Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Non-commutative Intermediate Factor theorem associated with $W^*$-dynamics of product groups

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Product-group actions force intermediate von Neumann algebras to split.

desk verdict Solid NC-IFT under the stated ergodicity assumptions; the abstract just needs to state them. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18978 v1 pith:ZYS6ZBCT submitted 2025-08-26 math.OA math.DSmath.FAmath.GN

Tattwamasi Amrutam , Yongle Jiang , Shuoxing Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OAmath.DSmath.FAmath.GN MSC 46L1046L5537A1522D25
keywords IntermediateFactorTheoremvonNeumannalgebrasPoissonboundaryproductgroupsRadon-NikodymergodicactionsHaageruppropertytensorsplitting
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

The paper proves a noncommutative analogue of the Intermediate Factor Theorem for product groups. If $G=G_1\times G_2$ acts trace-preservingly on a tracial von Neumann algebra $\mathcal N$ that is ergodic for each factor separately, and if $(B,\nu_B)$ is the Poisson boundary (a compact boundary space encoding the long-term behaviour of the random walk driven by $\mu$), then every $G$-invariant von Neumann algebra $\mathcal M$ with $\mathcal N\subset \mathcal M\subset \mathcal N\,\bar{\otimes}\, L^\infty(B,\nu_B)$ must split as $\mathcal N\,\bar{\otimes}\, L^\infty(C,\nu_C)$ for some boundary $(C,\nu_C)$. The upshot is that boundary rigidity transfers from classical measurable dynamics into the noncommutative world: intermediate algebras cannot be exotic. The paper also shows that invariant ideals can obstruct such splitting, and uses the theorem to settle a problem about maximal Haagerup subalgebras (subalgebras with the Haagerup property, a weak form of amenability) for $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb Z)$ actions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $G$-Radon-Nikodym factor $\mathcal M_{\mathrm{RN}}=\langle h_g^{it}\rangle_{g\in G,t\in\mathbb R}$, the von Neumann algebra generated by the imaginary powers of the Radon-Nikodym derivatives $h_g=(D(\tau\circ g):D\tau)$ of the action. This factor plays the role of an invariant that, for the ambient algebra $\mathcal N\,\bar{\otimes}\, L^\infty(B,\nu_B)$, collapses to $L^\infty(B,\nu_B)$, and for $\mathcal N$ collapses to scalars. The proof combines three tools: metric ergodicity of the Poisson boundary, which forces $G_i$-invariant elements in $\mathcal N\,\bar{\otimes}\, L^\infty(B_i)$ to lie in $L^\infty(B_i)$; the bijection between $\mu$-stationary states and equivariant completely positive maps into $L^\infty(B,\nu_B)$; and the chain rule for Radon-Nikodym derivatives, which lets the derivatives for product-group elements factor into the two boundary legs.

What would settle it

A single example satisfying all hypotheses of Theorem 3.1 — $G=G_1\times G_2$, $\mu=\mu_1\times\mu_2$, $\mathcal N$ tracial and $G_i$-ergodic — but with a $G$-invariant intermediate algebra $\mathcal M$ not of the form $\mathcal N\,\bar{\otimes}\,L^\infty(C)$ would refute the theorem. Concretely, one can test the proof's key containment $\mathcal M_{\mathrm{RN}}\subseteq L^\infty(B,\nu_B)$: if for some $\mathcal M$ the element $h_{g_1}^{it}$ is not in $L^\infty(B_1,\nu_{B_1})$, the splitting argument fails, and such an $\mathcal M$ would be a counterexample.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result, Theorem 3.1, asserts that under $G_i$-ergodicity of $\mathcal N$, every $G$-invariant intermediate von Neumann algebra $\mathcal M$ splits as $\mathcal N\,\bar{\otimes}\, L^\infty(C,\nu_C)$. The proof isolates the $G$-Radon-Nikodym factor $\mathcal M_{\mathrm{RN}}$ of $\mathcal M$, shows it is contained in $L^\infty(B,\nu_B)$, identifies it with $L^\infty(C,\nu_C)$ for a boundary, and then builds a trace-preserving $G$-equivariant $*$-homomorphism $\Phi:\mathcal M\to \mathcal N\,\bar{\otimes}\, L^\infty(C,\nu_C)$ that is the identity on both $\mathcal N$ and $L^\infty(C)$, forcing $\mathcal M=\mathcal N\,\bar{\otimes}\, L^\infty(C,\nu_C)$. Along the way the authors prove that the conditional expectation onto the $G$-Radon-Nikodym factor is always $G$-equivariant, even when the trace is not invariant. The paper further establishes that invariant ideals in tensor products of an abelian and a non-commutative factor generate intermediate algebras that do not split, and classifies all intermediate factors for the $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb Z)$ Bernoulli shift times torus action.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that $\mathcal N$ is ergodic for each factor $G_i$ separately; without it the Radon-Nikodym derivatives of the action can live inside $\mathcal N$ instead of the Poisson boundary, and the paper's Section 4 shows invariant ideals then produce intermediate algebras that do not split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every $G$-invariant intermediate algebra between $\mathcal N$ and $\mathcal N\,\bar{\otimes}\,L^\infty(B)$ is a tensor product $\mathcal N\,\bar{\otimes}\,L^\infty(C)$ with $C$ a $(G,\mu)$-boundary; there are no exotic intermediate von Neumann algebras under the hypotheses.
  • The $G$-Radon-Nikodym factor admits a $G$-equivariant trace-preserving conditional expectation even when the trace is not $G$-invariant, so the same splitting method is available beyond measure-preserving actions.
  • Invariant ideals form a genuine obstruction: if one factor is abelian and the other non-commutative, the intermediate algebra generated by an invariant ideal fails to split, showing the ergodicity hypotheses in the main theorem are not superfluous.
  • For $G=\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb Z)$, every intermediate factor of the Bernoulli shift times the standard torus action splits as a product, which makes $L^\infty(Y)\rtimes G$ a maximal Haagerup subalgebra of the full crossed product.
  • The affirmative resolution of the second part of a previously posed problem on maximal Haagerup subalgebras follows as a corollary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to classify intermediate algebras for trace-scaling actions, where the Radon-Nikodym factor may carry modular data rather than only boundary coordinates.
  • The obstruction theorem suggests a recipe for building non-splitting intermediate algebras from any $G$-invariant central projection in a tensor product, possibly yielding a full classification in terms of such projections.
  • A testable strengthening would replace $G_i$-ergodicity by relative ergodicity over a smaller subalgebra; if splitting still holds with a relative boundary, the method would extend to non-ergodic coefficients.
  • The $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb Z)$ application exploits an entropy gap between the Bernoulli leg and the distal torus leg, so the same template may prove maximal Haagerup rigidity for other group actions with a similar gap.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves a noncommutative analogue of the Bader--Shalom Intermediate Factor Theorem. For G = G1 × G2 with an admissible product measure μ, Poisson boundary B, and a trace-preserving G-von Neumann algebra N that is G_i-ergodic for each i, Theorem 3.1 asserts that every G-invariant intermediate algebra M with N ⊂ M ⊂ N ⊗̄ L∞(B, ν_B) splits as N ⊗̄ L∞(C, ν_C) for some (G, μ)-boundary (C, ν_C). The proof introduces a G-Radon–Nikodym factor M_RN, shows that it lands in the commutative boundary algebra L∞(B), and then constructs a trace-preserving G-equivariant ∗-homomorphism from M onto N ⊗̄ L∞(C) that is the identity on both tensor legs. The paper also establishes auxiliary splitting results (Section 2), shows that invariant ideals in tensor products obstruct splitting (Section 4), and applies a master theorem of Glasner–Weiss to classify intermediate factors for SL2(Z)-actions and to prove a maximal Haagerup subalgebra result (Section 5).

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it is a substantial contribution: it gives a genuine W∗-version of the Bader–Shalom IFT with a new tool, the equivariant G-Radon–Nikodym factor, and it addresses a natural question about intermediate von Neumann algebras in boundary extensions. The proof is largely self-contained and has a coherent structure: metric ergodicity of the Poisson boundary and the G_i-ergodicity of N are used in a transparent way to force the Radon–Nikodym derivatives into the two boundary legs. The Section 5 application to maximal Haagerup subalgebras is a nice payoff and appears to use the Glasner–Weiss theorem appropriately. The significance is tempered, however, by the fact that the abstract advertises a stronger statement than Theorem 3.1 actually proves, and the missing ergodicity hypothesis is load-bearing for the proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Theorem 3.1, proof] The abstract claims the splitting theorem for every trace-preserving G-von Neumann algebra N, but Theorem 3.1 assumes N is G_i-ergodic for i = 1, 2. This hypothesis is used exactly at the line "Since G2 acts trivially on B1 and ergodically on N, we have L∞(B1,N)^{G2} = L∞(B1,N^{G2}) = L∞(B1,C) = L∞(B1)". Without N^{G2} = C1, the element h_{g1}^{it} is only shown to lie in L∞(B1,N^{G2}), not in L∞(B1); hence M_RN is not proved to be contained in L∞(B), and the reconstruction of M as N ⊗̄ L∞(C) collapses. Section 4 does not fill this gap: its non-splitting algebras are of the form M + qP inside a tensor product with an invariant ideal, whereas the Poisson-boundary algebra in Theorem 3.1 is ergodic and has no nontrivial invariant ideals. The abstract must be amended to include the G_i-ergodicity hypothesis, or the theorem must be proved without it.
  2. [Section 2, Proposition 2.8] The proof of Proposition 2.8 fixes a countable dense subgroup G0 and asserts M_RN = ⟨h_g^{it}⟩_{g∈G} = ⟨h_{g0}^{it}⟩_{g0∈G0}, citing [30, Proposition 1.14]. This equality requires a continuity or measurability property of the action g ↦ α_g, or of g ↦ h_g. The paper never states the continuity convention for a "G-von Neumann algebra". Since Theorem 1.2, and through it the proof of Theorem 3.1, rests on Proposition 2.8, please state the standing assumption on the action and justify the dense-subgroup reduction.
  3. [Section 3, proof of Theorem 3.1] The final identification of the C-leg uses the unstated [37, Lemma 2.2] to pass from Ψ = (τ_N⊗id)∘Φ|_{L∞(C)} = id to Φ(L∞(C)) ⊂ 1⊗L∞(C). This is a load-bearing step, and [37] is an arXiv preprint. Please state the lemma, or give a proof, and verify that its hypotheses are satisfied by Φ in the present setting.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, proof of Theorem 4.3] The text contains the typo "∗-homorphism"; it should be "∗-homomorphism".
  2. [Section 4, Proposition 4.4] The proof says "Using Theorem 4.3", but both legs are abelian in Proposition 4.4; the invoked conclusion is the symmetric case of Proposition 4.2, not Theorem 4.3 itself.
  3. [Section 5, Corollary 5.2] In the sentence "for some G-factor map G ↷ (X,ν)→(Z,ζ)", the target of the action should be (X,μ), not (X,ν).
  4. [Section 2, Proposition 2.13] The statement of Proposition 2.13 contains a stray minus in "E_N^T : N− → T"; it should read "E_N^T : N → T".
  5. [Sections 2 and 3] The term "(G,μ)-boundary" is used in Theorem 3.1 and elsewhere without a definition; please add the definition, presumably as a G-space with a μ-stationary measure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the boundary C is constructed from the Radon–Nikodym cocycle of the intermediate algebra M, and the self-citations used are technical lemmas, not restatements of the target splitting theorem.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. In Theorem 3.1, M is an arbitrary G-invariant intermediate algebra; the proof first forms MRN = ⟨h_g^{it}⟩ from the cocycles (D(τ∘g):Dτ), proves MRN ⊂ L∞(B) using Lemma 2.4 and the assumed G_i-ergodicity of N (line: "Since G2 acts trivially on B1 and ergodically on N, we have L∞(B1,N)^{G2}=L∞(B1,N^{G2})=L∞(B1,C)=L∞(B1)"), and then defines the boundary C by L∞(C) = MRN. The conclusion M = N ⊗̄ L∞(C) is not assumed; it is obtained by constructing the map Φ, applying Lemma 2.3 to force Ψ = id, and using the cited conditional-expectation fact [37, Lemma 2.2] to show that Φ|L∞(C) = id. The [37] citation is a self-citation, but it supplies a parameter-free technical lemma about multiplicative domains, not a restatement of the splitting theorem, so the proof does not reduce to it by construction. The Radon–Nikodym factor of the ambient tensor product and of N is computed directly, not fitted to the target M. Section 5 applies the external Master theorem [20] and Suzuki's theorem, and Corollary 5.2 uses [25, Lemma 3.5]; none of these are renamed versions of the desired conclusion. Caveat: the abstract states the splitting conclusion without the G_i-ergodicity hypothesis that appears in Theorem 3.1; this is a strength-of-claim or proof-support issue, not a circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to derive.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or fitted constants appear. The proof relies on standard facts from Poisson boundary theory, enveloping von Neumann algebras, conditional expectations, and several external theorems (Bader-Shalom, Glasner-Weiss, Suzuki, Ge-Kadison). The only self-cited technical lemma ([37, Lemma 2.2]) is localized and does not carry the central claim. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated; the G-Radon-Nikodym factor is a definition adapted from prior constructions.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math The (G,μ)-Poisson boundary is metrically ergodic.
    Used in Lemma 2.4 to conclude G-invariant elements of N⊗̄L∞(B_i) have the form N^{G_i}⊗1; standard theorem from Bader-Furman [7].
  • standard math Every state on a C*-algebra extends uniquely to a normal state on its enveloping von Neumann algebra; the GNS representation of (N⊗̄C(B)**, τ_N⊗δ_b) is isomorphic to (N,τ_N).
    Used in Section 3 to pass from β_b to quotient maps Φ_c; standard enveloping algebra facts from Takesaki [34].
  • standard math Lemma 2.3's bijection between G-equivariant ucp maps into L∞(B) and μ-stationary states.
    Proved in the paper using the Poisson transform; central in identifying P with P0 in Theorem 3.1.
  • domain assumption [37, Lemma 2.2]: if a G-equivariant conditional expectation preserves a boundary state on an abelian subalgebra, the abelian subalgebra lies in the multiplicative domain.
    Used to conclude Φ(1⊗L∞(C))⊂1⊗L∞(C); cited from the third author's earlier arXiv preprint, not machine-checked in this work.
  • domain assumption Glasner-Weiss Master theorem [20, Theorem 1.1].
    Used as a black box in Theorem 5.1 to reduce intermediate factors of the Bernoulli×torus product to quasi-factors; external arXiv preprint not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption Suzuki's theorem [33]: intermediate subalgebras of crossed products by essentially free actions are crossed products by intermediate factors.
    Used in Corollary 5.2 to reduce the maximal Haagerup subalgebra question to intermediate factors.
  • standard math Existence and uniqueness of τ-preserving conditional expectations onto von Neumann subalgebras (Takesaki IX.4.2).
    Used throughout for E_RN, E_N^M, and related conditional expectations.
  • standard math Ge-Kadison splitting theorem [17].
    Used in Theorem 2.17 and Remark 2.22 to split intermediate algebras after crossing by an ergodic action.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-commutative Intermediate Factor theorem associated with $W^*$-dynamics of product groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZYS6ZBCT

@misc{pith2026250818978,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-commutative Intermediate Factor theorem associated with $W^*$-dynamics of product groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZYS6ZBCT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18978}
}
abstract

Let $G = G_{1} \times G_{2}$ be a product of two locally compact, second countable groups and $\mu \in \mathrm{Prob}(G)$ be of the form $\mu = \mu_{1} \times \mu_{2}$, where $\mu_{i} \in \mathrm{Prob}(G_{i})$. Let $(B,\nu_B)$ be the associated Poisson boundary. We show that every intermediate $G$-von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{M}$ with \[ \mathcal{N} \subseteq \mathcal{M} \subseteq \mathcal{N} \,\bar{\otimes}\, L^{\infty}(B,\nu) \] splits as a tensor product of the form $\mathcal{N}\bar{\otimes}L^{\infty}(C,\nu_C)$, where $(C,\nu_C)$ is a $(G,\mu)$-boundary. Here, $\mathcal{N}$ is a tracial von Neumann algebra on which $G$ acts trace-preservingly. This generalizes the Intermediate Factor Theorem proved by Bader--Shalom (\cite[Theorem~1.9]{BS06}) in the measurable setup. In addition, we give various other examples of the splitting phenomenon associated with $W^{*}$-dynamics. We also show that certain assumptions are necessary for the intermediate algebras to split, and ideals in the ambient tensor product algebra obstruct the splitting phenomenon. We also use the Master theorem from \cite{glasner2023intermediate} to resolve the second part of \cite[Problem~5.2]{jiangskalski} in the affirmative.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    , Noncommutative topological boundaries and amenable invariant random intermediate subalgebras, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10905 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    3, 465–488

    Mikl´ os Ab´ ert, Yair Glasner, and B´ alint Vir´ ag,Kesten’s theorem for invariant random sub- groups, Duke Mathematical Journal 163 (2014), no. 3, 465–488

    work page 2014

  3. [2]

    1, 380–395

    Tattwamasi Amrutam and Yair Hartman, Subalgebras, subgroups, and singularity, Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 56 (2024), no. 1, 380–395

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    2, 110718

    Tattwamasi Amrutam, Yair Hartman, and Hanna Oppelmayer, On the amenable subalgebras of group von neumann algebras , Journal of Functional Analysis 288 (2025), no. 2, 110718

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    6, e70205

    Tattwamasi Amrutam and Yongle Jiang, Splitting of tensor products and intermediate factor theorem: Continuous version , Journal of the London Mathematical Society (2) 111 (2025), no. 6, e70205

    work page 2025

  6. [5]

    Uri Bader, R´ emi Boutonnet, and Cyril Houdayer, Charmenability of higher rank arithmetic groups, Annales Henri Lebesgue 6 (2023), 297–330

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    3, 929–985

    Uri Bader, R´ emi Boutonnet, Cyril Houdayer, and Jesse Peterson,Charmenability of arithmetic groups of product type, Inventiones mathematicae 229 (2022), no. 3, 929–985

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Uri Bader and Alex Furman, Boundaries, rigidity of representations, and Lyapunov exponents, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians—Seoul 2014. Vol. III, 2014, pp. 71–96. MR3729019

    work page 2014

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Uri Bader and Yehuda Shalom, Factor and normal subgroup theorems for lattices in products of groups, Inventiones mathematicae 163 (2006), 415–454

    2006

  2. [9]

    Jacopo Bassi and Florin Radulescu, Separable boundaries for non-hyperbolic groups , arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.01466 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  3. [10]

    R´ emi Boutonnet and Cyril Houdayer, Stationary characters on lattices of semisimple lie groups, Publications math´ ematiques de l’IH´ES 133 (2021), no. 1, 1–46

    2021

  4. [11]

    , The noncommutative factor theorem for lattices in product groups , Journal de l’ ´Ecole polytechnique—Math´ ematiques10 (2023), 513–524

    2023

  5. [12]

    Brown and Narutaka Ozawa,C∗-algebras and finite-dimensional approximations, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol

    Nathanial P. Brown and Narutaka Ozawa,C∗-algebras and finite-dimensional approximations, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 88, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI,

  6. [13]

    Danilenko, Entropy theory from the orbital point of view , Monatsh

    Alexandre I. Danilenko, Entropy theory from the orbital point of view , Monatsh. Math. 134 (2001), no. 2, 121–141

    2001

  7. [14]

    Harry Furstenberg, Noncommuting random products , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 108 (1963), 377–428. MR163345

    1963

  8. [15]

    , A Poisson formula for semi-simple Lie groups , Ann. of Math. (2) 77 (1963), 335–386. MR146298

    1963

  9. [16]

    Systems Theory 1 (1967), 1–49

    , Disjointness in ergodic theory, minimal sets, and a problem in Diophantine approxi- mation, Math. Systems Theory 1 (1967), 1–49

    1967

  10. [17]

    3, 453–466

    Liming Ge and Richard Kadison, On tensor products of von neumann algebras , Inventiones Mathematicae 123 (1996), no. 3, 453–466

    1996

  11. [18]

    101, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003

    Eli Glasner, Ergodic theory via joinings , Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 101, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003. MR1958753

    2003

  12. [19]

    Thouvenot, and Benjamin Weiss, Entropy theory without a past , Ergodic Theory Dynam

    Eli Glasner, Jean-P. Thouvenot, and Benjamin Weiss, Entropy theory without a past , Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 20 (2000), no. 5, 1355–1370

    2000

  13. [20]

    Eli Glasner and Benjamin Weiss, On intermediate factors of a product of disjoint systems , arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv–2312.03329

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    3, 279–293

    Uffe Haagerup, An example of a non nuclear C*-algebra, which has the metric approximation property, Inventiones Mathematicae 50 (1978), no. 3, 279–293

    1978

  15. [22]

    to appear in Journal of the Euro- pean Mathematical Society

    Yair Hartman and Mehrdad Kalantar, Stationary C*-dynamical systems , arXiv e-prints (De- cember 2017), arXiv:1712.10133, available at 1712.10133. to appear in Journal of the Euro- pean Mathematical Society. INTERMEDIATE SUBALGEBRAS IN TENSOR PRODUCTS 25

    2017 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Ben Hayes, Relative entropy and the Pinsker product formula for sofic groups , Groups Geom. Dyn. 15 (2021), no. 2, 413–463

    2021

  17. [24]

    1, 203–230

    Yongle Jiang, Maximal haagerup subalgebras in L(Z2 ⋊SL2(Z)), Journal of Operator Theory 86 (2021), no. 1, 203–230

    2021

  18. [25]

    Yongle Jiang and Adam Skalski, Maximal subgroups and von Neumann subalgebras with the Haagerup property, Groups Geom. Dyn. 15 (2021), no. 3, 849–892

    2021

  19. [26]

    10, 3341–3353

    Mehrdad Kalantar and Nikolaos Panagopoulos, On invariant subalgebras of group and von neumann algebras, Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems 43 (2023), no. 10, 3341–3353

    2023

  20. [27]

    Ka˘ ımanovich and Anatoly M

    Vadim A. Ka˘ ımanovich and Anatoly M. Vershik,Random walks on discrete groups: boundary and entropy, Ann. Probab. 11 (1983), no. 3, 457–490. MR704539

    1983

  21. [28]

    David Kerr, Bernoulli actions of sofic groups have completely positive entropy , Israel J. Math. 202 (2014), no. 1, 461–474

    2014

  22. [29]

    2, 229–252

    Amos Nevo and Robert J Zimmer, Homogenous projective factors for actions of semi-simple lie groups, Inventiones Mathematicae 138 (1999), no. 2, 229–252

    1999

  23. [30]

    Zimmer, Rigidity of Furstenberg entropy for semisimple Lie group actions, Ann

    Amos Nevo and Robert J. Zimmer, Rigidity of Furstenberg entropy for semisimple Lie group actions, Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 33 (2000), no. 3, 321–343. MR1775184

    2000

  24. [31]

    1, 93–104

    Amos Nevo and Robert J Zimmer, A generalization of the intermediate factors theorem , Jour- nal d’Analyse Math´ ematique86 (2002), no. 1, 93–104

    2002

  25. [32]

    Garrett Stuck and Robert J Zimmer, Stabilizers for ergodic actions of higher rank semisimple groups, Annals of Mathematics (1994), 723–747

    1994

  26. [33]

    Yuhei Suzuki, Complete descriptions of intermediate operator algebras by intermediate exten- sions of dynamical systems , Comm. Math. Phys. 375 (2020), no. 2, 1273–1297

    2020

  27. [34]

    I, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol

    Masamichi Takesaki, Theory of operator algebras. I, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 124, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002. Reprint of the first (1979) edition, Operator Algebras and Non-commutative Geometry, 5

    1979

  28. [35]

    II , Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol

    , Theory of operator algebras. II , Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 125, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. Operator Algebras and Non-commutative Geometry, 6. MR1943006

    2003

  29. [36]

    Shuoxing Zhou, Noncommutative Poisson Boundaries, Ultraproducts, and Entropy, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2024 (2024), no. 10, 8794–8818

    2024

  30. [38]

    7, 2001–2006

    L´ aszl´ o Zsid´ o,A criterion for splitting C*-algebras in tensor products, Proceedings of the Amer- ican Mathematical Society 128 (2000), no. 7, 2001–2006. Institute of Mathematics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Sniadeckich 8, 00-656, Warszawa, Poland Email address :...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.