text:
# One relation for self-gravitating bodies

## I Introduction

For homogeneous triaxial ellipsoid with semiaxes $`A,B,C`$ and density $`\rho `$ the next relations are valid (Landau and Lifshits 1975).The gravitational potential at the inner point ($`X,Y,Z`$), $`AXA`$, $`BYB`$, $`CZC`$, is

$$\begin{array}{c}U_{ell}(X,Y,Z)=\pi \rho GABC_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{X^2}{A^2+s}\frac{Y^2}{B^2+s}\frac{Z^2}{C^2+s}\right)\frac{ds}{Q_s};\hfill \\ Q_s=\sqrt{(A^2+s)(B^2+s)(C^2+s)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
The potential energy of the homogeneous triaxial ellipsoid is:

$$W_{ell}=\frac{3}{10}GM^2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{Q_s}.$$
(2)
Here $`M_{ell}=4/3\pi \rho ABC`$ is the ellipsoid’s mass and $`G`$ stands for Newtonian constant of gravitation. Note that gravitational energy of self-gravitating body is of negative sign but we loosely write all $`W`$s with positive sign. In general case $`ABC`$ the integrals in (1) and (2) are expressed only in terms of the incomplete elliptic integrals and this precludes any detailed analysis. However, if we consider only potential at the center of ellipsoid, $`U_{ell}(0,0,0)`$, then we get the remarkable relation:

$$WUM=\frac{W_{ell}}{U_{ell}(0,0,0)M_{ell}}=\frac{2}{5},$$
(3)
valid for any values of semi-axes. We shortly refer to this relation (3) as $`WUM`$-ratio.
Recently Seidov and Skvirsky (2000a) presented the gravitational potential and the potential energy for the homogeneous rectangular parallelepiped (hereafter RP) which allows to analyse this $`WUM`$-ratio for the new class of the homogeneous self-gravitating bodies.
In this paper, we show in sections II and III that the value of $`WUM`$ for RPs has minimal value $`.395437`$ (see Eq. (10)) for the cube (all three dimensions of RP equal to each other), tends to 1/2 for one dimension of RP far larger larger than two others (long thin ”stick” with square cross-section), and tends to $`\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sqrt{2}1}{6\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{2}+1)}=.421673`$ as one dimension is far less than two others (thin square ”plate”), see Fig. 1.
Also, in section IV we discuss the $`WUM`$-ratio for homogeneous gravitating bodies studied recently by Kondrat’ev and Antonov (1993). We show that values of $`WUM`$-ratio for the homogeneous summetrical lenses are in the interval from $`128/105\pi `$, for infinitesimally thin symmetrical lens, to $`17/20`$, for two homogeneous equal spheres just touching each other.
In section VI we analyse $`WUM`$-ratio for spherical polytropic stars, and show that $`WUM`$-ratio varies from $`2/5`$ to $`3/32\pi `$ for polytropic index $`n`$ varying from $`0`$ to $`5`$.
In the section VII we discuss the interesting class of two-phase spheres and show that unlike the polytropes, in this case the $`WUM`$-ratio’s interval is larger: it is possible to get very small values of $`WUM`$ if the ratio of two densities $`q=\rho _2/\rho _1`$ is large enough and if the relative value of core’s radius is not too small.
At last, in the sections VIII and IX we consider another two simple classes of non-homogeneous bodies both allowing analytical treatment.

## II Potential at the center of RP

Using results by Seidov and Skvirsky (2000a) we write down the gravitational potential at the center of the homogeneous RP with density $`\rho `$ and with edge lengths $`2a,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}b,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}c`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}U_{RP}(0,0,0)=4G\rho [ab\mathrm{ln}\frac{d+c}{dc}+bc\mathrm{ln}\frac{d+a}{da}+cd\mathrm{ln}\frac{d+b}{db}\hfill \\ \\ a^2\mathrm{arctan}\frac{bc}{ad}b^2\mathrm{arctan}\frac{ac}{bd}c^2\mathrm{arctan}\frac{ab}{cd}].\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Here $`d=(a^2+b^2+c^2)^{1/2}`$ is the main diagonal of RP.
Three particular cases are of the larger interest:
a)cube corresponding to case $`c=b=a`$,

$$U_{cube}(0,0,0)=G\rho a^2\left[24\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{2}}2\pi \right]=9.52017G\rho a^2;$$
(5)
b)long thin stick with square cross-section corresponding to case $`a>>b=c`$:

$$U_{stick}(0,0,0)=G\rho b^2(8\mathrm{ln}\frac{b}{a}+122\pi +4\mathrm{ln}2);$$
(6)
c)thin square plate corresponding to the case $`a<<b=c`$:

$$U_{plate}(0,0,0)=G\rho [16ab\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{2}+1)2\pi a^2].$$
(7)
## III Potential energy of RP

According to Seidov and Skvirsky (2000a) the gravitational potential energy of the homogeneous rectangular parallelepiped is equal to:

$$\begin{array}{c}WRP=G\rho ^2[f(a,b,c)+f(b,c,a)+f(c,a,b)];f(a,b,c)=c_5a^5+c_4a^4+c_3a^3+c_2a^2;\hfill \\ \\ c_5=\frac{32}{15};c_4=\frac{32}{15}(dd1d3)\frac{16b}{3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{(d1b)(d+b)}{ad3}\frac{16c}{3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{(d3c)(d+c)}{ad1};\hfill \\ \\ c_3=\frac{64bc}{3}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{bc}{ad};d=\sqrt{a^2+b^2+c2};d1=\sqrt{a^2+b^2};d3=\sqrt{a^2+c^2};\hfill \\ \\ c_2=\frac{32b^2}{5}(d1d)+\frac{32c^2}{5}(d3d)16bc^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{db}{d+b}16b^2c\mathrm{ln}\frac{dc}{d+c}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
### A Potential energy and $`WUM`$-ratio of cube

From (8), taking $`c=b=a`$, we get the potential energy of homogeneous cube with edge length $`2a`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{cube}=32G\rho ^2a^5\{\frac{2\sqrt{3}\sqrt{2}1}{5}+\frac{\pi }{3}+\mathrm{ln}[(\sqrt{2}1)(2\sqrt{3})]\}=30.117G\rho ^2a^5.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
From (5) and (9) we get $`WUM`$-ratio for homogeneous cube:

$$WUM_{cube}=2\frac{\frac{2\sqrt{3}\sqrt{2}1}{5}+\frac{\pi }{3}+\mathrm{ln}[(\sqrt{2}1)(2\sqrt{3})]}{24\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{2}}2\pi }=.395437.$$
(10)
### B Potential energy and $`WUM`$-ratio of thin long stick

We take $`a>>b=c`$ that corresponds to the case of the thin long stick with the square cross-section. Leading term in expansion of WRP (8) gives the potential energy of the thin long stick:

$$W_{stick}=\frac{32}{3}G\rho ^2ab^4\mathrm{ln}\frac{a}{b}.$$
(11)
From this and (6) we get for stick:

$$WUM=\frac{W_{stick}}{8ab^2U_{stick}(0,0,0)}=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(12)
### C Potential energy and $`WUM`$-ratio of thin square plate

Taking one of RP’s dimension infinitesimally small, $`a0`$, we get, from Eq.(8), the potential energy of the thin rectangular plate. If we additionally take $`b=c`$, then we get the potential energy of the thin square plate ($`a<<b`$):

$$W_{pl}=64G\rho ^2b^3a^2\left(\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{2}+1)\frac{\sqrt{2}1}{3}\right)=47.5714G\rho ^2b^3a^2.$$
(13)
From (7) and (13) we have another limit for value of $`WUM`$:

$$\frac{WS}{8ab^2U_{pl}(0,0,0)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sqrt{2}1}{6\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{2}+1)}=.421673.$$
(14)
### D Relation between potential energy, gravitational potential and mass of RP

General behavior of relation between the potential energy, the gravitational potential at the center, and mass of the homogeneous RP with two equal edge-lengths is shown in the Fig. 1, which is a result of numerical calculation by the formulas (4) and (8). For homogeneous ellipsoid $`WUM=2/5`$, see (3), solid line in Fig. 1.

## IV Homogeneous symmetric lenses

Recently Kondrat’ev and Antonov (1993) (hereafter KA) have obtained the analytical formulas for the gravitational potential and the gravitational energy of some axial-symmetric figures, namely homogeneous lenses with spherical surfaces of different radii. In forthcoming paper (Seidov and Skvirsky 2000b) we present some new solutions for homogeneous bodies of revolution.
Here we present the review of $`WUM`$ for most suitable kind of those bodies, discussed by KA, namely the homogeneous symmetrical lenses. A segment of sphere, or a planoconvex lens, is obtained by cutting a sphere with a plane. If $`R`$ is a radius of a sphere, $`h`$ is height of segment, and $`2a`$ is a radius of segment’s base, then $`a=\sqrt{2hRh^2}`$. A symmetric homogeneous lens (SL) is obtained by placing together the bases of two identical segments of sphere.
According to KA we have for the gravitational potential at the center of such SL:

$$U_{SL}(0)=\frac{4\pi G\rho }{3}\left(hR+R^2\frac{h^2}{2}+\frac{R^3a^3}{hR}\right).$$
(15)
The gravitational energy of SL is:

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{SL}=\frac{4\pi G\rho ^2}{9}[10R^4a\frac{16}{3}R^2a^3\frac{8}{3}a^5+\pi h^4(\frac{2}{5}h2R\frac{R^2}{Rh})+2R^4(\frac{R^2}{Rh}6(Rh))\mathrm{arctan}\frac{a}{Rh})].\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
And the total mass of the homogeneous SL is:

$$M_{SL}=\frac{2\pi \rho h^2}{3}(3Rh).$$
(17)
We may consider $`WUM`$-ratio for such bodies as $`W_{SL}/U_{SL}M_{SL}`$. Defined so, $`WUM`$ for the homogeneous symmetric lenses has general dependence on parameter $`h/R`$, according the formulas (15), (16) and (17), as shown in the Fig. 2. Note that in the limit $`h/R0`$ we have infinitesimally thin symmetrical lens with radius of curvature tending to infinity, and we have:

$$Limit[WUM_{SL}]_{h/R>0}=\frac{128}{105\pi }=.388035.$$
(18)
Interestingly, this infinitesimally thin round lens does not coincide at all with the case of the infinitesimally thin quadratic plane which has the much more larger value of $`WUM=.421673`$ (see Eq.(14)). In another limit $`h/R1`$ we have a full homogeneous sphere, and evidently:

$$Limit[WUM_{SL}]_{h/R>1}=2/5.$$
(19)
There is still another $`analytical`$ case at $`h2R`$ when we have two homogeneous spheres touching each other so that distance between centers of spheres is $`d=2R;`$ then ”potential at the center of SL” is $`U_{SL}(0)=2\frac{GM}{R}`$; potential energy is sum of two terms: proper potential energy of each spheres $`2\frac{3}{5}\frac{GM^2}{R}`$, and $`interaction`$ energy, $`\frac{GM^2}{d}`$ or $`\frac{GM^2}{2R}`$; we have:

$$WUM_{SL}|_{h=2R}=(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{6}{5})/2=\frac{17}{20}.$$

## V Heterogeneous spherical bodies

Now we consider the problem of $`WUM`$-ratio from another point of view. Abovementioned homogeneous gravitating bodies (ellipsoids, right parallelepipeds, and symmetrical spherical lenses) differ from each other only by their forms and so $`WUM`$-ratio may be referred to as form-factor. As it is evident, $`WUM`$-ratio should be also function of density distribution over the body. If we confine ourselves by spherically-symmetric distribution of density $`\rho (r)`$, then we have general expressions for the gravitational potential at radius $`r`$:

$$U(r)=\frac{Gm(r)}{r}+_r^R\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi G\rho (r)r𝑑r;$$
(20)
central potential:

$$U(0)=_0^R\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi G\rho (r)r𝑑r;$$
(21)
potential energy:

$$W=\frac{1}{2}_0^MU(r)𝑑m(r);$$
(22)
and mass:

$$dm=4\pi \rho (r)r^2dr;M=_0^R\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi \rho (r)r^2𝑑r.$$
(23)
From these expressions we write down $`WUM`$ for spherical-summetrical heterogeneous bodies as:

$$WUM=\frac{W}{U(0)M}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\overline{U}}{U(0)};\overline{U}=\frac{1}{M}_0^MU(m)𝑑m.$$
(24)
As a result, $`WUM`$-ratio of spherically-symmetric bodies is reduced to the ratio of the mean value of monotonic function, $`U(m)`$, to its particular value, $`U(0)`$, (ratio being additionally divided by 2). The boundary values of this ratio can be found pure mathematically for any given class of functions $`\rho (r)`$. We will not deal with this abstract (though interesting) problem; instead, in the next sections we consider two cases of more or less realistic bodies, namely polytropes and two-phase spheres.

## VI Polytropes

One case of heterogeneous bodies which apparently should be considered first is the case of classical polytropic stars. Using formulas from Chandrasekar’s (1957) classical text we have (some of these formulas are valid not only for polytropic stars but we do not stop on these details) the next relations.
a)central potential is expressed via other parameters of star as follows (Chan 100/85= Chandrasekhar (1957), p.100, Eq. (85)):

$$U_p(0)=(n+1)\frac{P_c}{\rho _c}+\frac{GM}{R}.$$
(25)
Here $`n`$ is the polytropic index, $`P_c`$ and $`\rho _c`$ are central values of pressure and density, $`M`$ and $`R`$ are the mass and radius of the star.
The next formulas include the parameters of the Lane-Emden function (LEF) at the first zero point:

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi =\xi _1,\theta (\xi =\xi _1)\theta _1=0;[\frac{d\theta (\xi )}{d\xi }]_{\xi =\xi _1}\theta _1^{}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0};\mu _1=\xi _1^2\theta _1^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
Central pressure is (Chan 99/80,81):

$$P_c=\frac{1}{4\pi (n+1)(\theta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})^2}\frac{GM^2}{R^4}.$$
(27)
Central density $`\rho _c`$ is related with the mean density $`\overline{\rho }`$ of the star as follows (Chan 78/99):

$$\rho _c=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\xi }{\theta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}\overline{\rho }.$$
(28)
Combining these formulas we get the final expression for the central potential of polytropic star:

$$U_p(0)=\left(1+\frac{1}{\xi _1\theta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}\right)\frac{GM}{R}.$$
(29)
b)potential energy
We have for polyropic star the famous formula (Chan 101/90):

$$W_p=\frac{3}{5n}\frac{GM^2}{R}.$$
(30)
c)WUM-ratio:

$$WUM_p=\frac{3}{5n}\frac{1}{1+\frac{\xi _1}{\mu _1}}.$$
(31)
### A $`WUM`$-ratio for polytropes

Using values of parameters of polytropic stars given in (Chan, Table 4, p. 96) we calculated the values of $`WUM`$-ratio for values of polytropic index $`n`$ from $`0`$ to $`4.9`$, see Fig. 3. However the limit $`n5`$ and in general region of values of $`n`$ close to 5 should be considered separately. First we note that at $`n5`$, $`\xi _1\mathrm{}`$ and there is indeterminacy of $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}}`$ kind in formula for $`WUM_p`$ Eq. (31). To solve this problem we use results of Seidov and Kuzakhmedov (1979) who obtained, in particular, the dependence of $`\xi _1`$ for $`n`$ close to 5:

$$(0<(5n)/5<<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}),\xi _1=\frac{32\sqrt{3}}{\pi }\frac{1}{5n}.$$
(32)
Also it was shown by Seidov and Kuzakhmedov (1979) that for values of $`n`$ close to 5, the parameter $`\mu _1`$ is an increasing function of $`n`$:

$$\mu _1=\sqrt{3}(1+\frac{1}{12}\frac{1}{5n}),$$
(33)
that means that $`\mu _1`$ has minimum at $`n`$ about 4.82. This may or may not lead to minimum of $`WUM_p`$ as function of $`n`$. At point $`n=5`$ using LEF of index 5:

$$n=5,\theta (\xi )=(1+\frac{1}{3}\xi ^2)^{1/2},$$
(34)
we get

$$n=5,WUM_p=\frac{3}{32}\pi =.294524.$$
(35)
Additionally we have two other analytical results for $`WUM`$ of polytropes : at $`n=0`$, $`WUM=2/5`$ and at $`n=1`$, $`WUM=3/8`$. We recalculated the parameters of polytropes in the interval of $`n`$ from 4 to 5 and found no minimum for $`WUM`$, see Fig. 3. However we note that our boundary values differ from ones calculated by Jabbar (1993) in the sense that ours are less than his. As one example, at $`n=4.7`$ Jabbar gives $`\xi _1=54.810686`$ as zero of LEF, while our calculations using Mathematica’s command NDSolve give $`\theta (54.810686)=4.5910^7`$ and our value of $`\xi _1`$ is in interval between $`\xi =54.8098`$ (at this point $`\theta =4.9810^{}8`$) and $`\xi =54.8099`$ (at this point $`\theta <0`$). In general our values of $`\xi _1`$ are less than Jabbar’s.

## VII Two-phase sphere

If $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2=q\rho _1`$ are densities in envelope and core of sphere, and $`R`$ and $`r=xR`$ are total radius of sphere and radius of core, then we have next relations:
a)gravitational potential at the center:

$$U_{2ph}(0)=2\pi G\rho _1R^2[1+(q1)x^2];$$
(36)
b)potential energy:

$$W_{2ph}=\frac{16\pi ^2G}{15}\rho _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R^5[1+\frac{5}{2}(q1)x^3+(q1)(q\frac{3}{2})x^5];$$
(37)
c)total mass:

$$M_{2ph}=\frac{4\pi }{3}\rho _1R^3[1+(q1)x^3];$$
(38)
d)$`WUMratio`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}WUM_{2ph}=\frac{2}{5}\frac{1+\frac{5}{2}(q1)x^3+(q1)(q\frac{3}{2})x^5}{[1+(q1)x^2][1+(q1)x^3]}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
In Fig.4 we present dependence of $`WUM`$-ratio, for two-phase spheres with various values of $`q`$, as function of relative radius of core $`x=r/R`$. Curves from uppper one to lower one correspond to values of $`q=3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10},`$ and $`20`$, respectively. Both values of minimuma of $`WUM`$ and their ”places”, corresponding values of $`x`$, are decreasing functions of $`q`$. For values of $`x`$ corresponding to minimuma of $`WUM`$ the next simple equation is valid:

$$6q^2x^5+5q(1x)x^3(1+2x)(1x)^3(4+7x+4x^2)=0.$$
(40)
or

$$q=\frac{(1x)\left(\sqrt{96/x+97+28x+4x^2}510\sqrt{x}\right)}{12x^2}.$$
(41)
We used these formulas to calculate the dash line in Fig. 4.

## VIII Stepenars

Here we briefly consider the case of simple spherically-symmetric density distribution law allowing analytical expression for WUM. We take:

$$\rho (r)=\rho _c(1r/R)^\nu ,$$
(42)
where $`\rho _c`$ is central density and $`\nu `$ is a free parameter. By historical reasons we refer to the gravitating bodies with density distribution (42) as ”stepenars”, (Seidov, Kasumov, and Guseinov 1971).
We have:
mass:

$$M=\frac{8\pi \rho _cR^3}{(1+\nu )(2+\nu )(3+\nu )};$$
(43)
mean-to-central density ratio:

$$\frac{\overline{\rho }}{\rho _c}=\frac{6}{(1+\nu )(2+\nu )(3+\nu )};$$
(44)
central potential:

$$U(0)=\frac{4\pi G\rho _cR^2}{(1+\nu )(2+\nu )};$$
(45)
potential energy:

$$W=\frac{8\pi ^2G\rho _cR^2(8+5\nu )}{(1+\nu )^2(2+\nu )^2(3+2\nu )(5+2\nu )};$$
(46)
WUM-ratio:

$$WUM_\nu =\frac{(3+\nu )(8+5\nu )}{4(3+2\nu )(5+2\nu )}.$$
(47)
In Fig. 5 the dependence of $`WUM`$-ratio for stepenars as function of parameter $`\nu `$ is shown. In spite of large variation of matter concentration from $`\rho =const`$ at $`\nu =0`$, to $`\overline{\rho }/\rho _c0`$ at $`\nu \mathrm{}`$, $`WUM`$-ratio again as in polytrope’s case lies in rather limited interval from $`2/5`$ to $`5/16`$.

## IX Alphars

Here we consider another example of ”exotic” but simple density distribution, Seidov and Seidova (1971):

$$\rho (r)=\rho _c(r/R)^\alpha ,0\alpha 2.$$
(48)
We have:

$$WUM_\alpha =\frac{2\alpha }{52\alpha }.$$
(49)
## X Discussion

There is a rather classic problem of looking for general theorems of stellar structure, see e.g. chapter 3 in the classic text Chandrasekhar (1957). The problem considered in this paper may be also referred to as that dealing with general structure of celestial self-gravitating bodies.
We start from interesting observation on one constant ratio, namely, (potential energy W)/((central potential U ) x (total mass M)), in homogeneous ellipsoids and then try to look for behavior of this ratio for another homogeneous bodies: rectangular parallelelepipeds and symmetrical lenses. We found that in both cases $`WUM`$-ratios are confined in rather narrow interval. Suprisingly, dependence of $`WUM`$ for homogeneous rectangular parallelepipeds (RP) on edge lengths ratio is non-monotonic: it has minimal value $`.395437`$ for cube while any deviation from cube form to prolate RP (one dimension being smaller than two others) or elongated RP (one dimension being larger that two others) leads to the increase of value of $`WUM`$. In this respect the behavior of homogeneous rectangular parallelepipeds is quite unlike the behavior of homogeneous ellipsoids and there is still some mystery even to authors.
As to the homogeneous symmetrical lenses (SL) by Kondrat’ev and Antonov (1993), here the dependence of $`WUM`$ on parameters of SL is monotonic, however in this case there is also some suprise in the sense that in the limiting case of thin symmetrical $`spherical`$ lens the $`WUM`$-ratio’s value, ($`128/105\pi `$), differs radically from the case of the infinitesimally thin $`quadratic`$ plate with $`WUM=1/2`$.
Then we look for the non-homogeneous however spherically symmetric bodies and found that for the polytropes with polytropic index $`n`$ in the interval $`05`$, $`WUM`$-ratio again lies in narrow interval from $`2/5`$ to $`3/32\pi `$. However for two-phase sphere with large ratio of densities $`q=\rho _2/\rho _1`$ it is possible to get very small values of WUM. The physical reason of it is that if we put in the center of any spherical symmetric star a (very) small but dense spherical body then central potential may be very large while total potential energy of star, being integral value, increases not so drastically. The effect of the strong variation of density in the center of star, the ”first-order phase-transition”, is known since pioneer works of W.H. Ramsey (1950).
In last two paragraphs of paper we consider pure mathematical toy models in further attempts to understand the behavior of the $`WUM`$-ratio. We conclude this discussion with notice that central-to-surface potential ratio $`U(0)/U(R)`$ (among other ”global” characteristics of the celestial self-gravitating configurations) is also worth studying. For polytropes, $`U(0)/U(R)=1+\xi _1/\mu _1`$, see section VI.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Dr. E. Liverts for valuable discussions.


format: text

text:
# Expansiveness of algebraic actions on connected groups

## 1 Introduction

Let $`(X,d)`$ be a metric space and $`\rho `$ be a continuous action of a semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`X`$. Then $`(X,\rho )`$ is said to be $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒}`$ if there exists an $`ϵ>0`$ such that for any two distinct points $`x,y`$ in $`X`$,

$$\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}{sup}d(\rho (\gamma )(x),\rho (\gamma )(y))ϵ.$$

Any such $`ϵ`$ is called an expansive constant of $`(X,\rho )`$. It is easy to check that when $`X`$ is compact, the notion of expansiveness is independent of the metric $`d`$.

If $`X`$ is a metrizable topological group and $`\rho `$ is an action of a semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`X`$ by continuous endomorphisms of $`X`$, then $`\rho `$ is said to be expansive if there exists a neighborhood $`U`$ of the identity in $`X`$ such that

$$\underset{\gamma }{}\rho (\gamma )^1(U)=\{e\}.$$

Any such neighborhood is called an expansive neighborhood of the identity in $`X`$. An automorphism $`\tau `$ of $`X`$ is said to be expansive if the cyclic group generated by $`\tau `$ acts expansively on $`X`$. It is easy to check that when $`X`$ is compact and $`\rho `$ is an endomorphism action of a semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, these two notions of expansiveness coincide.

The notion of expansiveness plays an important role in the study of dynamical systems in general and endomorphism actions in particular. Earlier, expansiveness of automorphisms of connected groups was studied by several authors (cf. , , ,  and ). A complete description of expansive automorphisms on compact connected groups was obtained in . In particular, it was shown that every compact connected group which admits an expansive automorphism is abelian and finite-dimensional. Also in  it was proved that if a compact connected group $`X`$ admits an expansive endomorphism action then it is abelian.

In recent years dynamics of endomorphism actions of discrete semigroups on compact abelian groups has been extensively studied using techniques from commutative algebra (cf. ). Among other things, a complete characterization of expansiveness has been obtained when $`X`$ is zero-dimensional ( cf. , Theorem 5.2) or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=^d`$ for some $`d1`$ (cf. , Theorem 3.9). For further study of expansiveness and it’s relation with other dynamical properties the reader is referred to ,  and .

In this paper we consider expansive endomorphism actions of arbitrary semigroups on connected metrizable topological groups. For any such action $`(G,\rho )`$ we give necessary and sufficient conditions for expansiveness of $`\rho `$, provided $`G`$ is either a Lie group or a compact finite-dimensional group.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we prove some elementary results about expansiveness of endomorphism actions on finite-dimensional vector spaces, considered as abelian topological groups under addition. In Section 3 we consider endomorphism actions on connected Lie groups. If $`G`$ is a connected Lie group then by $`L(G)`$ we denote the Lie algebra of $`G`$. If $`\rho `$ is an endomorphism action of a semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`G`$ then by $`\rho _e`$ we denote the induced $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on $`L(G)`$ defined by

$$\rho _e(\gamma )=\mathrm{d}\rho (\gamma )|_e\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }.$$

We prove the following.

Theorem A. Let $`G`$ be a connected Lie group, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a semigroup and $`\rho `$ be an endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`G`$. Then $`(G,\rho )`$ is expansive if and only if for all non-zero $`v`$ in $`L(G)`$, the $`\rho _e`$-orbit of $`v`$ is unbounded.

In the special case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is either abelian or a virtually nilpotent group, applying the above theorem we give a necessary and sufficient condition for expansiveness of $`(G,\rho )`$ in terms of the generalized weights of $`\rho _e`$. As a consequence we prove that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a virtually nilpotent group and $`(G,\rho )`$ is expansive then for some $`\gamma _0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\rho (\gamma _0)`$ is an expansive automorphism of $`G`$.

In section 4 we consider endomorphism actions on compact connected finite-dimensional abelian groups. For any such group $`G`$, by $`\widehat{G}`$ we denote the Pontryagin dual of $`G`$ and by $`L(G)`$ we denote the vector space of all homomorphisms from $`\widehat{G}`$ to $``$ under pointwise addition and scalar multiplication. From the duality theory of compact abelian groups it follows that $`L(G)`$ is finite-dimensional. If $`\rho `$ is an endomorphism action of a semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`G`$ then by $`\rho _e`$ we denote the induced $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on $`L(G)`$ defined by

$$\rho _e(\gamma )(p)(\chi )=p(\chi \rho (\gamma ))pL(G).$$

Also, for such an action $`\rho `$, by $`\widehat{\rho }`$ we denote the induced $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on $`\widehat{G}`$. We note that $`\widehat{G}`$ can be realised as a module over $`(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, the group-ring of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, via the action $`\widehat{\rho }`$.

We prove the following.

Theorem B. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a semigroup and $`\rho `$ be an endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a compact connected finite-dimensional abelian group $`G`$. Then $`(G,\rho )`$ is expansive if and only if the following two conditions are satisfied.

a) $`\widehat{G}`$ is finitely generated as a $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$-module.

b) For every non-zero $`v`$ in $`L(G)`$, the $`\rho _e`$-orbit of $`v`$ is unbounded.

#### Remark 1.1

Since non-abelian compact connected groups do not admit expansive endomorphism actions (cf. ), Theorem B characterizes expansive endomorphism actions on arbitrary compact connected finite-dimensional groups.

## 2 Preliminaries

Throughout this paper $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will denote a discrete semigroup i.e. a set with an associative multiplication law. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ are semigroups then a map $`f`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is said to be a semigroup homomorphism if for all $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, $`f(\gamma _1\gamma _2)=f(\gamma _1)f(\gamma _2)`$. If $`G`$ is a topological group then by $`\mathrm{End}(G)`$ we denote semigroup of all continuous endomorphisms of $`G`$, with composition as the product law.

Suppose $`G`$ is a topological group and $`\rho :\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{End}(G)`$ is an endomorphism action of a discrete semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`G`$. Then it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma })\{\mathrm{Id}\}`$ is a subsemigroup of $`\mathrm{End}(G)`$ and $`\rho `$ is expansive if and only if the natural action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ on $`G`$ is expansive. Henceforth we will restrict the discussion of endomorphism actions to the case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains an identity element $`e`$ and $`\rho (e)\mathrm{End}(G)`$ is the identity automorphism.

If $`𝐂`$ denotes the semigroup of complex numbers under multiplication then any semigroup homomorphism $`\lambda :\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐂`$ is said to be a $`\mathrm{𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`\rho :\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{End}(V)`$ is an endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a finite-dimensional vector space $`V`$ over $``$, then $`\rho `$ is said to be reducible  if there exists characters $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k`$ and nontrivial $`\rho `$-invariant subspaces $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_kV`$ satisfying the following conditions.

1. $`V=V_1\mathrm{}V_k`$.
2. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, there exists a basis $`B`$ of $`V_i`$ such that $`\rho (\gamma )|_{V_i}\lambda _i(\gamma )I`$ is strictly upper triangular with respect to $`B`$, for all $`\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The characters $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k`$ are said to be the generalized weights  of $`\rho `$ and for all $`i`$, $`V_i`$ is said to be the generalized weight space  corresponding to $`\lambda _i`$.

#### Example 2.1

If $`\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is an abelian subsemigroup $`\mathrm{End}(V)`$ then $`\rho `$ is reducible (see , pp 134). This is also true when $`\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is contained in a connected nilpotent subgroup $`H`$ of $`GL(V)`$. This can be seen by looking at the Lie algebra homomorphism $`i:L(H)\text{End}(V)`$ and using certain fundamental facts about representations of nilpotent Lie algebras (see , Proposition 2.4 and Theorem 1.35).

The following proposition gives a necessary and sufficient condition for expansiveness of endomorphism actions on a finite-dimensional vector space, considered as an abelian group under addition.

###### Proposition 2.2

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a semigroup and $`\rho :\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{End}(V)`$ be an endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a finite-dimensional vector space $`V`$ over $``$ or $``$. Then we have the following :

a) $`\rho `$ is expansive if and only if for all non-zero $`v`$ in $`V`$, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbit of $`v`$ is unbounded.
b) If $`V`$ is a real vector space then $`\rho `$ is expansive if and only if the induced endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`V`$ is expansive.

#### Proof

For any $`v`$ in $`V`$ let $`O_vV`$ denote the $`\rho `$-orbit of $`v`$. Suppose that there is a non-zero vector $`v`$ in $`V`$ with bounded $`\rho `$-orbit. Let $`U`$ be any neighborhood of $`0`$ in $`V`$. Then for $`ϵ>0`$ sufficiently small, $`O_{ϵv}=ϵO_v`$ is contained in $`U`$. This implies that $`\rho `$ is not expansive. On the other hand if $`O_v`$ is unbounded for all non-zero $`vV`$, then it is easy to see that any bounded neighborhood of $`0`$ is an expansive neighborhood. This proves a). Part b) is an immediate consequence of a). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2.3

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a semigroup, $`V`$ be a finite-dimensional vector space over $``$ and $`\rho :\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{End}(V)`$ be a reducible endomorphism action with generalized weights $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k`$. Then $`\rho `$ is expansive if and only if for each $`i`$, the image of $`\lambda _i`$ is an unbounded subset of $``$.

#### Proof

For $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ let $`V_i`$ be the generalized weight space corresponding to $`\lambda _i`$. Since each $`V_i`$ is $`\rho `$-invariant, from the previous proposition it follows that $`\rho `$ is expansive if and only if $`\rho |_{V_i}`$ is expansive for all $`i`$. Therefore without loss of generality we may assume that $`k=1`$. In that case there exists a character $`\lambda `$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that after suitable identifications we have :
a) $`V=^n`$ for some $`n>0`$ and
b) For all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\rho (\gamma )`$ can be written as,

$$\rho (\gamma )=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\lambda (\gamma )& & & & \\ & \mathrm{}& & & \\ & & \lambda (\gamma )& & \\ & 0& & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & \lambda (\gamma )\end{array}\right).$$

Suppose there exists a non-zero vector $`v=(v_1\mathrm{},v_n)^t`$ in $`^n`$ such that the $`\rho `$-orbit of $`v`$ is bounded. Let $`jn`$ be the largest positive integer such that $`v_j0`$. Then it is easy to see that

$$\{\rho (\gamma )(v)_j|\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}=\{\lambda (\gamma )v_j|\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}.$$

Since the $`\rho `$-orbit of $`v`$ is bounded, this implies that the image of $`\lambda `$ is bounded subset of $``$. Conversely, it is easy to see that if $`v^n`$ denotes the vector $`(1,0,\mathrm{},0)^t`$ then

$$\{\rho (\gamma )(v)|\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}=\{(\lambda (\gamma ),0,\mathrm{},0)^t|\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}.$$

Therefore if the image of $`\lambda `$ is bounded then there exists a non-zero vector in $`V`$ with bounded $`\rho `$-orbit. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the special case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is isomorphic to $`^+`$ or $``$ we obtain the following consequence of the above proposition. This was first proved in .

###### Proposition 2.4

Let $`V`$ be a finite-dimensional vector space over $``$ or $``$ and let $`T`$ be an element of End$`(V)`$. Then the cyclic semigroup generated by $`T`$ acts expansively on $`V`$ if and only if the spectrum of $`T`$ does not intersect the closed unit disk. If $`T`$ is invertible then the cyclic subgroup generated by $`T`$ acts expansively on $`V`$ if and only if the spectrum of $`T`$ does not intersect $`𝕊^1`$.

#### Proof

Replacing $`V`$ by $`V`$ if necessary, we may assume that $`V`$ is a complex vector space. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{T^n|n0\}`$ denote the cyclic semigroup generated by $`T`$ and let $`\rho `$ denote the natural action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`V`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is abelian, $`\rho `$ is reducible. Furthermore if $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k`$ denote the generalized weights of $`\rho `$ then $`\lambda _1(T),\mathrm{},\lambda _k(T)`$ are the eigenvalues of $`T`$. Applying the previous proposition we conclude that $`\rho `$ is expansive if and only if the spectrum of $`T`$ does not intersect the closed unit disk. The second assertion follows from a similar argument. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Expansive actions on Lie groups

In this section we prove Theorem A and it’s consequences. Throughout the section $`G`$ will denote a connected Lie group and $`L(G)`$ will denote the Lie algebra of $`G`$. The standard exponential map from $`L(G)`$ to $`G`$ will be denoted by exp.

We begin with the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`V`$ be a finite-dimensional vector space over $``$ and let $`\rho `$ be an expansive endomorphism action of a semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`V`$. Then there exists a finitely generated subsemigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which acts expansively on $`V`$.

#### Proof

Suppose this is not the case. We fix a norm $`||.||`$ on $`V`$. Let $`SV`$ denote the set defined by $`S=\{vV|v=1\}`$. For every finitely generated subsemigroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we define a closed subset $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda })S`$ by

$$S(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{vS|\rho (\gamma )(v)1\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }\}.$$

We claim that for any finitely generated subsemigroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is non-empty. To see this we define a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-invariant subspace $`V(\mathrm{\Lambda })V`$ by

$$V(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{vV|\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{orbit}\mathrm{of}v\mathrm{is}\mathrm{bounded}\}.$$

By Proposition 2.2, $`V(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is a non-trivial subspace of $`V`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{End}(V(\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$ be the image of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ under the map $`\gamma \rho (\gamma )|_{V(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$. Then $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ is a compact subsemigroup of $`\mathrm{End}(V(\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$. We choose a non-zero $`wV(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and define a continuous function $`h:\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ by $`h(\alpha )=\alpha (w)`$ for all $`\alpha `$ in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$. Since $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ is compact, there exists a $`\alpha _0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ such that $`h(\alpha _0)h(\alpha )`$ for all $`\alpha `$ in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$. Putting $`v=\alpha _0(w)`$ we see that for any $`\alpha `$ in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$,

$$\alpha (v)=h(\alpha \alpha _0)h(\alpha _0)=v.$$

Since $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ contains Id, $`\alpha _0(w)w>0`$. Now it is easy to see that the unit vector $`v/vS(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, which proves the claim.

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$ are finitely generated subsemigroups of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a finitely generated subsemigroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$, then from the above claim it follows that

$$\mathrm{}S(\mathrm{\Lambda })S(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)\mathrm{}S(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k).$$

This shows that the collection $`\{S(\mathrm{\Lambda })\}`$ has the finite-intersection property. Now from the compactness of $`S`$ it follows that

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}S(\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{}.$$

Clearly for any vector $`w`$ which lies in the intersection, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbit of $`w`$ is bounded, which contradicts our hypothesis. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem A.  Suppose $`(G,\rho )`$ is expansive. Let $`U`$ be an expansive neighborhood of the identity in $`G`$. We choose a neighborhood $`V`$ of $`0`$ in $`L(G)`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}|_V`$ is a homeomorphism and exp($`V`$) is contained in $`U`$. Let $`v`$ be any non-zero element of $`L(G)`$ such that the $`\rho _e`$-orbit of $`v`$ is contained in $`V`$. Since exp is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-equivariant map from $`(L(G),\rho _e)`$ to $`(G,\rho )`$, it follows that the $`\rho `$-orbit of exp($`v`$) is contained in $`U`$. Since $`U`$ is an expansive neighborhood of the identity and $`\mathrm{exp}|_V`$ is a homeomorphism, this implies that $`v=0`$. Hence $`\rho _e`$ is expansive. Now applying Proposition 2.2 we see that for every non-zero $`v`$ in $`L(G)`$, the $`\rho _e`$-orbit of $`v`$ is unbounded.

Now we will prove the converse. Applying Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 2.2 we see that it is enough to consider the case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is finitely generated. Let $`A`$ be a finite set which generates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We choose a neighborhood $`V`$ of $`0`$ in $`L(G)`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}|_V`$ is a homeomorphism and $`\overline{V}`$ is compact. We choose another neighborhood $`U`$ of $`0`$ such that

$$UV\mathrm{and}\rho _e(\gamma )(U)V\gamma A.$$

We claim that exp($`U`$) is an expansive neighborhood of $`(G,\rho )`$. Suppose this is not the case. Let $`ge`$ be any element of $`G`$ such that the $`\rho `$-orbit of $`g`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{exp}(U)`$. We choose $`v`$ in $`U`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}(v)=g`$. Let $`O_v`$ be the $`\rho _e`$-orbit of $`v`$. Since $`v`$ is non-zero, $`O_v`$ is unbounded. Since $`A`$ generates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`vU`$, it follows that there exists $`w`$ in $`O_v`$ and $`\gamma _0A`$ such that

$$wU\text{ and }\rho _e(\gamma _0)(w)VU.$$

Since exp maps the $`\rho _e`$-orbit of $`v`$ onto the $`\rho `$-orbit of exp($`v`$), this implies that the $`\rho `$-orbit of $`\mathrm{exp}(v)`$ intersects $`\mathrm{exp}(VU)`$. Since $`\mathrm{exp}(VU)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(U)`$ are disjoint, this gives a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

We note the following consequence of Theorem A and Lemma 3.1.

###### Corollary 3.2

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a discrete semigroup, $`G`$ be a connected Lie group and $`\rho `$ be an expansive endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`G`$. Then there exists a finitely generated subsemigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that the action of $`\rho `$, restricted to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, is expansive.

The following corollary provides a rich source of expansive endomorphism actions of non-abelian semigroups on tori.

###### Corollary 3.3

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an infinite subsemigroup of $`M(n,)`$ which acts irreducibly on $`^n`$. Then the induced $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on $`𝕋^n^n/^n`$ is expansive.

#### Proof

Let $`\rho `$ denote the natural action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`^n`$ and $`W`$ denote the subspace of $`^n`$ consisting of all points with bounded $`\rho `$-orbit. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an infinite subsemigroup of $`M(n,)`$, it is a noncompact subset of of $`M(n,)`$. Hence $`W`$ is a proper subspace of $`^n`$. From irreducibility of $`\rho `$ we conclude that $`W=\{0\}`$. Now applying Theorem A we see that the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`𝕋^n`$ is expansive. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.4

Let $`G`$ be a connected Lie group and $`\rho `$ be an expansive automorphism action of a virtually nilpotent group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`G`$. Then $`\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ contains an expansive automorphism of $`G`$.

#### Proof

Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts expansively on $`G`$, so does every finite-index subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Therefore without loss of generality we may assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is nilpotent. First we will consider the case when $`G`$ is isomorphic to a finite-dimensional vector $`V`$ space over $``$. Let $`HGL(V)`$ be the Zariski-closure of $`\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`H_0`$ be the connected component of $`H`$ which contains the identity. Since $`H`$ has finitely many components, it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }|\rho (\gamma )H_0\}$$

is a finite-index subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`\rho _0`$ denote the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$-action on $`V`$, induced by $`\rho `$. Since $`\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)`$ is contained in a connected nilpotent subgroup of $`GL(V)`$, $`\rho _0`$ is reducible. Since $`\rho `$ is expansive, so is $`\rho _0`$. Let $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k`$ be the generalized weights of $`\rho _0`$. For each $`\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ we define $`A_\gamma \{1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ by

$$A_\gamma =\{j||\lambda _i(\gamma )|1\}.$$

For any $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ let $`n(\gamma )`$ denote the cardinality of $`A_\gamma `$. We choose $`\gamma _0\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ such that the $`n(\gamma _0)n(\gamma )`$ for all $`\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. We claim that $`n(\gamma _0)=k`$ i.e. $`|\lambda _i(\gamma _0)|1`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Suppose this is not the case. We choose $`i`$ such that $`|\lambda _i(\gamma _0)|=1`$. By Proposition 2.3 there exists $`\gamma _1`$ such that $`|\lambda _i(\gamma _1)|1`$. It is easy to see that for sufficiently large $`m>0`$,

$$|\lambda _j(\gamma _0^m\gamma _1)|1jA_{\gamma _0}\{i\}.$$

Since $`n(\gamma _0)n(\gamma )`$ for all $`\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, this gives a contradiction. Since the numbers $`\lambda _1(\gamma _0),\mathrm{},\lambda _k(\gamma _0)`$ are the eigenvalues of $`\rho (\gamma _0)`$, from the above claim and Proposition 2.4 we see that $`\rho (\gamma _0)`$ is an expansive automorphism of $`V`$.

Now we will consider the general case. Let $`\sigma `$ be the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on the complexified Lie algebra $`L(G)`$, induced by $`\rho _e`$. Applying Theorem A and Proposition 2.2 we see that $`\sigma `$ is expansive. By the previous argument there exists a $`\gamma _0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\sigma (\gamma _0)`$ is an expansive automorphism of $`L(G)`$. Applying Theorem A and Proposition 2.2 to the cyclic group generated by $`\gamma _0`$, we conclude that $`\rho (\gamma _0)`$ is an expansive automorphism of $`G`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is known that if a connected locally compact topological group admits an expansive automorphism then it is nilpotent (see , ). The following corollary generalises this result for actions of virtually nilpotent groups on connected Lie groups.

###### Corollary 3.5

Let $`G`$ be a connected Lie group which admits an expansive automorphism action of a virtually nilpotent group. Then $`G`$ is nilpotent.

#### Proof

Let $`\rho `$ be an automorphism action of a virtually nilpotent group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`G`$. Then by the previous corollary there exists a $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\rho (\gamma )`$ is an expansive automorphism of $`G`$. Applying Theorem A and Proposition 2.4 we see that the spectrum of $`d\gamma \mathrm{Aut}(L(G))`$ does not intersect the unit circle. It is known that if a finite-dimensional Lie algebra over $``$ admits a hyperbolic automorphism then it is nilpotent. Hence $`G`$ is nilpotent. $`\mathrm{}`$

We conclude this section with an example showing that Corollary 3.4 does not hold for actions of arbitrary discrete groups.

#### Example 3.6

Fix $`n3`$ and define a subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`GL(n,)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& b\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)AGL(n1,),b^{n1}\}$$

It is easy to see that for any $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ in $`^n`$, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbit of $`x`$ is given by the set

$$\{Ay+x_nb|AGL(n1,),b^{n1}\};y=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}).$$

Hence for every non-zero $`x`$ in $`^n`$, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbit of $`x`$ is unbounded. Since the spectrum of $`\gamma `$ contains 1 for every $`\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, applying Proposition 2.4 we see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not contain any expansive automorphism of $`^n`$.

## 4 Expansive actions on solenoids

In this section we consider endomorphism actions on solenoids (compact connected finite-dimensional abelian groups). We freely use various results from duality theory of locally compact abelian groups; the reader is referred to  for details.

For any locally compact abelian group $`G`$, we denote by $`\widehat{G}`$ the dual group of $`G`$. Recall that for a compact connected abelian group $`G`$, we denote by $`L(G)`$ the vector space consisting of all homomorphisms from $`\widehat{G}`$ to $``$, under pointwise addition and scalar multiplication. It is known that if $`G`$ is a solenoid, then $`\widehat{G}`$ is a torsion free discrete abelian group of finite rank. Hence for any solenoid $`G`$, $`L(G)`$ is finite-dimensional.

If $`\rho `$ is an endomorphism action of a semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a compact connected abelian group $`G`$ then by $`\widehat{\rho }`$ we denote the induced $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on $`\widehat{G}`$ and by $`\rho _e`$ we denote the induced $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on $`L(G)`$ defined by

$$\rho _e(\gamma )(p)(\chi )=p(\chi \rho (\gamma )).$$

#### Example 4.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a semigroup, $`\widehat{\rho }:\mathrm{\Gamma }M(n,)`$ be a semigroup homomorphism for some $`n1`$ and $`H`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subgroup of $`^n`$. Then the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`H`$ induces an endomorphism action $`\rho `$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`G=\widehat{H}`$. If $`H`$ contains $`^n`$ then $`L(G)`$ can be identified with $`^n`$ and $`\rho _e`$ can be identified with the adjoint of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on $`^n`$ induced by $`\widehat{\rho }`$. From duality theory of compact abelian groups it follows that any endomorphism action of a discrete semigroup on a solenoid can be identified with an action of this form.

This section is organized as follows. Throughout this section $`G`$ will denote a solenoid and $`\rho `$ will denote an endomorphism action of a discrete semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`G`$. In 4.1 we prove that the conditions a) and b), as stated in Theorem B are necessary for expansiveness of $`\rho `$. In 4.2 we show that expansiveness of $`\rho `$ and existence of non-trivial bounded $`\rho _e`$-orbit in $`L(G)`$ can be characterized in terms of suitably chosen metrics on $`G`$ and $`L(G)`$ respectively. In 4.3 we prove Theorem B when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is finitely generated. We complete the proof of Theorem B in 4.4.

### 4.1 Necessary conditions for expansiveness

For any compact connected abelian group $`G`$, we define a map $`E`$ from $`L(G)`$ to $`G`$ by the condition

$$(\varphi E)(p)=e^{2\pi ip(\varphi )}pL(G),\varphi \widehat{G}.$$

Since for a fixed $`p`$ in $`L(G)`$, the map $`\varphi e^{2\pi ip(\varphi )}`$ is a continuous homomorphism from $`\widehat{G}`$ to $`𝕊^1`$, by the duality theorem the map $`E`$ is well defined and unique. From the uniqueness it follows that $`E`$ is a homomorphism from $`L(G)`$ (considered as an abelian group under addition) to $`G`$. It is easy to check that the kernel of $`E`$ can be identified with the set of all homomorphisms from $`\widehat{G}`$ to $``$, which is a discrete subgroup of $`L(G)`$.

#### Remark 4.2

Using the duality theorem we can realize $`L(G)`$ with the set of all one-parameter subgroups of $`G`$ and $`E`$ with the map $`\alpha \alpha (1)`$. In particular when $`G`$ is a torus, $`L(G)`$ can be identified with $`^n`$, the Lie algebra of $`G`$, and $`E`$ can be identified with the standard exponential map. However in general the map $`E`$ is not surjective. In fact from a result of Dixmier (see ) it follows that if $`G`$ is metrizable then $`E`$ is surjective if and only if $`\widehat{G}`$ is a free abelian group.

#### Definition

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a semigroup and $`\rho `$ be an endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a compact abelian group $`G`$. Then a set $`A\widehat{G}`$ is said to be a $`\rho `$-basis  if $`A`$ generates $`\widehat{G}`$ as an abelian group and $`A=_\gamma \widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(F)`$ for some finite set $`F\widehat{G}`$.

Clearly $`\widehat{G}`$ admits a $`\rho `$-basis if and only if it is finitely generated as a $`(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-module.

The next two propositions show that for expansive endomorphism actions the conditions a) and b), as stated in Theorem B are satisfied. The results are known, we include the proofs for the sake of completeness.

###### Proposition 4.3

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a semigroup and $`\rho `$ be an expansive endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a compact abelian group $`G`$. Then $`\widehat{G}`$ has a $`\rho `$-basis.

#### Proof

Let $`U`$ be an expansive neighborhood of of $`e`$ in $`G`$. We choose a finite set $`F\widehat{G}`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ such that

$$\underset{\chi F}{}\{gG||\chi (g)1|<ϵ\}U.$$

We define $`A\widehat{G}`$ by $`A=_\gamma \widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(F)`$. Let $`\widehat{H}\widehat{G}`$ be the subgroup generated by $`A`$ and let $`G^{^{}}G`$ be the subgroup consisting of all $`g`$ in $`G`$ such that $`\chi (g)=e`$ for all $`\chi `$ in $`\widehat{H}`$. Then for every $`gG^{^{}}`$, the $`\rho `$-orbit of $`g`$ is contained in $`U`$. Since $`U`$ is an expansive neighborhood of of $`e`$, we conclude that $`G^{^{}}=\{e\}`$. Now from duality theory of compact abelian groups it follows that $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{G}`$ (see , Theorem 53). Hence $`A`$ is a $`\rho `$-basis of $`\widehat{G}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 4.4

(Also see , proof of Corollary 1) Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a semigroup and $`\rho `$ be an expansive endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a solenoid $`G`$. Then for every non-zero point $`pL(G)`$, the orbit of $`p`$ under $`\rho _e`$ is unbounded.

#### Proof

Let $`U`$ be an expansive neighborhood of $`e`$ in $`G`$. Since $`E`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-equivariant map from $`(L(G),\rho _e)`$ to $`(G,\rho )`$, it follows that

$$\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\rho _e(\gamma )^1(E^1(U))E^1(\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\rho (\gamma )^1(U))=\mathrm{Ker}(E).$$

Since the kernel of $`E`$ is discrete, there exists an open set $`VE^1(U)`$ such that $`V\mathrm{ker}(E)=\{0\}`$. From the above identity it is easy to see that $`V`$ is an expansive neighborhood of $`0`$ for the action $`\rho _e`$. Now the given assertion follows from Proposition 2.2. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.2 Metrics induced by endomorphism actions

Let $`\delta `$ be the function from $`𝕊^1`$ to $``$ defined by $`\delta (z)=\text{inf}\{|t||t,e^{2\pi it}=z\}.`$ For any solenoid $`G`$ and $`A\widehat{G}`$ we define functions $`d_A:G\times G[0,1]`$ and $`d_A:L(G)\times L(G)[0,\mathrm{}]`$ by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}d_A(g,h)\hfill & =\hfill & sup_{\chi A}\delta \chi (g^1h),\hfill \\ d_A^{}(p,q)\hfill & =\hfill & sup_{\chi A}|p(\chi )q(\chi )|.\hfill \end{array}$$

It is easy to see that if $`A`$ generates $`\widehat{G}`$ as an abelian group then $`d_A`$ is a metric on $`G`$ and $`d_A^{}`$ is a metric on the subspace $`L(G)_AL(G)`$ consisting of all $`p`$ in $`L(G)`$ with $`d_A^{}(0,p)<\mathrm{}`$. For $`A\widehat{G}`$ and $`r>0`$, we define open sets $`B_A(r)G`$ and $`B_A^{}(r)L(G)`$ by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_A(r)\hfill & =\hfill & \{gG|d_A(e,g)<r\},\hfill \\ B_A^{}(r)\hfill & =\hfill & \{pL(G)|d_A^{}(0,p)<r\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Suppose $`\rho `$ is an endomorphism action of a semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a solenoid $`G`$ and $`A`$ is a $`\rho `$-basis of $`\widehat{G}`$. Our next proposition shows that expansiveness of $`\rho `$ and existence of non-trivial bounded $`\rho `$-orbits in $`L(G)`$ can be characterized in terms of the metrics $`d_A`$ and $`d_A^{}`$ respectively.

###### Proposition 4.5

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a semigroup and $`\rho `$ be an endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a solenoid $`G`$. Let $`A`$ be a $`\rho `$-basis of $`\widehat{G}`$. Then we have the following.

1. $`\rho `$ is expansive if and only if $`B_A(ϵ)=\{e\}`$ for some $`ϵ>0`$.
2. $`\rho _e`$ has a nontrivial bounded orbit if and only if $`B_A^{}(C)\{0\}`$ for some $`C>0`$.

#### Proof

1) Suppose $`B_A(ϵ)=\{e\}`$ for some $`ϵ>0`$. We choose a finite set $`FA`$ such that $`A=_\gamma \widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(F)`$. Note that for any $`g`$ in $`G`$, the $`\rho `$-orbit of $`g`$ is contained in $`B_F(ϵ)`$ only if $`gB_A(ϵ)`$. Hence $`B_F(ϵ)G`$ is an expansive neighborhood of $`e`$ for the action $`\rho `$.

On the other hand suppose $`UG`$ is an expansive neighborhood of $`e`$. We choose a finite set $`FA`$ such that $`A=_\gamma \widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(F)`$. Since $`A`$ generates $`\widehat{G}`$ as an abelian group, it follows that $`B_F(ϵ)U`$ for some $`ϵ>0`$. Now it is easy to see that

$$B_A(ϵ)=\underset{\gamma }{}\rho (\gamma )^1(B_F(ϵ))\underset{\gamma }{}\rho (\gamma )^1(U)=\{e\}.$$

2) Suppose $`p`$ is a non-zero element of $`L(G)`$ such that the $`\rho _e`$-orbit of $`p`$ is bounded. We fix an element $`\varphi `$ in $`\widehat{G}`$ and observe that

$$\{q(\varphi )|q\rho _e(\mathrm{\Gamma })(p)\}=\{p(\psi )|\psi \widehat{\rho }(\mathrm{\Gamma })(\varphi )\}.$$

Since $`qq(\varphi )`$ is a continuous map from $`L(G)`$ to $``$ and the $`\rho _e`$-orbit of $`p`$ is bounded, the right hand side is a bounded subset of $``$. Hence $`p`$, restricted to the $`\widehat{\rho }`$-orbit of $`\varphi `$ is bounded. Since $`\varphi `$ is arbitrary and $`A`$ is a union of finitely many $`\widehat{\rho }`$-orbits, we conclude that $`p|_A`$ is bounded i.e. $`pB_A^{}(C)`$ for some $`C>0`$.

Conversely, suppose $`p`$ is an element of $`B_A^{}(C)`$ for some $`C>0`$. We fix an element $`\varphi `$ in $`\widehat{G}`$. Since $`A`$ generates $`\widehat{G}`$ as an abelian group, there exists a positive integer $`l`$ and $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_l`$ in $`A`$ such that $`\varphi =a_1+\mathrm{}+a_l`$. Since $`A`$ is invariant under $`\widehat{\rho }`$, every element in the $`\widehat{\rho }`$-orbit of $`\varphi `$ can be written as sum of $`l`$ elements of $`A`$. Hence $`|p(\psi )|<lC`$ for all $`\psi `$ in the $`\widehat{\rho }`$-orbit of $`\varphi `$ i.e. $`|q(\varphi )|<lC`$ for all $`q`$ in the $`\rho _e`$-orbit of $`p`$. Since $`\varphi `$ is arbitrary, this implies that the $`\rho _e`$-orbit of $`p`$ is bounded. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.3 Actions of finitely generated semigroups

As remarked earlier, for an arbitrary solenoid $`G`$, the map $`E:L(G)G`$ need not be surjective. However we will prove the following result which will be a crucial step in the proof of Theorem B.

###### Theorem 4.6

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a finitely generated semigroup and $`\rho `$ be an endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a solenoid $`G`$. Let $`A`$ be a $`\rho `$-basis of $`\widehat{G}`$. Then for any $`C>0`$ there exists an $`ϵ>0`$ such that $`B_A(ϵ)E(B_A^{}(C))`$.

Note that this theorem, together with Propositions 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 implies Theorem B when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is finitely generated.

#### Remark 4.7

Earlier we have observed that $`E`$ is a continuous homomorphism and the kernel of $`E`$ is discrete. Hence the above theorem implies that the map $`E`$, restricted to $`L(G)_A`$, is a local homeomorphism if $`L(G)_A`$ and $`G`$ are equipped with the topologies induced by $`d_A^{}`$ and $`d_A`$ respectively.

Before beginning the proof of Theorem 4.6 we introduce a few notations.

Let $`H`$ be a discrete abelian group and $`A`$ is a finite subset of $`H`$. Then by $`𝐐(A)`$ we denote the set of all $`hH`$ which satisfies a linear equation of the form

$$n_0h=\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}n_ja_j,$$

where $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_r`$ are elements of $`A`$ and $`n_0,n_1,\mathrm{},n_r`$ are integers with $`n_00`$. Also for all $`k>0`$, by $`𝐐_k(A)`$ we denote the set of all $`hH`$ which satisfies a linear equation as above with $`|n_0|+|n_1|+\mathrm{}+|n_r|k`$. A set $`AH`$ is said to be a $`k`$-regular  if there exists an increasing sequence of finite sets $`A_1A_2\mathrm{}A`$ satisfying

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_i=A,A_n𝐐_k(A_{n1})n2.$$

Now we show that if $`\rho `$ is an endomorphism action of a finitely generated semigroup on a solenoid $`G`$, then any $`\rho `$-basis is $`k`$-regular for some $`k`$.

###### Proposition 4.8

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a finitely generated semigroup and $`\rho `$ be an endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a solenoid $`G`$. Then any $`\rho `$-basis of $`\widehat{G}`$ is $`k`$-regular for some $`k>0`$.

#### Proof

Let $`A`$ be a $`\rho `$-basis of $`\widehat{G}`$. Since $`A`$ generates $`\widehat{G}`$ as an abelian group and $`\widehat{G}`$ has finite rank, there exists a finite set $`F_1A`$ such that $`𝐐(F_1)=\widehat{G}`$. Also, $`A=_\gamma \widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(F_2)`$ for some finite set $`F_2A`$. We define $`F=F_1F_2`$. Let $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be finite set which generates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a semigroup. Since $`𝐐(F)=\widehat{G}`$, for any $`\gamma `$ in $`S`$ and $`a_0`$ in $`F`$, $`\widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(a_0)`$ satisfies a linear equation of the form

$$n_0\widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(a_0)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}n_ja_j,$$

where $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_r`$ are elements of $`F`$ and $`n_0,n_1,\mathrm{},n_r`$ are integers with $`n_00`$. Since $`S`$ is finite, it follows that there exists a positive integer $`k`$ such that $`\widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(F)𝐐_k(F)`$ for all $`\gamma `$ in $`S`$. For $`n1`$ we define $`S_n\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`A_nA`$ by

$$S_n=\{\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _n|\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _nS\},A_n=\underset{\gamma S_n}{}\widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(F).$$

Let $`\gamma _n`$ be any element of $`S_n`$. We choose $`\gamma _{n1}S_{n1}`$ and $`\gamma _0S`$ such that $`\gamma _n=\gamma _{n1}\gamma _0`$. Since $`\widehat{\rho }(\gamma _0)(F)𝐐_k(F)`$, we see that

$$\widehat{\rho }(\gamma _n)(F)\widehat{\rho }(\gamma _{n1})(𝐐_k(F))𝐐_k(\widehat{\rho }(\gamma _{n1})(F)).$$

This shows that $`A_n𝐐_k(A_{n1})`$ for all $`n2`$. Since $`S`$ generates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, it is easy to see that $`A_i=\widehat{\rho }(\mathrm{\Gamma })(F)=A`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we turn to the proof of Theorem 4.6. We will use the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.9

Let $`G`$ be a solenoid and $`F`$ be a finite subset of $`\widehat{G}`$. Then for any $`C>0`$ there exists an $`ϵ>0`$ such that for any $`gB_F(ϵ)`$ there exists $`p`$ in $`B_F^{}(C)`$ satisfying $`\varphi (g)=\varphi E(p)`$ for all $`\varphi `$ in $`F`$.

#### Proof

Let $`\widehat{H}\widehat{G}`$ be the subgroup generated by $`F`$ and let $`H`$ be the dual of $`\widehat{H}`$. Since $``$ is divisible, any homomorphism from $`\widehat{H}`$ to $``$ can be extended to a homomorphism from $`\widehat{G}`$ to $``$. Therefore it is enough to consider the case when $`G=H`$. In that case there exists $`n1`$ and an isomorphism $`\theta :G𝕋^n`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{d}\theta =\theta E`$. Since $`B_F^{}(C)`$ is an open subset of $`L(G)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}:L(𝕋^n)𝕋^n`$ is a local homeomorphism, it is easy to see that $`E(B_F^{}(C))`$ contains an open neighborhood of $`e`$ in $`G`$. Since $`F`$ generates $`\widehat{G}`$, there exists an $`ϵ>0`$ such that $`B_F(ϵ)E(B_F^{}(C))`$. This proves the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 4.6  Suppose $`A`$ is a $`\rho `$-basis of $`\widehat{G}`$. By Proposition 4.8 $`A`$ is $`k`$-regular for some $`k>0`$. Clearly without loss of generality we may assume that $`C<1/k`$. Let $`A_1A_2\mathrm{}A`$ be an increasing sequence of finite sets such that

$$\underset{i}{}A_i=A,A_n𝐐_k(A_{n1})n2.$$

Applying Lemma 4.9 we choose a positive $`ϵ<C`$ such that for all $`hB_{A_1}(ϵ)`$ there exists a $`qB_{A_1}^{}(C)`$ satisfying $`\chi (E(q))=\chi (h)`$ for all $`\chi `$ in $`A_1`$. Let $`g`$ be an element of $`B_A(ϵ)`$. We choose a $`p`$ in $`B_{A_1}^{}(C)`$ such that $`\chi (E(p))=\chi (g)`$ for all $`\chi `$ in $`A_1`$. We claim that

$$|p(\chi )|<C,\chi (E(p))=\chi (g)\chi A.$$

By our choice of $`p`$ this is true for all $`\chi `$ in $`A_1`$. Suppose this holds for all $`\chi `$ in $`A_n`$. Let $`a_0`$ be an element of $`A_{n+1}`$. We choose integers $`n_0,n_1,\mathrm{},n_r`$ and $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_rA_n`$ such that $`n_00`$, $`|n_0|+|n_1|+\mathrm{}+|n_r|k`$ and

$$n_0a_0=\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}n_ja_j.$$

Since $`gB_A(ϵ)`$, there exists $`\alpha `$ such that $`|\alpha |<ϵ<C`$ and $`e^{2\pi i\alpha }=a_0(g)`$. Now from the above equation it is easy to see that

$$e^{2\pi in_0\alpha }=a_0(g)^{n_0}=\underset{1}{\overset{r}{}}a_i(g)^{n_i}.$$

Since $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_rA_n`$, it follows that

$$e^{2\pi in_0p(a_0)}=\underset{1}{\overset{r}{}}e^{2\pi in_jp(a_j)}=\underset{1}{\overset{r}{}}a_iE(p)^{n_i}=\underset{1}{\overset{r}{}}a_i(g)^{n_i}.$$

Therefore $`e^{2\pi in_0(\alpha p(a_0))}=0`$ i.e. $`n_0(\alpha p(a_0))`$. On the other hand

$$|n_0(\alpha p(a_0))|n_0|\alpha |+|p(n_0a_0)|n_0C+\underset{1}{\overset{r}{}}n_i|p(a_i)|.$$

Now applying our induction hypothesis we see that

$$|n_0(\alpha p(a_0))|C\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}|n_j|<Ck<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$

Hence $`\alpha p(a_0)=0`$, which implies that $`|p(a_0)|=|\alpha |<C`$ and $`a_0(E(p))=e^{2\pi i\alpha }=a_0(g)`$. This proves the claim. Since $`A`$ generates $`\widehat{G}`$ as an abelian group, from the above claim we deduce that for any $`gB_A(ϵ)`$ there exists a $`pB_A^{}(C)`$ such that $`E(p)=g`$. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.4 Proof of Theorem B

Now we prove Theorem B for an endomorphism action $`\rho `$ of an arbitrary semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a solenoid $`G`$. If $`(G,\rho )`$ is expansive then from Proposition 4.3 and Proposition 4.4 it follows that a) and b) are satisfied. Conversely, suppose the conditions a) and b) are satisfied. By Lemma 3.1 there exists a finitely generated subsemigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that for all $`p`$ in $`L(G)`$, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$-orbit of $`p`$ under the action $`\rho _e`$ is unbounded. We construct an endomorphism action $`(H,\sigma )`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ as follows :

Since $`\widehat{G}`$ has finite rank, there exists a finite set $`F_1\widehat{G}`$ such that $`𝐐(F_1)=\widehat{G}`$. Also, from a) it follows that there exists a finite set $`F_2\widehat{G}`$ such that the set $`_\gamma \widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(F_2)`$ generates $`\widehat{G}`$ as an abelian group. We define $`F=F_1F_2`$. Let $`\widehat{H}\widehat{G}`$ be the subgroup generated by the set

$$A_0=\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{}\widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(F)$$

and let $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ be the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$-action on $`\widehat{H}`$ defined by $`\widehat{\sigma }(\gamma )=\widehat{\rho }(\gamma )|_{\widehat{H}}`$. Let $`H`$ denote the dual of $`\widehat{H}`$ and let $`\sigma `$ denote the endomorphism action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ on $`H`$ which is the dual of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$.

Claim : $`(H,\sigma )`$ is expansive.

Since $`\widehat{G}=𝐐(F)𝐐(\widehat{H})`$, it follows that the restriction map $`pp|_{\widehat{H}}`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$-equivariant linear isomorphism from $`L(G)`$ onto $`L(H)`$. This implies that for every non-zero $`qL(H)`$, the $`\sigma _e`$-orbit of $`q`$ is unbounded in $`L(H)`$. Also it is easy to see that $`A_0`$ is a $`\sigma `$-basis of $`\widehat{H}`$. Now applying Theorem 4.6 and Proposition 4.5 we see that $`(H,\sigma )`$ is expansive, which proves the claim.

Let $`V`$ be an expansive neighborhood of $`e`$ in $`H`$. Let $`i:\widehat{H}\widehat{G}`$ be the inclusion map and let $`\pi :GH`$ be the dual of $`i`$. We claim that $`\pi ^1(V)`$ is an expansive neighborhood for the action $`\rho `$. To see this we choose any $`g`$ in $`G`$ such that the $`\rho `$-orbit of $`g`$ is contained in $`\pi ^1(V)`$. It is easy to see that for any $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$,

$$\sigma (\gamma )\pi (g)=\pi \rho (\gamma )(g).$$

Therefore the $`\sigma `$-orbit of $`\pi (g)`$ is contained in $`V`$. Since $`V`$ is an expansive neighborhood for $`\sigma `$, this implies that $`\pi (g)=e`$. In particular $`\varphi (g)=1`$ for all $`\varphi `$ in $`F`$. For any $`\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, replacing $`g`$ by $`\rho (\gamma )(g)`$ and applying the same argument we see that

$$\widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(\varphi )(g)=\varphi \rho (\gamma )(g)=1\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma },\varphi F.$$

Since $`A=_{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}\widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(F)`$ generates $`\widehat{G}`$, it follows that $`g=e`$. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

#### Remark 4.10

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the group of positive rational numbers under multiplication, $``$ be the group of rational numbers under addition and $`\widehat{\rho }`$ be the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $``$ defined by $`\widehat{\rho }(\gamma )(x)=\gamma x`$. Let $`\rho `$ be the dual action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`\widehat{}`$. Then from Theorem B it follows that $`(\widehat{},\rho )`$ is expansive. On the other hand it is easy to see that for any finitely generated subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $``$ is not finitely generated as a $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)`$-module. Hence no finitely generated subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts expansively on $`\widehat{}`$ under the action $`\rho `$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is abelian, this shows that analogues of Corollary 3.2 and Corollary 3.4 do not hold when $`G`$ is a solenoid.

Address : School of Mathematics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400005, India.
E-mail : siddhart@math.tifr.res.in