text:
# Dynamical systems on translation bounded measures: Pure point dynamical and diffraction spectra

## 1. Introduction

This paper deals with certain dynamical systems build from measures on $`\sigma `$-compact locally compact Abelian groups. These dynamical systems give rise to two spectra: the dynamical spectrum and the diffraction spectrum. After introducing the dynamical systems and discussing their basic topological features, we will focus on studying the relationship between these two spectra. Particular attention will be paid to the case where one of the spectra is pure point. This will be shown to happen if and only if the other is pure point as well (read on for details and a discussion of related results.)

The motivation for our study comes from physics and, more precisely, from the study of solids with long range aperiodic order and crystal-like diffraction spectrum. Such solids are known as genuine quasicrystals. The existence of quasicrystals is now a well-established and widely accepted experimental fact. Even if discussions about the precise structures will still be going on for a while, the common feature of aperiodicity has opened a new chapter of crystallography and solid state research.

The original discovery of quasicrystals  was somewhat accidental and only possible through one of their most striking features, namely their sharp Bragg diffraction with point symmetries that are not possible for 3-dimensional crystals (such as $`n`$-fold rotation axes with $`n=8,10,12`$, or icosahedral symmetry); see  for a summary and  for a guide to the literature. These experimental results called for a mathematical explanation and created a subject now often referred to as mathematical diffraction theory.

Mathematical diffraction theory deals with the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation measure (or Patterson measure) of a given translation bounded (possibly complex) measure $`\omega `$. Here, $`\omega `$ is the mathematical idealisation of the physical structure of a solid or, more generally, of any state of matter. In its simplest form, $`\omega `$ is just a Dirac comb, i.e., a countable collection of (possibly weighted) point measures which mimic the positions of the atoms (and their scattering strengths). The autocorrelation measure $`\gamma _\omega `$ of $`\omega `$ (see below for a precise definition) is then a positive definite measure. Its Fourier transform $`\widehat{\gamma _\omega }`$ is a positive measure, called the diffraction measure, which models the outcome of a diffraction experiment; see  for background material and details on the physical justification of this approach.

Now, given this setting, one of the most obvious questions to address is that for (the characterisation of all) examples of measures $`\omega `$ with a diffraction measure $`\widehat{\gamma _\omega }`$ that is pure point, i.e., consists of point measures only.

This was addressed by Bombieri and Taylor in . However, no rigorous answer could be given at that time. Soon after, Hof  showed that structures obtained from the cut-and-project formalism  possess a pure point diffraction spectrum under rather decent assumptions, and Solomyak started a rather systematic study of substitution dynamical systems with pure point spectrum in . By now, large classes of examples are known , also beyond the class of ordinary projection sets . Moreover, Schlottmann was able to free the cut-and-project formalism from basically all specific properties of Euclidean space  and established that all regular model sets are pure point diffractive , see also  for a summary on model sets.

A cornerstone in many of these considerations is the use of ergodic theory and the so-called Dworkin argument  (see  as well). This argument links the diffraction spectrum to the dynamical spectrum. It can be used to infer pure point diffraction spectrum from pure point dynamical spectrum. These investigations heavily depend on the underlying point sets being point sets of finite local complexity (FLC). This, however, is not necessary, as becomes clear from two alternative approaches, one for general Dirac combs and measures on the basis of almost periodicity by Moody and one of the authors , and the other for so-called deformed model sets by Bernuau and Duneau .

Thus, at the moment, there is a considerable gap between the cases that can be treated by the method of almost periodicity of measures  and those using ergodic theory and requiring FLC together with unique ergodicity. It is the primary aim of this article to narrow this gap. This will be achieved by thoroughly analysing the link between the diffraction spectrum and the dynamical spectrum given by the Dworkin argument.

The analysis carried out below will also be a crucial ingredient in a forthcoming paper of ours  which investigates the stability of pure point diffraction. Namely, we will set up a perturbation theory for pure point diffraction by studying deformations of dynamical systems with pure point dynamical spectrum. Particular emphasis will be put on deformed model sets and isospectral deformations of Delone sets. Note that the deformation of model sets almost immediately leads to point sets which violate FLC.

Let us now discuss our results in more detail. The first step in our approach is to choose a setting of measures rather than point sets. Defining appropriate dynamical systems with measures on a locally compact Abelian group will free us from essentially all restrictions mentioned. This setting is presented in Section 3, where also the relevant topological questions are discussed. The relationship between our measure dynamical systems and point dynamical systems is investigated in Section 4. It is shown that the measure dynamical systems enclose the usual Delone dynamical systems. This section introduces a topology on Delone sets (and actually all closed subsets of the group) with very nice compactness properties. The results generalise and strengthen the corresponding considerations of  and may be of independent interest in further studies of point sets not satisfying FLC. The extension of diffraction theory and the Dworkin argument (as developed for point sets in, e.g., ) to our setting is achieved in Section 5.

The main result of our paper is summarised in Theorem 7 in Section 7. It states that, under some rather mild assumptions,

* pure point dynamical spectrum is equivalent to pure point diffraction spectrum.

This generalises the main results of Lee, Moody and Solomyak  in at least three ways: It is not restricted to dynamical systems arising from Delone sets, and, in fact, not even to dynamical systems arising from point sets. It does not need any condition of finite local complexity. It does not need an ergodicity assumption for the invariant measure involved.

Let us mention that a generalisation of the main result of  sharing the last two features had already been announced by Gouéré , within the framework of point processes and Palm measures, see his recent work  for a study of this framework as well. His result applies to the point dynamical systems studied below in Section 4. Thus, there is some overlap between his result an ours. However, in general, our setting, methods and results are quite different from his, as we leave the scenario of point sets. In fact, the measure theoretical setting seems very adequate and natural in view of the physical applications, where point sets are only a somewhat crude approximation of the arrangements of scatterers.

Let us also mention that, in general, the diffraction spectrum and the dynamical spectrum can be of different type, as has been investigated by van Enter and Miȩkisz in .

Our proof of the equivalence of the two notions of pure pointedness relies on two results which are of interest in their own right. These results are

* an abstract characterisation of pure point dynamical spectrum for arbitrary topological dynamical systems,
* a precise interpretation of the Dworkin argument.

Here, the abstract characterisation is achieved in Theorem 1 in Section 2. Roughly speaking, it states that a system has pure point spectrum once it has a lot of point spectrum. The precise interpretation of the Dworkin argument is given in Theorem 6 in Section 6. It says that the diffraction measure is a spectral measure for a suitable subrepresentation of the translation action at hand.

The relationship between suitable subrepresentation with pure point spectrum and the original representation can actually be analysed in more detail. To do so, we take a second look at the abstract theory in Section 8. Namely, we discuss how the group of all eigenvalues and the continuity of eigenfunctions is already determined by the set of eigenvalues and continuity of eigenfunctions associated to a suitable subrepresentation with pure point spectrum.

This material is rather general and may be of independent interest. Here, we apply it to our topological measure dynamical systems. This gives a criterion for the continuity of the eigenfunctions. More importantly, it shows that the group of all eigenvalues is generated by the support of the diffraction spectrum. The validity of such a result was brought to our attention by R. V. Moody for the case of point dynamical systems satisfying FLC .

The material presented above, and the abstract strategy to prove our main result, can be adopted to study a measurable framework (as opposed to a topological one). This will be analysed in the future.

## 2. An abstract criterion

In this section, we introduce some notation and provide a simple result which lies at the heart of our considerations. It is rather general and might also be useful elsewhere.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a compact topological space (by which we mean to include the Hausdorff property) and $`G`$ be a locally compact Abelian (LCA) group which is $`\sigma `$-compact. Let

(1)
$$\alpha :G\times \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }$$

be a continuous action of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where, of course, $`G\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ carries the product topology (later on, we will specify it via $`\alpha _t(P)=t+P`$ for $`PG`$ and $`tG`$). Then, $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ is called a topological dynamical system. The set of continuous functions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ will be denoted by $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Let $`m`$ be a $`G`$-invariant probability measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and denote the corresponding set of square integrable functions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$. This space is equipped with the inner product $`f,g:=\overline{f(\omega )}g(\omega )dm(\omega )`$. The action $`\alpha `$ induces a unitary representation $`T`$ of $`G`$ on $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ in the obvious way, where $`T^th`$ is defined by $`(T^th)(\omega ):=h(\alpha _t(\omega ))`$. Whenever we want to emphasise the dependence of the inner product and the unitary representation on the chosen invariant measure $`m`$, we write $`f,g_m`$ and $`T_m`$ instead of $`f,g`$ and $`T`$.

The dual group of $`G`$ is denoted by $`\widehat{G}`$, and the pairing between a character $`\widehat{s}\widehat{G}`$ and an element $`tG`$ is written as $`(\widehat{s},t)`$, which, of course, is a number on the unit circle, compare \[31, Ch. 4\] for background material.

A non-zero $`hL^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ is called an eigenvector (or eigenfunction) of $`T`$ if there exists an $`\widehat{s}\widehat{G}`$ with $`T^th=(\widehat{s},t)h`$ for every $`tG`$. The closure (in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$) of the linear span of all eigenfunctions of $`T`$ will be denoted by $`_{pp}(T)`$.

The following is a variant (and an extension) of a result from .

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a topological dynamical system with an invariant measure $`m`$. Then, $`_{pp}(T)C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a subalgebra of $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ which is closed under complex conjugation and contains all constant functions. Similarly, $`_{pp}(T)L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ is a subalgebra of $`L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ that is closed under complex conjugation and contains all constant functions.

###### Proof.

We only show the statement about $`_{pp}(T)C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. The other result can be shown in the same way.

The set $`_{pp}(T)C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a vector space because it is the intersection of two vector spaces. Moreover, every constant (non-vanishing) function is obviously continuous and an eigenvector of $`T`$ (with eigenvalue $`1`$, i.e., with the trivial character $`(\widehat{s},t)1`$).

It remains to be shown that $`_{pp}(T)C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is closed under complex conjugation and under forming products.

Closedness under complex conjugation: Let $`f`$ be an eigenfunction of $`T`$ to, say, $`\widehat{s}`$. Then, $`\overline{f}`$ is an eigenfunction of $`T`$ to the character $`\widehat{s}^1`$. Here, of course, the inverse $`\widehat{s}^1`$ of $`\widehat{s}\widehat{G}`$ is given by $`t\overline{(\widehat{s},t)}`$, where the bar denotes complex conjugation. Using this, it is not hard to see that $`_{pp}(T)`$ is closed under complex conjugation. As this is true of $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ as well, we see that the intersection $`_{pp}(T)C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is closed under complex conjugation.

Closedness under products: This is shown in Lemma 3.7 in  in the case that $`m`$ is not only translation invariant but also ergodic. To adopt their argument to the case at hand, we note that every eigenfunction can be approximated arbitrarily well (in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$) by bounded eigenfunctions via a simple cut-off procedure. More precisely, if $`f`$ is an eigenfunction, then $`|f|`$ is an $`\alpha `$-invariant function. Therefore, for an arbitrary $`N>0`$, the function

(2)
$$f^N(\omega ):=\{\begin{array}{cc}f(\omega ),\hfill & |f(\omega )|N\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

is again an eigenfunction (with the same $`\widehat{s}`$ as $`f`$). Apparently, the $`f^N`$ converge to $`f`$ in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

After this preliminary consideration, we can conclude the proof following : Let two functions $`f,g_{pp}(T)C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be given. Then, $`fg`$ belongs to $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. It remains to be shown that it belongs to $`_{pp}(T)`$ as well.

Choose $`\epsilon >0`$ arbitrarily. Observe that $`g_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$, as $`gC(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ compact. Since $`f`$ is in $`_{pp}(T)`$, there exists a finite linear combination $`f^{}=a_if_i`$ of eigenfunctions of $`T`$ with

$$fa_if_i_2\frac{\epsilon }{g_{\mathrm{}}}.$$

By the preliminary consideration around Eq. (2), we can assume that all $`f_i`$ are bounded functions. Thus, in particular, $`f^{}_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$.

Similarly, choose another finite linear combination $`g^{}=b_jg_j`$ of bounded functions $`g_j`$ in $`_{pp}(T)`$ with

$$gb_jg_j_2\frac{\epsilon }{f^{}_{\mathrm{}}}.$$

Then,

$$fgf^{}g^{}_2f^{}_{\mathrm{}}gg^{}_2+g_{\mathrm{}}ff^{}_2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\epsilon .$$

The proof is complete by observing that $`f^{}g^{}`$ is in $`_{pp}(T)`$ because the product of bounded eigenfunctions is again a bounded eigenfunction. ∎

With Lemma 1, the following result is a rather direct consequence of the Stone-Weierstraß Theorem.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a topological dynamical system with invariant probability measure $`m`$. Then, the following assertions are equivalent.

* $`T`$ has pure point spectrum, i.e., $`_{pp}(T)=L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$.
* There exists a subspace $`𝒱_{pp}(T)C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ which separates points.

###### Proof.

(a) $``$ (b): This is clear, as one can take $`𝒱=_{pp}(T)C(\mathrm{\Omega })=C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.
(b) $``$ (a): By Lemma 1, $`_{pp}(T)C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is an algebra which is closed under complex conjugation and contains the constant functions. It also separates points as it contains a subspace, $`𝒱`$, with this property by (b). Thus, we can apply the Stone-Weierstraß Theorem (compare \[28, Thm. 4.3.4\]), to conclude that $`_{pp}(T)C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is dense in $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. By standard measure theory, see \[28, Prop. 6.4.11\], $`_{pp}(T)`$ is then dense in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ as well. As $`_{pp}(T)`$ is closed, statement (a) follows. ∎

## 3. Measure dynamical systems

For the remainder of the paper, let $`G`$ be a fixed $`\sigma `$-compact LCA group with identity $`0`$. Integration with respect to Haar measure is denoted by $`_G\mathrm{}dt`$, and the measure of a subset $`D`$ of $`G`$ is denoted by $`|D|`$. The vector space of complex valued continuous functions on $`G`$ with compact support is denoted by $`C_c(G)`$. It is made into a locally convex space by the inductive limit topology, as induced by the canonical embeddings

$$C_K(G)C_c(G),KG\text{ compact}.$$

Here, $`C_K(G)`$ is the space of complex valued continuous functions on $`G`$ with support in $`K`$, which is equipped with the usual supremum norm $`._{\mathrm{}}`$. The support of $`\phi C_c(G)`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{supp}(\phi )`$.

The dual $`C_c(G)^{}`$ of the locally convex space $`C_c(G)`$ is denoted by $`(G)`$. The space $`(G)`$ carries the vague topology. This topology equals the weak-$``$ topology of $`C_c(G)^{}`$, i.e., it is the weakest topology which makes all functionals $`\mu \mu (\phi )`$, $`\phi C_c(G)`$, continuous. As is well known (see e.g. \[28, Thm. 6.5.6\] together with its proof), every $`\mu (G)`$ gives rise to a unique $`|\mu |(G)`$, called the total variation of $`\mu `$, which satisfies

$$|\mu |(\phi )=sup\{|\mu (\psi )|:\psi C_c(G,)\text{ with }|\psi |\phi \}$$

for every $`\phi C_c(G)_+`$. Apparently, the total variation $`|\mu |`$ is positive, i.e., $`|\mu |(\phi )0`$ for all $`\phi C_c(G)_+`$. In particular, it can be identified with a measure on the $`\sigma `$-algebra of Borel sets of $`G`$ that satisfies

* $`|\mu |(K)<\mathrm{}`$ for every compact set $`KG`$,
* $`|\mu |(A)=sup\{|\mu |(K):KA,K\text{ compact}\}`$ for every Borel set $`AG`$

(see, e.g., \[28, Thm. 6.3.4\]). As $`G`$ is $`\sigma `$-compact, we furthermore have

* $`|\mu |(A)=inf\{|\mu |(B):AB,B\text{ open}\}`$ for every Borel set $`AG`$

by \[28, Prop. 6.3.6\], i.e., $`|\mu |`$ is an (unbounded) regular Borel measure, in line with the Riesz-Markov Theorem \[30, Thm. IV.18\]. Finally, we note that there exists, by \[28, Thm. 6.5.6\], a measurable function $`u:G`$ with $`|u(t)|=1`$ for $`|\mu |`$-almost every $`tG`$ such that

(3)
$$\mu (\phi )=_G\phi u\mathrm{d}|\mu |\text{ for all }\phi C_c(G).$$

This polar decomposition permits us to identify the elements of $`(G)`$ with the regular complex Borel measures on $`G`$, which is the Riesz-Markov Theorem for this situation.

For later use, we also introduce some notation concerning Fourier transforms and convolutions, compare  for details. The Fourier transform of a quantity $`q`$ will always be denoted by $`\widehat{q}`$. For $`\phi ,\psi C_c(G)`$, we define the convolution $`\phi \psi `$ by $`\left(\phi \psi \right)(t):=_G\phi (s)\psi (ts)ds`$ and the function $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }C_c(G)`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }(t):=\overline{\phi (t)}`$. For $`\mu (G)`$ and $`\phi C_c(G)`$, the convolution $`\phi \mu `$ is the function given by $`\left(\phi \mu \right)(t):=_G\phi (ts)d\mu (s)`$. For two convolvable measures $`\mu ,\nu (G)`$, the convolution $`\mu \nu `$ is the element of $`(G)`$ given by $`\left(\mu \nu \right)(\phi ):=_G_G\phi (s+t)d\mu (s)d\nu (t)`$ for $`\phi C_c(G)`$; the measures $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ and $`\overline{\mu }`$ are defined by $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\phi ):=\overline{\mu (\stackrel{~}{\phi })}`$ and $`\overline{\mu }(\phi ):=\overline{\mu (\overline{\phi })}`$, respectively. For $`\mu (G)`$ and a measurable set $`BG`$, we denote the restriction of $`\mu `$ to $`B`$ by $`\mu _B`$. Finally, for $`xG`$, we define the measure $`\delta _x`$ to be the normalised point measure at $`x`$.

We will consider actions of $`G`$ on spaces consisting of measures on $`G`$. The relevant set of measures will be defined next.

###### Definition 1.

Let $`C>0`$ and a relatively compact open set $`V`$ in $`G`$ be given. A measure $`\mu (G)`$ is called $`(C,V)`$-translation bounded if $`|\mu |(t+V)C`$ for all $`tG`$. It is simply called translation bounded if there exist $`C,V`$ such that it is $`(C,V)`$-translation bounded. The set of all $`(C,V)`$-translation bounded measures is denoted by $`_{C,V}(G)`$ and the set of all translation bounded measures by $`^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$.

The vague topology on $`(G)`$ has very nice features when restricted to the translation bounded measures.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`C>0`$ and a relatively compact open set $`V`$ in $`G`$ be given. Then, $`_{C,V}(G)`$ is a compact Hausdorff space. If $`G`$ is second countable, $`_{C,V}(G)`$ is metrisable.

To prove the theorem, we start with the following simple result from measure theory.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`\mu (G)`$ and a relatively compact open set $`V`$ in $`G`$ be given. Then, $`|\mu |(V)=sup\{|\mu (\phi )|:\phi C_c(G)\text{ with }\mathrm{supp}(\phi )V\text{ and }\phi _{\mathrm{}}1\}`$.

###### Proof.

Denote the supremum in the statement by $`S`$. Recall the polar decomposition and the definition of $`u`$ in Eq. (3). As $`u`$ is $`|\mu |`$ almost surely equal to $`1`$, a direct calculation easily gives $`S|\mu |(V)`$. Conversely, as $`C_c(V)`$ is dense in $`L^1(V,|\mu |_V)`$ (see, e.g., \[28, Prop. 6.4.11\]), there exists a sequence $`(\phi _n)`$ in $`C_c(V)`$ with $`\phi _n\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}\overline{u}1_V\text{in }L^1(V,|\mu |_V).`$ By the $`|\mu |`$-almost sure boundedness of $`u`$, this implies $`u\phi _n\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}u\overline{u}1_V=1_V`$ in $`L^1(V,|\mu |_V)`$. Then, a short calculation, invoking (3) again, shows $`Slim_n\mathrm{}|\mu (\phi _n)|=|\mu |(V).`$ This proves the proposition. ∎

Proof of Theorem 2. By definition of $`_{C,V}(G)`$, for each $`\phi C_c(G)`$, there exists a radius $`R(\phi )>0`$ such that $`\mu (\phi )\overline{B_{R(\phi )}}`$ for every $`\mu _{C,V}(G)`$, where $`B_r`$ is the (open) ball of radius $`r`$ around $`0`$ and $`\overline{B_r}`$ its closure. Thus, we can consider $`_{C,V}(G)`$ as a subspace of $`\mathrm{\Pi }:=_{\phi C_c(G)}\overline{B_{R(\phi )}}`$ equipped with the product topology via the embedding

$$j:_{C,V}(G)\mathrm{\Pi },\left(j(\mu )\right)(\phi ):=\mu (\phi ).$$

As $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is obviously a compact Hausdorff space, this shows immediately that $`_{C,V}(G)`$ is relatively compact and Hausdorff. It remains to be shown that $`j(_{C,V}(G))`$ is closed. This is a direct consequence of Definition 1 together with Proposition 1.

The statement about metrisability is standard: if $`G`$ is second countable, there exists a countable dense subset $`\{\phi _n:n\}`$ in $`C_c(G)`$. Then,

$$d:_{C,V}(G)\times _{C,V}(G),d(\mu ,\nu ):=\underset{n}{}2^n\frac{|\mu (\phi _n)\nu (\phi _n)|}{1+|\mu (\phi _n)\nu (\phi _n)|}$$

gives a metric on $`_{C,V}(G)`$ which generates the topology. ∎

Having discussed the topology of $`(G)`$, we can now introduce the topological dynamical systems associated to subsets of $`(G)`$. To do so, we will use the obvious action $`\alpha `$ of $`G`$ on $`(G)`$ given by

$$\alpha :G\times (G)(G),(t,\mu )\alpha _t(\mu ):=\delta _t\mu ,$$

or, more explicitly, $`\left(\alpha _t(\mu )\right)(\phi )=_G\phi (t+s)d\mu (s).`$ We use the same symbol for the action as in Eq. (1), since misunderstandings are unlikely, and we will usually write $`\alpha _t\mu `$ for $`\alpha _t(\mu )`$.

This action is compatible with the topological structure of $`G`$ and $`(G)`$.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`C>0`$ and a relatively compact open set $`VG`$ be given. Then, the action $`\alpha :G\times _{C,V}(G)_{C,V}(G)`$ is continuous, where $`G\times _{C,V}(G)`$ carries the product topology.

###### Proof.

Let $`(t_\iota ,\mu _\iota )`$ be a net in $`G\times _{C,V}(G)`$ converging to $`(t,\mu )`$. We have to show that the net $`(\alpha _{t_\iota }(\mu _\iota ))`$ converges to $`\alpha _t(\mu )`$, i.e., we have to check that

$$\phi (s+t_\iota )d\mu _\iota (s)\phi (s+t)d\mu (s),\text{for all }\phi C_c(G).$$

By $`t_\iota t`$, there exists an index $`\iota _0`$ and a compact set $`K`$ such that the support of $`\phi `$ and the supports of all $`\phi _\iota `$ with $`\iota \iota _0`$ are contained in $`K`$. Moreover, as $`\mu _\iota _{C,V}(G)`$ for every $`\iota `$, there exists a constant $`C^{}`$ with $`|\mu |(K)C^{}`$ as well as $`|\mu _\iota |(K)C^{}`$ for all $`\iota `$. Now, the desired statement follows easily from

$`|\mu _\iota (\phi (.+t_\iota ))\mu (\phi (.+t))|`$ $``$ $`|\mu _\iota (\phi (.+t_\iota ))\mu _\iota (\phi (.+t))|+|\mu _\iota (\phi (.+t))\mu (\phi (.+t))|`$
$``$ $`|\mu _\iota |(C)\phi (.+t_\iota )\phi (.+t)_{\mathrm{}}+|\mu _\iota (\phi (.+t))\mu (\phi (.+t))|,`$
as both terms on the right hand side tend to zero for $`t_\iota t`$ and $`\mu _\iota \mu `$. ∎

The dynamical systems we are interested in are defined as follows.

###### Definition 2.

$`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ is called a dynamical system on the translation bounded measures on $`G`$ (TMDS) if there exist a constant $`C>0`$ and a relatively compact open $`VG`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a closed subset of $`_{C,V}(G)`$ that is invariant under the $`G`$-action $`\alpha `$.

Remarks. (a) The $`\alpha `$ invariant subsets of $`(G)`$ are called translation stable sets in . Thus, a TDMS is just a closed translation stable subset of $`_{C,V}(G)`$.
(b) The space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of a TMDS is always compact by Theorem 2 and the action $`\alpha `$ is continuous by Proposition 2. Thus, a TMDS is a topological dynamical system in the sense of Section 2.
(c) The considerations of this section (and those of the next) do not use commutativity of the underlying group $`G`$. They immediately extend to arbitrary $`\sigma `$-compact locally compact groups. But since we need harmonic analysis later on, we stick to Abelian groups here.

## 4. Point dynamical systems

This section has two aims. Firstly, we present an abstract topological framework which allows us to treat point dynamical systems which are not of finite local complexity. Secondly, we show how these systems fit into our setting of measure dynamical systems. As for the first aim, we actually introduce a topology on the set of all closed subsets of $`G`$. For the case of $`^d`$, this topology has already been studied by Stollmann and one of the authors in . Our extension to arbitrary locally compact groups is strongly influenced by the investigation of Schlottmann  (which, however, is restricted to FLC systems).

As pointed out by the referee, the topology we introduce can also be obtained as a special case of a topology introduced by Fell in . This is further discussed in the appendix. Given this connection, Theorem 3 below is a corollary of Theorem 1 in . For this reason, we only give an outline of how it can be established in our setting.

We start by defining the relevant sets of points.

###### Definition 3.

Let $`G`$ be a $`\sigma `$-compact LCA group, and $`V`$ an open neighbourhood of $`0`$ in $`G`$.

* A subset $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`G`$ is called $`V`$-discrete if every translate of $`V`$ contains at most one point of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The set of all $`V`$-discrete subsets of $`G`$ is denoted by $`𝒟_V(G)`$.
* A subset of $`G`$ is called uniformly discrete if it is $`V`$-discrete for some $`V`$. The set of all uniformly discrete subsets of $`G`$ is denoted as $`𝒰𝒟(G)`$.
* The set of all discrete and closed subsets of $`G`$ will be denoted by $`𝒟(G)`$.
* The set of all closed subsets of $`G`$ is denoted as $`𝒞(G)`$.
* A subset $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`G`$ is called relatively dense if there is a compact $`K`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+K=G`$.

Note that a uniformly discrete subset of $`G`$ is closed. As it presents no extra difficulty, we will actually topologise not only $`𝒟(G)`$ but rather the larger set $`𝒞(G)`$. This will be done by providing a suitable uniformity (see \[20, Ch. 6\] for details on uniformities). Namely, for $`KG`$ compact and $`V`$ a neighbourhood of $`0`$ in $`G`$, we set

$$U_{K,V}:=\{(P_1,P_2)𝒞(G)\times 𝒞(G):P_1KP_2+V\text{ and }P_2KP_1+V\}.$$

It is not hard to check that

$$(P,P)U_{K,V},U_{K,V}=U_{K,V}^1,U_{K_1K_2,V_1V_2}U_{K_1,V_1}U_{K_2,V_2},U_{KW,W}U_{KW,W}U_{K,V}$$

for $`V`$ a neighbourhood of $`0`$, $`W`$ a compact neighbourhood of $`0`$ with $`W+WV`$, $`K`$ in $`G`$ compact, and $`P`$ any closed subset of $`G`$. Here, on sets $`U,U_1,U_2`$ consisting of ordered pairs, we define $`U^1:=\{(y,x):(x,y)U\}`$ and

$$U_1U_2:=\{(x,z):yG\text{ with }(x,y)U_1\text{and}(y,z)U_2\}.$$

This guarantees that $`\{U_{K,V}:K\text{compact},V\text{open with }0V\}`$ generates a uniformity, and hence a topology on $`𝒞(G)`$ via the neighbourhoods

$$U_{K,V}(P):=\{Q:(Q,P)U_{K,V}\},P𝒞(G).$$

Note that we could equally well generate the same uniformity with $`V`$ running through compact neighbourhoods of $`0G`$.

###### Definition 4.

The topology defined this way is called the local rubber topology (LRT).

This topology essentially means that two sets $`P_1,P_2`$ are close if they “almost” agree on large compact sets.

Fundamental properties of the LRT are given in the following result (see  for an earlier result on $`^d`$).

###### Theorem 3.

With the LRT, the set $`𝒞(G)`$ of closed subsets of $`G`$ is a compact Hausdorff space. If the topology of $`G`$ has a countable base, then $`𝒞(G)`$ is metrisable.

###### Proof.

The set $`𝒞(G)`$ is Hausdorff, as the intersection of all $`U_{K,V}`$ contains only the diagonal set $`\{(P,P):P𝒞(G)\}`$, see \[20, Ch. 6\].

We next show completeness: Let $`(P_\iota )_{\iota I}`$ be a Cauchy net in $`𝒞(G)`$, where $`I`$ is an index set directed by $``$, compare \[20, Ch. 2\].

We have to show that the Cauchy net converges to a closed subset of $`G`$, hence an element of $`𝒞(G)`$. To this end, we introduce the set $`P`$ of those $`xG`$ such that, for every neighbourhood $`V`$ of $`0`$, there exists $`\iota _{x,V}I`$ with

(4)
$$(x+V)P_\iota \mathrm{}\text{for all }\iota \iota _{x,V}.$$

It is not hard to see that $`P`$ is closed. $`P`$ will turn out to be the limit of our Cauchy net.

To show this, let a compact $`K`$ in $`G`$ and a neighbourhood $`V`$ of $`0`$ be given. We have to provide an $`\iota _{K,V}`$ with

$$PKP_\iota +V\text{and}P_\iota KP+V$$

for every $`\iota \iota _{K,V}`$.

Rather direct arguments show existence of $`\iota _{K,V}`$ with $`PKP_\iota +V`$ for all $`\iota \iota _{K,V}`$. We next establish the other inclusion. By a compactness argument,

(5)
$$PC\mathrm{},$$

whenever $`CG`$ is compact and $`P_\kappa C\mathrm{}`$ for all $`\kappa \kappa _0`$ and some $`\kappa _0I`$. Assume, without loss of generality, that $`V`$ is compact and symmetric. As $`(P_\iota )`$ is a Cauchy net, there exists a $`\iota _{K,V}`$ with $`(P_\iota ,P_\kappa )U_{K,V}`$ for all $`\iota ,\kappa \iota _{K,V}`$. Consider $`\iota \iota _{K,V}`$ and choose an arbitrary $`qP_\iota K`$. Then,

$$(q+V)P_\kappa \mathrm{}$$

for every $`\kappa \iota _{K,V}`$, as $`V`$ is symmetric and $`P_\iota KP_\kappa +V`$ by $`(P_\iota ,P_\kappa )U_{K,V}`$. Thus, (5) gives existence of a $`pP`$ with $`pq+V`$. In particular, invoking the symmetry of $`V`$ once more, we have $`qp+VP+V`$. As $`qP_\iota K`$ was arbitrary, we infer the desired inclusion $`P_\iota KP+V`$.

These considerations prove the desired completeness statement.

Finally, we show compactness of $`𝒞(G)`$. As $`𝒞(G)`$ is complete, it suffices to prove it is precompact. Thus, for any given $`K`$ compact and $`V`$ an open neighbourhood of $`0`$ in $`G`$, we have to provide a natural number $`n`$ and $`P_i𝒞(G)`$, $`1in`$, such that $`𝒞(G)_{i=1}^nU_{K,V}(P_i).`$ Since $`U_{K,V}(P)U_{K,V(V)}(P)`$ for all $`P𝒞(G)`$ and $`V(V)`$ is symmetric, we can assume, without loss of generality, that $`V`$ is symmetric (i.e., $`V=V`$). As $`K`$ is compact, there exists a finite set $`DK`$ with $`KD+V.`$ Direct calculations then give

$$𝒞(G)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}U_{K,V}(D_i),$$

where $`D_i`$, $`1in`$, is an enumeration of the power set of $`D`$.

The statement about metrisability is a direct consequence of \[20, Thm. 6.13\] and the remark thereafter. ∎

Having topologised $`𝒞(G)`$, and thus $`𝒰𝒟(G)`$ as well, we can now introduce our point dynamical systems. The natural action of $`G`$ on $`𝒞(G)`$ by translation will also be denoted by $`\alpha `$. Explicitly, we define $`\alpha _t(P)=t+P`$ for $`P𝒞(G)`$, where $`t+P=\{t+x:xP\}`$ as usual.

###### Definition 5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a subset of $`G`$ and $`\alpha `$ the translation action just defined.

* The pair $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ is called a set dynamical system if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a closed subset of $`𝒞(G)`$ which is invariant under $`\alpha `$.
* A set dynamical system $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ is called a point dynamical system if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a subset of $`𝒟_V(G)`$ for some open neighbourhood $`V`$ of $`0`$.
* A point dynamical system $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ is called a Delone dynamical system, if every element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a relatively dense subset of $`G`$.

It follows from Theorem 3 that a set dynamical system is indeed a topological dynamical system in the sense of Section 2.

A special way of obtaining set dynamical systems is the following: Choose $`P𝒞(G)`$. Then, the LRT-closure $`X(P)`$ of the orbit $`\{\alpha _t(P):tG\}`$ of $`P`$ in $`𝒞(G)`$ is a closed $`\alpha `$-invariant subset of $`𝒞(G)`$, hence compact. Thus, $`(X(P),\alpha )`$ is a set dynamical system. We say that $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ are locally indistinguishable if $`PX(P^{})`$ and $`P^{}X(P)`$, hence if $`X(P)=X(P^{})`$. The set of all $`P^{}`$ which are locally indistinguishable form $`P`$ is called the RLI class of $`P`$, written as RLI$`(P)`$. Here, as before, the letter R stands for “rubber”.

Given these notions, we can characterise minimality of a set dynamical system in the following way, which extends \[34, Prop. 3.1\] to our setting.

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`P𝒞(G)`$ be given. Then, the following assertions are equivalent.

* The set dynamical system $`(X(P),\alpha )`$ is minimal.
* $`X(P)=\mathrm{RLI}(P)`$.
* The set $`\{tG:(t+P,P)U_{K,V}\}`$ is relatively dense in $`G`$ for all compact $`KG`$ and all open neighbourhoods $`V`$ of $`0`$.
* The set $`P`$ is repetitive, i.e., for every $`K`$ compact and every open neighbourhood $`V`$ of $`0`$, there is a compact set $`C=C(K,V)G`$ such that, for $`t_1,t_2G`$, there is an $`sC`$ with $`(t_1+P,s+t_2+P)U_{K,V}`$.

###### Proof.

The equivalence of (a) and (b) is clear by the definition of minimality and the local indistinguishability class. This is also known as Gottschalk’s Theorem, compare \[29, Thm. 4.1.2\]. The remaining assertions can be shown by mimicking and slightly extending the proof of \[34, Prop. 3.1\]. Since we do not use these results later on, we skip further details. ∎

Having discussed point dynamical systems, we can now relate them to special dynamical systems on measures. The connection relies on the map

$$\delta :𝒰𝒟(G)^{\mathrm{}}(G),\delta (\mathrm{\Lambda }):=\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\delta _x,$$

Note that $`\delta `$ is indeed a map into $`^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$, as every $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒰𝒟(G)`$ is uniformly discrete.

###### Lemma 2.

The map $`\delta :𝒰𝒟(G)^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ is injective, continuous and compatible with the action of $`G`$. The inverse $`\delta ^1:\delta (𝒰𝒟(G))𝒰𝒟(G)`$ is continuous as well.

###### Proof.

Injectivity and compatibility with the action of $`G`$ are immediate. In particular, using $`\delta _{t+x}=\delta _t\delta _x`$, one can check that

$$\delta (\alpha _t(\mathrm{\Lambda }))=\delta (t+\mathrm{\Lambda })=\delta _t\delta (\mathrm{\Lambda })=\alpha _t(\delta (\mathrm{\Lambda })).$$

To show continuity of $`\delta `$, we have to show $`\delta (\mathrm{\Lambda }_\iota )(\phi )\delta (\mathrm{\Lambda })(\phi )`$ for all $`\phi C_c(G)`$, whenever $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\iota \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Let $`V`$ be an open neighbourhood of $`0`$ in $`G`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒟_V(G)`$. Let $`\phi C_c(G)`$ be given, so $`\mathrm{supp}(\phi )`$ is compact. By a simple partition of unity argument, we can now write $`\phi =_{j=1}^n\phi _j`$, where each $`\phi _j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, has its support in a set of the form $`W+t_j`$, with $`W+WV`$. Now, for such $`\phi _j`$, the convergence $`\delta (\mathrm{\Lambda }_\iota )(\phi _j)\delta (\mathrm{\Lambda })(\phi _j)`$ follows easily. This yields the desired convergence for $`\phi `$. The continuity of $`\delta ^1`$ can be shown similarly. ∎

As can be seen from simple examples, $`\delta (𝒰𝒟(G))`$ is, in general, not closed in $`^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ and the LRT is not the same as the vague topology on $`\delta (𝒰𝒟(G))`$. For example, if $`(x_n)`$ is a sequence in $`G`$ with $`x_n0`$ and $`x_n0`$, then, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n:=\{0,x_n\}𝒰𝒟(G)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\{0\}`$ in the LRT. However, $`\delta (\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)2\delta _0`$ in the vague topology, and $`2\delta _0`$ does not belong to $`\delta (𝒰𝒟(G))`$. Nevertheless, the following still holds.

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`V`$ be an open neighbourhood of $`0`$ in $`G`$. Then, $`𝒟_V(G)`$ is compact in the LRT and $`\delta (𝒟_V(G))`$ is compact in the vague topology.

###### Proof.

By compactness of $`𝒞(G)`$ and continuity of $`\delta `$, it suffices to show that $`𝒟_V(G)`$ is closed. Since $`V`$ is open, this is easy. ∎

Our main result on the relationship of point dynamical systems and the framework of measure dynamical systems reads as follows.

###### Theorem 4.

If $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ is a point dynamical system, the restriction $`\delta |_\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{\Omega }\delta (\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of $`\delta `$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ establishes a topological conjugacy between the dynamical systems $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ and $`(\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }),\alpha )`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 2, $`\delta |_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an injective and continuous map which is compatible with the group action. As $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is compact, so is $`\delta (\mathrm{\Omega })`$. By a standard argument \[28, Prop. 1.6.8\], $`\delta |_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is then a homeomorphism between $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ and $`(\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }),\alpha )`$. Together, this establishes the topological conjugacy. ∎

We finish this section by briefly discussing the relationship of the LRT and the topology usually considered for Delone dynamical systems with the FLC property. A thorough discussion of the latter topology has been given in . This discussion actually gives a topology on the closed subsets of $`G`$ (though this is not explicitly noted in ). This topology will be called the local matching topology (LMT).

The definition of the LMT in  shows immediately that the LRT is coarser than the LMT. Thus, the identity

$$id:(𝒞(G),\mathrm{LMT})(𝒞(G),\mathrm{LRT}),PP$$

is continuous. This yields the following result, which essentially shows that our way of topologising the uniformly discrete sets coincides with the usual topology when restricted to sets of finite local complexity.

###### Proposition 5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a subset of $`𝒞(G)`$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is compact in the LMT, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is compact in the LRT as well, and the two topologies agree on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proof.

The restriction $`id_\mathrm{\Omega }:(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{LMT})(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{LRT})`$ of the identity to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is continuous. Thus, as $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{LMT})`$ is compact, so is its image $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{LRT})`$. Now, continuity of the inverse is standard, cf. \[28, Prop. 1.6.8\]. Thus, the two topologies agree. ∎

## 5. The diffraction spectrum

The basic concepts in the mathematical treatment of diffraction experiments are the autocorrelation measure and the diffraction measure. In the context of Delone dynamical systems, these concepts have been developed and investigated in a series of articles by theoretical physicists and mathematicians . This will now be generalized and extended to our measure dynamical systems. More precisely, we show the existence of the autocorrelation measure by a limiting procedure, provided certain ergodicity assumptions hold.

Let us mention that we will provide an alternative approach to these quantities later on. It will be more general in that it does not need an ergodicity assumption.

To phrase our results, we need two more pieces of notation. Firstly, recall from  that a sequence $`(B_n)`$ of compact subsets of $`G`$ is called a van Hove sequence if

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{|^KB_n|}{|B_n|}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

for all compact $`KG`$. Here, for compact $`B,K`$, the “$`K`$-boundary” $`^KB`$ of $`B`$ is defined as

$$^KB:=\overline{((B+K)B)}(\overline{GB}K)B,$$

where the bar denotes the closure. The existence of van Hove sequences for all $`\sigma `$-compact LCA groups is shown in \[34, p. 249\], see also Section 3.3 and Theorem (3.L) of \[38, Appendix\]. Moreover, every van Hove sequence is a Følner sequence, i.e., $`|B_n\mathrm{}(B_n+K)|/|B_n|\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}0`$, for every compact set $`KG`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the operator for the symmetric difference of two sets, compare Section 3.2 of \[38, Appendix\]; for a partial converse, consult Theorem (3.K) of the same reference.

Secondly, for $`\phi C_c(G)`$ and $`\mu (G)`$, we define

$$f_\phi (\mu ):=\left(\phi \mu \right)(0)=_G\phi (s)d\mu (s).$$

This gives a way to “push” functions from $`C_c(G)`$ to $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. In fact, up to the sign, $`f_\phi `$ is just the canonical embedding of $`C_c(G)`$ into its bidual $`(G)^{}`$. Basic features of the map $`\phi f_\phi `$ are gathered in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.

Recall the definition $`\alpha _t\mu =\delta _t\mu `$ for measures $`\mu `$, and set $`\beta _t(\phi )=\delta _t\phi `$ for functions $`\phi `$. Then one has:

* The function $`f_\phi :(G)`$, $`\mu f_\phi (\mu )`$ is continuous, for all $`\phi C_c(G)`$.
* If $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ is a TMDS, the map $`f:C_c(G)C(\mathrm{\Omega }),\phi f_\phi `$, is linear, continuous and compatible with the action of $`G`$ in that $`f_\phi (\alpha _t\mu )=f_{\beta _t(\phi )}(\mu )`$.

###### Proof.

(a) For $`\phi C_c(G)`$, we have $`f_\phi (\mu )=\mu (\phi _\mathrm{\_})`$, where $`\phi _\mathrm{\_}(t)=\phi (t)`$. Thus, continuity of $`f_\phi `$ is immediate from the definition of the topology on $`(G)`$.

(b) Linearity of the map $`f`$ is obvious. To show continuity of $`f`$, recall that $`C_c(G)`$ is equipped with the inductive limit topology induced from the embeddings $`C_K(G)C_c(G)`$ with $`KG`$ compact. Thus, it suffices to show the continuity of the map

$$f_K:C_K(G)C_c(G),\phi f_\phi $$

for every compact $`K`$ in $`G`$. So, let $`(\phi _\iota )`$ be a net in $`C_K(G)`$ converging to $`\phi C_K(G)`$. Then, $`\phi _\iota \phi _{\mathrm{}}0`$, and $`\mathrm{supp}(\phi ),\mathrm{supp}(\phi _\iota )K`$ for all $`\iota `$. As $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{C,V}(G)`$ with suitable $`C,V`$, this easily implies $`f_{\phi _\iota }f_\phi `$. Finally, a direct calculation shows $`f_\phi (\alpha _t\mu )=f_{\beta _t(\phi )}(\mu )`$. ∎

Remark. The lemma is particularly interesting as there does not seem to exist any canonical map from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`G`$ or from $`G`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in our setting (let alone a map which is compatible with the corresponding group actions). However, if one views a function $`\phi `$ as the Radon-Nikodym derivative of a measure that is absolutely continuous with respect to the Haar measure of $`G`$, the action $`\alpha _t`$ induces $`\beta _t`$ as defined.

Now, our result on existence of the autocorrelation function reads as follows.

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`\alpha `$ be the translation action of $`G`$ on $`^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ as introduced above.

* If $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ is a uniquely ergodic TMDS, there exists a translation bounded measure $`\gamma `$ on $`G`$ such that the sequence $`(\frac{1}{|B_n|}\stackrel{~}{\omega _{B_n}}\omega _{B_n})`$ converges, in the vague topology, to $`\gamma `$ for every van Hove sequence $`(B_n)`$ and every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Moreover, the equation $`\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \gamma \right)(t)=f_\phi ,T^tf_\psi `$ holds for arbitrary $`\phi ,\psi C_c(G)`$ and $`tG`$.
* Let $`G`$ have a topology with countable base. Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a TMDS with ergodic probability measure $`m`$. Then, there exists a translation bounded measure $`\gamma `$ on $`G`$ such that the sequence $`(\frac{1}{|B_n|}\stackrel{~}{\omega _{B_n}}\omega _{B_n})`$ converges, in the vague topology, to $`\gamma `$ for $`m`$-almost every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, whenever $`(B_n)`$ is a van Hove sequence along which the Birkhoff ergodic theorem holds. Moreover, the equation $`\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \gamma \right)(t)=f_\phi ,T^tf_\psi `$ holds for arbitrary $`\phi ,\psi C_c(G)`$ and $`tG`$.

Remarks. (a) Every LCA group with a countable base of the topology admits a van Hove sequence along which the Birkhoff ergodic theorem holds, as follows from recent results of Lindenstrauss , see also Tempelman’s monograph , in particular its Appendix, for background material. More precisely, every van Hove sequence is a Følner sequence, and thus contains a so-called tempered subsequence with the desired property, compare . Note also that $`G`$ second countable implies $`\sigma `$-compactness as well as metrisability of $`G`$.
(b) The theorem generalises the corresponding results of .

To prove Theorem 5, we need some preparation in form of the following results.

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`D`$ be a dense subset of $`C_c(G)`$. Let $`C>0`$ and a relatively compact open $`V`$ in $`G`$ be given. If $`(\mu _\iota )`$ is a net of measures in $`_{C,V}(G)`$ such that $`\mu _\iota (\phi )`$ converges for every $`\phi D`$, then there exists a translation bounded measure $`\mu (G)`$ such that $`(\mu _\iota )`$ converges vaguely to $`\mu `$.

###### Proof.

As $`D`$ is dense, every $`\mu `$ in $`(G)`$ is uniquely determined by its values on $`D`$. Thus, all converging subnets of $`(\mu _\iota )`$ have the same limit. As $`_{C,V}(G)`$ is compact by Theorem 2, there exist converging subnets. Putting this together, we arrive at the desired statement. ∎

###### Lemma 5.

\[34, Lemma 1.2\] Let $`\mu ,\nu `$ be translation bounded measures on $`G`$ and $`(B_n)`$ a van Hove sequence. Then, in the vague topology, $`lim_n\mathrm{}\frac{1}{|B_n|}(\mu _{B_n}\nu _{B_n}\mu \nu _{B_n})=0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 6.

\[34, Lemma 1.1 (2)\] Let $`(B_n)`$ be a van Hove sequence in $`G`$ and $`\mu `$ a translation bounded measure. Then, the sequence $`\left(|\mu |(B_n)/|B_n|\right)`$ is bounded. ∎

Proof of Theorem 5. (a) As $`\omega _{C,V}(G)`$, Lemma 6 and a short calculation give a constant $`C^{}>0`$ and and a relatively compact open $`V^{}G`$ such that the sequence $`\left((\stackrel{~}{\omega _{B_n}}\omega _{B_n})/|B_n|\right)`$ is contained in $`_{C^{},V^{}}`$. Moreover, the set $`\{\phi \psi :\phi ,\psi C_c(G)\}`$ is dense in $`C_c(G)`$ by standard arguments involving approximate units . Thus, by Lemma 4 and Lemma 5, it suffices to show $`lim_n\mathrm{}\frac{1}{|B_n|}\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \stackrel{~}{\omega _{B_n}}\omega _{B_n}\right)(t)=f_\phi ,T^tf_\psi `$ for arbitrary $`\phi ,\psi C_c(G)`$ and $`tG`$. By Lemma 5, it suffices to show

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|B_n|}\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \stackrel{~}{\omega }\omega _{B_n}\right)(t)=f_\phi ,T^tf_\psi .$$

This follows by unique ergodicity and a Dworkin type calculation . As the details are somewhat more involved than in the case of Delone sets, we include a sketch for the convenience of the reader. We define $`Z_n:=\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \stackrel{~}{\omega }\omega _{B_n}\right)(t)`$. Then,

$$Z_n=_G\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \right)(tu)\mathrm{d}(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\omega _{B_n})(u)=_G_G_G\overline{\phi }(vt+r)\psi (vs)1_{B_n}(s)dvd\stackrel{~}{\omega }(r)d\omega (s),$$

where $`1_{B_n}`$ denotes the characteristic function of $`B_n`$. Using Fubini’s Theorem and sorting the terms, we arrive at

$$Z_n=_G\left(_G\overline{\phi }(vt+r)d\stackrel{~}{\omega }(r)\right)\left(_G\psi (vs)1_{B_n}(s)d\omega (s)\right)dv.$$

We will now study the two terms in brackets. A short calculation shows $`_G\overline{\phi }(vt+r)d\stackrel{~}{\omega }(r)=\overline{f_\phi (\alpha _{tv}\omega )}.`$ As for the other term, we consider the difference function

$$D(v):=_G\psi (vs)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{B_n}(s)d\omega (s)_G\psi (vs)d\omega (s)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{B_n}(v).$$

Let $`K`$ be a compact set with $`K=K`$, $`0K`$ and $`\mathrm{supp}(\psi )K`$. Then, it is not hard to see that the difference $`D(v)`$ (and in fact each of its terms alone) vanishes for $`vB_n+K`$. Similarly, one can show that $`D(v)`$ is supported in $`^KB_n`$. Apparently, $`|D(v)|`$ is bounded above by $`C:=2\psi _{\mathrm{}}sup\{|\omega |(t+\mathrm{supp}(\psi )):tG\}<\mathrm{}`$. As $`(B_n)`$ is a van Hove sequence, we conclude that

$$0\frac{1}{|B_n|}_G\left|D(v)\overline{f_\phi (\alpha _{tv}\omega )}\right|dvCf_\phi _{\mathrm{}}\frac{|^KB_n|}{|B_n|}\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Noting that $`_G\psi (vs)d\omega (s)=f_\psi (\alpha _v\omega )`$, and putting these considerations together, we arrive at

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{Z_n}{|B_n|}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|B_n|}_G\overline{f_\phi (\alpha _{tv}\omega )}f_\psi (\alpha _v\omega )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{B_n}(v)dv.$$

This yields

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_n}{|B_n|}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\overline{f_\phi (\alpha _t\omega )}f_\psi (\omega )dm(\omega )={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\overline{f_\phi (\omega )}f_\psi (\alpha _t\omega )dm(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\overline{f_\phi (\omega )}(T^tf_\psi )(\omega )dm(\omega )=f_\phi ,T^tf_\psi ,`$
where we used the pointwise ergodic theorem for continuous functions on a uniquely ergodic system in the first step and $`\alpha `$-invariance of $`m`$ in the second step. (Note that this ergodic theorem only relies on compactness of the underlying space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and does not require separability of $`G`$. This can easily be seen by going through a proof of this theorem as presented, e.g., in \[39, Thm. 6.19\].)

(b) This can be seen similarly: After replacing the pointwise ergodic theorem for uniquely ergodic systems by the Birkhoff ergodic theorem, the considerations of (a) can be carried through to show that, for each function $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi `$, there exists a set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\phi ,\psi }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of full measure such that

$$\frac{1}{|B_n|}\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \stackrel{~}{\omega _{B_n}}\omega _{B_n}\right)(0)\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}f_\phi ,f_\psi $$

for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_{\phi ,\psi }`$. As $`G`$ is second countable, there exists a countable set $`D`$ in $`C_c(G)`$ such that $`D`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi :\phi ,\psi D\}`$ are dense in $`G`$. Thus, there is a set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of full measure such that

$$\frac{1}{|B_n|}\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \stackrel{~}{\omega _{B_n}}\omega _{B_n}\right)(0)\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}f_\phi ,f_\psi $$

for all $`\phi ,\psi D`$ and all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. By the density of $`\{\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi :\phi ,\psi D\}`$ in $`C_c(G)`$ and Lemma 4, the vague convergence of $`\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega _{B_n}}\omega _{B_n}\right)/|B_n|`$ towards a translation bounded measure $`\gamma `$ with $`\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \gamma \right)(0)=f_\phi ,f_\psi `$ for all $`\phi ,\psi D`$ follows. This gives the desired vague convergence.

It remains to show the last part of the statement: As $`D`$ is dense in $`C_c(G)`$ and $`f`$ is a continuous map, the formula

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \gamma \right)(0)=f_\phi ,f_\psi $$

does not only hold for $`\phi ,\psi D`$, but for arbitrary $`\phi ,\psi C_c(G)`$. For $`tG`$, this implies

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \gamma \right)(t)=\left(\delta _t\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \gamma \right)(0)=\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }(\delta _t\psi )\gamma \right)(0)=f_\phi ,f_{\delta _t\psi }.$$

By Lemma 3, we have

$$f_{\delta _t\psi }(\omega )=f_{\beta _t(\psi )}(\omega )=f_\psi (\alpha _t\omega )=T^tf_\psi (\omega ).$$

Thus, we can conclude

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \gamma \right)(t)=f_\phi ,f_{\delta _t\psi }=f_\phi ,T^tf_\psi .$$

This finishes the proof. ∎

Remark. By Lemma 5, the convergence of $`|B_n|^1\stackrel{~}{\omega _{B_n}}\omega _{B_n}`$ towards $`\gamma `$ discussed in the previous theorem implies convergence of $`|B_n|^1\stackrel{~}{\omega }\omega _{B_n}`$ towards $`\gamma `$ as well.

The measure

$$\gamma =\gamma _\omega =\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|B_n|}\stackrel{~}{\omega _{B_n}}\omega _{B_n}$$

appearing in the theorem is called the autocorrelation measure (or autocorrelation for short) of $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is obviously positive definite, and hence transformable. By Bochner’s Theorem, compare \[7, Ch. I.4\], its Fourier transform is then a positive measure on $`\widehat{G}`$, called the diffraction measure of $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. We will have to say more about autocorrelation and diffraction measures in the next section.

## 6. Relating diffraction and dynamical spectrum

In this section, we show that the diffraction spectrum is equivalent to the spectrum of a certain subrepresentation of $`T`$. This type of result is implicit in essentially every work using the so-called Dworkin argument . However, it seems worthwhile to make this connection explicit. In fact, this is one of the two cornerstones of our approach to the characterisation of pure pointedness, the other being Theorem 1. A key ingredient in our considerations will be Proposition 7 below.

We start by giving a closed formula for the autocorrelation measure. This closed formula does not rely on any ergodicity assumptions. Thus, via this formula, an autocorrelation measure can be attached to any TMDS with an invariant probability measure $`m`$. We should like to mention that this is inspired by recent work of Gouéré , who gives a closed formula in the context of Palm measures and point processes.

###### Proposition 6.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a TMDS with invariant probability measure $`m`$. Let a function $`\sigma C_c(G)`$ be given with $`_G\sigma (t)dt=1`$. For $`\phi C_c(G)`$, define

$$\gamma _{\sigma ,m}(\phi ):=_\mathrm{\Omega }_Gf_\phi (\alpha _t\overline{\omega })\sigma (t)d\omega (t)dm(\omega ).$$

This leads to the following assertions.

* The map $`\gamma _{\sigma ,m}:C_c(G)`$ is continuous, i.e., $`\gamma _{\sigma ,m}(G)`$.
* For $`\phi ,\psi C_c(G)`$, the equation $`\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \gamma _{\sigma ,m}\right)(t)=f_\phi ,T^tf_\psi `$ holds.
* The measure $`\gamma _{\sigma ,m}`$ does not depend on $`\sigma C_c(G)`$, provided $`_G\sigma dt=1`$.
* The measure $`\gamma _{\sigma ,m}`$ is positive definite.

###### Proof.

Note that $`f_\phi (\alpha _s\overline{\omega })=\overline{f_{\overline{\phi }}(\alpha _s(\omega ))}`$.
(a) Obviously, $`|f_\phi (\overline{\omega })|\phi _{\mathrm{}}sup\{|\omega |(t+\mathrm{supp}(\phi )):tG\}`$. As $`\sigma `$ has compact support, $`\gamma _{\sigma ,m}(\phi )`$ is then finite. Moreover, $`\phi _\iota \phi `$ implies $`\overline{\phi _\iota }\overline{\phi }`$ which, in turn, yields $`\overline{f_{\overline{\phi _\iota }}}\overline{f_{\overline{\phi }}}`$ by continuity of $`f`$. As $`\sigma `$ has compact support and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{C,V}(G)`$, this gives

$$_G\overline{f_{\overline{\phi _\iota }}}(\alpha _t(\omega ))\sigma (t)d\omega (t)_G\overline{f_{\overline{\phi }}(\alpha _t(\omega ))}\sigma (t)d\omega (t),$$

uniformly on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The desired continuity statement follows.
(b) We first show the statement for $`t=0`$. To this aim, we define

$$Z:=\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \gamma _{\sigma ,m}\right)(0)=_G\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \right)(s)d\gamma _{\sigma ,m}(s)=_\mathrm{\Omega }_G\overline{f_{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi }}}(\alpha _t\omega )\sigma (t)d\omega (t)dm(\omega ).$$

Then, we can calculate

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle _G}\overline{{\displaystyle _G}\overline{(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi )(st)}d\omega (s)}\sigma (t)d\omega (t)dm(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle _G}{\displaystyle _G}{\displaystyle _G}\stackrel{~}{\phi }(u)\psi (stu)dud\overline{\omega }(s)\sigma (t)d\omega (t)dm(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle _G}{\displaystyle _G}{\displaystyle _G}\stackrel{~}{\phi }(u+s)\psi (tu)dud\overline{\omega }(s)\sigma (t)d\omega (t)dm(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _G}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle _G}\overline{f_\phi (\alpha _u\omega )}\psi (tu)\sigma (t)d\omega (t)dm(\omega )du,`$
where we used the translation invariance of the Haar measure in the second last step, and Fubini’s Theorem and $`_G\stackrel{~}{\phi }(u+s)d\overline{\omega }(s)=\overline{f_\phi (\alpha _u\omega )}`$ in the last step. By the invariance of $`m`$, and Fubini’s Theorem together with $`\sigma (t)dt=1`$, this gives:

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _G}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle _G}\overline{f_\phi (\omega )}\psi (tu)\sigma (t)\mathrm{d}(\alpha _u\omega )(t)dm(\omega )du`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _G}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle _G}\overline{f_\phi (\omega )}\psi (t)\sigma (tu)d\omega (t)dm(\omega )du`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\overline{f_\phi (\omega )}f_\psi (\omega )dm(\omega )=f_\phi ,f_\psi .`$
The case of arbitrary $`tG`$ can now be treated by mimicking the last part of the proof of part (b) of Theorem 5.
(c) This is immediate from (b) and (a) as $`\{\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi :\phi ,\psi C_c(G)\}`$ is dense in $`C_c(G)`$.
(d) This is a direct consequence of (b). ∎

Part (b) of the Lemma shows, in particular, that the measure $`\gamma _{\sigma ,m}`$ equals the autocorrelation measure introduced in the last section if $`m`$ is ergodic. Part (d) shows that $`\gamma _{\sigma ,m}`$ is positive definite. Thus, by Bochner’s Theorem, see , its Fourier transform is a positive measure on the dual group $`\widehat{G}`$.

###### Definition 6.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a TMDS with invariant probability measure $`m`$. The measure $`\gamma _m:=\gamma _{\sigma ,m}`$, where $`\sigma C_c(G)`$ with $`_G\sigma dt=1`$, is called the autocorrelation measure of the dynamical system $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ with invariant measure $`m`$. Its Fourier transform $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ is called the diffraction measure of the dynamical system $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ with invariant measure $`m`$.

We summarise the preceding considerations in the following lemma, where we use $`\psi _\mathrm{\_}`$ for the function defined by $`\psi _\mathrm{\_}(t)=\psi (t)`$.

###### Lemma 7.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a TMDS with invariant probability measure $`m`$. Then, there exists a unique measure on $`G`$ assigning the value $`f_\phi ,f_\psi `$ to the function $`\overline{\phi }\psi _\mathrm{\_}`$, for $`\phi ,\psi C_c(G)`$. This measure is the autocorrelation measure $`\gamma _m`$ of $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$.

###### Proof.

Uniqueness is clear as the set $`\{\overline{\phi }\psi _\mathrm{\_}:\phi ,\psi C_c(G)\}`$ is dense in $`C_c(G)`$. Existence follows from Proposition 6, as

$$\gamma _m(\overline{\phi }\psi _\mathrm{\_})=\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\psi \gamma _m\right)(0)=f_\phi ,f_\psi .$$

This proves the lemma. ∎

Remark. This definition of the autocorrelation and the diffraction of a dynamical system is to be compared with the corresponding objects of a single measure (namely an element in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) studied in the last section. In the latter case, one faces the problem of its dependence of the measure $`m`$, or of the averaging sequence $`(B_n)`$. It is reasonable, both mathematically and physically, to replace this by the objects defined in Definition 6, at least for most aspects of the spectral theory connected with it.

Having cast the diffraction measure in an abstract context, we will now briefly discuss the basic quantities in the spectral theory of dynamical systems: Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a TMDS. By Stone’s Theorem (compare \[25, Sec. 36D\]), there exists a projection valued measure

$$E_T:\text{Borel sets on }\widehat{G}\text{Projections on }L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)$$

with

$$f,T^tf=_{\widehat{G}}(\widehat{s},t)\mathrm{d}f,E_T(\widehat{s})f=_{\widehat{G}}(\widehat{s},t)d\rho _f(\widehat{s}),$$

where $`\rho _f`$ is the measure on $`\widehat{G}`$ defined by $`\rho _f(B):=f,E_T(B)f`$. It is then not hard to see that $`T`$ has pure point spectrum (in the sense defined in Section 2) if and only if all the measures $`\rho _f`$, with $`fL^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$, are pure point measures.

To $`\phi C_c(G)`$, we have associated the function $`f_\phi L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ in the last section. It turns out that the measure $`\rho _{f_\phi }`$ can be calculated in terms of the diffraction measure. While this connection is not hard to prove, it is underlying the main result of this section. Therefore, we isolate it in the following proposition (compare ).

###### Proposition 7.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a TMDS with invariant probability measure $`m`$. Then, the equation $`\rho _{f_\phi }=|\widehat{\phi }|^2\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ holds for every $`\phi C_c(G)`$.

###### Proof.

By the very definition of $`\rho _{f_\phi }`$ above, the (inverse) Fourier transform (on $`\widehat{G}`$) of $`\rho _{f_\phi }`$ is $`tf_\phi ,T^tf_\phi `$. By Lemma 6, we have $`f_\phi ,T^tf_\phi =\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }\phi \gamma _m\right)(t)`$. Thus, taking the Fourier transform (on $`G`$), we infer $`\rho _{f_\phi }=|\widehat{\phi }|^2\widehat{\gamma _m}`$. ∎

Note that every closed $`T`$-invariant subspace $`𝒱`$ of $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ gives rise to a representation $`T|_𝒱`$ of $`G`$ on $`𝒱`$ by restricting the representation $`T`$ to $`𝒱`$. The spectral family of $`T|_𝒱`$ will be denoted by $`E_{T|_𝒱}`$. With the canonical inclusion $`i_𝒱:𝒱L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ and projection $`P_𝒱:L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)𝒱`$, we obviously have

$$T|_𝒱=P_𝒱Ti_𝒱\text{and}E_{T|_𝒱}=P_𝒱E_Ti_𝒱.$$

In our setting, a translation invariant subspace appears naturally. This is discussed next.

###### Lemma 8.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a TMDS with invariant probability measure $`m`$. The set of functions $`𝒰_0:=\{f_\phi :\phi C_c(G)\}`$ is a translation invariant subspace of $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$, and so is its closure.

###### Proof.

The first part of the statement follows from Lemma 3 (b). The second part of the statement is then immediate. ∎

###### Definition 7.

Let $`𝒰`$ be the closure of the space $`𝒰_0`$ from Lemma 8 in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$.

Before we can give a precise version of the relationship between $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ and $`T`$ we need one more definition.

###### Definition 8.

Let $`\rho `$ be a measure on $`\widehat{G}`$ and $`S`$ be an arbitrary unitary representation of $`G`$ on $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$. Then, $`\rho `$ is called a spectral measure for $`S`$ if the following holds for all Borel sets $`B`$: $`E_S(B)=0`$ if and only if $`\rho (B)=0`$.

Now, the relationship between $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ and $`T=T_m`$ can be phrased as follows.

###### Theorem 6.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a TMDS with invariant probability measure $`m`$. Then, the measure $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ is a spectral measure for the restriction $`T|_𝒰`$ of $`T`$ to $`𝒰`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`B`$ be a Borel set in $`\widehat{G}`$. Then, obviously, $`E_{T|_𝒰}(B)=0`$ if and only if we have $`0=f_\phi ,E_{T|_𝒰}(B)f_\phi `$ for every $`\phi C_c(G)`$. As $`f_\phi ,E_T(B)f_\phi =f_\phi ,E_{T|_𝒰}(B)f_\phi `$ for every $`\phi C_c(G)`$, by the very definition of $`𝒰`$ and $`E_{T|_𝒰}`$, we infer that $`E_{T|_𝒰}(B)=0`$ if and only if

$$f_\phi ,E_T(B)f_\phi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\text{for every }\phi C_c(G).$$

By Proposition 7, we have $`\rho _{f_\phi }=|\widehat{\phi }|^2\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ and, in particular,

$$f_\phi ,E_T(B)f_\phi =\rho _{f_\phi }(B)=_B|\widehat{\phi }|^2d\widehat{\gamma _m}.$$

These considerations show that $`E_{T|_𝒰}(B)=0`$ if and only if $`0=_B|\widehat{\phi }|^2d\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ for every function $`\phi C_c(G)`$. Thus, it remains to be shown that $`\widehat{\gamma _m}(B)=0`$ if and only if $`0=_B|\widehat{\phi }|^2d\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ for every $`\phi C_c(G)`$. The only if part is clear. As for the converse, recall that the image of $`L^1(G,\mathrm{d}t)`$ under the Fourier transform separates points in $`\widehat{G}`$, see . As $`C_c(G)`$ is dense in in $`L^1(G,\mathrm{d}t)`$, the same holds for the image of $`C_c(G)`$ under the Fourier transform. Therefore, for every $`\widehat{s}\widehat{G}`$, there exists a $`\phi C_c(G)`$ with $`\widehat{\phi }(\widehat{s})0`$. Thus, $`\widehat{\gamma _m}(BK)=0`$ for every compact $`K`$ is a direct consequence of $`0=_B|\widehat{\phi }|^2d\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ for every $`\phi C_c(G)`$. As $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ is regular, $`\widehat{\gamma _m}(B)=0`$ follows. ∎

We finish this section with a brief discussion of some consequences of the above results for the definition of $`\gamma _m`$. We thank the referee for useful comments on this point.

The following is a consequence of Proposition 7 (compare \[5, Prop. 3\] and discussion preceding it for similar considerations).

###### Corollary 1.

Let $`(\phi _\iota )`$ be an approximate unit in $`C_c(G)`$ with respect to convolution, i.e., $`\phi _\iota \psi \psi `$ in $`C_c(G)`$ for every $`\psi C_c(G)`$. Then, the measures $`\rho _{f_{\phi _\iota }}`$ converge vaguely to $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$.

###### Proof.

As $`(\phi _\iota )`$ is an approximate unit in $`C_c(G)`$, the continuous functions $`\phi _\iota \stackrel{~}{\phi _\iota }`$, viewed as absolutely continuous measures with respect to the Haar measure on $`G`$, converge vaguely towards $`\delta _0`$, the unit point measure at $`0G`$. Thus, Levy’s continuity theorem \[7, Thm 3.13\] gives us compact convergence of $`|\widehat{\phi _\iota }|^2`$ towards $`\widehat{\delta _0}1`$. This easily implies vague convergence of the measures $`|\widehat{\phi _\iota }|^2\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ towards $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$. As $`\rho _{f_\phi }=|\widehat{\phi }|^2\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ by Proposition 7, we infer the statement of the corollary. ∎

Note that Corollary 1 gives another way to define the diffraction measure $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$. Namely, we can define $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ to be any accumulation point of the net $`(\rho _{f_{\phi _\iota }})`$ whenever $`(\phi _\iota )`$ is an approximate unit in $`C_c(G)`$. The result is unique, once $`m`$ is chosen.

## 7. The main result

In this section, we state and prove our main result. It shows equivalence of pure point diffraction and pure point dynamical spectrum for rather general measure theoretic dynamical systems.

###### Theorem 7.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a TMDS with invariant probability measure $`m`$. Let $`T_m`$ be the associated unitary representation of $`G`$ by translation operators and $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ the associated diffraction measure. The following assertions are now equivalent.

* The diffraction measure $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ is pure point.
* The representation $`T_m`$ has pure point spectrum.

Proof of Theorem 7. (a) $``$ (b). This is a consequence of Theorem 1. More precisely, we will show that the vector space

$$𝒱:=\{f_\phi :\phi C_c(G)\}$$

satisfies assertion (b) of this theorem:

As $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ has pure point spectrum by (a), Theorem 6 gives that $`T|_𝒰`$ has pure point spectrum, where $`𝒰`$ is the closure of $`𝒱`$. Thus, in particular, $`f_\phi `$ belongs to $`_{pp}(T)`$ for every $`\phi C_c(G)`$. As every element of the form $`f_\phi `$ is continuous by Lemma 3, we see that $`𝒱`$ is indeed a subspace of $`_{pp}(T)C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

It remains to be shown that $`𝒱`$ separates points. Let $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ be two different points of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then, $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are different measures on $`G`$. Therefore, there exists a $`\phi C_c(G)`$ with $`\omega _1(\phi )\omega _2(\phi )`$. This implies $`f_{\phi _\mathrm{\_}}(\omega _1)f_{\phi _\mathrm{\_}}(\omega _2)`$ with $`\phi _\mathrm{\_}(t):=\phi (t)`$.

(b) $``$ (a). This is immediate from Theorem 6. ∎

## 8. Spectral properties determined by subrepresentations

The ideas of the preceding sections can be refined to give some further information on how spectral properties of $`T`$ are determined by spectral properties of $`T_𝒰`$. This concerns the continuity of the eigenfunctions, and the set of eigenvalues. While the TMDS are the application we have in mind here, the underlying result can be phrased rather abstractly.

We need a special concept on “density of a subspace with respect to multiplication”. This is defined next.

###### Definition 9.

A subspace $`𝒱`$ of $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ is said to satisfy condition MD if the set of products $`f_1\mathrm{}f_n`$ with $`n`$, $`f_i𝒱L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ or $`\overline{f_i}𝒱L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$, $`1in`$, is total in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$.

###### Theorem 8.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a topological dynamical system over $`G`$ with $`\alpha `$-invariant measure $`m`$. Let $`𝒱`$ be a closed $`T`$-invariant subspace of $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ satisfying MD. If $`T|_𝒱`$ has pure point spectrum, then the following assertions hold:

* $`T`$ has pure point spectrum.
* The group of eigenvalues of $`T`$ is generated by the set of eigenvalues of $`T|_𝒱`$.
* If $`𝒱`$ has a basis consisting of continuous eigenfunctions of $`T|_𝒱`$, then $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ has a basis consisting of continuous eigenfunctions of $`T`$, provided the multiplicity of each eigenvalue of $`T`$ is at most countably infinite.

Remarks. (a) The countability assumption in (c) is trivially satisfied if the Hilbert space $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ is separable, (which holds, e.g., if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is metrisable). It is also satisfied if $`\alpha `$ is ergodic with respect to $`m`$. In this case, the multiplicity of each eigenvalue is one.
(b) While we have stated the theorem for topological dynamical systems, its proof does not use the topology on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It can therefore be carried over without changes to give the corresponding result for measurable actions of $`G`$ on a measure space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proof.

(a)/(b) Let $`𝒮_1`$ be an orthonormal basis of $`𝒱`$ consisting of eigenfunctions of $`T|_𝒱`$. Set

$$𝒮_2:=\{f^N:f𝒮_1\text{or}\overline{f}𝒮_1,N\},$$

where, for $`N`$ and a function $`f`$, the function $`f^N`$ is defined in (2). As mentioned there, $`f^N`$ is again an eigenfunction of $`T`$. However, $`f^N`$ need not belong to $`𝒱`$. Let $`𝒮_3`$ be the set of finite products of elements of $`𝒮_2`$. In particular, all elements of $`𝒮_3`$ are bounded functions, and the same is true of all finite linear combinations of elements of $`𝒮_3`$.

Claim. Every finite product $`f_1\mathrm{}f_n`$ with $`n`$, and $`f_i`$ or $`\overline{f_i}`$ in $`𝒱L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$, can be approximated arbitrarily well $`(`$in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m))`$ by finite linear combinations of elements of $`𝒮_3`$.

Proof of the Claim. This is shown by induction. The case $`n=1`$ is simple, as $`𝒮_1`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`𝒱`$. Assume that the claim holds for fixed $`n`$. As in Lemma 1, we use again a variant of Lee, Moody and Solomyak . Let $`\epsilon >0`$ be given. By the induction assumption, there exists a finite linear combination $`g`$ of elements of $`𝒮_3`$ with

$$f_1\mathrm{}f_ng_2\frac{\epsilon }{f_{n+1}}.$$

Here, $`g`$ is a bounded function (as all functions in $`𝒮_3`$ are bounded). Thus, there exists a finite linear combination $`h`$ of elements in $`𝒮_3`$ with

$$f_{n+1}h_2\frac{\epsilon }{g_{\mathrm{}}}.$$

The proof of the claim can now be finished as in Lemma 1. ∎

The claim shows that $`𝒮_3`$ is total in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$, as the products appearing in its statement are total in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$ by the density assumption MD. Now, obviously, the elements of $`𝒮_3`$ are eigenfunctions of $`T`$ and the corresponding eigenvalues are just the group generated by the eigenvalues of $`T|_𝒱`$. This proves (a) and (b).

To prove (c), we consider a basis $`𝒮_1`$ of $`𝒱`$ consisting of continuous eigenfunctions of $`T|_𝒱`$ and define

$$𝒮_4:=\{f_1\mathrm{}f_n:n,f_i𝒮_1\text{or}\overline{f_i}𝒮_1\}.$$

As above, one can show that $`𝒮_4`$ is total in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$. Apparently, the elements in $`𝒮_4`$ are continuous eigenfunctions of $`T`$. Moreover, by general principles, eigenfunctions belonging to different eigenvalues are orthogonal. We now apply the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalisation procedure in each eigenspace, compare \[28, Sec. 3.1.13\]. This is possible because the multiplicity of each eigenspace is at most countably infinite by (c). As a result, we obtain a basis of eigenfunctions which are continuous. (Note that Gram-Schmidt deals only with finite sums in each step and therefore does not destroy continuity. ) ∎

The preceding considerations can be applied to any TMDS. This will briefly be discussed next. To apply Theorem 8, we need the following reformulation of previous results.

###### Proposition 8.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a TMDS with invariant probability measure $`m`$, let $`𝒰`$ be the space introduced in Definition 7 and denote the characteristic function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by $`1_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then, the subspace $`𝒱:=𝒰+\{c\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_\mathrm{\Omega }:c\}`$ is closed, invariant and satisfies assumption MD.

###### Proof.

The subspace $`𝒮:=\{c\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_\mathrm{\Omega }:c\}`$ is one-dimensional. So, as $`𝒰`$ is closed, $`𝒱=𝒰+𝒮`$ is closed as well. As $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒮`$ are $`T`$-invariant, so is $`𝒱`$. It remains to be shown that MD is satisfied. This is a consequence of the Stone-Weierstraß Theorem as $`\{f_\phi :\phi C_c(G)\}`$ separates points (see the proof of Theorem 7). ∎

It is possible to base the proof of our main result, Theorem 7, on Theorem 8 and Proposition 8. Here, our focus is in a somewhat different direction.

###### Theorem 9.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ be a TMDS with invariant probability measure $`m`$, $`T_m`$ be the corresponding unitary representation of $`G`$ by translation operators, and $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ the associated diffraction measure. Let $`𝒰`$ be the space of functions defined in Definition 7. If $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ is a pure point measure, the following assertions hold.

* The group of eigenvalues of $`T_m`$ is generated by the set of points in $`\widehat{G}`$ of positive $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ measure, i.e., the points $`\widehat{s}`$ with $`\widehat{\gamma _m}(\{\widehat{s}\})>0`$.
* If $`𝒰`$ has a basis of continuous eigenfunctions of $`T_m`$, then so has $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },m)`$, provided the multiplicity of each eigenvalue is at most countably infinite.

###### Proof.

As $`\widehat{\gamma _m}`$ is a pure point measure, $`T|_𝒰`$ has pure point spectrum by Theorem 6. Set $`𝒱:=𝒰+\{c\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_\mathrm{\Omega }:c\}`$. As $`1_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is obviously a (continuous) eigenfunction of $`T`$ (to the eigenvalue $`1`$), $`T_𝒱`$ has pure point spectrum as well. Moreover, by Proposition 8, $`𝒱`$ is invariant, closed and satisfies assumption MD. Thus, the conditions of Theorem 8 are satisfied, and our assertions follow. ∎

### Acknowledgements

It is our pleasure to thank Robert V. Moody and Peter Stollmann for their cooperation. DL would also like to thank Jean-Baptiste Gouéré for very stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the German Research Council (DFG). We are grateful to the Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics in Vienna for support during a stay in winter 2002/2003, where this manuscript was completed.

## Appendix A The local rubber topology is a Fell topology

The aim of this appendix is to show that the topology introduced in Section 4 is a special case of a topology introduced by Fell in  on the closed subsets of an arbitrary locally compact space.

We start by recalling the definition of Fell’s topology: The locally compact space in question is $`G`$. For a compact set $`C`$ in $`G`$ and a finite family $``$ of open sets in $`G`$, we define $`𝒰(C,)`$ by

$$𝒰(C,):\{C𝒞(G):\mathrm{\Lambda }C=\mathrm{}\text{and}\mathrm{\Lambda }A\mathrm{}\text{for every }A\}.$$

The family of all $`𝒰(C,)`$ with $`C`$ compact in $`G`$ and $``$ a finite family of open sets in $`G`$ is a basis of the Fell topology. This is a typical example of a so-called “hit and miss” topology, where $`𝒰(C,)`$ consists of all closed sets which hit the sets of $``$ and miss the set $`C`$.

This topology agrees with the one introduced in Section 4, as follows from the next lemma.

###### Lemma 9.

(a) Let $`CG`$ compact and $``$ a finite family of open subsets of $`G`$ be given with $`𝒰(C,)\mathrm{}`$. Then, there exists a closed set $`H`$ in $`G`$, a compact $`KG`$ and an open neighbourhood $`V`$ of $`0G`$ with

$$U_{K,V}(H)𝒰(C,).$$

(b) Let a closed set $`H`$ in $`G`$, a compact subset $`KG`$ and an open neighbourhood $`V`$ of $`0G`$ be given. Then, there exists a compact $`CG`$ and a finite family of open sets $``$ in $`G`$ with $`𝒰(C,)\mathrm{}`$ and

$$𝒰(C,)U_{K,V}(H).$$

###### Proof.

(a) By $`𝒰(C,)\mathrm{}`$, we have $`AC\mathrm{}`$ for every $`A`$. Thus, in every $`A`$ there exists an $`x_AAC`$. As $`AC`$ is open and $``$ is a finite family, we can find a neighbourhood $`V`$ of $`0`$ in $`G`$ with $`V=V`$ such that

(6)
$$x_A+\overline{V}AC\text{for every }A.$$

Define $`H:=\{x_A:A\}\text{and}K:=C(H+\overline{V})`$. Then, $`K`$ is the disjoint union of $`C`$ and $`H+\overline{V}`$ by the very construction of $`H`$.

Now, let an arbitrary $`LU_{K,V}(H)`$ be given. We have to show that $`L𝒰(C,)`$:
By $`LU_{K,V}(H)`$, we have $`LKH+VH+\overline{V}KC`$ and, as $`CK`$, this implies

$$LC=LCK=\mathrm{}.$$

Moreover, for every $`A`$, we have $`x_AH=HKL+V`$ and therefore $`(x_AV)L\mathrm{}`$. By $`V=V`$ and (6), this implies

$$\mathrm{}(x_A+V)L(AC)LAL$$

for every $`A`$. These considerations show $`L𝒰(C,)`$. As $`LU_{K,V}(H)`$ was arbitrary, we infer $`U_{K,V}(H)𝒰(C,)`$.

(b) Let $`W`$ be an open neighbourhood of $`0`$ in $`G`$ with $`W=W`$ and $`W+WV`$. Define $`C:=K(H+W)`$, where $`H`$ and $`K`$ are given by assumption. As $`KH`$ is compact, there exist $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_nG`$ with

(7)
$$KH\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(t_i+W)\text{and}(t_j+W)(KH)\mathrm{}\text{for }1jn\text{.}$$

Set $`:=\{t_j+W:1jn\}`$.

Let now $`L𝒰(C,)`$ be arbitrary. We have to show that $`LU_{K,V}(H)`$:
By $`L𝒰(C,)`$ and the definition of $`C`$, we have $`\mathrm{}=LC=L(K(H+W))`$, so

$$LK=L(K(H+W))L(K(H+W))=L(K(H+W))H+WH+V.$$

By $`L(t_j+W)\mathrm{}`$, $`1jn`$, and $`WWV`$, we also have $`t_j+WL+V`$. Combined with (7), this implies

$$HK\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(t_j+W)L+V$$

and we infer $`LU_{K,V}(H)`$. As $`L𝒰(C,)`$ was arbitrary, the inclusion $`𝒰(C,)U_{K,V}(H)`$ is established. Moreover, $`𝒰(C,)`$ is not empty, as it obviously contains $`H`$. ∎