Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Relative Property (T), simplices of invariant measures, and existentially closed models

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A transitive permutation group whose point stabilizer has relative Property (T) in its Polish closure yields a Bauer–Poulsen dichotomy for the simplex of invariant measures on $K^S$, with Bauer exactly when the closure has Property (T).

desk verdict Strong paper: a real Bauer–Poulsen dichotomy for permutation groups under a strong relative (T) hypothesis, with a reusable affine-logic framework; watch the definitional caveat and a small gap in Prop 4.5. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07649 v1 pith:K4FARB3S submitted 2026-08-07 math.LO math.FAmath.GR

Tomás Ibarlucía This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.LOmath.FAmath.GR MSC 03C9822D1037A15
keywords Bauer–PoulsendichotomyrelativeProperty(T)invariantmeasuresaffinelogicexistentiallyclosedmodelsRobinsontheoriesChoquetsimplexpermutationgroups
topics The Measurement Problem
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 proves a two-sided geometry theorem for the set $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{inv}(K^S)$ of invariant probability measures on the product space $K^S$, where a countable transitive permutation group $G$ acts on $S$ and hence on coordinates. The theorem says: if the pointwise closure $\overline{H}$ of the stabilizer of a point has relative Property (T) inside the Polish group $\overline{G}$ (in the strong epsilon-delta sense of Definition 4.1), then $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{inv}(K^S)$ is always either a Bauer simplex or the Poulsen simplex, and for $|K|>1$ it is Bauer exactly when $\overline{G}$ itself has Property (T) and Poulsen otherwise. This subsumes the classical dichotomy for countable groups, settles the Bauer-vs-Poulsen question for the cube-exchangeability contexts left open by earlier work, and is obtained from a new model-theoretic dichotomy theorem about existentially closed models in affine logic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are (i) the strong form of relative Property (T) for the pair $(\overline{G},\overline{H})$ of Polish groups, which upgrades approximate invariance to near exact invariance (Definition 4.1); (ii) the affine Robinson theory $\mathrm{PMP}_{G/H}$, whose models are probability-measure-preserving $G$-systems generated by a distinguished $H$-invariant subalgebra, and whose quantifier-free type spaces are homeomorphic to $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{inv}((2^x)^{G/H})$; and (iii) the abstract dichotomy Theorem 10.6, which says that a qf-simplicial, face-preserving, irreducible Robinson theory—meaning its quantifier-free type spaces are Choquet simplices, restriction maps send faces to faces, and models have the joint embedding property—is either qf-Bauer or qf-Poulsen provided every model of the common $\forall\exists$-theory of its affinely existentially closed, qf-extremal models is decomposable as a direct integral of qf-extremal models. Relative Property (T) enters through Lemma 13.4 and Proposition 13.7, which establish exactly this decomposability for $\mathrm{PMP}_{G/H}$.

What would settle it

If one can produce a transitive permutation group $G$ on a countable set $S$ for which the closure of the point stabilizer has relative Property (T) only in the weak sense while the strong sense of Definition 4.1 fails, and for which $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{inv}(2^S)$ is neither Bauer nor Poulsen, then the dichotomy's scope collapses at the boundary of the definition. A cheaper check is the finer-grained cube context $S=(\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z})^{\oplus\mathbb{N}}$ with $m>1$: the theorem predicts the Poulsen simplex for every such context, so exhibiting any one of these simplices that is not Poulsen would falsify the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim (Theorem 13.11) is that for a countable transitive permutation group $G\curvearrowright S$ with $H$ the stabilizer of a point, if the closure $\overline{H}$ of $H$ has relative Property (T) in the Polish group $\overline{G}$ according to Definition 4.1, then for every compact metrizable $K$ with $|K|>1$ the Choquet simplex $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{inv}(K^S)$ is Bauer precisely when $\overline{G}$ has Property (T), and otherwise it is the Poulsen simplex. The theorem removes all intermediate geometries: under this hypothesis the simplex is never neither Bauer nor Poulsen, and the boundary between the two cases is exactly Kazhdan's property for the full closure. The proof proceeds by encoding the invariant-measure problem in affine logic: the quantifier-free type spaces of the theory $\mathrm{PMP}_{G/H}$ are affinely homeomorphic to the simplices of invariant measures, and a general Bauer–Poulsen dichotomy for qf-simplicial, face-preserving, irreducible Robinson theories (Theorem 10.6) applies once relative Property (T) is used to show that every model of the common $\forall\exists$-theory of full models is decomposable as a direct integral of qf-extremal models.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the strong epsilon-delta version of relative Property (T) in Definition 4.1—approximate invariance inside a unitary representation must be upgraded to a genuinely close exactly invariant vector—and the paper notes that whether this strong form is equivalent to the standard weaker definition for general Polish groups is open, so the advertised scope of the main theorem depends on that definitional choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The classical Bauer–Poulsen dichotomy for countable groups follows as the special case where the stabilizer is trivial, since the pair $(G,1)$ trivially has relative Property (T).
  • The cube-exchangeability example and its finer-grained variants $S=(\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z})^{\oplus\mathbb{N}}$ with the natural semidirect product action fall on the Poulsen side, confirming that no Aldous–Hoover–Kallenberg representation theorem is possible for them.
  • For any transitive group meeting the hypothesis there is no third geometry: the simplex of invariant measures is never neither Bauer nor Poulsen, answering that part of the open exchangeability question within this class.
  • When the closure of the full group has Property (T), the Bauer conclusion holds for every compact metrizable space $K$, not only for zero-dimensional ones, by the general Glasner–Weiss-type argument recalled in Proposition 3.3.
  • The theory $\mathrm{PMP}_{G/H}$ is shown to be qf-Bauer or qf-Poulsen, so the model-theoretic dichotomy is available as a template for further ergodic-theoretic applications beyond permutation groups.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the strong and weak forms of relative Property (T) are ever shown to differ for closed permutation groups, the scope of Theorem 13.11 is tied to Definition 4.1; a natural check is whether a weak-relative-(T) pair can produce a non-Bauer, non-Poulsen simplex.
  • The decomposability hypothesis (D) of Theorem 10.6 may hold for a wider class of affine Robinson theories than those arising from relative Property (T); in particular, proving openness and face-preservation of the variable-restriction maps of $\mathrm{PMP}_{G/H}$ would extend the dichotomy to groups without relative Property (T).
  • The theorem suggests that relative Property (T) of a point stabilizer is the right topological replacement for oligomorphicity in exchangeability contexts: it yields the Poulsen side exactly when the full group lacks Kazhdan's property, whereas oligomorphicity would force the Bauer side.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a Bauer–Poulsen dichotomy for the Choquet simplex M_inv(K^S) of invariant measures for the induced action of a transitive permutation group G on a countable set S, under the hypothesis that the closure of the point stabilizer H has relative Property (T) in the closure of G. The main theorem (Theorem 13.11) states that, for every compact metrizable K with |K|>1, M_inv(K^S) is Bauer exactly when the closure of G has Property (T), and is the Poulsen simplex otherwise. The proof is model-theoretic: the paper develops affine Robinson theories, face-preserving and qf-simplicial theories, qf-measurable fields and direct integrals, and obtains a general dichotomy theorem (Theorem 10.6) for such theories under a decomposability hypothesis (D). This is then applied to the theory PMP_{G/H} constructed in Section 12, whose quantifier-free type spaces are identified with the simplices M_inv((2^x)^{G/H}). The paper also shows that the cube-exchangeability contexts of Aldous/Austin fall on the Poulsen side, confirming Austin's conjecture for those examples.

Significance. If the technical gaps identified below are repaired, this is a substantial contribution. It extends the Glasner–Weiss dichotomy from countable groups to a class of transitive permutation groups with a relative Property (T) assumption, and it provides the first general Bauer–Poulsen dichotomy subsuming both [BIT, Thm. 20.8] and the permutation-group examples. The model-theoretic machinery — qf-measurable fields, face-preserving Robinson theories, the qf-convex realization property, and the decomposability criterion of Theorem 8.4 — is genuinely new and likely to be reusable. The paper is also admirably transparent about the nonstandard strong definition of relative Property (T) and about the open equivalence question, and the applications to Austin's examples are correctly derived from ordinary Property (T) of the relevant closed subgroups.

major comments (4)
  1. [§10, Lemma 10.1 and proof of Theorem 10.6] Lemma 10.1 is stated for extreme types p ∈ E^qf_x(T), but in the proof of Theorem 10.6 it is applied to p0, which is chosen to be non-extreme. The printed expression 'p0 ∈ E^qf_x(T) \overline{E^qf_x(T)}' is also self-contradictory; the intended choice is evidently p0 ∈ \overline{E^qf_x(T)} \setminus E^qf_x(T). The proof of the lemma, through Lemma 5.15, actually establishes the needed statement for every p in the closure of the types realized in M, so the issue is repairable. Nevertheless, the lemma as stated does not cover the use in the Claim, and the proof of the dichotomy must either state and prove the generalized version or be reorganized so that Lemma 10.1 is invoked only for types satisfying its hypothesis.
  2. [§4, Proposition 4.5] The proof verifies convergence of ν_k to ν only on the constant cylinder sets U_{1^n} and U_{0^n}. These sets do not form a neighborhood basis of the product topology on 2^{G/H}; to conclude weak-* convergence to ν = λδ_1 + (1−λ)δ_0 one must prove the limits on mixed cylinders U_z. The missing limits (which are zero for mixed z) are recoverable from μ_k(a_k △ g_i a_k) → 0 by elementary estimates, but they are not present in the text. As written, the sentence 'This proves our claim' is not justified by the displayed computations.
  3. [§13, Proposition 13.7] The proof begins with the assertion that, by Remark 13.1, 'up to passing to a dense subgroup ... we may assume that G is countable.' This reduction is load-bearing, because the subsequent use of [BIT, Thm. 28.3] and the ergodic decomposition is explicitly said to require countability. The text does not explain why the decomposition obtained for the countable dense subgroup yields a decomposition of M as a model of the original theory PMP_{G/H}; one must check that the qf-measurable field and direct integral respect the full language, including predicates for elements of the larger closure, and that H-invariance of the fibers transfers from the dense subgroup to the whole stabilizer. Please provide a complete justification for this step, or restrict the statement of Theorem 13.11 accordingly if the reduction cannot be made to work.
  4. [Definition 4.1 and abstract/Theorem 13.11] Definition 4.1 is a strong ε-δ version of relative Property (T), and Remark 4.3 states that its equivalence with the standard weak definition is open for general Polish groups. Lemma 4.4 and Proposition 4.5 rely on exactly the strong form. The abstract and Theorem 13.11 state the hypothesis as 'relative Property (T)' without qualification, which could mislead readers who use the standard weak notion. I recommend adding an explicit qualification (e.g., 'in the sense of Definition 4.1') in the abstract and theorem statement, and noting in the introduction that the motivating examples are not affected because they satisfy the strong form through ordinary Property (T) of the relevant subgroup.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4, Lemma 4.6(ii)] The sentence 'The inequality (4.5) then follows directly from (i)' skips the case where max_{g∈F} μ(A△gA) ≥ ε²/4; in that case (4.5) is trivially true since the left-hand side is at most 1/2. Adding one sentence would make the argument complete.
  2. [§12, Lemma 12.2] In the construction of M^G, the assertion that d_0 is a pseudometric 'is indeed encoded in the theory' would be easier for the reader to verify if the relevant axioms of PMP_{G/H} were made explicit at that point or if a precise reference to the axioms were given.
  3. [§10, proof of Theorem 10.6] The relation M ⪯^{ec*} N ('full extension') is defined inside the proof of Theorem 10.6 and used repeatedly in the Claim and the transfinite chain argument; it would improve readability to define it before the statement of the theorem or in a short preliminary paragraph.
  4. [Notation, Section 13] The reuse of G and H for the original permutation group and for its closure (with bars introduced in the text) is sometimes confusing, particularly in the statements of Proposition 13.7 and Lemma 13.6; a consistent notation with ar G and ar H throughout would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Bauer–Poulsen dichotomy is not built into the definition of relative Property (T), and the heavy [BIT] reliance is prior independent work rather than a self-citation loop.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Definition 4.1 is a strong form of relative Property (T), but it does not assert anything about M_inv(K^S); Theorem 13.11's dichotomy is derived through Lemma 4.4, Proposition 4.5, Theorem 10.6, and Proposition 13.7 rather than being assumed. Proposition 4.5 contains an actual gap: the limit nu_k to nu is checked only on the constant cylinder sets U_{1^n} and U_{0^n}, which are not a clopen basis, so mixed-cylinder convergence is not established in the text; this is an omitted proof, not an identity with an input. The reliance on [BIT] is substantial, and [BIT] is a preprint by overlapping authors, but the cited results (direct integrals, simplicial affine theories, ergodic decomposition) are parameter-free and do not contain the target dichotomy; the paper adapts them for Robinson theories and verifies the new hypothesis (D) by relative Property (T). Remark 4.3 openly notes that the strong form used in Definition 4.1 may not be equivalent to the standard weak form for Polish groups, which is a scope risk for the advertised examples, but it is not circularity because the theorem is conditional on the strong form. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no equation reduces to itself by construction.

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

The central theorem has no fitted parameters and introduces no new physical or structural entities. It rests on the strong definition of relative Property (T), on the affine logic machinery and ergodic decomposition imported from [BIT], and on Tsankov's Property (T) result for symmetric groups.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Relative Property (T) is taken in the strong epsilon-delta form of Definition 4.1.
    The proofs of Lemma 4.4 and Proposition 4.5 require approximate invariance to be upgraded to a close invariant vector, which is exactly the strong form. Remark 4.3 notes that equivalence with the standard weaker form is open for non-locally-compact Polish groups.
  • domain assumption The model-theoretic machinery of [BIT] is assumed: direct integrals, convex realization completions, simplicial affine theories, and the extremal decomposition theorem.
    Used in Theorem 8.4 (adapting [BIT, Thm. 12.3]), Lemma 9.3 (adapting [BIT, Lemma 17.2]), Theorem 8.6 (adapting [BIT, Thm. 12.16]), and Proposition 13.7 (using [BIT, Thm. 28.3] that PMP_G is simplicial and its extremal models are exactly the ergodic systems).
  • domain assumption Tsankov's theorem that the Polish group Sym(N) has Property (T) [Tsa12, Thm. 6.7].
    Used in Corollary 13.12 to verify relative Property (T) for the finer-grained cube examples via the closure of the stabilizer.
  • domain assumption The classical Ergodic Decomposition Theorem for measure-preserving actions, in the model-theoretic formulation of [BIT, Cor. 28.4].
    Used in Theorem 11.3 and Proposition 13.7 to decompose models of PMP_G into ergodic G-systems.
  • standard math Mackey-Ramsay point realization of Borel pmp actions of locally compact second countable groups.
    Used inside Lemma 4.4, in the case k=0, to pass from the compact group action on the Gaussian measure algebra to a Borel pmp system with an ergodic decomposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relative Property (T), simplices of invariant measures, and existentially closed models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K4FARB3S

@misc{pith2026260807649,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relative Property (T), simplices of invariant measures, and existentially closed models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K4FARB3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07649}
}
abstract

We prove a Bauer-Poulsen dichotomy theorem for simplices of invariant measures associated with permutation groups. More precisely, let $G$ be a transitive group of permutations of a countable set $\mathcal{S}$, and let $H$ be the stabilizer of a point of $\mathcal{S}$. Let $\overline{G}$ and $\overline{H}$ denote their closures in the topology of pointwise convergence. Assume the Polish group $\overline{H}$ has relative Property (T) in $\overline{G}$. Then the simplex $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{inv}(2^\mathcal{S})$ of invariant probability measures for the induced action $G\curvearrowright 2^\mathcal{S}$ is Bauer if and only if $\overline{G}$ has Property (T), and is Poulsen otherwise. This addresses some examples and questions considered by Austin. We deduce this result from a more general model-theoretic statement of independent interest. To this end, we initiate the study of existentially closed models in affine logic.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. J. Aldous, Exchangeability and related topics, \'Ecole d'\'et\'e de probabilit\'es de S aint- F lour, XIII ---1983, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1117, Springer, Berlin, 1985, pp. 1--198. 883646

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    E. M. Alfsen, Compact convex sets and boundary integrals, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1971, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 57. 0445271

    work page 1971

  3. [3]

    On the geometry of a class of invariant measures and a problem of Aldous

    T. Austin, On the geometry of a class of invariant measures and a problem of A ldous , preprint arXiv:0808.2268 , 2008

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Ab\'ert and B

    M. Ab\'ert and B. Weiss, Bernoulli actions are weakly contained in any free action, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 33 (2013), no. 2, 323--333. 3035287

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Bagheri, Linear model theory for L ipschitz structures , Arch

    S.-M. Bagheri, Linear model theory for L ipschitz structures , Arch. Math. Logic 53 (2014), no. 7-8, 897--927. 3271367

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Pure Appl

    , Extreme types and extremal models, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 175 (2024), no. 7, Paper No. 103451, 18. 4735719

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Ben Yaacov , A

    I. Ben Yaacov , A. Berenstein, C. W. Henson, and A. Usvyatsov, Model theory for metric structures, Model theory with applications to algebra and analysis. V ol. 2, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 350, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 315--427

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Bowen, R

    L. Bowen, R. Grigorchuk, and R. Kravchenko, Invariant random subgroups of lamplighter groups, Israel J. Math. 207 (2015), no. 2, 763--782. 3359717

    work page 2015

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Berenstein and C

    A. Berenstein and C. W. Henson, Model theory of probability spaces with some countable groups of automorphisms, unpublished

  2. [10]

    Berenstein, C

    A. Berenstein, C. W. Henson, and T. Ibarluc\'ia, Existentially closed measure-preserving actions of free groups, Fund. Math. 264 (2024), no. 3, 241--282. 4731992

    2024

  3. [11]

    Ben Yaacov , T

    I. Ben Yaacov , T. Ibarluc \'i a, and T. Tsankov, Extremal models and direct integrals in affine logic, preprint, arXiv:2407.13344

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bowen, Invariant random subgroups of the free group, Groups Geom

    L. Bowen, Invariant random subgroups of the free group, Groups Geom. Dyn. 9 (2015), no. 3, 891--916. 3420547

    2015

  5. [13]

    Bagheri and R

    S.-M. Bagheri and R. Safari, Preservation theorems in linear continuous logic, MLQ Math. Log. Q. 60 (2014), no. 3, 168--176. 3207206

    2014

  6. [14]

    Ben Yaacov and A

    I. Ben Yaacov and A. Usvyatsov, Continuous first order logic and local stability, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010), no. 10, 5213--5259. 2657678

    2010

  7. [15]

    Bekka and A

    B. Bekka and A. Valette, Kazhdan's property ( T ) and amenable representations , Math. Z. 212 (1993), no. 2, 293--299. 1202813

    1993

  8. [16]

    Candela and B

    P. Candela and B. Szegedy, Nilspace factors for general uniformity seminorms, cubic exchangeability and limits, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 287 (2023), no. 1425, v+101. 4608886

    2023

  9. [17]

    Connes and B

    A. Connes and B. Weiss, Property T and asymptotically invariant sequences , Israel J. Math. 37 (1980), no. 3, 209--210

    1980

  10. [18]

    S. Z. Ditor and L. Q. Eifler, Some open mapping theorems for measures, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 164 (1972), 287--293. 477729

    1972

  11. [19]

    Downarowicz, The C hoquet simplex of invariant measures for minimal flows , Israel J

    T. Downarowicz, The C hoquet simplex of invariant measures for minimal flows , Israel J. Math. 74 (1991), no. 2-3, 241--256. 1135237

    1991

  12. [20]

    D. M. Evans and T. Tsankov, Free actions of free groups on countable structures and property ( T ) , Fund. Math. 232 (2016), no. 1, 49--63. 3417738

    2016

  13. [21]

    Giraud, Hyperfinite measure-preserving actions of countable groups and their model theory, preprint arXiv:1910.07985 , 2019

    A. Giraud, Hyperfinite measure-preserving actions of countable groups and their model theory, preprint arXiv:1910.07985 , 2019

    1910 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. Gao, A. Ioana, and I. Vigdorovich, Characters of surface groups, preprint arXiv:2605.02242 , 2026

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Glasner, Ergodic theory via joinings, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol

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

    2003

  16. [24]

    Glasner, Y

    Y. Glasner, Y. F. Lin, and T. Meyerovitch, Extensions of invariant random orders on groups, Groups Geom. Dyn. 18 (2024), no. 4, 1377--1401. 4797633

    2024

  17. [25]

    Goldbring, B

    I. Goldbring, B. Seward, and R. Tucker-Drob , Existentially closed measure-preserving actions of approximately treeable groups, preprint arXiv:2507.03195 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Glasner and B

    E. Glasner and B. Weiss, Kazhdan's property T and the geometry of the collection of invariant measures , Geom. Funct. Anal. 7 (1997), no. 5, 917--935

    1997

  19. [27]

    Systems 25 (2005), no

    , Spatial and non-spatial actions of P olish groups , Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 25 (2005), no. 5, 1521--1538. 2173431

    2005

  20. [28]

    Haydon, A new proof that every P olish space is the extreme boundary of a simplex , Bull

    R. Haydon, A new proof that every P olish space is the extreme boundary of a simplex , Bull. London Math. Soc. 7 (1975), 97--100. 358312

    1975

  21. [29]

    Hrushovski, Definability patterns and their symmetries, preprint arXiv:1911.01129 , 2019

    E. Hrushovski, Definability patterns and their symmetries, preprint arXiv:1911.01129 , 2019

    1911 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ibarluc\' a, Infinite-dimensional P olish groups and P roperty ( T ) , Invent

    T. Ibarluc\' a, Infinite-dimensional P olish groups and P roperty ( T ) , Invent. Math. 223 (2021), no. 2, 725--757. 4209862

    2021

  23. [31]

    Ioana, P

    A. Ioana, P. Spaas, and I. Vigdorovich, Trace spaces of full free product C^* -algebras , Compos. Math. 161 (2025), no. 11, 2947--2989. 5012844

    2025

  24. [32]

    Ibarluc\' a and T

    T. Ibarluc\' a and T. Tsankov, A model-theoretic approach to rigidity of strongly ergodic, distal actions, Ann. Sci. \' E c. Norm. Sup\' e r. (4) 54 (2021), no. 3, 751--777. 4311098

    2021

  25. [33]

    Jolissaint, On property ( T ) for pairs of topological groups , Enseign

    P. Jolissaint, On property ( T ) for pairs of topological groups , Enseign. Math. (2) 51 (2005), no. 1-2, 31--45. 2154620

    2005

  26. [34]

    Kallenberg, Probabilistic symmetries and invariance principles, Probability and its Applications (New York), Springer, New York, 2005

    O. Kallenberg, Probabilistic symmetries and invariance principles, Probability and its Applications (New York), Springer, New York, 2005. 2161313

    2005

  27. [35]

    A. S. Kechris, Classical descriptive set theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 156, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995

    1995

  28. [36]

    160, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010

    , Global aspects of ergodic group actions, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 160, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010. 2583950

    2010

  29. [37]

    Lindenstrauss, G

    J. Lindenstrauss, G. Olsen, and Y. Sternfeld, The P oulsen simplex , Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 28 (1978), no. 1, vi, 91--114

    1978

  30. [38]

    G. W. Mackey, Point realizations of transformation groups, Illinois J. Math. 6 (1962), 327--335. 143874

    1962

  31. [39]

    R. R. Phelps, Lectures on C hoquet's theorem , second ed., Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1757, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001

    2001

  32. [40]

    E. T. Poulsen, A simplex with dense extreme points, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 11 (1961), 83--87, XIV. 123903

    1961

  33. [41]

    Ramsay, Virtual groups and group actions, Advances in Math

    A. Ramsay, Virtual groups and group actions, Advances in Math. 6 (1971), 253--322. 281876

    1971

  34. [42]

    Simons, Extended and sandwich versions of the H ahn- B anach theorem , J

    S. Simons, Extended and sandwich versions of the H ahn- B anach theorem , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 21 (1968), 112--122. 222601

    1968

  35. [43]

    Slutsky, Invariant trace simplices and relative property ( T ) , preprint arXiv:2604.24738 , 2026

    R. Slutsky, Invariant trace simplices and relative property ( T ) , preprint arXiv:2604.24738 , 2026

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Tsankov, Unitary representations of oligomorphic groups, Geom

    T. Tsankov, Unitary representations of oligomorphic groups, Geom. Funct. Anal. 22 (2012), no. 2, 528--555. 2929072

    2012

  37. [45]

    Vesterstr m, On open maps, compact convex sets, and operator algebras, J

    J. Vesterstr m, On open maps, compact convex sets, and operator algebras, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 6 (1973), 289--297. 315464

    1973

  38. [46]

    Villadsen, The range of the E lliott invariant , J

    J. Villadsen, The range of the E lliott invariant , J. Reine Angew. Math. 462 (1995), 31--55. 1329901

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.