44

I am trying to use a modification of group cohomology to prove the existence and uniqueness of Haar measure on a compact Hausdorff group.


I think the best way of introducing the idea I am pursuing is via analogy. Let $G$ be a finite group and let $A = \mathbb{C}[G]$ be the group algebra. For each $G$-set $X$, there is an $A$-module $[X, \mathbb{C}]$ (functions from $X$ to $\mathbb{C}$). For $g \in G$, $f^g$ sends $x$ to $f(xg)$.

We may view $\mathbb{C}$ as a $\mathbb{C}[G]$-module where $g z = z$ for each $z \in \mathbb{C}$. $\mathbb{C}$ embeds into $[G, \mathbb{C}]$ as constant functions. We may then consider the exact sequence
$$0 \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \rightarrow [G, \mathbb{C}] \rightarrow [G, \mathbb{C}]/ \mathbb{C} \rightarrow 0$$ We know that this sequence splits because of the symmetrization map $[G, \mathbb{C}] \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ sending $f \in [G, \mathbb{C}]$ to $\frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g \in G} f(g)$.


For the question at hand, let $G$ be a compact hausdorff group. Let $A = \mathbb{C}[G]$. This is a $\mathbb{C}$-algebra. Let $C$ be the category of topological $\mathbb{C}[G]$-modules (topological abelian groups $A$ with a map of abelian groups $\mathbb{C}[G] \rightarrow \text{End}_{\text{TopAb}}(A, A)$. We might wish to tweak this later on to get something abelian). For each topological $G$-set $X$, $[X, \mathbb{C}]_{\text{Top}}$ (continuous functions from $X$ to $\mathbb{C}$) is such a $\mathbb{C}[G]$-module (it is also a $C^*$-algebra).

We may view $\mathbb{C}$ as a $\mathbb{C}[G]$-module where $gz = z $ for each $z \in \mathbb{C}$ and each $g \in G$. $\mathbb{C}$ embeds into $[G, \mathbb{C}]_{\text{Top}}$ as constant functions. We may then consider the exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \rightarrow [G, \mathbb{C}]_{\text{Top}} \rightarrow [G, \mathbb{C}]_{\text{Top}}/ \mathbb{C} \rightarrow 0$$ We know that this sequence splits because of Haar measure $[G, \mathbb{C}]_{\text{Top}} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ sending $f \in [G, \mathbb{C}]_{\text{Top}}$ to $\int_{G} f d \mu$.

On the other hand, we may wish to show that the sequence splits another way, from which it would follow that a unique Haar measure exists. For instance, what is $\text{Ext}^1_{\mathbb{C}[G]}([G, \mathbb{C}]/\mathbb{C}, \mathbb{C})$? We may need to tweak the category $C$ to make sense of this. But if we succeed, and this cohomology group vanishes, then the sequence will split by the usual characterization of $\text{Ext}^1$ as classifying extensions.

Does anyone see a say to show that $\text{Ext}^1$ vanishes? No doubt we must use somewhere that $G$ is compact hausdorff (or at least locally compact hausdorff), since the theorem does not hold otherwise. Recall that there is an equivalence of categories between $C^*$-algebras and compact hausdorff topological spaces, Gelfand duality. The $C^*$-algebra structure of $[G, \mathbb{C}]_{\text{Top}}$ is one way that the compact hausdorff property of $G$ could show up in the proof (there is an equivalence of categories between compact hausdorff topological spaces with a continuous left $G$-action on the one hand, and $C^*$-algebras with a right $G$-action on the other; the second is equivalent to $C^*$-algebras which are $\mathbb{C}[G]$-modules in a compatible way).

  • 6
    Seems like a novel way to think about it! Can one prove your first exact sequence (involving a finite group $G$) splits without invoking the symmetrisation map? – AlexArvanitakis Jan 25 '20 at 00:16
  • 5
    Given that topological groups which are not locally compact need not admit any Haar measure, I can't help feeling that analysis of the kind used in e.g. von Neumann's construction of Haar measure will have to enter somewhere – Yemon Choi Jan 25 '20 at 03:07
  • 2
    I mean, this sounds like a nice point of view on Haar measure once one can prove existence; but without a demonstration of how to make progress on this POV for ${\bf T}$, ${\bf R}$ and $SL_2({\bf R})$ -- even before we get into non-Lie connected groups -- I am sceptical that it can give another route to existence of Haar measure. – Yemon Choi Jan 25 '20 at 03:10
  • 5
    When you say that ${\mathbf C} [G]$ is a topological algebra for $G$ a compact group, what is the topology? How is it detecting the topology of $G$? The space you've denoted by $[G, {\bf C}]$ -- which I guess should be interpreted as the algebra of continuous ${\bf C}$-valued functions on $G$ -- seems to be more natural, but now you have to define convolution... – Yemon Choi Jan 25 '20 at 03:15
  • 3
    Also: the claim that $[X, {\bf C}]_{\rm Top}$ is a Hilbert space looks very suspect to me: how are you defining your inner product, which I would -- with my analyst's hat on -- expect to be done using some choice of measure on $X$? – Yemon Choi Jan 25 '20 at 03:18
  • 3
    Finally for now: in its current form, I can't tell if the question is a reference request, or a request for people to supply details in the "programme" being proposed here. In the latter case it does all feel a bit too open-ended, especially when you yourself admit this is more a case of a general idea with various definitions being in flux – Yemon Choi Jan 25 '20 at 03:20
  • 1
    P.S. the constant functions on a noncompact group are not integrable with respect to Haar measure, so I think there are problems getting ${\bf C} \to $ (some space of functions on $G$) and also getting a left inverse to this map. You can't map into "continuous compactly supported functions" (because $1$ need not have compact support) but then you can't map out of "all bounded continuous functions" because they might not be integrable – Yemon Choi Jan 25 '20 at 03:24
  • 1
    @YemonChoi You make some important comments. Let me see if I can respond to a few for now: 1. "there are problems getting $\mathbb{C} \rightarrow \cdots$"- I see your point, hence the restriction to compact hausdorff groups. 2. you were right to suspect $[X, \mathbb{C}]_{\text{Top}}$ has no natural Hilbert Space structure. Sorry for this, I have changed it accordingly. – Ronald J. Zallman Jan 25 '20 at 03:37
  • 2
    Have you tried to remain in the category of topological $\mathbb C$-algebras, showing it is homological (pointed, regular and protomodular)? Protomodular categories arise naturally as cats of algebraic varieties internal to $\bf Top$. I know many people that could help you pursuing this approach, if you feel like it can be a promising one! – fosco Jan 25 '20 at 10:54
  • 1
    Can you please, please edit either the title or your first paragraph or both, to make it clear you are only limiting yourself to compact groups? For reasons I've tried to outline above, I think there are genuine analytical difficulties you will run into even for SL(2,R), and harmonic analysis on locally compact groups is not just a matter of taking what one learns from finite groups and adding the word "topological" – Yemon Choi Jan 25 '20 at 18:10
  • @Fosco I am not up to speed with people's various sophisticated takes on topological structures inside category theory, but aren't you going to run into the problem of non-surjective epimorphisms? I had a vague and amateur look at Borceux+Bourn's book a long time ago and I think at least one of the axioms you mention just doesn't work in the Banach setting & is unlikely to work in the Frechet setting. Maybe one can succeed with other topological structures, if one allows incomplete LCTVS, but then one cannot leverage the various tools like Gelfand duality that the OP is keen on – Yemon Choi Jan 25 '20 at 18:14
  • 5
    On a constructive note (sorry to swamp the comment thread, but since the question seems to be a moving target, I don't really feel I should write something as an "answer") it seems that your formulation via Ext boils down to wanting the inclusion of the trivial G-module ${\bf C}$ into ${\rm Top}(G, {\bf C})$ to split, with the retraction map being "the" Haar integral. Maybe you can try to show that the trivial 1-dim $G$-module is injective in a suitable category of $G$-modules? In the Banach world, this line of thought leads to a Banach-cohomological characterization of amenability. – Yemon Choi Jan 25 '20 at 18:22
  • 1
    @Fosco I would definitely like to work with someone on this approach, if you know people. My email is on my page. Some have expressed that this is too open ended for a stackoverflow question, so perhaps working with a particular person would be better. – Ronald J. Zallman Jan 26 '20 at 00:05
  • @Fosco I haven't checked any properties of this category as of yet, sorry to say. But I notice that $[G, \mathbb{C}]{\text{Top}}$ has a second choice of algebra structure once we have defined the Haar measure: $* : [G \times G , \mathbb{C}]{\text{Top}} \rightarrow [G, \mathbb{C}]{\text{Top}}, F : G \times G \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ maps to $g \mapsto \int{hk = g} F(h, k) d \mu$. This doesn't necessary make anything useful for the construction, but it does seem analogous to $k[G]$ for $G$ finite. It also gives a Bar resolution involving $*$ (comultiplication) and $\int$ (counit). – Ronald J. Zallman Jan 26 '20 at 00:08
  • @Fosco sorry, those shouldn't be called comultiplication and counit. See here, where they are called $m$ and $a$: https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/05/on_the_bar_construction.html – Ronald J. Zallman Jan 26 '20 at 00:16
  • 2
  • The idea of trying to compute Ext groups in modules over a locally compact abelian group sounds like it could make sense in Clausen-Scholze's framework of condensed mathematics - have you read Scholze's lecture notes?
  • – Dan Petersen Jan 26 '20 at 20:53
  • 1
  • I haven't really tried to understand what you're saying, but I don't understand how any construction involving division by $|G|$ could arise formally out of the adjunction you write down. The adjunction exists over the integers so how could denominators appear?
  • – Dan Petersen Jan 26 '20 at 20:55
  • @DanPetersen Good point, you're right- I will edit it and see if it could still work. – Ronald J. Zallman Jan 26 '20 at 23:03
  • @DanPetersen I am familiar with condensed math - thanks for pointing me in this direction. However, I am not so deft with using such heavy machinery, so I will have to ask around. – Ronald J. Zallman Jan 27 '20 at 04:19
  • 1
    Yes, $\mathrm{Ext}^1(V,\mathbb{C})=0$ for every Banach $G$-module, as $H^1(G,V^)=0$, by dualizing and considering the long exact sequence in cohomology. The fact that $H^1(G,V^)=0$ for every Banach $G$-module is equivalent to $G$ being compact and could be seen quite easily without invoking the Haar measure a priori (this fact is also equivalent to $G$ having a finite Haar measure, of course). I am not sure why the "categorical approach" in the question's title. – Uri Bader Jan 27 '20 at 10:53
  • and let me also add that the vanishing of $H^1$ in dual Banach $G$-modules is indeed equivalent to $\mathbb{C}$ being an injective object in the category of Banach $G$-modules, as @YemonChoi mentioned. This is indeed a reformulation of compactness. – Uri Bader Jan 27 '20 at 11:40
  • 1
    @UriBader Strictly speaking, injectivity of ${\bf C}$ (in Helemskii's sense) is a reformulation of amenability. I think for compactness you want ${\bf C}$ to be projective – Yemon Choi Jan 27 '20 at 15:34
  • @UriBader Thanks so much! Could you post this as an answer? Sorry - I meant cohomological, not categorical – Ronald J. Zallman Jan 27 '20 at 17:31
  • 1
    DeanYoung: If I had known this is all you wanted (a homological reformulation) then I woud have answered this question 20 comments ago. The point is that (unless @UriBader corrects me) all known approaches use the existence of Haar measure to justify these (co)homological interpretations. Your question/project seemed to be a mission -- which I felt was a bit idealistic and enamoured of "new machinery" -- to find a (co)homological proof that every compact group carries a Haar measure; Uri's observation doesn't do that – Yemon Choi Jan 27 '20 at 18:00
  • @UriBader as you know (but should be pointed out for the OP) there are of course some subtleties involved in the definitions of "Banach $G$-module" as per Monod's book and other sources -- Theo Buehler, if he were still active on MSE or MO, would be able to chip in here. – Yemon Choi Jan 27 '20 at 18:07
  • Dean, I hope to write a reasonable answer in one of the next few days, when I'll find some time. – Uri Bader Jan 27 '20 at 19:07
  • 1
    @YemonChoi, In my comments a Banach $G$-module meant to be a Banach space endowed with a continuous $G$-action by automorphisms, need not by isometries. I'll elaborate in the near future. – Uri Bader Jan 27 '20 at 19:11
  • @UriBader You say this can be seen without invoking Haar measure a priori - I had interpreted this as saying that that there is an approach to my question which does not invoke the existence of Haar measure. Yemon Choi has pointed out that I am not correct in this assumption - could you explain a bit? I will admit I have no experience in Banach cohomology. – Ronald J. Zallman Jan 27 '20 at 19:13