On systems disjoint from all minimal systems

Hui Xu; Song Shao; Wen Huang; Xiangdong Ye

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

On systems disjoint from all minimal systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A topological system is disjoint from every minimal system exactly when countably many minimal subsystems, each disjoint from the whole, fill it densely.

desk verdict The paper's real theorem is the dense-union version; the printed equality version is false, but the repair is straightforward. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17504 v1 pith:6DEIWPD6 submitted 2025-04-24 math.DS

Wen Huang , Song Shao , Hui Xu , Xiangdong Ye This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DS MSC 37B0537A0554H20

keywords topologicaldynamicalsystemsdisjointnessminimalquasifactorshyperspaceergodicdecompositionsemi-simpledistal

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to characterize, inside compact metric topological dynamics, exactly which systems are disjoint from every minimal system—meaning the only joining with any minimal system is the trivial product. Its central theorem states that a system has this property precisely when it contains countably many minimal subsystems, each itself disjoint from the whole system, whose union is dense. This turns a property defined by quantifying over all minimal systems into an intrinsic, countable condition on the system itself. The result is a topological analogue of a recently proved ergodic-theoretic characterization, and it comes with parallel characterizations for semi-simple and distal systems.

What carries the argument

The central objects are quasifactors—minimal subsystems of the hyperspace $(2^X, T)$—together with the order of a closed set $A$, defined as the largest $n$ for which $A \cap TA \cap \cdots \cap T^{n-1}A$ is nonempty. The paper proves that any collection of pairwise disjoint nontrivial quasifactors of a minimal system is at most countable, using Urysohn separation to build continuous functions with $\|f_X - f_Y\| \geq 1$ and then the separability of $C(X)$. This countability is the engine: it forces a countable dense family of minimal subsystems in Theorem A and yields the residual-pair characterization for semi-simple systems via Mycielski's theorem, and it ultimately rests on metrizability of $X$.

What would settle it

Find a compact metric minimal system with uncountably many pairwise disjoint nontrivial quasifactors; Theorem E would be false and the proof of Theorem A's converse would collapse. Alternatively, exhibit a compact metric system that is disjoint from all minimal systems but has no countable dense family of minimal subsystems each disjoint from the whole, directly contradicting Theorem A.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, for a topological dynamical system $(X,T)$ on a compact metric space, $X \perp \mathcal{M}$—disjointness from every minimal system—holds if and only if there are minimal subsets $M_i \subseteq X$ whose union is dense in $X$ and each $M_i$ is disjoint from $X$. The forward direction upgrades the previously known fact that such systems have dense minimal points to a countable dense family of minimal subsystems each individually disjoint from the whole. The converse shows that this countable 'dense disjoint minimal subsets' structure is sufficient: if such a family exists, no minimal system can form a nontrivial joining with $X$. The paper also proves that for semi-simple systems, $X \perp \mathcal{M}$ is equivalent to the residual set $\Delta^\perp(X)$ of pairs $(x_1,x_2)$ whose orbit closures are disjoint, and for distal systems it is equivalent to $W\times W \subset Q(X)$ for every minimal subsystem $W$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on the phase space being compact and metrizable: separability of $C(X)$ is what makes the collection of pairwise disjoint quasifactors countable, and without metrizability the main characterizations can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every system disjoint from all minimal systems has a countable dense family of minimal subsystems each disjoint from the whole (DDMS), and conversely; membership in $\mathcal{M}^\perp$ is therefore readable from an intrinsic countable witness.
For transitive systems, disjointness from all minimal systems is equivalent to each transitive point being proximal to each minimal point of the system (Theorem 6.3).
For semi-simple systems, typical pairs of points have disjoint orbit closures: $\Delta^\perp(X)$ is residual exactly when $X \perp \mathcal{M}$.
For distal systems, $X \perp \mathcal{M}$ holds iff every minimal subsystem $W$ satisfies $W\times W \subset Q(X)$, and iff the maximal equicontinuous factor of every almost one-to-one distal extension consists of fixed points.
From any uncountable family of pairwise disjoint minimal systems, every minimal system is disjoint from at least one member (Corollary 5.7).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The countable-DDMS characterization suggests a constructive route to test membership in $\mathcal{M}^\perp$: one only needs to exhibit countably many minimal subsystems satisfying disjointness with the ambient system, rather than checking all minimal systems at once.
The heavy dependence on separability of $C(X)$ indicates the general-group or non-metrizable setting will look different; the universal minimal flow mentioned in the paper is a signpost that uncountable collections of quasifactors can appear once metrizability is dropped.
If the open product question (Question 1) is answered affirmatively, the DDMS structure would likely be preserved under products, giving a topological counterpart to the ergodic product property proved in the appendix.
One testable extension would be to formulate an algorithmic or pointwise version: for a computable system, decide membership in $\mathcal{M}^\perp$ by checking whether orbit closures of points in a countable dense sequence are pairwise disjoint minimal sets.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper has a real result inside, but the main theorem as printed is false. Theorem A states that X is disjoint from all minimal systems iff there are minimal subsets Mi with ⋃ Mi = X, each disjoint from X. The proof only establishes the union is dense, and the abstract says dense. The equality version is false: take X=[0,1] with T=id. Every point is fixed, the only minimal subsystems are singletons, any countable union is countable and can't be [0,1], yet X is disjoint from every minimal system since any joining's vertical sections are closed invariant subsets of the minimal factor, hence all of it. So the theorem needs "dense" not "=". The same overclaim appears in Theorem B and Theorem 6.3(2).

That said, the dense-union characterization is correct and genuinely new. It answers Furstenberg's problem for general systems, not just transitive ones, and the proof is substantive. Theorem E, the countability of pairwise disjoint quasifactors of a minimal system, is a nice and reusable tool; it uses separability of C(X) and explains why metrizability matters. Theorems C and D for semi-simple and distal systems are plausible and well-motivated by the Górksa-Lemańczyk-de la Rue work. The measure-theoretic appendix is fine.

The soft spots are real but minor compared to the equality issue. In the proof of the Claim in Theorem 4.3, the joining J is defined as a union of orbits without taking a closure, so closedness is not immediate; add a closure. The assertion that the recurrent points form a dense Gδ in Theorem B is true in the context (dense minimal points imply dense recurrent points, and the recurrent set is always Gδ) but should be stated with a proof. Also check Theorem 6.3(2) and Proposition 5.10 for the same equality/density confusion.

If the authors fix the statements to the dense version, this is a solid contribution to topological dynamics. I'd send it to peer review; the referee should focus on the equality/density issue and the minor gaps. The central machinery holds up.

For you: if you work on disjointness, cite the dense version. It's worth a reading-group slot.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper characterizes topological dynamical systems that are disjoint from all minimal systems. Its main results are: Theorem A, an intrinsic characterization via a countable family of minimal subsystems that are each disjoint from the whole system and whose union is dense; Theorem B, a characterization through almost one-to-one extensions with a topological decomposition; Theorem C, a residual-pair characterization for semi-simple systems; Theorem D, a characterization for distal systems in terms of the regionally proximal relation; and Theorem E, the countability of pairwise disjoint quasifactors of a minimal system. The paper also gives a measure-theoretic analogue and several examples and open questions.

Significance. If the defects noted below are repaired, the paper gives a substantial and largely self-contained set of intrinsic characterizations for a class that has been studied since Furstenberg's work. The countability result for pairwise disjoint quasifactors (Theorem E) is elegant and likely to be useful independently. The paper is also careful in pointing out where metrizability is essential (Remark 5.6) and where the almost one-to-one assumption is needed (Example 1.3). The detailed proofs, explicit examples, and open questions make the contribution valuable for the topological dynamics community.

major comments (4)

[Section 1.2, Theorem A] Theorem A states that X perp M if and only if there are minimal subsets (M_i) with union over i in N of M_i equals X and M_i perp X. The proof, however, establishes only that the union is dense in X, exactly as the abstract states. The equality version is false: for (X,T)=([0,1], id), every minimal subsystem is a singleton and X perp M, but no countable union of singletons can equal [0,1]. The statement should be corrected to dense in X throughout, and all later uses of this equality (e.g., in the proof of Theorem B) should be adjusted accordingly.
[Section 4, Claim in the proof of Theorem 4.3] The set J defined in the proof is asserted to be a joining. A joining must be closed and must project onto both coordinates. The set as defined is not shown to be closed, and its projection onto Y need not be all of Y. If one takes the closure to obtain a closed invariant set, it is not automatic that the closure remains disjoint from the open set W times V, which is the property used to contradict X perp Y. This step is load-bearing for Corollary 4.4 and for the converse of Theorem A. Please provide a correct proof or an explicit citation of the corresponding lemma from reference [22].
[Section 6.2, Theorem 6.3] Conditions (2) and (3) of Theorem 6.3 assert that union of M_i equals X. The implication (1) implies (2) cites Theorem 3.3, which only gives a dense set of minimal points and hence a dense union of minimal subsystems, not equality. The equality statement is false even for the full shift, which is transitive, belongs to M-perp, and has only countably many minimal subsystems. The theorem should be restated with dense in X in conditions (2) and (3).
[Section 7.2, proof of Theorem B] In the forward direction of Theorem B, the proof says that because X* perp M, Theorem A gives minimal sets (M_i) with union equal to X*. Since Theorem A itself only supports a dense union, the equality here is not justified. The later argument only needs the union to be dense in X*, so the statement and proof should be changed accordingly.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Section 1.2] The abstract states correctly that the union is dense in X, but Theorem A in the body states equality. Please make the two formulations consistent.
[Proposition 5.10 and its proof] The hypothesis in Proposition 5.10 uses equality to X_beta, but only density is used in the proof (Claim 3 needs a sequence converging to the transitive point). The statement should say dense in X_beta.
[Section 7.2, proof of Theorem 7.2] The proof writes union of Y_j equals X after invoking Theorem 3.4, which provides only a dense union. Density is sufficient for the argument, but the equality should be corrected.
[Section 1.1] The phrase 'Oprocha proposed an sufﬁcient condition' contains a typo; it should be 'a sufﬁcient condition'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity found: the derivation chains are independent of their conclusions; the printed equality in Theorem A is a formal overclaim (the proof only gives density), which is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

After tracing the proof chain, I find no step in which a claimed theorem is obtained from an assumption equivalent to itself. The forward direction of Theorem A is justified by Theorem 3.3 (Huang-Ye, a published parameter-free result) plus orbit closures from a dense set of minimal points; the converse is proved through the new Lemma 6.1 (from Theorem 5.9), Theorem 4.3, and Lemma 3.2. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Theorem B is built from the Akin-Glasner topological ergodic decomposition, Theorem A, Corollary 7.3, and Theorem 4.3; Theorem C uses Corollary 4.5, Mycielski's theorem, and Theorem E; Theorem E is proved directly from Urysohn's lemma and separability of C(X), with Remark 5.6 explicitly recording the metrizability limitation. The appendix reduces to the external GLdR theorem plus Fubini/Lemma A.1, so the measure-theoretic statement is not an input in disguise. The self-citations ([21,22,23,24]) are to previously published, parameter-free theorems and are not used as an unverified substitute for the current conclusion. The one genuine defect is formal, not circular: the printed Theorem A states union equality \bigcup_{i\in\mathbb{N}} M_i = X, but the proof (and abstract) only yield dense union; the identity map on [0,1] is a counterexample to the equality version. The same overclaim recurs in Theorem 6.3(2) and Theorem B's statement. This is a correctness defect in the statement, not a circular derivation, so it does not raise the circularity score beyond the minor-citation range.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters; the paper is a pure mathematical proof. The external results used are standard descriptive set theory, the Akin-Glasner topological ergodic decomposition, and the Górksa-Lemańczyk-de la Rue theorem in the appendix.

assumptions (5)

standard math Zorn's lemma is used to obtain maximal transitive subsystems in Section 3.2.
The paper invokes Zorn's lemma to assert every transitive subsystem is contained in a maximal one. This is a standard set-theoretic principle and is not an ad hoc assumption.
domain assumption Theorem 7.1 (Akin-Glasner topological ergodic decomposition) holds for every compact metric system.
Theorem B relies on the existence of an almost one-to-one extension θ:(X*,T*)→(X,T) with an open factor map π*:(X*,T*)→(Z,id) and a dense Gδ set of points with singleton fibers. This is cited from [2] and is load-bearing for the general characterization.
domain assumption The set of recurrent points of a homeomorphism on a compact metric space is a Gδ set, and dense when minimal points are dense.
Section 7.2 states that the set of recurrent points is a dense Gδ subset without proof. In general it is only Gδ; density follows from the context (dense minimal points), but the paper does not explain this.
domain assumption Mycielski's theorem is applied in the proof of Theorem C to find a Cantor set with pairwise disjoint orbit closures.
The proof of Theorem C uses Mycielski's theorem, cited from [25], to produce a Cantor set C⊂U with (x1,x2)∈Δ⊥(X) for distinct points. This is an external result from descriptive set theory.
domain assumption The Górksa-Lemańczyk-de la Rue theorem characterizes ergodic disjointness and is used in the appendix.
The measure-theoretic appendix relies on [19, Theorem 3.1]. This external theorem is used to prove Theorems A.2 and A.3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On systems disjoint from all minimal systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DEIWPD6

@misc{pith2026250417504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On systems disjoint from all minimal systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DEIWPD6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17504}
}

abstract

Recently, G\'{o}rska, Lema\'{n}czyk, and de la Rue characterized the class of automorphisms disjoint from all ergodic automorphisms. Inspired by their work, we provide several characterizations of systems that are disjoint from all minimal systems. For a topological dynamical system $(X,T)$, it is disjoint from all minimal systems if and only if there exist minimal subsets $(M_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ of $X$ whose union is dense in $X$ and each of them is disjoint from $X$ (we also provide a measure-theoretical analogy of the result). For a semi-simple system $(X,T)$, it is disjoint from all minimal systems if and only if there exists a dense $G_{\delta}$ set $\Omega$ in $X \times X$ such that for every pair $(x_1,x_2) \in \Omega$, the subsystems $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_1,T)$ and $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_2,T)$ are disjoint. Furthermore, for a general system a characterization similar to the ergodic case is obtained.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

On the denseness of distal points
math.DS 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Distal points are dense in 2^G exactly when G admits an effective point-distal action; almost automorphic points are dense exactly when G is maximally almost periodic; only constant distal points exactly when G is min...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[22]

Huang and X

W . Huang and X. Y e, Dynamical systems disjoint from any minimal systems , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 357 (2005), no. 2, 669–694. 1.1, 4, 1.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 4

work page 2005
[1]

Akin, Lectures on Cantor and Mycielski sets for dynamical systems , Chapel Hill Ergodic Theory Work- shops, 21–79, Contemp

E. Akin, Lectures on Cantor and Mycielski sets for dynamical systems , Chapel Hill Ergodic Theory Work- shops, 21–79, Contemp. Math., 356, Amer. Math. Soc., Provid ence, RI, 2004. 2.5

work page 2004
[2]

Akin and E

E. Akin and E. Glasner, T opological ergodic decomposition and homogeneous ﬂows, Topological dynamics and applications (Minneapolis, MN, 1995), 43-52, Contemp. Math., 215, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1998. 7.1

work page 1995
[3]

Akin and E

E. Akin and E. Glasner, Residual properties and almost equicontinuity, J. Anal. Math., 84 (2001), 243–286. 2.9, 3.1, 3.8

work page 2001
[4]

Auslander, Minimal ﬂows and their extensions

J. Auslander, Minimal ﬂows and their extensions. North- Holland Mathematics Studies, 153. Notas de Matem´ atica [Mathematical Notes], 122. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1988. 2, 2.3, 2.4, 6.2

work page 1988
[5]

Bauer and K

W . Bauer and K. Sigmund, T opological dynamics of transformations induced on the spa ce of probability measures, Monatsh. Math., 79 (1975), 81–92. 2.4

work page 1975
[6]

Joining properties of automorphisms disjoint with all ergodic systems

P . Berk, G´ orska and T. de la Rue, Joining properties of au tomorphisms disjoint with all ergodic systems, arXiv:2312.13153. 9, A.3

work page Pith review arXiv
[7]

Bernshteyn, A short proof of Bernoulli disjointness via the local lemma , Proc

A. Bernshteyn, A short proof of Bernoulli disjointness via the local lemma , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 148 (2020), no. 12, 5235–5240. 1.2

work page 2020

Show all 33 references

[8]

J. P . Clay, Proximity relations in transformation groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 108 (1963), 88–96

1963
[9]

P . Dong, S. Shao and X. Y e, Product recurrent properties, disjointness and weak disjo intness, Israel J. Math., 188 (2012), 463–507. 1.1, 9

2012
[10]

Ellis and W

R. Ellis and W . Gottschalk, Homomorphisms of transformation groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 94 (1960), 258–271. 2.3

1960
[11]

M. K. Fort, Jr., Points of continuity of semi-continuous functions, Publ. Math. Debrecen, 2 (1951), 100–102. 2.4

1951
[12]

Furstenberg, Disjointness in ergodic theory, minimal sets, and a problem in Diophantine approximation, Math

H. Furstenberg, Disjointness in ergodic theory, minimal sets, and a problem in Diophantine approximation, Math. Systems Theory, 1 (1967), 1–49. 1, 1.1, 1.2, 3.1

1967
[13]

Glasner, Compressibility properties in topological dynamics , Amer

S. Glasner, Compressibility properties in topological dynamics , Amer. J. Math., 97 (1975), 148-171. 2.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.3, 3.11

1975
[14]

Glasner, Proximal ﬂows

S. Glasner, Proximal ﬂows. Lecture Notes in Mathematic s, V ol. 517. Springer-V erlag, Berlin-New Y ork,
[15]

Glasner, T opological ergodic decompositions and applications to products of powers of a minimal trans- formation, J

E. Glasner, T opological ergodic decompositions and applications to products of powers of a minimal trans- formation, J. Anal. Math., 64 (1994), 241–262. 2.4

1994
[16]

Glasner, The structure of tame minimal dynamical systems , Ergodic Theory Dynam

E. Glasner, The structure of tame minimal dynamical systems , Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 27 (2007), no. 6, 1819–1837. 2.5

2007
[17]

Glasner, T

E. Glasner, T. Tsankov, B. Weiss and A. Zucker, Bernoulli disjointness, Duke Math. J., 170 (2021), no. 4, 615–651. 1.2 32 W. HUANG, S. SHAO, H. XU, AND X. YE

2021
[18]

Glasner and B

E. Glasner and B. Weiss, On the class of systems which are disjoint from every ergodic system, arXiv:2405.00463. 1.1, A, A.3

arXiv
[19]

G´ orska, M

M. G´ orska, M. Lema´ nczyk and T. de la Rue, On orthogonality to uniquely ergodic systems , arXiv:2404.07907V3. 1.1, 1.1, 9, A, A.1

arXiv
[20]

Huang, S

W . Huang, S. Li, S. Shao and X. Y e, Null systems and sequence entropy pairs , Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 23, (2003), no. 5, 1505–1523. 8.2

2003
[21]

Huang, S

W . Huang, S. Shao and X. Y e, An answer to Furstenberg’s problem on topological disjoint ness, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 40 (2020), no. 9, 2467–2481. 1.1, 1.2, 9, 9

2020
[23]

J. Li, K. Y an and X. Y e, Recurrence properties and disjointness on the induced spac es, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 35 (2015), no. 3, 1059–1073. 1.1

2015
[24]

J. Li, P . Oprocha, X. Y e and R. Zhang, When are all closed subsets recurrent? Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 37 (2017), no. 7, 2223–2254. 1.1

2017
[25]

A. S. Kechris, Classical descriptive set theory. Gradu ate Texts in Mathematics, 156. Springer-V erlag, New Y ork, 1995.7.3

1995
[26]

Kuratowski, T opology, V ol

K. Kuratowski, T opology, V ol. I, Acad. Press, New Y ork, N.Y ., 1966.2.4

1966
[27]

Kuratowski, T opology, V ol

K. Kuratowski, T opology, V ol. II, Acad. Press, New Y ork, N.Y ., 1968.2.4

1968
[28]

Oprocha, W eak mixing and product recurrence, Ann

P . Oprocha, W eak mixing and product recurrence, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 60 (2010), no. 4, 1233–

2010
[29]

Oprocha, Double minimality, entropy and disjointness with all minim al systems, Discrete Contin

P . Oprocha, Double minimality, entropy and disjointness with all minim al systems, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 39 (2019), no. 1, 263–275. 1.1

2019
[30]

Petersen, Disjointness and weak mixing of minimal sets , Proc

K. Petersen, Disjointness and weak mixing of minimal sets , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 24 (1970), 278–280. 1.1

1970
[31]

W . A. V eech,Point-distal systems, Amer. J. Math., 92 (1970), 205–242. 2.5

1970
[32]

Walters, An introduction to ergodic theory, Graduat e Texts in Mathematics, 79

P . Walters, An introduction to ergodic theory, Graduat e Texts in Mathematics, 79. Springer-V erlag, New Y ork-Berlin, 1982.5.1

1982
[33]

Xu and X

H. Xu and X. Y e, Disjointness with all minimal systems under group actions , to apper in Israel J. Math. arXiv:2212.07830. 1.2 (W . Huang) S CHOOL OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES , U NIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF CHINA , H EFEI , A NHUI 230026, C HINA Email address: wenh@ma...

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

Huang and X

W . Huang and X. Y e, Dynamical systems disjoint from any minimal systems , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 357 (2005), no. 2, 669–694. 1.1, 4, 1.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 4

work page 2005

[2] [1]

Akin, Lectures on Cantor and Mycielski sets for dynamical systems , Chapel Hill Ergodic Theory Work- shops, 21–79, Contemp

E. Akin, Lectures on Cantor and Mycielski sets for dynamical systems , Chapel Hill Ergodic Theory Work- shops, 21–79, Contemp. Math., 356, Amer. Math. Soc., Provid ence, RI, 2004. 2.5

work page 2004

[3] [2]

Akin and E

E. Akin and E. Glasner, T opological ergodic decomposition and homogeneous ﬂows, Topological dynamics and applications (Minneapolis, MN, 1995), 43-52, Contemp. Math., 215, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1998. 7.1

work page 1995

[4] [3]

Akin and E

E. Akin and E. Glasner, Residual properties and almost equicontinuity, J. Anal. Math., 84 (2001), 243–286. 2.9, 3.1, 3.8

work page 2001

[5] [4]

Auslander, Minimal ﬂows and their extensions

J. Auslander, Minimal ﬂows and their extensions. North- Holland Mathematics Studies, 153. Notas de Matem´ atica [Mathematical Notes], 122. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1988. 2, 2.3, 2.4, 6.2

work page 1988

[6] [5]

Bauer and K

W . Bauer and K. Sigmund, T opological dynamics of transformations induced on the spa ce of probability measures, Monatsh. Math., 79 (1975), 81–92. 2.4

work page 1975

[7] [6]

Joining properties of automorphisms disjoint with all ergodic systems

P . Berk, G´ orska and T. de la Rue, Joining properties of au tomorphisms disjoint with all ergodic systems, arXiv:2312.13153. 9, A.3

work page Pith review arXiv

[8] [7]

Bernshteyn, A short proof of Bernoulli disjointness via the local lemma , Proc

A. Bernshteyn, A short proof of Bernoulli disjointness via the local lemma , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 148 (2020), no. 12, 5235–5240. 1.2

work page 2020