Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-t7r7g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-07T20:15:49.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On non-tameness of the Ellis semigroup

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2025

JOHANNES KELLENDONK*
Affiliation:
https://ror.org/029brtt94Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS UMR 5208, Institut Camille Jordan, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France

Abstract

A tame dynamical system can be characterized by the cardinality of its enveloping (or Ellis) semigroup. Indeed, this cardinality is that of the power set of the continuum $2^{\mathfrak c}$ if the system is non-tame. The semigroup admits a minimal bilateral ideal and this ideal is a union of isomorphic copies of a group $\mathcal H$, called the structure group. For almost automorphic systems, the cardinality of $\mathcal H$ is at most ${\mathfrak c}$ that of the continuum. We show a partial converse of this which holds for minimal systems for which the Ellis semigroup of their maximal equicontinuous factor acts freely, namely that the cardinality of $\mathcal H$ is $2^{{\mathfrak c}}$ if the proximal relation is not transitive and the subgroup generated by products $\xi \zeta ^{-1}$ of singular points $\xi ,\zeta $ in the maximal equicontinuous factor is not open. This refines the above statement about non-tame Ellis semigroups, as it locates a particular algebraic component of the latter which has such a large cardinality.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aujogue, J.-B., Barge, M., Kellendonk, J. and Lenz, D.. Equicontinuous factors, the proximal relation and Ellis semigroup for Delone sets. Mathematics of Aperiodic Order (Progress in Mathematics, 309). Ed. J. Kellendonk, D. Lent and J. Savinien. Birkhäuser/Springer, Basel, 2015, pp. 137194.10.1007/978-3-0348-0903-0_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auslander, J.. Minimal Flows and Their Extensions (North-Holland Mathematics Studies, 153). North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1988; (Notas de Matemática [Mathematical Notes], 122).Google Scholar
Barge, M. and Kellendonk, J.. The proximal relation and pure point spectrum for tiling dynamical systems. Michigan Math. J. 64(4) (2013), 793822.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.. The Veech structure theorem. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 186 (1973), 203218.10.1090/S0002-9947-1973-0350712-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrmann, G., Kellendonk, J. and Yassawi, R.. Tame or wild Toeplitz shifts. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 44 (2024), 13791417.10.1017/etds.2023.58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasner, E.. On tame dynamical systems. Colloq. Math. 105(2) (2006), 284295.10.4064/cm105-2-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasner, E.. Enveloping semigroups in topological dynamics. Topology Appl. 154(11) (2007), 23442363.10.1016/j.topol.2007.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasner, E.. The structure of tame minimal dynamical systems for general groups. Invent. Math. 211(1) (2018), 213244.10.1007/s00222-017-0747-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasner, E. and Glasner, Y.. A metric minimal PI cascade with ${2}^{\mathfrak{c}}$ minimal ideals. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 40(5) (2020), 12681281.10.1017/etds.2018.78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasner, E. and Megrelishvili, M.. Hereditarily non-sensitive dynamical systems and linear representations. Colloq. Math. 104 (2006), 223283.10.4064/cm104-2-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindman, N. and Strauss, D.. Algebra in the Stone–Cech Compactification: Theory and Applications. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2011.10.1515/9783110258356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howie, J. M.. Fundamentals of Semigroup Theory (London Mathematical Society Monographs, New Series, 12). Clarendon, Oxford, 1995.10.1093/oso/9780198511946.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kechris, A.. Classical Descriptive Set Theory. Springer, Berlin, 2012.Google Scholar
Kellendonk, J. and Yassawi, R.. The Ellis semigroup of bijective substitutions. Groups Geom. Dyn. 16(1) (2022), 2973.10.4171/ggd/640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, D. and Li, H.. Independence in topological and ${\mathrm{C}}^{\ast }$ -dynamics. Math. Ann. 338(4) (2007), 869926.10.1007/s00208-007-0097-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, A.. Enveloping semigroups for flows. Proc. R. Ir. Acad. Sect. A 95(2) (1995), 179191.Google Scholar
Sacker, R. J. and Sell, G. R.. Finite extensions of minimal transformation groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 190 (1974), 325334.10.1090/S0002-9947-1974-0350715-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veech, W. A.. Point-distal flows. Amer. J. Math. 92(1) (1970), 205242.10.2307/2373504CrossRefGoogle Scholar