging correspondingly to the segments [v, v1 ]
and [v, v2 ] is smaller than 2ε.
(c) For any positive ε < 12 if v, v1 , v2 ∈ H satisfy k v1 k≥ n, k v2 k≤ m,
k v k= n, v ∈ [v1 , v2 ] and v1 ∈ Bn+ε , then k v1 − v k≤ 2ε.
Proof. We prove (a) and (b) simultaneously. Let us choose n so that
for any u1 , u2 ∈ Bm and any v1 , v2 6∈ Bn with d(v1 , v2 ) ≤ 21 the angle α
→
−−→
between −
u−
1 v1 and u2 v2 is sufficiently small. In particular these vectors are
−→
−→
close to be collinear to 0v1 and 0v2 . Then for v1′ , v2′ of the norm n so that
−−→
v1′ ∈ [u1 , v1 ] and v2′ ∈ [u2 , v2 ], the vector v1′ v2′ is close to be orthogonal both
→
−−→
1
to −
u−
1 v1 and u2 v2 . In particular we may assume that when d(u1 , u2 ) ≤ ε ≤ 2
1
and d(v1 , v2 ) ≤ ε ≤ 2 we have d(v1′ , v2′ ) ≤ 2ε.
→
Statement (c) follows from the fact that −
v−
1 v2 is close to be collinear with
−→
v1 0. 
Let us fix a function ort : N → N which finds for every m a number n
as in the formulation of Lemma 3.9. Notice that this function only depends
on geometric properties of H. Let ortH be the minimal one. We consider
ternary predicates
◦mn (g, x, y) : G × Bm × Bm → [0, n + m] , m ∈ ω , ortH (m) ≤ n,
as in Definition 3.2. Let A(G, H) be the corresponding many-sorted metric
structures of n-balls of 0
(G, ·, d) ∪ ({Bn }n∈ω , 0, {Imn }m<n , d).
extended by the predicates ◦mn for ortH (m) < n.

20

S
Lemma 3.10 Let a group G act on H = Bn by affine isometries. Assume
m,n
that for any m, n with ortH (m) < n there is a continuity modulus γ̃G
for
the G-variable of the partial function G × Bm → Bn induced by the action.
Let A(G, H) be the corresponding structure with all ◦mn where ortH (m) < n.
m,n
Then the predicates ◦mn have continuity moduli 8γ̃G
for the G-variable and
3id for variables of H.
Proof. The proof is similar to Lemma 3.7. Let us consider the first Bm variable. Assume d(x, x′ ) < ε < 12 . Then d(g◦x, g◦x′ ) < ε. If g◦x, g◦x′ ∈ Bn
then obviously |d(g ◦ x, y) − d(g ◦ x′ , y)| < ε. Let g ◦ x′ 6∈ Bn and let
x′′ ∈ [y, g ◦ x′ ] be the point of distance n from 0. Then in the case g ◦ x ∈ Bn
Lemma 3.9(c) and the triangle inequality guarantee that d(g ◦ x, x′′ ) ≤ 3ε,
i.e. |d(g ◦ x, y) − d(x′′ , y)| < 3ε. When g ◦ x 6∈ Bn choose x̂ ∈ [y, g ◦ x] of
distance n from 0. Then by Lemma 3.9(a) we have |d(x̂, y) − d(x′′ , y)| < 2ε
which in fact is equivalent to | ◦mn (g, x, y) − ◦mn (g, x′ , y)| < 2ε.
The case of the Bm -varable y is similar.
m,n
In the case of the variable of G assume that d(g, g ′) ≤ γ̃G
(ε). If g ◦ x,
g ′ ◦ x ∈ Bn then d(g ◦ x, g ′ ◦ x) ≤ ε and by the triangle inequality,
| ◦mn (g, x, y) − ◦mn (g ′, x, y)| ≤ ε.
Assume that neither g ◦ x nor g ′ ◦ x belongs to Bn . The map g ′ g −1 takes
[y, g ◦ x] to [g ′ g −1 ◦ y, g ′ ◦ x]. Let y ′ ∈ [y, g ◦ x] and y ′′ ∈ [g ′ g −1 ◦ y, g ′ ◦ x] be
elements of norm n. Replacing y ′ by y ′′ if necessary we may assume below that
(g ′g −1 )−1 ◦ y ′′ ∈ Bn . Then k y ′′ − (g ′ g −1 )−1 ◦ y ′′ k≤ ε and k y − g ′ g −1 ◦ y k≤ ε.
Since n− k (g ′ g −1)−1 ◦ y ′′ k≤ ε applying arguments as in Lemma 3.9 we
easily see that k y ′ − (g ′ g −1)−1 ◦ y ′′ k≤ 2ε and k y ′ − y ′′ k≤ 3ε. In particular
the difference between k y − y ′ k and k g ′g −1 ◦ y − y ′′ k does not exceed 5ε.
Applying Lemma 3.9 (b) we see that the length of the Bn -part of the segment
[y, g ′ ◦ x] does not differ from k g ′ g −1 ◦ y − y ′′ k more than 3ε. In particular
it does not differ from k y − y ′ k more than 8ε. By definition of ◦mn we have
| ◦mn (g, x, y) − ◦mn (g ′ , x, y)| ≤ 8ε.
The case when |{g ◦x, g ′ ◦x}∩Bn | = 1 can be arranged by similar arguments.


3.2

Non-FR-actions

m,n
Let us fix continuity moduli γG
and consider the class of continuous metric
structures which are unions of continuous groups (G, ·,−1 , d) together with
many-sorted metric structures of n-balls of pointed R-trees

X = ({Bn }n∈ω , 0, {Imn }m<n , d) , where Imn : Bm → Bn ,
21

and ternary predicates
◦mn (g, x, y) : G × Bm × Bm → [0, m + n] , m ≤ n ∈ ω,
m,n
where γG
is the continuity modulus with respect to G and the continuity
moduli with respect to Bm are equal to id.
m,n
We now introduce an axiomatizable class KisoR (gth, γG
) which contains
all structures of the form A(G, X) from Lemma 3.7 which correspond to
actions with a fixed function gth : N × [0, 1) → N (when we assume that
ort = id). We will see in Theorem 3.12 that the axioms below guarantee
m,n
that all members of KisoR (gth, γG
) are obtained in this way. This is a
confirmation that our approach works well!
Since our formulas are becoming quite complicated we will not mention
below the domains of quantifiers inf and sup. Usually this is clear from the
sorts of the predicates appearing in the formula.
m,n
Definition 3.11 Let KisoR (gth, γG
) be the class of structures of the language above which satisfy axioms of metric groups with invariant metrics for
the sort G, the axioms of pointed real trees and the following three groups
of axioms of the relation ◦mn .
1(a) The value g ◦ x is eventually defined inside some Bn .

supg supx min(◦ms (g, x, 0)−̇n, δ −̇d(1, g)) = 0,
where δ ∈ [0, 1) ∩ Q and gth(m, δ) ≤ n < s.
1(b) Correctness.
supg supx,y min(| ◦ms (g, x, y)−̇ ◦m′ t (g, Imm′ (x), Imm′ (y))|, δ −̇d(1, g)) = 0,
where δ ∈ [0, 1) ∩ Q, m < m′ , gth(m, δ) < s < t and gth(m′ , δ) < t.
1(c) Approximation of the value g ◦ x by points z (when g ◦ x ∈ Bm ).
supg supx min(m−̇ ◦mn (g, x, 0), Φ(g, x)) = 0 , where
Φ(g, x) = inf z max(◦mn (g, x, z), supu min(|d(u, z) − ◦mn (g, x, u)|, m−̇d(0, u))).
2(a) The predicate ◦mn measures the distance inside Bm . Triangle inequalities
involving g ◦ x.
supg supx,y1 ,y2 min(d(y1 , y2)−̇(◦mn (g, x, y1) + ◦mn (g, x, y2)),
m−̇ ◦mn (g, x, 0)) = 0.
supg supx,y1 ,y2 min(◦mn (g, x, y1)−̇(d(y1, y2 ) + ◦mn (g, x, y2)),
m−̇ ◦mn (g, x, 0)) = 0.
2(b) A version of the triangle inequality when the action ◦ is isometric.
supg supx1 ,x2 min(supy (d(x1 , x2 )−̇(◦mn (g, x1 , y)+◦mn(g, x2 , y))), m−̇◦mn (g, x1, 0),
m−̇ ◦mn (g, x2, 0)) = 0.
2(c) The action ◦ is isometric.
supg supx1 ,x2 min(inf y ((◦mn (g, x1 , y)+◦mn (g, x2 , y))−̇d(x1 , x2 )), m−̇◦mn (g, x1, 0),
22

m−̇ ◦mn (g, x2, 0)) = 0.
3(a) The neutral element acts trivially.
supx,y (| ◦mn (1, x, y) − d(x, y)|) = 0.
3(b) The action of g −1 inside Bm .
supg supx,y min(| ◦mn (g, x, y) − ◦mn (g −1, y, x)|, m−̇ ◦mn (g, x, 0),
m−̇ ◦mn (g −1, y, 0)) = 0.
′
′
3(c) When g (x) = z and g(z) = y, then gg (x) = y.
supx,y,g,g′ min(Φ(g, g ′, x, y), m−̇◦mn (g −1 , y, 0), m−̇◦mn (g ′, x, 0), m−̇◦mn (gg ′, x, 0)) = 0,
where Φ(g, g ′, x, y) = supz (◦nm (gg ′, x, y)−̇(◦nm (g −1 , y, z) + ◦nm (g ′ , x, z))).
S
Theorem 3.12 (a) Assume that a group G acts on X = Bn by isometries
according to a function gth and the action ◦ has hyperbolic continuity moduli
m,n
{γG
: m < n ∈ ω} on G. Let A(G, X) be the corresponding structure
m,n
defined as in Lemma 3.7. Then A(G, X) ∈ KisoR (gth, γG
).
m,n
(b) Any structure of the class KisoR (gth, γG ) is of the form A(G, X) for an
m,n
appropriate isometric action of G with hyperbolic continuity moduli γG
for
the sort G.
Proof. (a) The first part of the theorem is straightforward. It uses Lemma
3.7.
m,n
S (b) Let a continuous structure M belong to KisoR (gth, γG ). Let X =
Bn , where Bn are sorts of balls of M. Let g ∈ G and x ∈ Bm . Using
axioms 1(a,b) we can find m < n large enough such that ◦ms (g, x, 0) ≤ m for
all s > n.
Using axiom 1(c) choose in Bm a sequence u1 , u2, . . . , ui , . . ., such that for
n and s as above,
max(◦ms (g, x, ui+1), min(|d(ui , ui+1) − ◦ms (g, x, ui )| <

1

.
2i+1
By completenes of Bm there is û ∈ Bm which is the limit of the sequence
u1 , u2, . . . , ui , . . .. Using axiom 1(c) and the choice of ui it is easy to see
that ◦ms (g, x, û) = 0. Define the value g ◦ x to be û. By axioms 1(b,c) this
value is defined in a unique way. This procedure defines a binary function
◦ : G × X → X.
By axioms 3(a - c) the function ◦ is an action of G on X. By axioms 2(a) it
is easy to see that when x, y, u ∈ Bm and g ◦x = u then ◦mn (g, x, y) = d(u, y).
Using axioms 2(b,c) we have that the action is isometric.
m,n
Since ◦mn has continuity modulus γG
on G we easily obtain that the
m,n
action ◦ also has the G-continuity modulus γG
for the partial function
m,n
G × Bm → Bn . To see that continuity moduli γG are hyperbolic, note that
when x ∈ Bm and y ∈ h(Bm ) \ Bn , the implication
m,n
∀g ∈ G(d(1, g) ≤ γG
(q) → |length([x, y] ∩ Bn ) − length([x, g ◦ y] ∩ Bn)| ≤ q).

23

can be rewritten as
m,n
∀g ∈ G(d(1, g) ≤ γG
(q) → | ◦mn (h, h−1 (y), x) − ◦mn (gh, h−1 (y), x)| ≤ q).

We now conclude that M is of the form A(G, X) for an appropriate isometric
m,n
action of G with hyperbolic continuity moduli γG
. 
We apply this theorem for groups which are non-FR. Let us start with
the following definition which modifies non-FR by taking attention to the
corresponding continuity moduli.
Definition 3.13 Let G be a metric group of a bounded diameter which is a
continuous structure in the language (d, ·,−1 , 1).
m,n
We say that G has property non-FR in the class KisoR (gth, γG
) if it
has an isometric action on an R-tree X without fixed points and the action
m,n
can be presented as a structure A(G, X) ∈ KisoR (gth, γG
) for some point
0 ∈ X.
m,n
If a group is non-FR in KisoR (gth, γG
), then it is non-FR. Note that a
m,n
metric group (G, d) satisfies property non-FR in KisoR (gth, γG
) if there is a
continuous isometric action of G on a real tree X and a natural number s > 0
m,n
such that the corresponding structure A(G, X) belongs to KisoR (gth, γG
)
and satisfies all statements of the following form:

1
supv∈Bm inf g ( −̇ ◦mn (g, v, v)) = 0 , where m, n ∈ ω and m < n.
s
(saying that each element of Bm is moved by some element of G by approximately 1s ). Let us denote it by Θm,n,s . The following proposition shows that
this is the only reason to be non-FR. It does not use any logic.
Proposition 3.14 If a group G acts on a real tree X by isometries without
fixed points then there is a natural number s such that for any m each element
of Bm is moved by some element of G by a distance greater than 1s .
Proof. If G has a hyperbolic element g of hyperbolic length r (i.e. g
r-shifts all points of its axis L), then it is easy to see by Lemma 3.1 that any
element of X is moved by g at the distance ≥ r. Thus s can be chosen so
that 1s < r.
Consider the case when G consists of elliptic elements. Since G does not
fix any point, by a well-known argument G fixes an end ([26], Section 6.5,
Exercise 2). Let L0 be the half-line starting from 0 which represents this end
and let v1 , ...., vi , .... be a cofinal ω-sequence in L0 with d(vi , vi+1 ) ≥ 1. Then
we may assume that G is the union of a strictly increasing chain of stabilizers
Gi of vi .
Having m find j with vj−1 6∈ Bm (thus vj 6∈ Bm ). Since any arc linking
vj with an element from Bm must contain vj−1, we see that if g ∈ Gj fixes
24

a point of Bm then it fixes vj−1 . Since Gj 6= Gj−1 the group Gj contains an
element g which does not fix any element of Bm . Since d(vj , vj−1) ≥ 1 any
point of Bm can be taken by g at a distance greater than 1. Thus we define
s = 1. 
m,n
We now prove logical analyzability of the case of non-FR in KisoR (gth, γG
).
m,n
)
Theorem 3.15 (a) Every group with property non-FR in KisoR (gth, γG
has an expansion to a structure A(G, X) which belongs to the subclass of
m,n
KisoR (gth, γG
) axiomatizable by the family {Θs,m,n : m < n , m, n ∈ ω} for
some fixed s.
m,n
(b) The class of structures A(G, X) witnessing property non-FR in KisoR (gth, γG
)
is bountiful.

Proof. Statement (a) follows from Proposition 3.14.
The last statement follows from the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem and
statement (a). 
Note that Theorem 3.15 states a stronger property than just bountifulness
m,n
of the class of groups with property non-FR in KisoR (gth, γG
). Statement
3.15(b) can be considered as a version of the corresponding case of Proposition 1.7(b) in a precise form.

3.3

Non-FH-actions

m,n
We introduce an axiomatizable class KisoH (gth, ortH , γG
) of structures of
the form A(G, X) in the case of Hilbert spaces. We will see in Theorem
m,n
3.17 that the axioms guarantee that all members of KisoH (gth, ortH , γG
) are
obtained in the way described in Lemma 3.10. After this we show logical
analyzability of property non-FH.
In some sense the result of this section looks stronger than the results of
Section 3.2. Contrary to the previous case we do not have any additional
assumptions on continuity moduli of partial functions G × Bm → Bn .
m,n
) be a class of continuous metric
Definition 3.16 Let KisoH (gth, ortH , γG
structures which are unions of continuous groups (G, ·,−1 , d) together with
many-sorted metric structures of n-balls of real H

H = ({Bn }n∈ω , 0, {Imn }m<n , d, {λr }r∈R , +, −, hi) , where Imn : Bm → Bn ,
and ternary predicates
◦mn (g, x, y) : G × Bm × Bm → [0, n + m] , m, n ∈ ω , ortH (m) < n
m,n
where γG
is the continuity modulus with respect to G and the continuity
m,n
moduli with respect to Bm are equal to 3id. The class KisoH (gth, ortH , γG
)

25

is axiomatizable by the axioms of groups with an invariant metric for the sort
G, the axioms of pointed real Hilbert spaces and the three groups of axioms
of the relation ◦mn from Definition 3.11 where it is always assumed that
ortH (m) < n and for x, y ∈ H the value k x − y k is denoted by d(x, y).
The following theorem is a version of Theorem 3.12 in the case of isometric
actions on H.
S
Theorem 3.17 (a) Assume that a group G acts on H = Bn by affine
isometries according to a function gth. Let A(G, H) be the corresponding
structure defined as in Lemma 3.10. Assume that the predicates ◦mn for
m,n
ortH (m) < n, have continuity moduli {γG
: m < n ∈ ω} for G-variables
m,n
and 3id for Bm -variables. Then A(G, H) ∈ KisoH (gth, ortH , γG
).
m,n
H
(b) Any structure of the class KisoH (gth, ort , γG ) is of the form A(G, H)
for an appropriate isometric action of G on H.
Proof. (a) This part is straightforward.
(b) The proof of this part repeats the corresponding place of the proof of
Theorem 3.12(b). 
We now define an appropriate versions of non-FH.
Definition 3.18 Let G be a metric group of a bounded diameter which is a
continuous structure in the language (d, ·,−1 , 1).
(a) We say that G satisfies uniform property non-FH if there is a
function gth : N × [0, 1) → N and there is an affine isometric action ◦ of G
on real H without fixed points and the action ◦ corresponds to gth and has the
property that for any m, n with ortH (m) < n there is a continuity modulus
for the G-variable of the partial function G × Bm → Bn induced by ◦.
m,n
(b) We say that G has property non-FH in the class KisoH (gth, ortH , γG
)
if it has an affine isometric action on H without fixed points and the action
m,n
can be presented as a structure A(G, H) ∈ KisoH (gth, ortH , γG
).
It is clear that the property of Definition 3.18(b) implies uniform non-FH
and the latter implies non-FH. We start logical analysis of these properties
with the following remark.
In the case of affine isometric actions on the real Hilbert space there is
an obvious version of Proposition 3.14:
If a group G acts on H by isometries without fixed points then
for any m there is a natural number s such that each element of
Bm is moved by some element of G by a distance greater than 1s .
Indeed since G does not fix any point, each orbit of G is unbounded (Proposition 2.2.9 of [1]). Thus there is g ∈ G so that Bm ∩g(Bm ) = ∅. In particular
there is s ∈ N such that 1s ≤k g ◦ v − v k for all v ∈ Bm .
26

We now see that if a metric group (G, d) satisfies property non-FH in
m,n
the class KisoH (gth, ortH , γG
) then there is a γG -continuous affine isometric
action of G on H and a function m → s(m) such that the corresponding
structure A(G, H) satisfies all statements of the following form:
inf g supv∈Bm (

1
−̇ ◦mn (g, v, v)) = 0 , where m, n ∈ ω and ortH (m) < n.
s(m)

(saying that there is an element of G which takes each element of Bm by
1
approximately s(m)
). Let us denote it by ΘH,s
m,n .
The following theorem gives logical analyzability of uniform property nonFH.
m,n
Theorem 3.19 (a) Every group with property non-FH in KisoH (gth, ortH , γG
)
has an expansion to a structure A(G, H) which belongs to the subclass of
m,n
H
KisoH (gth, ortH , γG
) axiomatizable by the family {ΘH,s
m,n : ort (m) < n ,
m, n ∈ ω} for some function s : N → N.
(b) Every group with uniform property non-FH has an expansion to a
m,n
structure A(G, H) which belongs to the subclass of some KisoH (gth, ortH , γG
)
H,s
H
axiomatizable by the family {Θm,n : ort (m) < n , m, n ∈ ω} for some
function s : N → N.
(c) The class of structures A(G, H) witnessing uniform property non-FH
is bountiful.

Proof. Statement (a) follows from the above consequence of Proposition
2.2.9 of [1]. Statement (b) follows from (a), Lemma 3.10 and Theorem 3.17.
The last statement follows from the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem and
statements (a) and (b). 

4

Around non-OB

In paragraph A below we uniformize property non-OB in order to make it
logically analyzable. Unfortunately when the topology is discrete the class
we obtain coincides with the class of all infinite groups. Since property OB
is not empty in the class of discrete infinite groups we consider this class
in paragraph B using a completely different approach. In fact we apply the
standard version of Lω1 ω . These arguments are very close to the paper [20],
which was the starting point of the subject.
A. Uniformization. Property OB is defined in Definition 1.1. In this
section we study some modifications of OB in the case of metric groups which
are continuous structures.
It is known (see Section 1.4 of [24]) that for Polish groups property OB
is equivalent to the property that for any open symmetric V 6= ∅ there is a
27

finite set F ⊆ G and a natural number k such that G = (F V )k . Thus when
G is non-OB, there is an non-empty open V such that for any finite F and
a natural number k, G 6= (F V )k . Note that for such F and k there is a real
number ε such that some g ∈ G is ε-distant from (F V )k . Indeed, otherwise
(F V )k V would cover G.
This suggests that the following property can be considered as a substitute
for the complement to OB.
Definition 4.1 A metric group G is called uniformly non-OB if there is
an open symmetric V 6= ∅ such that for any natural numbers m and k there
is a real number ε such that for any m-element subset F ⊂ G there is g ∈ G
which is ε-distant from (F V )k .
It is clear that all infinite discrete groups are uniformly non-OB. In order
to verify that this property is logically analyzable we will consider metric
groups with two distinguished grey subsets of them, i.e. two unary predicates
denoted by P and Q. In some sense the definition below states that the nullset
of Q is the complement of the nullset of P .
Definition 4.2 Let Kgrey be the class of all continuous metric structures
hG, P, Qi such that G is a group with a bi-invariant [0, 1]-metric, P : G →
[0, 1] and Q : G → [0, 1] are unary predicates on G with continuity moduli id
and the following axioms are satisfied:
supx |P (x) − P (x−1 )| = 0 ,

inf x |P (x) − 1/2| = 0,

supx |Q(x) − Q(x−1 )| = 0 ,

inf x |Q(x) − 1/2| = 0,

Q(1) = 0 ,

supx min(P (x), Q(x)) = 0,

supx min(ε−̇Q(x), inf y (max(d(x, y)−̇2ε, ε−̇P (y))) = 0,
1
for all rational ε ∈ [0, ].
2
Note that the last axiom implies that any neighbourhood of an element
from the nullset of Q contains an element with non-zero P .
Definition 4.3 For any natural m and k and any rational ε let θ(m, k, ε)
be the following formula:
supx1 ...xm inf x supy1 ...yk min(P (y1 ), ..., P (yn), (ε−̇minw∈Wm,k (d(x, w)))) = 0,
where Wm,k consists of all words of the form xi1 y1 xi2 y2 ...xik yk .
It is worth noting that in the definition the expression θ(m, k, ε) formally
is not a formula. On the other hand it is easy to see that it can be written by
a formula of continuous logic. It states that for any finite set F = {x1 , ..., xm }
there is x which is ε-distant from (F · {y : P (y) > 0})k .
The following theorem shows logical analyzability of uniform non-(OB).
28

Theorem 4.4 (a) A metric group G is uniformly non-OB if and only if
there is a finction s : N × N → N such that G has an expansion from Kgrey
1
which satisfies all conditions θ(m, k, s(m,k)
).
(b) The class of uniformly non-OB metric groups is bountiful.
Proof. If G is a uniformly non-OB-group, then find an open symmetric
V such that 1 ∈ V and for any natural numbers m and k there is a real
number ε such that for any m-element subset F ⊂ G there is g ∈ G which is
ε-distant from (F V )k . We interpret Q(x) by d(x, V ) and P (x) by d(x, G \ V )
(possibly normalizing them to satisfy the axioms of Kgrey ). Then observe that
hG, P, Qi ∈ Kgrey and for any natural numbers m and k there is a rational
number ε so that θ(m, k, ε) holds in (G, P, Q).
Assume that there is a function s such that G has an expansion as in
statement (a). To verify uniform non-OB take the complement of the nullset
of P (x) as an open symmetric subset V . This proves statement (a).
Statement (b) follows from (a) and the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem for
continuous logic. 
The following definition from [24] gives several versions of property OB.
Definition 4.5 Let G be a topological group.
(1) The group G is called bounded if for any open V containing 1 there is a
finite set F ⊆ G and a natural number k > 0 such that G = F V k .
(2) The group G is Roelcke bounded if for any open V containing 1 there is
a finite set F ⊆ G and a natural number k > 0 such that G = V k F V k .
(3) The group G is Roelcke precompact if for any open V containing 1 there
is a finite set F ⊆ G such that G = V F V .
(4) The group G has property (OB)k if for any open symmetric V 6= ∅ there
is a finite set F ⊆ G such that G = (F V )k .
It is worth noting that by Section 1.10 of [24] in the case of σ-locally compact groups (=σ-compact locally compact) all these properties coincide with
property OB. Applying our method of uniformization of the corresponding negations of these properties one can obtain bountiful classes of metric
groups which are:
• uniformly non-bounded;
• uniformly non-Roelcke bounded;
• uniformly non-Roelcke precompact;
• uniformly non-(OB)k .

29

B. Discrete groups. An abstract group G is Cayley bounded if for
every generating subset U ⊂ G there exists n ∈ ω such that every element
of G is a product of n elements of U ∪ U −1 ∪ {1}. If G is a Polish group
then G is topologically Cayley bounded if for every analytic generating
subset U ⊂ G there exists n ∈ ω such that every element of G is a product
of n elements of U ∪ U −1 ∪ {1}. It is proved in [23] that for Polish groups
property OB is equivalent to topological Cayley boundedness together with
uncountable topological cofinality: G is not the union of a chain of
proper open subgroups.
Let us consider the abstract (discrete) case. Since in this case we do not
need continuous logic, our considerations become simpler.
A group is strongly bounded if it is Cayley bounded and cannot be
presented as the union of a strictly increasing chain {Hn : n ∈ ω} of proper
subgroups (has cofinality > ω). It is a discrete version of OB, which is also
called Bergman’s property, [3]. It is known that strongly bounded groups
have property FA, i.e. any action on a simplicial tree fixes a point.
As we already know the class of strongly bounded groups is not bountiful.
The corresponding arguments given in Introduction can be also applied to
property FA.
It is shown in [6], that strongly bounded groups have property FH. It
can be also deduced from [6] that strongly bounded groups have property FR
that every isometric action of G on a real tree has a fixed point (since such a
group acting on a real tree has a bounded orbit, all the elements are elliptic
and it remains to apply cofinality > ω). It is now clear that the bountiful
class of groups having free isometric actions on real trees (or on real Hilbert
spaces) is disjoint from strong boundedness.
In the following Proposition we apply the standard version of Lω1 ω .
Proposition 4.6 The following classes of groups are reducts of axiomatizable classes in Lω1 ω :
(1) The complement of the class of strongly bounded groups;
(2) The class of groups of cofinality ≤ ω;
(3) The class of groups which are not Cayley bounded;
(4) The class of groups presented as non-trivial free products with amalgamation (or HNN-extensions);
(5) The class of groups having homomorphisms onto Z.
All these classes are bountiful. The class of groups which do not have
property FA is bountiful too.
Proof. (1) We use the following characterization of strongly bounded
groups from [6].
A group is strongly
S bounded if and only if for every presentation
of G as G = n∈ω Xn for an increasing sequence Xn , n ∈ ω,

30

with {1} ∪ Xn−1 ∪ Xn · Xn ⊂ Xn+1 there is a number n such that
Xn = G.
Let us consider the class Knb of all structures hG, Xn in∈ω with the first-order
axioms stating that G is a group, {Xn } is a sequence of unary predicates on
G defining a strictly increasing sequence of subsets of G with
{1} ∪ Xn−1 ∪ Xn · Xn ⊂ Xn+1
and with the following Lω1 ω -axiom:
_
(∀x)(
x ∈ Xn ).
n∈ω

By the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem for countable fragments of Lω1 ω ([19],
p.69) any subset C of such a structure is contained in an elementary submodel
of cardinality |C| (the countable fragment which we consider is the minimal
fragment containing our axioms). This proves bountifulness in case (1).
(2) The case groups of cofinality ≤ ω is similar.
(3) The class of groups which are not Cayley bounded is a class of reducts
of all groups expanded by an unary predicate hG, Ui with an Lω1 ω -axiom
stating that U generates G and with a system of first-order axioms stating
that there exists an element of G which is not a product of n elements of
U ∪ U −1 ∪ {1}. The rest is clear.
(4) The class of groups which can be presented as non-trivial free products
with amalgamation is the class of reducts of all groups expanded by two unary
predicates hG, U1 , U2 i with first-order axioms that U1 and U2 are subgroups
and with Lω1 ω -axioms stating that U1 ∪ U2 generates G and a word in the
alphabeth U1 ∪ U2 is equal to 1 if and only if this word follows from the
relators of the free product of U1 and U2 amalgamated over U1 ∩ U2 . The
rest of (4) is clear.
(5) Groups having homomorphisms onto Z can be considered as reducts of
structures in the language h·, ...U−n , ..., U0 , ..., Um , ...i, where predicates Ut
denote preimages of the corresponding integer numbers.
To see that the class of groups without FA is bountiful, take any infinite
G which is not FA. It is well-known ([26], Section 6.1) that such a group
belongs to the union of the classes from statements (2),(4) and (5). Thus
G has an expansion as in one of the cases (2),(4) or (5). Now applying the
Löwenheim-Skolem theorem, for any C ⊂ G we find a subgroup of G of
cardinality |C| which contains C and does not satisfy FA. 

References
[1] B. Bekka, P. de la Harpe and A. Valette, Kazhdan’s Property (T),
New Mathematical Monographs, 11, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008
31

[2] I. Ben Yaacov, A. Berenstein, W. Henson and A. Usvyatsov, Model
theory for metric structures. In: Model theory with Applications to Algebra and Analysis, v.2 (Z.Chatzidakis, H.D.Macpherson, A.Pillay and
A.Wilkie, eds.), London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes, v.350, pp. 315 - 427,
Cambridge University Press, 2008.
[3] G. Bergman, Generating infinite symmetric groups, Bull.London
Math.Soc. 38(2006), 429 - 440.
[4] E.I. Bunina and A.V.Mikhalev, Elementary properties of linear groups
and related problems, J. Math. Sci. (N. Y.) 123 (2004), 3921 - 3985.
[5] S. Carlisle, Model theory of real trees and their isometries, PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2009 (available at
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/∼henson/cfo/carlislethesis.pdf).
[6] Y. de Cornulier, Strongly bounded groups and infinite powers of finite
groups, Comm. Algebra, 34(2006), 2337 - 2345.
[7] M. Culler and J.W. Morgan, Group actions on R-trees, Proc. London
Math. Soc. (3) 55(1987), 571 - 604.
[8] M. Ershov and A. Jaikin-Zapirain, Property (T) for noncommutative
universal lattices, Invent. Math. 179 (2010), 303 - 347.
[9] R. Espinola and W.A. Kirk, Fixed point theorems in R-trees with applications to graph theory, Top Appl., 153(2006), 1046 -0 1055.
[10] D. Evans and T. Tsankov, Free actions of free groups on countable structures and property (T), Fund. Math. 232 (2016), no. 1, 49 - 63.
[11] I. Farah, B. Hart, D. Sherman, Model theory of operator algebras II:
Model theory, Israel J. Math. 201 (2014), no. 1, 477 - 505.
[12] T. Hartnick and R. Köhl, Two-spherical topological Kac-Moody groups
are Kazhdan, J. Group Theory 18 (2015), 649 - 654.
[13] R. Grigorchuk and P. de la Harp, Amenability and ergodic properties of
topologogical groups: from Bogolyubov onwards, arxiv:1404:7030v2
[14] S. Hernandes, K.H. Hofmann and S.A. Morris, The weights of closed
subgroups of a locally compact subgroup, J. Group Theory 15 (2012), no.
5, 613 - 630.
[15] A. Ivanov, Locally compact groups which are separably categorical structures, Arch. Math. Logic, 56(2017), 67 - 78.

32

[16] A. Ivanov, Actions
arXiv:1706.04157.

of

metric

groups

and

continuous

logic,

[17] B. Ivarsson and F. Kutzschebauch, On Kazhdan’s property (T) for the
special linear group of holomorphic functions, Bull. Belg. Math. Soc.
Simon Stevin 21 (2014), 185 - 191.
[18] A. Kechris, Dynamic of non-archimedean Polish groups, In: European
Congress of Mathematics, 375 - 397, Eur. Math. Soc., Zrich, 2013.
[19] J.H. Keisler, Model Theory for Infinitary Logic, North-Holland, London,
1971.
[20] R.D. Kopperman and A.R.D. Mathias, Some problems in group theory,
In: The syntax and semantics of infinitary languages, Lect. Notes in
Math., 72(1968), 131 - 138.
[21] V. Pestov, Amenability versus property (T) for non locally compact topological groups, arXiv:1512.01572.
[22] R.E. Phillips, Countably recognizable classes of groups, Rocky Mountain
J. Math., 1(1971), 489 - 497.
[23] Ch. Rosendal, A topological version of the Bergman property, Forum
Math. 21(2009), 299 - 332.
[24] Ch. Rosendal, Global and local boundedness of Polish groups, Indiana
Univ. Math. J. 62 (2013), no. 5, 1621 - 1678.
[25] G. Sabbagh, On properties of countable character, Bull. Austr. Math.
Soc., 4(1971), 183 - 192.
[26] J. Serre, Trees, Springer, NY, 1980.
[27] J. Tits, A ”theorem of Lie-Kolchin” for trees. In: Contributions to algebra (collection of papers dedicated to Ellis Kolchin), pp. 377 - 388.
Academic Press, New York, 1977
[28] S. Thomas, Complete existentially closed locally finite groups, Arch.
Math. 44(1985), 97 - 109.
[29] T. Tsankov, Unitary representations of oligomorphic groups, Geom.
Funct. Anal. 22(2012), no. 2, 528 - 555.
Institute of Mathematics,
Silesian University of Technology,
ul. Kaszubska 23,
33

44 - 100 Gliwice,
POLAND.
iwanowaleksander@gmail.com

34

