Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Simplicity of algebras and $C^*$-algebras of self-similar groupoids

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a self-similar groupoid of type (CF), the Steinberg algebra is simple exactly when certain projections on recurrent subgroups of the nucleus have trivial common kernel; in the contracting case this condition also controls simplicity of

desk verdict The algebraic simplicity criterion for self-similar groupoids (Sections 3–8) is a real, checkable contribution; the C*-algebra bridge in Section 9 rests on an unproved identification and needs work before the headline claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.19735 v2 pith:5QI6WWCW submitted 2025-10-22 math.RA math.OA

Josiah Aakre This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RAmath.OA MSC 16S3820M1846L05
keywords self-similargroupoidsSteinbergalgebrasinversesemigrouptightidealessentialreducedC*-algebrasnucleusofagroupoidsimplicitycriterion
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 aims to characterize exactly when the Steinberg algebra of a self-similar groupoid — a discrete algebra generalizing Leavitt path algebras and Nekrashevych algebras — is simple, and to show that in contracting cases this matches simplicity of the reduced C*-algebra. The main result reduces the question to a finite algebraic test: build a small graph from the nucleus, find its synchronized vertices, and check whether certain projections associated to recurrent subgroups have trivial common kernel. The paper also proves that one may collapse a self-similar groupoid to its skeleton acting on a strongly connected graph without changing the simplicity of the algebra. A key bridge between the discrete and analytic worlds is the identification of the groupoid of germs of the boundary action with the tight groupoid, which is cited from prior work for groups but not fully justified for groupoids.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the inverse semigroup S(G,Γ*) built from the self-similar groupoid's action on paths, and the contracted algebra K0S; simplicity is governed by the equality of the tight ideal I_tight (generated by Cuntz-Krieger relations) with the essential ideal I_ess (singular elements). The paper's algorithm uses the nucleus N of a contracting groupoid, the recurrent subgroups H_p = {g : g(p)=p, g|_p = g} ⊆ N, a graph ∆ whose vertices are subsets I_q of the nucleus's cyclic part, and coset projections π_{p,q}: KH_p → K[H_p/(H_p∩I_q)]. The equivalence π_{p,q}(a)=0 ⇔ aq=0 in the algebra lets one decide membership in I_ess by checking only synchronized vertices of ∆.

What would settle it

Exhibit a self-similar groupoid (not a group) for which the groupoid of germs G(S,Γ^ω) is not isomorphic to the tight groupoid G_T(S). This can be tested by finding a germ [s,p] whose source and range are not tight characters of S; if such a germ exists, the identification in Section 9 breaks and Corollary 9.3 would not be justified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a self-similar groupoid of type (CF) — meaning every vertex emits at least two edges and the action mixes vertices suitably — the contracted inverse semigroup algebra modulo its tight ideal (equivalently, the Steinberg algebra of the tight groupoid) is simple if and only if, for every recurrent subgroup H_p contained in the nucleus, the intersection of the kernels of the projections π_{p,q} over all synchronized vertices I_q with s(q)=s(p) is zero. In the contracting case, the essential ideal and tight ideal can differ only via an element of KH_p for some recurrent subgroup, leading to this criterion. Moreover, under the same contracting hypothesis, simplicity o

Load-bearing premise

The bridge from the discrete Steinberg algebra to the C*-algebra relies on the identification of the groupoid of germs of the inverse semigroup's action on the boundary with the tight groupoid; the paper cites this for self-similar groups but supplies no proof for self-similar groupoids, so if that identification fails in the groupoid case the C*-algebra conclusion would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The criterion gives a concrete algorithm: compute the nucleus, the recurrent subgroups, the graph ∆, and the synchronized vertices, then check the kernel intersections; all data is finite for contracting groupoids.
  • Because the family of Steinberg algebras includes Leavitt path algebras and Nekrashevych algebras, the result unifies and extends simplicity criteria for those well-studied classes.
  • In the contracting case, the same discrete condition decides whether the reduced C*-algebra is simple, so analytic simplicity can be established by purely algebraic computations.
  • Collapsing to the skeleton shows that simplicity is invariant under the collapse to a self-similar group acting on a strongly connected graph, so one may simplify computations without changing the answer.
  • The examples illustrate that the method can distinguish cases where simplicity holds over every field (a Basilica-based groupoid) from cases where simplicity fails in every characteristic (a multispinal-style weaving of two self-similar groups).

Reading between the lines

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

  • The identification of the groupoid of germs with the tight groupoid is only cited for self-similar groups; a proof or counterexample for groupoids would settle whether the C*-algebra result is unconditional.
  • The skeleton collapse suggests that the subtleties unique to groupoids — multiple orbits, non-trivial isotropy between vertices — can often be bypassed, so future work might transfer known results for self-similar groups to groupoids with minimal effort.
  • The characteristic sensitivity seen in the multispinal-style example hints that simplicity of the Steinberg algebra over a field K encodes modular information about the recurrent subgroups; one might predict a connection to the K-theory or homology of the groupoid.
  • Because ∆ is finite in the contracting case, the kernel-intersection test is algorithmic; implementing it for a library of examples could reveal new contracting groupoids with prescribed simplicity properties.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a simplicity criterion for Steinberg algebras of self-similar groupoids. It constructs the associated inverse semigroup S(G,Γ*), characterizes when this inverse semigroup is congruence-free (Theorem 3.1), and identifies the tight ideal with the Cuntz-Krieger ideal (Proposition 4.3). Using the Steinberg–Szakács result that KS/I_tight is simple iff I_tight = I_ess (Theorem 4.4), it reduces the question to a comparison of ideals. Section 5 collapses a self-similar groupoid to its skeleton, Section 6 shows a difference of ideals is supported on the groupoid algebra KG, and Section 7, in the contracting case, further localizes the difference to spans of recurrent subgroups KH_p. Section 8 provides the final combinatorial criterion in terms of the graph Δ and synchronized vertices (Theorem 8.6 and Corollary 8.7). Section 9 claims that for a contracting self-similar groupoid the complex Steinberg algebra is simple iff the reduced C*-algebra is simple (Corollary 9.3), by identifying the groupoid of germs of the action on Γ^ω with the tight groupoid of S. Section 10 applies the results to a Basilica-type groupoid and to a groupoid containing Grigorchuk and Grigorchuk–Erschler subgroups.

Significance. If the algebraic results stand—and they appear to be proved in detail—the paper gives a concrete, checkable criterion for simplicity of Steinberg algebras of self-similar groupoids, extending the self-similar group results of Steinberg–Szakács and Gardella–Nekrashevych–Steinberg–Vdovina. The collapse-to-skeleton reduction (Section 5) and the Δ-graph criterion (Section 8) are useful tools, and the worked examples show the method in action. The claimed C*-algebra equivalence would be a natural and valuable companion result. However, the C* bridge in Section 9 rests on an unproved identification that is known to fail in the presence of sinks; this is a load-bearing gap in the main advertised theorem. The algebraic core should still be considered a substantial contribution once the C* section is repaired or restricted appropriately.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 9, paragraph beginning 'It turns out that the action of S on Γ^ω...' and Corollaries 9.2, 9.3] The paper asserts without proof that G(S,Γ^ω), the groupoid of germs of the action of S on infinite paths, coincides with the tight groupoid G_T(S). The only reference given, [34], proves this identification in the self-similar group case, not for self-similar groupoids acting on arbitrary row-finite graphs. The identification is not automatic: the unit space of G_T(S) is the tight spectrum of E(S)={pp*}∪{0}, which for a graph with a sink includes characters associated to finite paths ending at that sink, whereas Γ^ω contains only infinite paths. No no-sink hypothesis is imposed in Section 9. For example, the trivial self-similar groupoid on the single edge u→v with v a sink has Γ^ω=∅, but the idempotents v and ee* admit tight characters, so G(S,Γ^ω) cannot equal G_T(S). Consequently Corollaries 9.2 and 9.3 do not follow from [4, Corollaries 4.6, 4.8] as written. The authors should eithe
  2. [Abstract and Corollary 9.3] The main advertised theorem—that simplicity of the reduced C*-algebra of a contracting self-similar groupoid coincides with simplicity of the Steinberg algebra—is stated without the additional hypotheses (e.g. no sinks, or type (CF)) under which the Section 9 argument might work. Even if the identification G(S,Γ^ω)=G_T(S) can be established for a suitable boundary path space, the statement needs to be reformulated with the correct hypotheses and the proof supplied. As it stands, the C*-algebra claim is not established for the generality claimed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Corollary 5.5] The statement is clearly a typo: both sides read 'KS(L,Λ*)'. The first side should be 'KS(G,Γ*)' and the second 'KS(L,Λ*)'.
  2. [Theorem 8.6 and its proof] The notation 'I_ess ⊊ I_tight' is backwards; since I_tight ⊆ I_ess, the intended condition is 'I_tight ⊊ I_ess' (or equivalently I_ess \ I_tight nonempty). This appears in the theorem statement and in the first sentence of its proof.
  3. [Section 9, Proposition 9.1] The symbol p is used both for an infinite path and for finite prefixes of it (e.g. '{[p n p*,p] : n∈N, p is a prefix of p}'). This makes the proof harder to follow; renaming the infinite path, say ξ, would clarify.
  4. [Example 10.1] Typo: 'bouqet' should be 'bouquet'.
  5. [Throughout] The paper uses the same symbol * for path adjoints, inverse-semigroup adjoints, and C*-algebra adjoints. The authors acknowledge this at the start, but a short glossary or a consistent font distinction would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: algebraic simplicity criteria are proved from external inverse-semigroup theorems; Section 9 bridge is a possible gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's main algebraic result, Theorem 8.6/Corollary 8.7, derives the simplicity of K0S(G,Γ*)/I_tight from an external theorem of Steinberg–Szakács (Theorem 4.4, [35, Thm 3.9]) after independently establishing the (CF) hypotheses. The recurrent-subgroup and kernel intersection condition is a genuine translation of I_ess = I_tight into data of the contracting action, not a restatement of the conclusion. Sections 3–8 are self-contained and do not rely on any self-citation: the only self-reference, the note that Theorem 3.1 first appeared in the author's master's dissertation, is provenance because the theorem is proved in full here. The C*-algebra section does contain a load-bearing bridge: Corollaries 9.2 and 9.3 require identifying G(S,Γ^ω) with the tight groupoid G_T(S), and the paper justifies this only by saying 'It turns out that the action of S on Γ^ω can be identified with the standard action of S on the space of tight characters of S... see [34] for this identification in the self-similar group case.' That is a possible correctness gap for self-similar groupoids (especially with sinks), but it is a citation to external work and a mathematical identification issue, not a circular step: the quoted identification is not the input that the algebraic derivation uses, and the paper does not rename its own output as a prediction. Accordingly, no circularity is exhibited and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No empirical or fitted parameters appear; all objects are defined from the input data. The paper relies on standard inverse-semigroup and Steinberg-algebra theorems, plus a domain-specific finiteness/nucleus assumption. The main non-standard assumption is the unproved identification of the groupoid of germs with the tight groupoid in the groupoid setting, introduced in Section 9.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Inverse semigroup with zero is congruence-free iff fundamental, 0-simple, and the idempotent semilattice is 0-disjunctive (Theorem 2.8).
    Invoked in Section 3 to characterize congruence-freeness of S(G,Γ*).
  • standard math For a congruence-free inverse semigroup S, I_ess is the unique maximal ideal of KS containing I_tight, and KS/I_tight is simple iff I_tight = I_ess (Theorem 4.4 from [35]).
    This is the foundational theorem for all later simplicity criteria.
  • standard math KS/I_tight ≅ K G_T(S) for the tight groupoid (Steinberg–Szakács [35, Corollary 2.14]).
    Connects the contracted inverse semigroup algebra quotient to the Steinberg algebra.
  • ad hoc to paper The action of S(G,Γ*) on Γ^ω is the action on the tight character space, so the groupoid of germs equals the tight groupoid.
    Section 9 asserts this for self-similar groupoids but only cites [34] for the self-similar group case. This is the load-bearing unproved step for the C*-algebra result.
  • domain assumption A contracting self-similar groupoid has a finite nucleus N satisfying Definition 2.4.
    Finite nucleus is essential for Theorems 7.2, 8.6, and Proposition 9.1.
  • domain assumption The graph Γ is row-finite and the action is faithful (Definition 2.1).
    These are standing assumptions for the entire paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simplicity of algebras and $C^*$-algebras of self-similar groupoids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5QI6WWCW

@misc{pith2026251019735,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simplicity of algebras and $C^*$-algebras of self-similar groupoids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5QI6WWCW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.19735}
}
abstract

Many previously studied path algebras or self-similar group algebras may be viewed as Steinberg algebras of self-similar groupoids. By way of inverse semigroup algebras, we characterize when the Steinberg algebra of a self-similar groupoid is simple. We show that the simplicity of the reduced $C^*$-algebra of a contracting self-similar groupoid coincides with the simplicity of the Steinberg algebra. As an aside, we show that simplicity of the two algebras sometimes depends only on the skeleton of the self-similar groupoid acting on a strongly connected graph. Finally, we apply our methods to examples including a self-similar groupoid akin to multispinal self-similar groups and a self-similar groupoid built from the well-known Basilica group.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.19735 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The graphs Γ and Γ ∗ . 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Non-idempotent elements of G. similar groupoid (G, Γ ∗ ). By direct calculation, we may verify that the vertices u, v, x, y generate the same principal ideals of S. Observe that, v = a ∗ua, u = b ∗ vb, y = c ∗xc, x = d ∗ yd, and therefore SuS = SvS and SxS = SyS. Further observe that, u = fx,uxfu,x, x = fu,xufx,u, v = fy,vyfv,y, y = fv,yvfy,v, and therefore SuS = SxS and SvS = SyS. As discussed in the proof of Propo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. , generated by a and b whose actions are given by, v w j k l i [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Moore diagram (in black and red) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The graph Γ of Example 10.2. It is easy to verify that G is a self-similar groupoid. Indeed, let β −1 u hβv ∈ G and c ∈ Γ 1 and suppose that β −1 u hβv(c) = d. Then, β −1 u hβv(cp) = β −1 u h(βv(c)βr(c)(p)) = β −1 u (h(βv(c)βr(c)(p))), = dβ−1 r(d) (h|βv(c)(βr(c)(p))), …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The graph Γ of Example 10.3. The keen eye will recognize two things about these generators: first, the equations in the upper left quadrant define the Grigorchuk group acting on the subgraph containing x, i, j; and second, the equations in the lower left quadrant defin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The graph H associated to M. nontrivial intersections of Hjjj give rise to the following relevant kernels: ker πjjj,eg = {k1 idx +kbbx + kccx + kddx : k1 + kb + kc + kd = 0}, ker πjjj,i = {k1 idx +kbbx + kccx + kddx : k1 + kd = 0 = kb + kc}, ker πjjj,ji = {k1 idx +kbbx…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The graph ∆ associated to M with minimal vertices shown in black. We remark that because the maximal subgroups of (G, Γ ∗ ) so closely re￾semble the Grigorchuk group or the Grigorchuk-Erschler group (indeed, the maximal subgroups are these two groups with extended acti…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [4]

    Hume, and Xin Li.On Hausdorff covers for non-Hausdorff groupoids

    Kevin Aguyar Brix, Julian Gonzales, Jeremy B. Hume, and Xin Li.On Hausdorff covers for non-Hausdorff groupoids. 2025. arXiv:2503.23203 [math.OA]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [34]

    OnthesimplicityofNekrashevych algebras of contracting self-similar groups

    BenjaminSteinbergandNóraSzakács.“OnthesimplicityofNekrashevych algebras of contracting self-similar groups”. In:Mathematische Annalen 386.3 (2023), pp. 1391–1428

    2023

  3. [1]

    The Leavitt path algebra of a graph

    Gene Abrams and Gonzalo Aranda Pino. “The Leavitt path algebra of a graph”. In:Journal of Algebra293.2 (2005), pp. 319–334

    2005

  4. [2]

    Inverse semigroups on graphs

    C. J. Ash and T. E. Hall. “Inverse semigroups on graphs”. In:Semigroup Forum11 (1975), pp. 140–145. 33

    1975

  5. [3]

    Congruence-free inverse semigroups with zero

    G. R. Baird. “Congruence-free inverse semigroups with zero”. In:Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society20.1 (1975), pp. 110–114

    1975

  6. [5]

    KK-dualityforself-similargroupoid actions ongraphs

    Nathan Brownlowe, Alcides Buss, Daniel Gonçalves, Jeremy B. Hume, AidanSims,andMichaelF.Whittaker.“KK-dualityforself-similargroupoid actions ongraphs”. In:Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 377 (2024), pp. 5513–5560

    2024

  7. [6]

    Simplicity of algebras associated to non-Hausdorff groupoids

    LisaOrloffClark,RuyExel,EnriquePardo,AidanSims,andCharlesStar- ling. “Simplicity of algebras associated to non-Hausdorff groupoids”. In: Transactions of the American Mathematical Society372 (2019), pp. 3669– 3712

    2019

  8. [7]

    A groupoid generalisation of Leavitt path algebras

    Lisa Orloff Clark, Cynthia Farthing, Aidan Sims, and Mark Tomforde. “A groupoid generalisation of Leavitt path algebras”. In:Semigroup Forum 89.3 (2014), pp. 501–517

    2014

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    A Steinberg algebra approach to étale groupoidC ∗-algebras

    Lisa Orloff Clark and Joel Zimmerman. “A Steinberg algebra approach to étale groupoidC ∗-algebras”. In:Journal of Operator Theory91.2 (2024), pp. 349–371

    2024

  2. [9]

    A class ofC∗-algebras and topologicalMarkovchains

    Joachim J. R. Cuntz and Wolfgang Krieger. “A class ofC∗-algebras and topologicalMarkovchains”.In:Inventiones mathematicae56(1980),pp.251– 268

    1980

  3. [10]

    Inverse semigroups and combinatorialC ∗-algebras

    Ruy Exel. “Inverse semigroups and combinatorialC ∗-algebras”. In:Bul- letin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society, New Series39(2007),pp.191– 313

    2007

  4. [11]

    Self-similar graphs, a unified treatment of Katsura and NekrashevychC∗-algebras

    Ruy Exel and Enrique Pardo. “Self-similar graphs, a unified treatment of Katsura and NekrashevychC∗-algebras”. In:Advances in Mathematics 306 (2017), pp. 1046–1129

    2017

  5. [12]

    Characterizing groupoidC ∗-algebras of non-Hausdorff étale groupoids

    Ruy Exel and David R. Pitts. “Characterizing groupoidC ∗-algebras of non-Hausdorff étale groupoids”. In:Lecture Notes in Mathematics(2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    Higher-rank graph C ∗-algebras: An inverse semigroup and groupoid approach

    Cynthia Farthing, Paul S. Muhly, and Trent Yeend. “Higher-rank graph C ∗-algebras: An inverse semigroup and groupoid approach”. In:Semigroup Forum71.2 (2005), pp. 159–187

    2005

  7. [14]

    SimplicityofC ∗-algebrasofcontractingself-similargroups

    Eusebio Gardella, Volodymyr Nekrashevych, Benjamin Steinberg, and AlinaVdovina.“SimplicityofC ∗-algebrasofcontractingself-similargroups”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics406.10 (2025), p. 251

    2025

  8. [15]

    Burnside problem on periodic groups

    Rostislav Grigorchuk. “Burnside problem on periodic groups”. In:Funkt- sional. Anal. i Prilozhen.14 (1980), pp. 53–54

    1980

  9. [16]

    On a torsion-Free weakly branch group defined by a three state automaton

    Rostislav Grigorchuk and Andrzej Zuk. “On a torsion-Free weakly branch group defined by a three state automaton.” In:International Journal of Algebra and Computation12 (Feb. 2002), pp. 223–245. 34

    2002

  10. [17]

    An algebraic analogue of Exel-PardoC ∗-algebras

    Roozbeh Hazrat, David Pask, Adam Sierakowski, and Aidan Sims. “An algebraic analogue of Exel-PardoC ∗-algebras”. In:Algebras and Repre- sentation Theory24.4 (2021), pp. 877–909

    2021

  11. [18]

    Howie.Fundamentals of Semigroup Theory

    John M. Howie.Fundamentals of Semigroup Theory. London Mathemat- ical Society Monographs. Oxford University Press, 1995

    1995

  12. [19]

    Equilibrium states on operator algebras associated to self-similar actions ofgroupoidsongraphs

    Marcelo Laca, Iain Raeburn, Jacqui Ramagge, and Michael F. Whittaker. “Equilibrium states on operator algebras associated to self-similar actions ofgroupoidsongraphs”.In:Advances in Mathematics331(2018),pp.268– 325

    2018

  13. [20]

    A correspondence between a class of monoids and self- similar group actions I

    Mark Lawson. “A correspondence between a class of monoids and self- similar group actions I”. In:Semigroup Forum76.3 (2008), pp. 489–517

    2008

  14. [21]

    Mark Lawson.Primer on inverse semigroups I. 2020. arXiv:2006.01628 [math.GR]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Diego Martínez and Nóra Szakács.Algebraic singular functions are not always dense in the ideal ofC ∗-singular functions. 2025. arXiv:2510 . 01947 [math.OA]

    2025

  16. [23]

    Fundamental Inverse Semigroups

    W. D. Munn. “Fundamental Inverse Semigroups”. In:The Quarterly Jour- nal of Mathematics21.2 (June 1970), pp. 157–170

    1970

  17. [24]

    Simple contracted semigroup algebras

    W. D. Munn. “Simple contracted semigroup algebras”. In:Proceedings of the Conference on Semigroups in Honor of Alfred H. Clifford (Tulane Univ., New Orleans, La., 1978). New Orleans, LA: Tulane University, 1979, pp. 35–43

    1978

  18. [25]

    C ∗-algebras and self-similar groups

    Volodymyr Nekrashevych. “C ∗-algebras and self-similar groups”. In:Jour- nal Für Die Reine Und Angewandte Mathematik2009 (May 2009), pp. 59– 123

    2009

  19. [26]

    Growth of étale groupoids and simple alge- bras

    Volodymyr Nekrashevych. “Growth of étale groupoids and simple alge- bras”. In:International Journal of Algebra and Computation26.02 (2016), pp. 375–397. eprint:https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218196716500156

    2016 doi

  20. [27]

    Mathematical surveys and monographs

    Volodymyr Nekrashevych.Self-Similar Groups. Mathematical surveys and monographs. American Mathematical Society, 2005

    2005

  21. [28]

    Alan L. T. Paterson.Groupoids, inverse semigroups, and their operator algebras. Vol. 170. Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser, 1999

    1999

  22. [29]

    Graph inverse semigroups, groupoids and theirC∗- algebras

    Alan L.T. Paterson. “Graph inverse semigroups, groupoids and theirC∗- algebras”. In:Journal of Operator Theory48.3 (2002), pp. 645–662

    2002

  23. [30]

    Kumjian-Pask algebras of higher-rank graphs

    Gonzalo Aranda Pino, John Clark, Astrid an Huef, and Iain Raeburn. “Kumjian-Pask algebras of higher-rank graphs”. In:Transactions of the American Mathematical Society365.7 (2013), pp. 3613–3641

    2013

  24. [31]

    Jean Renault.A groupoid approach toC∗-algebras. Vol. 793. Lecture notes in mathematics. Berlin: Springer, 1980

    1980

  25. [32]

    Simplicity ofC ∗-algebras associated to higher-rank graphs

    David Robertson and Aidan Sims. “Simplicity ofC ∗-algebras associated to higher-rank graphs”. In:Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 39.2 (2007), pp. 337–344. 35

    2007

  26. [33]

    A groupoid approach to discrete inverse semigroup algebras

    Benjamin Steinberg. “A groupoid approach to discrete inverse semigroup algebras”. In:Advances in Mathematics223.2 (2010), pp. 689–727

    2010

  27. [35]

    Simplicity of inverse semigroup and étale groupoid algebras

    Benjamin Steinberg and Nóra Szakács. “Simplicity of inverse semigroup and étale groupoid algebras”. In:Advances in Mathematics380 (2021), p. 107611

    2021

  28. [36]

    Congruence-free inverse semigroups

    P. G. Trotter. “Congruence-free inverse semigroups”. In:Semigroup Forum 9.1 (1974), pp. 109–116. 36

    1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.