Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:17:06.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examples of amalgamated free products and coupling rigidity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2012

YOSHIKATA KIDA
YOSHIKATA KIDA*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Kyoto University, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present amalgamated free products satisfying coupling rigidity with respect to the automorphism group of the associated Bass–Serre tree. As an application, we obtain orbit equivalence rigidity for amalgamated free products of mapping class groups.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 499 - 528
Copyright
©2012 Cambridge University Press

Access options

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

References

[1]Adams, S.. Boundary amenability for word hyperbolic groups and an application to smooth dynamics of simple groups. Topology 33 (1994), 765–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Adams, S.. Indecomposability of equivalence relations generated by word hyperbolic groups. Topology 33 (1994), 785–798.Google Scholar
[3]Adams, S., Elliott, G. A. and Giordano, T.. Amenable actions of groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 344 (1994), 803–822.Google Scholar
[4]Adams, S. and Spatzier, R.. Kazhdan groups, cocycles and trees. Amer. J. Math. 112 (1990), 271–287.Google Scholar
[5]Anantharaman-Delaroche, C. and Renault, J.. Amenable Groupoids (Monographies de L’Enseignement Mathématique, 36). Enseignement Mathématique, Geneva, 2000.Google Scholar
[6]Bers, L.. An extremal problem for quasiconformal mappings and a theorem by Thurston. Acta Math. 141 (1978), 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Birman, J. S.. Braids, Links, and Mapping Class Groups (Annals of Mathematics Studies, 82). Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1974.Google Scholar
[8]Bowditch, B. H.. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Preprint, 1999.Google Scholar
[9]Bowditch, B. H.. Tight geodesics in the curve complex. Invent. Math. 171 (2008), 281–300.Google Scholar
[10]Connes, A., Feldman, J. and Weiss, B.. An amenable equivalence relation is generated by a single transformation. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 1 (1981), 431–450.Google Scholar
[11]Earle, C. J. and Gardiner, F. P.. Teichmüller disks and Veech’s ℱ-structures. Extremal Riemann Surfaces (San Francisco, CA, 1995) (Contemporary Mathematics, 201). American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 165–189.Google Scholar
[12]Feldman, J., Sutherland, C. E. and Zimmer, R. J.. Subrelations of ergodic equivalence relations. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 9 (1989), 239–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Furman, A.. Gromov’s measure equivalence and rigidity of higher rank lattices. Ann. of Math. (2) 150 (1999), 1059–1081.Google Scholar
[14]Furman, A.. A survey of measured group theory. Geometry, Rigidity, and Group Actions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2011, pp. 296–374.Google Scholar
[15]Gaboriau, D.. Orbit equivalence and measured group theory. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Hyderabad, India, 2010), Vol. III. Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 2010, pp. 1501–1527.Google Scholar
[16]Gardiner, F. P.. Teichmüller Theory and Quadratic Differentials (Pure and Applied Mathematics (N. Y.), a Wiley-Interscience Publication). John Wiley, New York, 1987.Google Scholar
[17]Gervais, S.. A finite presentation of the mapping class group of a punctured surface. Topology 40 (2001), 703–725.Google Scholar
[18]Gromov, M.. Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups. Geometric Group Theory, Vol. 2 (Sussex, 1991) (London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 182). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 1–295.Google Scholar
[19]Gutkin, E.. Billiards on almost integrable polyhedral surfaces. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 4 (1984), 569–584.Google Scholar
[20]Hamidi-Tehrani, H.. Groups generated by positive multi-twists and the fake lantern problem. Algebr. Geom. Topol. 2 (2002), 1155–1178.Google Scholar
[21]Ivanov, N. V.. Subgroups of Teichmüller Modular Groups (Translations of Mathematical Monographs, 115). American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1992.Google Scholar
[22]Ivanov, N. V.. Mapping class groups. Handbook of Geometric Topology. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002, pp. 523–633.Google Scholar
[23]Katok, S.. Fuchsian Groups (Chicago Lectures in Mathematics). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1992.Google Scholar
[24]Kechris, A. S.. Classical Descriptive Set Theory (Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 156). Springer, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
[25]Kida, Y.. Orbit equivalence rigidity for ergodic actions of the mapping class group. Geom. Dedicata 131 (2008), 99–109.Google Scholar
[26]Kida, Y.. The mapping class group from the viewpoint of measure equivalence theory. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 196 (2008).Google Scholar
[27]Kida, Y.. Introduction to measurable rigidity of mapping class groups. Handbook of Teichmüller Theory, Vol. II (IRMA Lectures in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 13). European Mathematical Society, Zürich, 2009, pp. 297–367.Google Scholar
[28]Kida, Y.. Measure equivalence rigidity of the mapping class group. Ann. of Math. (2) 171 (2010), 1851–1901.Google Scholar
[29]Kida, Y.. Rigidity of amalgamated free products in measure equivalence. J. Topol. 4 (2011), 687–735.Google Scholar
[30]Kra, I.. On the Nielsen–Thurston–Bers type of some self-maps of Riemann surfaces. Acta Math. 146 (1981), 231–270.Google Scholar
[31]Marden, A. and Masur, H.. A foliation of Teichmüller space by twist invariant disks. Math. Scand. 36 (1975), 211–228.Google Scholar
[32]Masur, H. and Tabachnikov, S.. Rational billiards and flat structures. Handbook of Dynamical Systems, Vol. 1A. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002, pp. 1015–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[33]Ornstein, D. S. and Weiss, B.. Ergodic theory of amenable group actions. I. The Rohlin lemma. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 2 (1980), 161–164.Google Scholar
[34]Paris, L.. Actions and irreducible representations of the mapping class group. Math. Ann. 322 (2002), 301–315.Google Scholar
[35]Popa, S.. Deformation and rigidity for group actions and von Neumann algebras. International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. I. European Mathematical Society, Zürich, 2007, pp. 445–477.Google Scholar
[36]Serre, J.-P.. Trees (Springer Monographs in Mathematics). Springer, Berlin, 2003.Google Scholar
[37]Shalom, Y.. Measurable group theory. European Congress of Mathematics. European Mathematical Society, Zürich, 2005, pp. 391–423.Google Scholar
[38]Takesaki, M.. Theory of operator algebras. III. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, 127 (Operator Algebras and Non-commutative Geometry, 8). Springer, Berlin, 2003.Google Scholar
[39]Vaes, S.. Rigidity for von Neumann algebras and their invariants. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Hyderabad, India, 2010), Vol. III. Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 2010, pp. 1624–1650.Google Scholar
[40]Veech, W. A.. Teichmüller curves in moduli space, Eisenstein series and an application to triangular billiards. Invent. Math. 97 (1989), 553–583.Google Scholar
[41]Zimmer, R. J.. Amenable ergodic group actions and an application to Poisson boundaries of random walks. J. Funct. Anal. 27 (1978), 350–372.Google Scholar