Table of Contents
Fetching ...

The Poisson boundary of Thompson's group $T$ is not the circle

Martín Gilabert Vio, Cosmas Kravaris, Eduardo Silva

TL;DR

The paper proves that for groups G acting on the circle with a minimal, proximal, and topologically nonfree action, any nondegenerate μ with finite entropy yields a μ-boundary (S^1,ν) that is strictly smaller than the Poisson boundary; namely, (S^1,ν) cannot be the Poisson boundary of (G,μ). The authors develop an entropy-based argument using Kaimanovich’s conditional entropy criterion and an Erschler-style machinery, augmented by a dynamical input showing a linear number of dominating intervals along a random walk. In parallel, they construct a breakpoint boundary (R^{Br}, ν̃) from the derivative breakpoints, proving it is a μ-boundary not obtainable from (S^1,ν), and in the Thompson group T they even produce explicit μ-harmonic functions not arising via the circle boundary. These results yield concrete obstructions to circle-boundary identification in this setting and connect to broader questions about amenability and boundary rigidity for groups acting on the circle.

Abstract

Let $μ$ be a nondegenerate probability measure with finite entropy on a countable group $G \leq \mathrm{Homeo}_+(S^1)$ of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of the circle acting proximally, minimally and topologically nonfreely on $S^1$. We prove that the circle $S^1$ endowed with its unique $μ$-stationary probability measure is not the Poisson boundary of $(G,μ)$. When $G$ is Thompson's group $T$ and $μ$ is finitely supported, this answers a question posed by B. Deroin [Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 2013] and A. Navas [Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, 2018].

The Poisson boundary of Thompson's group $T$ is not the circle

TL;DR

The paper proves that for groups G acting on the circle with a minimal, proximal, and topologically nonfree action, any nondegenerate μ with finite entropy yields a μ-boundary (S^1,ν) that is strictly smaller than the Poisson boundary; namely, (S^1,ν) cannot be the Poisson boundary of (G,μ). The authors develop an entropy-based argument using Kaimanovich’s conditional entropy criterion and an Erschler-style machinery, augmented by a dynamical input showing a linear number of dominating intervals along a random walk. In parallel, they construct a breakpoint boundary (R^{Br}, ν̃) from the derivative breakpoints, proving it is a μ-boundary not obtainable from (S^1,ν), and in the Thompson group T they even produce explicit μ-harmonic functions not arising via the circle boundary. These results yield concrete obstructions to circle-boundary identification in this setting and connect to broader questions about amenability and boundary rigidity for groups acting on the circle.

Abstract

Let be a nondegenerate probability measure with finite entropy on a countable group of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of the circle acting proximally, minimally and topologically nonfreely on . We prove that the circle endowed with its unique -stationary probability measure is not the Poisson boundary of . When is Thompson's group and is finitely supported, this answers a question posed by B. Deroin [Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 2013] and A. Navas [Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, 2018].

Paper Structure

This paper contains 21 sections, 27 theorems, 86 equations, 3 figures.

Key Result

Theorem 1

Let $G \leq \mathrm{Homeo}_+(S^1)$ be a countable group whose action on $S^1$ is minimal, proximal and topologically nonfree, and let $\mu$ be a finite entropy nondegenerate probability measure on $G$. Then $(S^1,\nu)$ is not the Poisson boundary of $(G, \mu)$.

Figures (3)

  • Figure 1: All red intervals $y_{i_{r'} - 1}(J)$ are dominated by the blue interval $y_{i_r - 1}(J)$.
  • Figure 2: The interval $w_{js}(J)$ does not dominate $J$.
  • Figure 3: The maps $a_n$ for $y = 1/2$ and $n = 2$ (blue), $n = 3$ (green) and $n = 4$ (red).

Theorems & Definitions (53)

  • Theorem 1
  • Theorem 2
  • Definition 2.1
  • Theorem 2.2
  • Lemma 2.3
  • proof
  • Definition 2.4
  • Definition 2.5
  • Theorem 2.6
  • Lemma 2.7
  • ...and 43 more