Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

A trace pairing and Elliott invariant for groupoid homology

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Invariant Borel measures pair canonically with groupoid homology, yielding a groupoid Elliott invariant that agrees with the C*-algebraic invariant in many integer-action and orbit-breaking examples.

desk verdict New trace pairing and groupoid Elliott invariant with a fixable but real freeness omission in the main theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03759 v1 pith:VV3UBJYE submitted 2025-09-03 math.OA math.ATmath.DSmath.KT

Robin Deeley , Rufus Willett This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OAmath.ATmath.DSmath.KT MSC 46L8022A22
keywords HK-conjecturegroupoidhomologyK-theoryElliottinvariantmeasuresetalegroupoidsCherncharacterorbitbreaking
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 introduces a canonical pairing between the invariant Borel probability measures on the unit space of an etale groupoid and the zeroth groupoid homology group, and packages it into a 'groupoid Elliott invariant' modeled on the C*-algebraic Elliott invariant. The point is to sharpen the conjecture that K-theory of a groupoid C*-algebra is isomorphic to groupoid homology: instead of only asking whether those groups agree, the paper asks whether the whole invariant—homology, invariant measures, trace pairing, and unit class—matches the C*-algebraic Elliott invariant. The authors prove this 'HK-good' property for many transformation groupoids, including irrational rotations and actions on spheres, tori, and spaces of covering dimension at most three, and for orbit-breaking groupoids built from point-like and Floyd-type systems. If correct, this gives a homological route to the data that classifies a large family of C*-algebras.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing between invariant measures and H_0, together with a Chern character from the K-theory of an integer crossed product to the rational groupoid homology of Z⋉X, built through the mapping torus of the action. The pairing is defined using a canonical Borel resolution of the constant sheaf, and the Chern character is shown to be compatible with both the measure pairing and the C*-algebraic trace pairing, which is what makes the full Elliott invariants match.

What would settle it

Take a minimal but non-free integer action on a sphere or torus, for example a minimal homeomorphism with a periodic point, and compute the tracial state space of its reduced crossed product. If there is a trace that does not arise from integration against an invariant Borel probability measure on the base space, the trace-space homeomorphism fails, the groupoid Elliott invariant differs from the C*-algebraic one, and the unrestricted statement of the transformation-groupoid theorem would be false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a locally compact Hausdorff etale groupoid with compact base space, the paper defines a pairing rho_H from the simplex of invariant probability measures on the unit space to Hom(H_0(G), R), using integration against a canonical Borel resolution; invariance of the measure is exactly what makes the pairing descend to homology. With this pairing it defines the groupoid Elliott invariant (H_{**}(G), T(G), rho_H, [1]) and calls G HK-good if this invariant is isomorphic to the Elliott invariant of the reduced groupoid C*-algebra, meaning compatible K-theory/homology isomorphisms, an affine homeomorphism between invariant measures and tracial states, and matching pairings. The main results esta

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the invariant-measure space of a groupoid is homeomorphic to the tracial state space of its reduced C*-algebra is proved only for principal groupoids; the HK-good theorems for transformation groupoids rely on it, so their statements implicitly require the integer action to be free.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any etale groupoid with compact base, invariant measures now produce explicit numerical invariants of H_0, so trace data can be read directly from groupoid homology.
  • Integer actions on spheres, tori, and dimension-at-most-three spaces have a complete groupoid Elliott invariant, matching the C*-algebraic invariant used in classification.
  • Orbit-breaking groupoids with low-dimensional break loci provide HK-good models for many classifiable C*-algebras, including the point-like and Cantor-like systems from earlier constructions.
  • The same C*-algebra can admit HK-good models with different Z-graded groupoid homology; only after passing to Z/2-graded homology do the invariants agree, so the Z-grading carries extra model-dependent information.
  • Minimal integer actions on spaces such as S^3 × RP^4 are not HK-good, showing the property is a genuine refinement and not automatic once K-theory and homology agree.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The pairing should extend to higher homology via cyclic cocycles and higher-dimensional invariant currents, connecting to noncommutative geometry; the paper hints at this but does not develop it.
  • If the freeness assumption is truly required for the trace-space homeomorphism, the main theorem about transformation groupoids is best read as a theorem about free actions; testing non-free minimal actions on spheres would settle whether the statement can be relaxed.
  • The mapping-torus Chern character for Z-actions suggests a template for higher-rank actions: a Z^d-version via higher mapping tori would likely yield HK-goodness for many Z^d-transformation groupoids.
  • The existence of multiple HK-good models for the irrational rotation algebra suggests that the groupoid Elliott invariant is a property of a model, not of the C*-algebra; a natural next step is to ask which classifiable algebras admit at least one such model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper defines a canonical pairing between the simplex of invariant Borel probability measures on the unit space of a locally compact, Hausdorff, etale groupoid with compact base space and its zeroth Crainic-Moerdijk groupoid homology. This pairing is used to define a 'groupoid Elliott invariant' (H_{**}(G), T(G), rho_H, [1]), and a groupoid is called HK-good if this invariant is isomorphic to the C*-algebraic Elliott invariant of C*_r(G). The main positive results are that transformation groupoids Z⋉X for actions on spheres, tori, or spaces of covering dimension at most three are HK-good (Theorem 0.6), and that certain orbit-breaking groupoids arising from point-like and Cantor-like systems are HK-good (Theorem 0.7). The proof strategy combines a Pimsner-Voiculescu-type long exact sequence for groupoid homology, a Chern character from K-theory to homology for integer actions, a long exact sequence for open inclusions of etale groupoids, and detailed computations for orbit-breaking systems. The paper also contains appendices on groupoid homology for infinite-dimensional base spaces, group hyperhomology, and integral Chern characters.

Significance. If the stated results are correct, the paper makes a substantial contribution to the program relating groupoid homology to C*-algebraic K-theory and traces. The definition of the trace pairing for non-ample etale groupoids is new and natural, and the explicit computations—especially the irrational rotation example and the three different HK-good models for the irrational rotation algebra—are instructive and valuable. The paper also provides useful technical machinery, including a treatment of groupoid homology for infinite-dimensional base spaces and integral Chern characters in low dimension. However, the central theorem as stated is false because it omits a freeness hypothesis, and several load-bearing steps are left as 'inspection' or as unverified assumptions. These issues need to be fixed before the main claims are reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 0.6; Definition 2.9; Lemma 2.8] Theorem 0.6 states that Z⋉X is HK-good for any action on a d-sphere, d-torus, or space of covering dimension at most three, without any freeness hypothesis. Definition 2.9(iii) requires the canonical map tau: T(G) -> T(C*_r(G)) of Lemma 2.8 to be an affine homeomorphism, but Lemma 2.8 establishes this only when G is principal. For transformation groupoids, principality is equivalent to freeness of the action. The omission is not cosmetic: for the trivial action on S^1, G = Z×S^1, T(G) = Prob(S^1), but C*_r(G) ≅ C(S^1)⊗C(S^1), so T(C*_r(G)) ≅ Prob(S^1×S^1), which is strictly larger. The map tau is injective but not surjective, so Z⋉S^1 is not HK-good. Thus Theorem 0.6 is false as stated. The surrounding text indicates the intended hypothesis is free actions (see Section 6 and Example 6.1). The fix is to add 'free' to Theorem 0.6 and Corollary 5.10, or to prove an alternative surjectivity
  2. [Theorem 7.5] Theorem 7.5 asserts that Putnam's and Matui's results on the groupoids H and H' for an open inclusion extend from ample, second countable groupoids to general etale groupoids with the single sentence 'Inspection of the arguments reveals that those assumptions are not necessary.' This is a load-bearing step: it underpins Proposition 7.6 and Corollary 8.3, which are used in the orbit-breaking computations of Sections 8–10. The extension is not obvious and should be proved in detail, or a precise reference should be provided for the non-ample case. If the existing arguments genuinely apply, the authors should say how the use of total disconnectedness is avoided; if not, the orbit-breaking theorems are not established.
  3. [Proposition 8.8(iii)] Proposition 8.8 assumes in part (iii) that the quotient map K0(C*_r(RY)) -> K0(C*_r(R_phi)) splits, with the parenthetical admission 'We do not know if this last condition is necessary: it is possible it follows from the other assumptions.' This is an explicit unproved assumption. More importantly, Theorem 9.4 claims that the point-like orbit-breaking groupoids are HK-good as an 'immediate' consequence of Proposition 8.8, but the splitting hypothesis is never verified for the point-like construction. The proof of HK-goodness for Section 9 is therefore incomplete. Either the splitting must be proved, or the statement of Theorem 9.4 must be conditional on it.
  4. [Proposition 5.2(iii)] The proof of Proposition 5.2(iii) says that the commutative diagram of short exact sequences follows because the Pimsner-Voiculescu sequence is 'exactly defined by forcing the given diagram to commute.' This is not a rigorous argument. Part (iii) is essential for the construction of the Chern character in Theorem 5.9 and for the K-theory/homology comparisons in Section 6. The authors should give a direct proof, or at least provide a precise commutative-diagram chase from the known six-term exact sequences, so that the claimed vertical isomorphisms are justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The title/abstract contain a typo: 'P AIRING' should be 'PAIRING'.
  2. [Section 5, after Lemma 5.4] The text refers to 'Analogously to Lemma 5.3' when the preceding result is Proposition 5.3; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Example 6.1] Example 6.1 explicitly says 'take any free Z-action', which is consistent with the needed hypothesis. The contrast with the statement of Theorem 0.6 should be noted and reconciled in the introduction.
  4. [Remark 4.2] The notation S^1_B and S^1 for the sheaf of Borel/continuous circle-valued functions is confusing because S^1 is also used for the unit circle as a space. Please use distinct notation.
  5. [Conjecture 2.10] Conjecture 2.10 repeats Conjecture 0.5; consider keeping only one statement to avoid redundancy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the groupoid Elliott invariant is compared to, not fitted into, the C*-algebraic invariant; the apparent missing freeness hypothesis is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No significant circularity. The paper's central assertion is comparative: for the examples, it constructs isomorphisms between the groupoid-side Elliott invariant (H_**(G), T(G), rho_H, [1]) and the C*-algebraic Elliott invariant (K_*(C*_r(G)), T(C*_r(G)), rho_K, [1]). Definition 2.9 states what has to be proved; it does not build the conclusion into the input. The pairing rho_H is defined canonically in Proposition 2.6 and its descent is proved from invariance of the measure; the C*-algebraic pairing rho_K is standard. The agreement for integer actions is established in Theorem 5.9 by a Chern character constructed in the paper, with the pairing compatibility proved via Propositions 5.3 and 5.5 and Lemma 5.8; homology is computed independently in Proposition 4.1. Earlier work by the authors is used as construction input (e.g., [15-17]) and as prior published theorems, not as a substitute for checking the trace/homeomorphism and pairing compatibility required by Definition 2.9. The apparent weakness flagged by a careful reader -- Theorem 0.6 states HK-good without requiring the Z-action to be free, although Lemma 2.8 establishes the trace-space homeomorphism only in the principal case -- is a correctness/false-statement issue (and the paper's own examples 6.1 and Section 8 restrict to free actions), not a circular reduction: the required trace-space homeomorphism is not assumed as the conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no cited uniqueness theorem is used to forbid alternatives. The derivation chain is self-contained against independent K-theory and homology computations.

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

No numbers are fitted to data; the results are theorem proofs. The central domain assumptions are the etale groupoid setting, compact base space, and freeness/minimality for examples. The paper adds two less-standard assumptions: an explicit splitting condition in Proposition 8.8 whose necessity is unknown, and an 'by inspection' extension of Matui/Putnam excision to non-ample groupoids. The groupoid Elliott invariant is a new invariant but not a physically invented entity.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Existence of c-soft and Borel G-sheaf resolutions for groupoid homology (Lemmas A.2, A.3, Proposition 2.6)
    Required for the definition of Crainic-Moerdijk homology with possibly infinite-dimensional base space and for the measure pairing; existence is proved in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption G is a locally compact, Hausdorff, etale groupoid with compact base space
    Standing assumption for the pairing and the groupoid Elliott invariant (Sections 1-2).
  • domain assumption The Z-action is free (so Z⋉X is principal) for the transformation groupoid HK-goodness proofs
    Lemma 2.8 uses principality to identify invariant measures with traces; this is stated in Example 6.1 but omitted from Theorem 0.6.
  • ad hoc to paper Proposition 8.8(iii): K0(C*_r(R_Y)) -> K0(C*_r(R_phi)) splits
    Explicitly assumed; the paper notes it does not know if the condition is necessary (footnote 17). Used for orbit-breaking HK-goodness.
  • ad hoc to paper Matui's and Putnam's excision results for ample groupoids extend to general etale groupoids (Theorem 7.5)
    The paper states the extension holds 'by inspection of the arguments' without a written proof; load-bearing for the orbit-breaking long exact sequence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A trace pairing and Elliott invariant for groupoid homology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VV3UBJYE

@misc{pith2026250903759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A trace pairing and Elliott invariant for groupoid homology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VV3UBJYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03759}
}
abstract

For an \'{e}tale groupoid, we define a pairing between the Crainic-Moerdijk groupoid homology and the simplex of invariant Borel probability measures on the base space. The main novelty here is that the groupoid need not have totally disconnected base space, and thus the pairing can give more refined information than the measures of clopen subsets of the base space. Our principal motivation is $C^*$-algebra theory. The Elliott invariant of a $C^*$-algebra is defined in terms of $K$-theory and traces; it is fundamental in the long-running program to classify simple $C^*$-algebras (satisfying additional necessary conditions). We use our pairing to define a groupoid Elliott invariant, and show that for many interesting groupoids it agrees with the $C^*$-algebraic Elliott invariant of the groupoid $C^*$-algebra: this includes irrational rotation algebras and the $C^*$-algebras arising from orbit breaking constructions studied by the first listed author, Putnam, and Strung. These results can be thought of as establishing a refinement of Matui's HK conjecture for the relevant groupoids.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Blackadar

    B. Blackadar. K-Theory for Operator Algebras . Cambridge University Press, second edition,

    work page

  2. [2]

    B¨ onicke, C

    C. B¨ onicke, C. Dell’Aiera, J. Gabe, and R. Willett. Dynamic asymptotic dimension and Matui’s HK conjecture. Proc. London Math. Soc. , 126(4):1–72, 2023. 2, 3, 14

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    G. E. Bredon. Sheaf theory, volume 170 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer, second edition, 1997. 6, 7, 8, 9, 25, 26, 33, 35, 43, 45, 46, 48

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    K. S. Brown. Cohomology of groups. Number 87 in Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Carri´ on, J

    J. Carri´ on, J. Gabe, C. Schafhauser, A. Tikuisis, and S. White. Classification of ∗- homomorphisms I: the simple nuclear case. arXiv:2307.06480, 2020. 11

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    R. Chaiser. A low-dimensional counterexample to the HK conjecture. arXiv:2507.05425v1,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [7]

    T. T. Chris Bruce, Yosuke Kubota. Groupoid homology and K-theory for algebraic actions from number theory. arXiv:2407.01952v1, 2024. 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    A. Connes. An analogue of the Thom isomorphism for crossed products of a C∗-algebra by an action of R. Adv. Math., 39:31–55, 1981. 4, 20, 22, 23

    work page 1981

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Crainic and I

    M. Crainic and I. Moerdijk. A homology theory for ´ etale groupoids. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 521:25–46, 2000. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 27, 37, 38, 45, 46, 51, 52

    2000

  2. [10]

    J. Cuntz. K-theory for certain C∗-algebra II. J. Operator Theory, 5(1):101–108, 1981. 16

    1981

  3. [11]

    Davidson

    K. Davidson. C∗-algebras by example . Fields Insititue monographs, 1996. 16

    1996

  4. [12]

    de la Harpe and G

    P. de la Harpe and G. Skandalis. D´ eterminant associ´ e ` a une trace sur une alg` ebre de banach. Annales de l’Institut Fourier , 34(1):241–260, 1984. 23

    1984

  5. [13]

    V. Deaconu. On groupoids and C∗-algebras from self-similar actions. New York J. Math. , 27:923–942, 2021. 4, 18

    2021

  6. [14]

    R. J. Deeley. A counterexample to the HK-conjecture that is principal. Ergodic Theory Dy- nam. Systems , 43(6):1829–1846, 2023. 2 56 ROBIN J. DEELEY AND RUFUS WILLETT

    2023

  7. [15]

    R. J. Deeley, I. F. Putnam, and K. R. Strung. Constructing minimal homeomorphisms on point-like spaces and a dynamical presentation of the Jiang-Su algebra. J. Reine Angew. Math., 742:241–261, 2018. 30, 31, 32, 42

    2018

  8. [16]

    R. J. Deeley, I. F. Putnam, and K. R. Strung. Minimal homeomorphisms and topological K-theory. Groups Geom. Dyn. , 17(2):501–532, 2023. 30, 31, 32, 39, 40

    2023

  9. [17]

    R. J. Deeley, I. F. Putnam, and K. R. Strung. Classifiable C∗-algebras from minimal Z-actions and their orbit-breaking subalgebras. Math. Ann. , 388(1):703–729, 2024. 31, 33, 41, 42, 43, 44

    2024

  10. [18]

    R. J. Deeley and R. Willett. The rational HK conjecture: transformation groupoids and a revised version. arXiv:2402.06837, 2024. 4, 5, 20

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    G. A. Elliott. The classification problem for amenable C∗-algebras. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians , volume 1,2, pages 922–932, 1995. 11

    1995

  12. [20]

    G. A. Elliott, G. Gong, H. Lin, and Z. Niu. On the classification of simple amenable C∗- algebras with finite decomposition rank, II. J. Noncommut. Geom. , 19:73–104, 2025. 11

    2025

  13. [21]

    Fathi and M

    A. Fathi and M. R. Herman. Existence de diff´ eomorphismes minimaux. InDynamical systems, Vol. I—Warsaw , volume No. 49 of Ast´ erisque, pages 37–59. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1977. 29, 30

    1977

  14. [22]

    E. E. Floyd. A nonhomogeneous minimal set. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 55:957–960, 1949. 43

    1949

  15. [23]

    Giordano, D

    T. Giordano, D. Kerr, N. C. Phillips, and A. Toms. Crossed products of C∗-algebras, topo- logical dynamics, and classification . Advanced Courses in Mathematics. CRM Barcelona. Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham, 2018. Lecture notes based on the course held at the Centre de Recerca M...

    2018

  16. [24]

    Gjerde and Ø

    R. Gjerde and Ø. Johansen. C∗-algebras associated to non-homogeneous minimal systems and their K-theory. Math. Scand., 85(1):87–104, 1999. 43

    1999

  17. [25]

    Grothendieck

    A. Grothendieck. Sue quelques points d’alg` ebre homologique.Tohoku Math. J., 9(2):119–221,

  18. [26]

    H. Guo, V. Proietti, and H. Wang. A geometric Elliott invariant and noncommutative rigidity of mapping tori. J. Funct. Anal. , 287(11):Paper No. 110625, 41, 2024. 4, 27

    2024

  19. [27]

    A. Hatcher. Algebraic Topology. Cambridge University Press, 2002. 30, 54

    2002

  20. [28]

    R. H. Herman, I. F. Putnam, and C. F. Skau. Ordered Bratteli diagrams, dimension groups and topological dynamics. Internat. J. Math. , 3(6):827–864, 1992. 44

    1992

  21. [29]

    Hurewicz and H

    W. Hurewicz and H. Wallman. Dimension Theory. Princeton University Press, 1948. 42, 44

    1948

  22. [30]

    M. Karoubi. K-theory. Springer, 1978. 30, 53

    1978

  23. [31]

    Kashiwara and P

    M. Kashiwara and P. Schapira. Sheaves on manifolds . Springer-Verlag, 1990. 6, 7, 8, 9, 35, 45, 49

    1990

  24. [32]

    Kirchberg

    E. Kirchberg. Exact C ∗-algebras, tensor products, and the classification of purely infinite algebras. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. 1, 2 (Z¨ urich, 1994), pages 943–954. Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 1995. 11

    1994

  25. [33]

    X. Li. Every classifiable simple C∗-algebra has a Cartan subalgebra. Invent. Math. , 219(2):653–699, 2019. 3

    2019

  26. [34]

    Li and J

    X. Li and J. Renault. Cartan subalgebras in C ∗-algebras. Existence and uniqueness. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 372(3):1985–2010, 2019. 3, 14

    1985

  27. [35]

    H. Matui. ´Etale groupoids arising from products of shifts of finite type. Adv. Math., 303:502– 548, 2016. 2

    2016

  28. [36]

    H. Matui. Homology and topological full groups of ´ etale groupoids on totally disconnected spaces. In Operator algebras and applications - the Abel symposium , volume 12, pages 203– 220, 2017. 2, 3, 4, 14

    2017

  29. [37]

    H. Matui. Long exact sequences of homology groups of ´ etale groupoids. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 42(11):5239–5271, 2022. 5, 33, 34

    2022

  30. [38]

    A. Miller. Ample groupoid homology and ´ etale correspondences. J. Noncommut. Geom. , 19(2):657–677, 2025. 4

    2025

  31. [39]

    Miller and B

    A. Miller and B. Steinberg. Homology and K-theory for self-similar actions of groups and groupoids. arXiv:2409.02359v1, 2024. 2, 4

    2024

  32. [40]

    Milnor and J

    J. Milnor and J. Stasheff. Characteristic Classes. Princeton University Press, 1974. 53, 54

    1974

  33. [41]

    E. Ortega. The homology of the Katsura-Exel-Pardo groupoid. J. Noncommut. Geom. , 14(3):913–935, 2020. 4, 18

    2020

  34. [42]

    N. C. Phillips. A classification theorem for nuclear purely infinite simple C∗-algebras. Doc. Math., 5:49–114 (electronic), 2000. 11 THE HOMOLOGY OF GROUPOID MODELS 57

    2000

  35. [43]

    M. Pimsner. Ranges of traces on K0 of reduced crossed products by free groups. In H. A. et. al., editor, Operator algebras and their connections with topology and ergodic theory , volume 1132 of Lecture Notes in Math , pages 374–408. Springer, 1985. 4, 16

    1985

  36. [44]

    Pimsner and D.-V

    M. Pimsner and D.-V. Voiculescu. Imbedding the irrational rotation algebras into an af algebra. J. Operator Theory, 4:201–210, 1980. 16, 20

    1980

  37. [45]

    Proietti and M

    V. Proietti and M. Yamashita. Homology and K-theory of dynamical systems II. Smale spaces with totally disconnected transversal. J. Noncommut. Geom. , 17(3):957–998, 2023. 2

    2023

  38. [46]

    Proietti and M

    V. Proietti and M. Yamashita. Homology and K-theory of dynamical systems IV. further structural results on groupoid homology. arXiv:2310.09928v1, 2023. 25

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Proietti and M

    V. Proietti and M. Yamashita. Chern character for torsion-free ample groupoids. Preprint,

  40. [48]

    I. F. Putnam. The C∗-algebras associated with minimal homeomorphisms of the Cantor set. Pacific J. Math. , 136(2):329–353, 1989. 5, 35, 44

    1989

  41. [49]

    I. F. Putnam. On the K-theory of C∗-algebras of principal groupoids. Rocky Mountain J. Math, 28(4):1483–1518, 1998. 5, 35, 40

    1998

  42. [50]

    I. F. Putnam. Some classifiable groupoid C∗-algebras with prescribed K-theory. Math. Ann., 370(3-4):1361–1387, 2018. 4, 14, 44

    2018

  43. [51]

    I. F. Putnam. An excision theorem for the K-theory of C∗-algebras with applications to groupoid C∗-algebras. M¨ unster J. Math., 14:349–402, 2021. 5, 34, 35

    2021

  44. [52]

    J. Raven. An equivariant bivariant Chern character . PhD thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 2004. 20

    2004

  45. [53]

    M. Reardon. The HK conjecture for certain groupoids. PhD thesis (in progress), 2025. 4, 14, 44

    2025

  46. [54]

    J. Renault. A groupoid approach to C∗-algebras, volume 793 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, 1980. 2, 6

    1980

  47. [55]

    J. Renault. C∗-algebras and dynamical systems . Publica¸ c˜ oes Mathem´ aticas do IMPA, 27◦ Col´ oquio Brasilieiro de Mathem´ atica. Instituto Nacional de Matem´ atica Pura e Aplicada,

  48. [56]

    Rørdam, F

    M. Rørdam, F. Larsen, and N. Laustsen. An Introduction to K-Theory for C∗-Algebras. Cambridge University Press, 2000. 42, 43

    2000

  49. [57]

    Scarparo

    E. Scarparo. Homology of odometers. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 40(9):2541–2551,

  50. [58]

    A. Sims. Hausdorff ´ etale groupoids and theirC∗-algebras. In F. Perera, editor, Operator alge- bras and dynamics: groupoids, crossed products, and Rokhlin dimension , Advanced Courses in Mathematics. CRM Barcelona. Birkh¨ auser, 2020. 6, 13

    2020

  51. [59]

    Tikuisis, S

    A. Tikuisis, S. White, and W. Winter. Quasidiagonality of nuclear C∗-algebras. Ann. of Math., 185(1):229–284, 2017. 11

    2017

  52. [60]

    C. Weibel. An Introduction to Homological Algebra , volume 38 of Cambridge studies in ad- vanced mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1995. 8, 9, 13, 18, 19, 26, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

    1995

  53. [61]

    A. Windsor. Minimal but not uniquely ergodic diffeomorphisms. In Smooth ergodic theory and its applications , volume 69 of Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. , pages 809–824. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001. 42 Robin J. Deeley, Department of Mathematics, University o...

    2001

  54. [1982]

    17, 27, 48, 49, 50, 51

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.