text:
# On the Dynamics of 𝔾-Solenoids Applications to Delone Sets

## 1  $`𝔾`$-solenoids

Let $`𝔾`$ be a connected Lie group and $`d_𝔾`$ a right invariant metric on $`𝔾`$. Consider a compact metric space $`M`$ and assume there exist a cover of $`M`$ by open sets $`U_i`$ called boxes and homeomorphisms called charts $`h_i:U_iV_i\times T_i`$ where the $`T_i`$’s are totally disconnected metric sets and the $`V_i`$’s are open subsets in $`𝔾`$. These open sets and homeomorphisms define an atlas of a $`𝔾`$-solenoid structure on $`M`$ if the transition maps $`h_{i,j}=h_jh_i^1`$ read on their domains of definitions:

$$h_{i,j}(v,t)=(v.g_{i,j},\tau _{i,j}\left(t\right)),$$

where $`\tau _{i,j}`$ is a continuous map, and $`g_{i,j}`$ is an element in $`𝔾`$. Two atlas are equivalent if their union is again an atlas. The fact that the transition maps are required to be very rigid implies the following properties:

* Laminated structure. We call slice of a solenoid, a subset of the form $`h_i^1\left(V_i\times \left\{t\right\}\right)`$. The transition maps map slices onto slices. The leaves of $`M`$ are the smallest connected subsets that contain all the slices they intersect. Each leaf is a differentiable manifold with dimension $`dim\left(𝔾\right)`$.
* Riemannian metric. The right invariant metric $`d_𝔾`$ on $`𝔾`$ induces a Riemannian metric $`d_L`$ on each leaf $`L`$ in $`M`$.
* Tranverse germ. We call vertical of a solenoid, a subset of the form $`h_i^1\left(\left\{x\right\}\times T_i\right)`$. The transition maps map verticals onto verticals. This allows us to define above each point in the $`𝔾`$-solenoid a local vertical (independently on the charts).

A $`𝔾`$-solenoid is the data of a metric compact space $`M`$ together with an equivalence class of atlas which satisfies the further hypothesis:

Each leaf $`L`$ in $`M`$ equipped with is metric $`d_L`$ is isometric to $`𝔾`$ equipped with its metric $`d_𝔾`$.

$`𝔾`$-solenoids satisfy the following extra properties:

* $`𝔾`$-action. The free right action on $`𝔾`$ induces a free right $`𝔾`$-action on $`M`$ whose orbits are the leaves of $`M`$. This action is free on the leaves $`L`$ isometric to $`𝔾`$.
* Locally constant return times. Since the $`𝔾`$-action preserves the verticals, it follows that if a leaf $`L`$ ( the $`𝔾`$-orbit of some point) intersects two verticals $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ at $`v`$ and $`v.g`$ where $`g𝔾`$ then, for any $`\widehat{v}`$ in $`V`$ close enough to $`v`$, $`\widehat{v}.g`$ is a point in $`V^{}`$ close to $`v^{}`$.

A $`𝔾`$-solenoid $`M`$ is minimal if each leaf of $`M`$ is dense in $`M`$. It is expansive if the $`𝔾`$-action is expansive i.e. there exists a positive constant $`ϵ\left(M\right)`$ such that if two points on the same local vertical have their $`𝔾`$-orbits which remain $`ϵ\left(M\right)`$-close one of the other then these two points coincide. The constant $`ϵ\left(M\right)`$ is called the expansivity diameter of the $`𝔾`$-solenoid.

Standard examples

1. The most naive example of $`𝔾`$-solenoid is given by a compact, connected Lie group. In this case all the verticals are reduced to a single point.
2. More interesting is the case of the dynamical system given by the iteration of an homeomorphism $`\varphi `$ on the Cantor set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with no periodic point. It is plain to see that the suspension $`\left(𝕋^1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }\right)/\varphi `$ inherits a structure of $``$-solenoid. On one hand, the standard odometer is an example of non expansive $``$-solenoid, on the other hand, the shift operation on a minimal non periodic subset of $`\{0,1\}^{}`$ is an expansive $``$-solenoid.
3. More generally any free $`^d`$-action on the Cantor set inherits a structure of $`^d`$-solenoid.

This paper is organized as follows:

$``$ Section 2 is devoted to provide a much broader set of examples of $`𝔾`$-solenoids. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the maximal compact subgroup in $`𝔾`$. The quotient space $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a simply connected manifold which inherits a Riemannian metric such that $`𝔾`$ acts transitively by isometries on $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. On this Riemannian manifold one can define Delone sets of finite $`𝔾`$-type. The $`𝔾`$-action on such a set $`X`$ can be extended to a $`𝔾`$-action on the continuous hull $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$. We prove that, when the Delone set is strongly aperiodic , this dynamical system has a natural structure of expansive $`𝔾`$-solenoid (Theorem 2.4). Conversely, we prove that any expansive and minimal $`𝔾`$-solenoid can be seen as a continuous hull of a strongly aperiodic Delone set of finite $`𝔾`$-type (Theorem 2.5).

$``$ In section 3, we develop a combinatorial approach of the structure of $`𝔾`$-solenoid (Theorem 3.1). This approach can be interpreted as an extension to our general situation of the construction of infinite sequences of towers and Brateli diagrams that turned to be so powerful in the study of $``$-action on the Cantor set.

$``$ This allows us to introduce in Section 4, a special class of branched manifolds modeled on $`𝔾`$, that we call $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds and to show that a $`𝔾`$-solenoid is a projective limit of $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds whose faces become arbitrarily large when going backward in the projective limit (Theorem 4.5). This construction gives us better and better approximants of $`M`$ with bigger and bigger regions where the $`𝔾`$-action is defined. The known analogue of this description in the case of the $``$-action by a homeomorphism $`\varphi `$ on the Cantor set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, is that the dynamical system $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },\varphi )`$ can be seen as a projective limit of oriented graphs with all vertices but one with valence 2, and such that the length of the loops around the singular vertex goes to infinity (see for instance , ,). In the context of smooth dynamics, projective limit of branched manifolds where introduced by R. Williams in the $`60`$’s (, ). Our approach makes a bridge between these last two constructions.

$``$ This projective limit construction allows us to give in Section 5, a topological description of the set of tranverse invariant measures of a $`𝔾`$-solenoid as the projective limit of cones in the $`dim𝔾`$-homology groups of the $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds (Theorem 5.1). We show that if the number of faces of the branched manifolds is uniformly bounded then this number is also a bound for the number of ergodic transverse invariant measures (up to a scaling factor). Furthermore, we prove that if the linear maps projecting the homology groups one into the other in the projective limit, are bounded then there exists a unique transverse invariant measure (up to a scaling factor) (Corollary 5.2).

$``$ Finally, Section 6 is devoted to a more specific analysis of the case when the Lie group is the group $`𝔼^d`$ of isometries in $`^d`$ or the group of translations $`^d`$.

###### Remark 1.1

Our definition of a $`𝔾`$-solenoid implies that the $`𝔾`$-action its wears is free. We could have worked out a same analysis for the case when some leaves of the $`𝔾`$-solenoid are quotients of $`𝔾`$ by a finite group. This would have allowed us deal also to with Delone sets which are invariant under finite order isometries (see Remark 2.2). We made this choice only for reasons of clearness, in order to work only with Riemannian manifolds and not orbifolds. Carrying on all along our discussion the this distinction ”manifold-orbifold” would have been too cumbersome. However the whole construction of projective limits works in the same way as well as the topological interpretation of the transverse invariant measure.

###### Remark 1.2

For $`^d`$-action, J. E. Anderson and I. Putnam  proved that the hull $`\mathrm{\Omega }_^d\left(Y\right)`$ of a Delone set with finite $`^d`$-type obtained by a substitution rule is a projective limit of branched manifolds whose faces become arbitrarily large when going backward in the projective limit. This result has been extended by J. Bellissard, R. Benedetti and J.-M. Gambaudo  to the general case of a Delone set with finite $`^d`$-type. F. Gähler  announced recently a very simple proof of the fact that the hull is a projective limit of branched manifolds in the same context. However in this proof, the sizes of the faces of the branched manifolds remain constant as we go backward in the projective limit and thus, the number of faces goes to infinity. More recently, L. Sadun has extended the construction of F. Gähler to the hull $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(Y\right)`$ of a Delone set with finite $`𝔾`$-type $`Y`$ in a homogeneous Riemannian manifold . Finally the fact that the hull $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(Y\right)`$ of a Delone set with finite $`𝔾`$-type $`Y`$ in a homogeneous Riemannian manifold has a laminated structure was observed by E. Ghys .

## 2 Delone sets: the dynamical point of view

Let $`𝔾`$ be a connected Lie group, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ its maximal compact subgroup. The quotient space $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (right classes) is a simply connected manifold which inherits a Riemannian metric such that $`𝔾`$ has a transitive right action by isometries on $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Consider two positive numbers $`r`$ and $`R`$, an $`(r,R)`$-Delone set is a discrete subset $`X`$ of $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which satisfies the following two properties:

* Uniformly Discrete. Each open ball with radius $`r`$ in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains at most one point in $`X`$;
* Relatively Dense. Each open ball with radius $`R`$ contains at least one point in $`X`$.

When the constants $`r`$ and $`R`$ are not explicitely used, we will say in short Delone set for an $`(r,R)`$-Delone set. We refer to  for a more detailed approach of the theory of Delone sets.

A patch of a Delone set is a finite subset of $`X`$. Two patches $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ of a Delone set $`X`$ are of the same $`𝔾`$-type if there exists an element $`g`$ in $`𝔾`$ such that $`P_1.g=P_2`$. A Delone set of finite $`𝔾`$-type is a Delone set such that for each positive number $`T`$, there exists only a finite number of $`𝔾`$-types of patches in $`X`$ with diameter smaller than $`T`$. The Lie group $`𝔾`$ has a natural right action on the set of Delone sets of finite $`𝔾`$-type. Furthermore, any metric on $`𝔾`$ induces a metric $`\delta _𝔾`$ on the orbit $`X.𝔾`$ of a given Delone set $`X`$ of finite $`𝔾`$-type defined as follows:

Fix a point $`0`$ in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and let $`B_ϵ\left(0\right)`$ stand for the open ball with radius $`ϵ`$ and center $`0`$ in $`𝒱`$. Consider two Delone sets $`X.g_1`$ and $`X.g_2`$ in $`X.𝔾`$. Let $`A`$ denote the set of $`ϵ]0,1[`$ such that there exist $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ $`ϵ`$-close to the identity $`e`$ in $`𝔾`$ such that $`X.g_1gB_{1/ϵ}\left(0\right)=X.g_2g^{}B_{1/ϵ}\left(0\right)`$, then

$$\delta _𝔾(X.g_1,X.g_2)=infA\mathrm{if}A\mathrm{}$$

$$\delta _𝔾(X.g_1,X.g_2)=1\mathrm{if}A=\mathrm{}.$$

Hence the diameter of $`X.𝔾`$ is bounded by $`1`$ and the $`𝔾`$-action on $`X.𝔾`$ is continuous. The continuous hull $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ of a Delone set of finite $`𝔾`$-type $`X`$ is the completion of the metric space $`\left(X.𝔾,\delta _𝔾\right)`$. It is straightforward to check (see for instance ) that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ is a compact metric space and that any element in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ is a Delone set whose $`𝔾`$-type of patches are those of $`X`$. Thus, the group $`𝔾`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ and the dynamical system $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right),𝔾)`$ possesses (by construction) a dense orbit (namely the orbit $`X.𝔾`$).

A Delone set of finite $`𝔾`$-type $`X`$ is repetitive if for any patch $`P`$ in $`X`$ there exists a radius $`\rho \left(P\right)>0`$ such that any ball with radius $`\rho \left(P\right)`$ intersects $`X`$ in a patch that contains a patch with same $`𝔾`$-type as $`P`$. This last property can be interpreted in the dynamical system framework (see for instance ):

###### Proposition 2.1

The dynamical system $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾(X),𝔾)`$ is minimal (i.e all its orbits are dense) iff the Delone set of finite type $`X`$ is repetitive.

A Delone set $`X`$ is strongly aperiodic if there exist no $`ge`$ $`𝔾`$ and no $`Y`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ such that $`Y.g=Y`$.

###### Remark 2.2

It is not clear a priori that strongly aperiodic Delone sets of finite $`𝔾`$-type exist for any homogenous space $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of any connected Lie group $`𝔾`$. When the Lie group is the group of translations in $`^2`$, the Penrose Delone set is a standard example. When the Lie group is the group of direct isometries $`𝔼^2`$ acting on $`^2`$, the Penrose Delone set is no longer strongly aperiodic since some elements in its Hull have a five-fold symmetry. However strongly aperiodic examples can be made by a slight modification of the Penrose Delone set. The Pinwheel Delone set  is an example of repetitive Delone set of finite $`𝔾`$-type ; no Delone set in its hull is fixed by an infinite order element in $`𝔾`$, however there are elements with a two-fold symmetry. S. Mozes  has proved that when $`𝔾`$ is either a non compact Lie group of rank at least 2, or $`Sp(n,1)`$ for $`n2`$ or $`𝐅_4^{20}`$ there exist also in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, Delone sets of finite $`𝔾`$-type which are not fixed by any element in $`𝔾`$ of infinite order. Finally, very recently ,C. Goodman-Strauss , , has shown a similar result when the Lie group is $`PSL(2,)`$ and the homogeneous space is the Poincaré disk.

Fix a point $`0`$ in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ fixes $`0`$. Consider the subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ of the Delone sets $`Y`$ such that $`0`$ belongs to $`Y`$. The group $`𝔾`$ does not act on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right)`$ but the compact subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does. The canonical transversal of a Delone set $`X`$ is the quotient space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Proposition 2.3

The canonical transversal of a strongly aperiodic Delone set of finite $`𝔾`$-type equipped with the quotient metric, is a totally disconnected metric space. Furthermore, if the Delone set is repetitive, it is a metric Cantor set.

Proof: Two elements $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ are close one to the other if in a big ball surrounding $`0`$, the two associated patches are images one of the other by the action of an element in $`𝔾`$ close to $`e`$. If $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ are in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right)`$, this implies that the two patches are images one of the other by the action of an element in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ close to $`e`$. Since $`X`$ has finite $`𝔾`$-type, we have constructed this way a basis of clopen neighborhoods of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which consequently is totally disconnected. The repetitivity yields directly the fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is perfect.

Two Delone sets $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are $`𝔾`$-equivalent (resp. $`𝔾`$-orbit equivalent) if the two dynamical systems $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right),𝔾)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(Y\right),𝔾)`$ are conjugate (resp. orbit equivalent) i.e. there exists a homeomorphism $`h:\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(Y\right)`$ that commutes with the $`𝔾`$-action (resp. that maps $`𝔾`$-orbits onto $`𝔾`$-orbits).

The following two theorems relate Delone sets and solenoids.

###### Theorem 2.4

Let $`𝔾`$ be a connected Lie group, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ its maximal compact subgroup and let $`X`$ be a strongly aperiodic Delone set of finite $`𝔾`$-type in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then, the continuous hull $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ inherits a structure of an expansive $`𝔾`$-solenoid and the $`𝔾`$-action on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ coincides with the canonical $`𝔾`$-action of the $`𝔾`$-solenoid. This action is minimal if and only the Delone set is repetitive.

Proof:  Consider a strongly aperiodic, repetitive, Delone set $`X`$ in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of finite $`𝔾`$-type and choose a section $`s:\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right).`$ Any point $`X^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ reads in a unique way $`X^{}=X\mathrm{"}.g`$ where $`X\mathrm{"}`$ is in $`s\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)`$ and $`g`$ is an element in $`𝔾`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ can be covered by a finite union of sets $`U_i=\varphi _i\left(V_i\times T_i\right)`$ where:

* $`T_i`$ is a clopen set in $`s\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)`$;
* $`V_i`$ is an open set in $`𝔾`$ which reads $`V_i=\mathrm{\Gamma }\times W_i,`$ where $`W_i`$ is an open set in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$;
* $`\varphi _i:V_i\times T_i\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ is the map defined by $`\varphi _i(v,t)=t.v^1`$.

Since there exists a finite partition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (and of any of its clopen sets) in clopen sets with arbitrary small maximal diameter, it is possible to choose this diameter small enough so that:

* the maps $`\varphi _i`$ are homeomorphisms onto their images;
* whenever $`ZU_iU_j`$, $`Z=\varphi _i(v,t)=\varphi _j(v^{},t^{})`$, the element $`v^1v^{}`$ in $`𝔾`$ is independent of the choice of $`Z`$ in $`U_iU_j`$, we denote it by $`g_{i,j}`$.

The transition maps read $`(v^{},t^{})=(v.g_{i,j},s^1\left(s\left(t\right)g_{i,j}\right)`$. It follows that the boxes $`U_i`$ and charts $`h_i=\varphi _i^1:U_iV_i\times T_i`$ define a $`𝔾`$-solenoid structure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$. By construction, the $`𝔾`$-action on this $`𝔾`$-solenoid coincides with the $`𝔾`$-action on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$. The $`𝔾`$-orbits of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ are mapped to leaves of the $`𝔾`$-solenoid structure.

The $`𝔾`$-action on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$ is expansive. Indeed consider two Delone sets $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ in $`s\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾^0\left(X\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)`$ and within a distance $`ϵ`$ small enough so that they coincide on a ball centered at $`0`$ and that their restriction to this ball $`B`$ is fixed by no element in $`𝔾\left\{e\right\}`$. If $`Y_1.g`$ remains $`ϵ`$-close to $`Y_2.g`$ when $`g`$ runs over a ball $`B_𝔾`$, then $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ coincide on $`B.B_𝔾`$. Thus, if the two $`𝔾`$-orbits remain $`ϵ`$-close, $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ coincide.

The equivalence between the minimality of these two dynamical systems is plain and is equivalent to the repetitivity of the Delone set $`X`$ thanks to Proposition 2.1.

We say that a finite collection of verticals $`V`$ chosen in boxes of an atlas of a $`𝔾`$-solenoid $`M`$ is well distributed if there exists a constant $`R>0`$ such that, for any point $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ on any leaf of $`M`$, there exists $`\stackrel{~}{y}=x.g`$ in $`V`$ where $`\pi \left(g\right)`$ is $`R`$-close to $`0`$ in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and that is has no local symmetries if furthermore, $`x.g.\gamma `$ is not in $`V`$ for any $`\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ different from $`e`$.

We say that $`V`$ is of type $`(ϵ,R)`$  if:

* $`V`$ is well distributed with constant $`R>0`$ and no local symmetries;
* the diameters of the verticals in $`V`$ is smaller that $`ϵ`$;
* for any pair of verticals $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ in $`V`$ and any $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`g`$ in $`𝔾`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{x}g`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, then for any $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{y}.g`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{y}.g`$ is not in $`V`$.

Since we have a lot of freedom in choosing the verticals, it is clear that finite collection of verticals of type $`(ϵ,R)`$ exists on each $`𝔾`$-solenoid for each $`R>0`$ and $`ϵ>0`$.

When the $`𝔾`$-solenoid $`M`$ is expansive, we say that a finite collection of verticals is adapted to $`M`$  if it is of type $`(ϵ,R)`$ for some $`R>0`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ and if furthermore, for any vertical $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`V`$ and any pair of points $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{y}_2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the distance between $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1.g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{y}_2.g`$ is smaller than the expansivity diameter $`ϵ\left(M\right)`$ as long as $`\pi \left(g\right)`$ remains $`R`$-close to $`0`$ in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Here again, for any expansive $`𝔾`$-solenoid, it is always possible to find an adapted collection of verticals.

###### Theorem 2.5

Let $`𝔾`$ be a connected Lie group, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ its maximal compact subgroup and $`M`$ a $`𝔾`$-solenoid. Then:

1. For any finite collection $`V`$ of relatively dense verticals chosen in boxes of an atlas of $`M`$, the intersection of $`V`$ with any leaf $`L`$ of $`M`$, defines (by identifying $`L`$ with $`𝔾`$ and projecting on $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) a Delone set $`Y`$ of finite $`𝔾`$-type on $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.
2. If $`M`$ is expansive and $`V`$ is adapted to $`M`$, $`Y`$ is strongly aperiodic.
3. If $`M`$ is expansive and minimal and $`V`$ is adapted to $`M`$, the dynamical systems $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(Y\right),𝔾)`$ and $`(M,𝔾)`$ are conjugate and thus all the Delone sets constructed in this way are $`𝔾`$-equivalent and repetitive.

Proof:

(1)- Let $`\pi :𝔾𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the standard projection. Let $`V`$ finite union of verticals in the $`𝔾`$-solenoid and consider the projection $`Y`$ on $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the intersection $`VL`$ where $`L`$ is any leaf of the solenoid:

$$Y=\pi \left(VL\right).$$

Whenever $`V`$ is well distributed, it is clear that $`Y`$ is a Delone set. Fix a number $`N>0`$ and assume that $`\stackrel{~}{y}_0`$ is in $`VL`$ and denote $`y_0=\pi \left(\stackrel{~}{y}_0\right)`$ its projection in $`Y`$, the other intersection points in the ball with center $`y_0`$ and radius $`N`$ being $`y_1=\pi \left(\stackrel{~}{y}_1\right),\mathrm{},y_n=\pi \left(\stackrel{~}{y}_n\right)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1=\stackrel{~}{y}_0.g_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{y}_n=\stackrel{~}{y}_0.g_n`$. Consider a point $`\stackrel{~}{z}_0`$ in $`V`$ close enough to $`\stackrel{~}{y}_0`$. Property $`\left(5\right)`$ above insures that, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, $`\stackrel{~}{z}_0.g_i`$ is in $`V`$. Thus, the set of points $`z_0=\pi \left(\stackrel{~}{z}_0\right),\mathrm{}z_n=\pi \left(\stackrel{~}{z}_n\right)`$ is an isometric copy of the set $`y_0,\mathrm{},y_n`$. By choosing a finite partition of $`V`$ in clopen sets with small enough diameters, we get that there exists only a finite number of $`𝔾`$-type for patches with size smaller than $`N`$. Since this is true for all $`N>0`$, $`Y`$ is a Delone set of finite $`𝔾`$-type.

(2)- Assume now that $`V`$ is adapted to $`M`$. We can construct the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from the orbit $`\stackrel{~}{y}_0.𝔾`$ in $`(M,𝔾)`$ to the orbit $`Y.𝔾`$ in $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(Y\right),𝔾)`$ that maps $`\stackrel{~}{y}_0`$ to $`Y`$ and makes the two $`𝔾`$-actions commute. The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is continuous for the topologies induced by $`M`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{y}_0.𝔾`$ and induced by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(Y\right)`$ on $`Y.𝔾`$. Let us show that $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\stackrel{~}{y}_0.𝔾Y.𝔾`$ is a bijection. For this purpose we use the expansivity on $`M`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not bijective, this means that there exists $`g`$ in $`𝔾`$ such that the Delone sets associated with $`\stackrel{~}{y}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{y}_0.g`$ coincide. Since $`V`$ is has no local symmetries, no element in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ different from $`e`$ let $`Y`$ globally invariant. Thus $`g`$ must be outside the maximal compact group. Notice that $`\stackrel{~}{y}_0.g^n`$ is also in $`V`$ for all $`n>0`$. Choose two points $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ in the sequence $`\stackrel{~}{y}_0.g^n`$ which are on a same vertical $`\delta `$ in $`V`$. We now use the fact that $`V`$ is adapted to $`M`$. This implies (point $`\left(iii\right)`$) that if $`\stackrel{~}{a}.g^{}`$ is in some vertical of $`V`$ for some $`g^{}`$ in $`𝔾`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}.g^{}`$ is in the same vertical and thus the $`𝔾`$-orbits of $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ remain $`ϵ\left(M\right)`$-close. The expansivity implies that $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ coincide. A contradiction. It follows that the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ extends to a homeomorphism from the closure of $`\stackrel{~}{y}_0.𝔾`$ in $`M`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(Y\right)`$. Consequently $`𝔾`$ has a free action $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(Y\right)`$ and $`Y`$ is strongly aperiodic.

(3)- If $`M`$ is minimal, the dynamical systems $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(Y\right),𝔾)`$ and $`(M,𝔾)`$ are conjugate by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and thus $`Y`$ is repetitive.

## 3 Box decompositions and tower systems

### 3.1 Box decomposition

A box decomposition of a $`𝔾`$-solenoid $`M`$ is a finite collection of boxes $`B_1,\mathrm{}B_n`$ such that any two boxes are disjoint and the closure of the union of all boxes covers the whole solenoid. A box decomposition is polyhedral if each box $`B_i`$ reads in a chart $`\pi ^1\left(U_i\right)\times T_i`$ where $`U_i`$ an open convex geodesic polyhedron in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since the intersection of two polyhedral boxes is a finite union of polyhedral boxes, it is plain to check that every $`𝔾`$-solenoid admits a polyhedral box decomposition. In general, box decompositions associated with a $`𝔾`$-solenoid $`M`$ are not unique; however if we fix a finite collection of verticals $`V`$ in the solenoid, there exists a canonical polyhedral box decomposition associated with the pair $`(M,V)`$. In particular, given strongly aperiodic , repetitive, Delone set $`X`$ of $`𝔾`$-finite type, there exists a canonical polyhedral box decomposition of its hull $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)`$. We call this particular box decomposition, the Voronoi box decomposition and define it as follows:

Let $`V`$ be a well distributed finite union of verticals in a $`𝔾`$-solenoid $`M`$, and $`Y`$ the projection on $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the intersection $`VL`$ where $`L`$ is any leaf of the solenoid. We know from Theorem 2.5 that $`Y`$ is a Delone set of $`𝔾`$-finite type in the leaf $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Consider the Voronoi tiling associated with $`Y`$ in $`L`$. i.e. the polyhedral tiling defined as follows:

For any $`y`$ in $`Y`$ the Voronoi cell $`V_y`$ of $`y`$ is the open set of points in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which are closer to $`y`$ than to any other points in $`Y`$. The family $`\left\{\overline{V_y};yY\right\}`$ defines a polyhedral tiling of $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ , in which the tiles are convex and meet face-to-face. Again from Theorem 2.5, there exists a finite partition of $`V`$ in clopen sets $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$, such that for any pair of points $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{y}_2`$ in a same $`C_i,`$ $`V_{\pi \left(\stackrel{~}{y}_2\right)}`$ is obtained from $`V_{\pi \left(\stackrel{~}{y}_1\right)}`$ by the action of an element in $`𝔾`$. The boxes of the Voronoi box decomposition read in charts $`\pi ^1\left(V_y\right)\times C_i`$ where $`y`$ is in $`Y`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

### 3.2 Tower system

The vertical boundary of a polyhedral box which read in a chart $`\pi ^1\left(P\right)\times T`$ where $`P`$ is a polyhedron in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`T`$ a totally disconnected set, reads in the same chart $`\pi ^1\left(P\right)\times T`$, where $`P`$ stands for the boundary of $`P`$. A polyhedral box decomposition $`_2`$ is zoomed out of a polyhedral box decomposition $`_1`$ if:

* for each point $`x`$ in a box $`B_1`$ in $`_1`$ and in a box $`B_2`$ in $`_2`$, the vertical of $`x`$ in $`B_2`$ is contained in the vertical of $`x`$ in $`B_1`$;
* the vertical boundaries of the boxes of $`_2`$ are contained in the vertical boundaries of the boxes of $`_1`$;
* for each box $`B_2`$ in $`_2`$, there exists a box $`B_1`$ in $`_1`$ such that $`B_1B_2\mathrm{}`$ and the vertical boundary of $`B_1`$ does not intersect the vertical boundary of $`B_2`$.
* if a vertical in the vertical boundary of a box in $`_1`$ contains a point in a vertical boundary of a box in $`_2`$, then it contains the whole vertical<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1In substitution theory, this condition is called forcing the border . In the study of Williams attractors it is called flattening condition . .

A tower system of a $`𝔾`$-solenoid is a sequence of polyhedral box decompositions $`\left(_n\right)_{n1}`$ such that for each $`n1`$, $`_{n+1}`$ is zoomed out of $`_n`$.

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`𝔾`$ be a connected Lie group, then any $`𝔾`$-solenoid admits a tower system.

Proof: Consider a triplet $`(M,V_1,x)`$ where $`M`$ is a $`𝔾`$-solenoid, $`V_1`$ is a well distributed finite collection of verticals and $`x`$ a point in $`V_1`$.

Step 1: Fix $`\delta _1=1`$. The first box decomposition $`_1`$ is the Voronoi box decomposition associated with $`(M,V_1)`$.

Step 2: Consider the box $`B_{1,1}`$ in $`_1`$ that contains $`x`$ and choose in $`B_{1,1}V_1`$ a clopen set $`V_2`$ which contains $`x`$ and has diameter smaller than $`\delta _2`$. Consider the Voronoi box decomposition $`_2^{}`$ associated with $`(M,V_2)`$. The box decomposition $`_2^{}`$ is not zoomed out of $`_1`$. Indeed, it satisfies point 1 of the definition, and if $`\delta _2`$ is chosen small enough it satisfies also points 3 and 4, but it certainly does not satisfy point 2. To construct a box decomposition which satisfies also point 2 we have to introduce a slight modification in the construction of the Voronoi box decomposition. More precisely, let $`Y_2=\pi \left(V_2L\right)`$ where $`L`$ is a leaf of $`M`$. Instead of considering the Voronoi tiling associated with $`Y_2`$ in $`L`$ and for each point $`y`$ in $`Y_2`$ its Voronoi cell $`V_y`$, we construct the best approximation possible<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2The mild ambiguity inherent with this construction will turn to be irrelevant because of the $`𝔾`$-finite type hypothesis. of the Voronoi tiling by changing each Voronoi cell $`V_y`$ by a reunion $`\stackrel{~}{V}_y`$ of cells of the Voronoi tiling associated with the Delone set $`Y_1=\pi \left(V_1L\right)`$. The new boxes of the decomposition are then constructed following the same rules.

Step 3: We iterate this construction by considering the box $`B_{1,2}`$ in $`_2`$ that contains $`x`$ and choose in $`B_{1,2}V_2`$ a clopen set $`V_3`$ which contains $`x`$ and has diameter smaller than $`\delta _3`$ etc.

## 4 $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds

In this section we keep the same notations: $`𝔾`$ is a connected Lie group, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ its maximal compact subgroup. The quotient space $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (right classes) is equipped with a Riemannian metric such that $`𝔾`$ has a transitive right action by isometries on $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\pi :𝔾𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the standard projection.

### 4.1 Local models

For $`r>0`$ and $`x`$ in $`𝔾/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we consider the open ball with radius $`r`$ centered at $`x`$, $`B_r\left(x\right)`$. The $`𝔾`$-ball of type 1 $`B(x,r)`$ is the open set $`\pi ^1\left(B_r\left(x\right)\right)`$. A polyhedral decomposition of $`B_r\left(x\right)`$ is a finite collection of polyhedral open cones centered at $`x,`$ $`\left(𝒞=\{C_1,\mathrm{},C_n\}\right)`$ which are pairwise disjoint and whose closures cover the ball $`B_r\left(x\right)`$. For $`p1`$, a $`𝔾`$-ball of type $`p`$ is defined in several steps:

* Consider in the ball $`B_r\left(x\right)`$ a finite collection of polyhedral decompositions $`𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_p`$ such that if two cones in the same $`𝒞_i`$ have a $`\left(d1\right)`$-face in common, then there exits $`ji`$ such that one of the two cones appears also in $`𝒞_j`$ and the other one does not.
* Define in the disjoint union $`_{i=1}^{i=p}B_r\left(x\right)`$ the equivalence relation: $`(y,i)(y^{},j)`$ iff $`𝒞_i`$ and $`𝒞_j`$ share a same cone whose closure contains $`y=y^{}`$.
* In $`_{i=1}^{i=p}\pi ^1\left(B_r\left(x\right)\right)`$, consider the equivalence relation $``$ defined by $`\stackrel{~}{y}\stackrel{~}{y}^{}`$ if and only if $`\pi \left(\stackrel{~}{y}\right)\pi \left(\stackrel{~}{y}^{}\right)`$.
* The $`𝔾`$-ball of type $`p`$, $`B(x,r,𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_p)`$, is the set $`_{i=1}^{i=p}\pi ^1\left(B_r\left(x\right)\right)/`$.

The $`𝔾`$-balls, as defined above, are said centered at $`x`$ and with radius $`r`$. Notice that the projection $`\pi `$ induces a projection from $`_{i=1}^{i=p}\pi ^1\left(B_r\left(x\right)\right)/`$ to $`_{i=1}^{i=p}B_r\left(x\right)/`$ that we still denote $`\pi `$. Let $`\pi _1:_{i=1}^{i=p}B_r\left(x\right)_{i=1}^{i=p}B_r\left(x\right)/`$ be the canonical projection. This quotient space can be seen as a collection of $`p`$ copies of the ball $`B_r\left(x\right)`$ glued one with the other along polyhedral cones centered at $`x`$ and is stratified as follows:

For $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ in $`_{i=1}^{i=p}B_r\left(x\right)/`$ and $`y`$ in $`\pi _1^1\left(\stackrel{~}{y}\right)`$, let $`\nu \left(y\right)`$ be the number of cones whose closure contains $`y`$ and $`\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{y}\right)`$ be the maximum of all the $`\nu \left(y\right)`$ when $`y`$ runs over $`\pi _1^1\left(\stackrel{~}{y}\right)`$. For $`l`$ in $`\{1,\mathrm{},g\}`$, where $`g=dim𝔾`$, $`𝒱_l`$ is the set of points $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ in $`_{i=1}^{i=p}B_r\left(x\right)/`$ such that $`\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{y}\right)=gl+1`$ and $`𝒱_0`$ is the set of points $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ in $`_{i=1}^{i=p}B_r\left(x\right)/`$ such that $`\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{y}\right)g+1`$. By denoting $`cl\left(A\right)`$ the closure of a set $`A`$, we have:

* $`_{i=1}^{i=p}B_r\left(x\right)/=cl\left(𝒱_g\right)=_{l=0}^{l=g}𝒱_l`$;
* for each $`l`$ in $`\{1,\mathrm{},g\}`$, $`cl\left(𝒱_l\right)=𝒱_l𝒱_{l1}`$ and $`𝒱_l𝒱_{l1}=\mathrm{}`$;
* $`cl\left(𝒱_0\right)=𝒱_0`$ contains the point $`x`$.

This stratification yields a stratification of the $`𝔾`$-ball. The singular locus of the $`𝔾`$-ball with type $`p`$ is the set $`\pi ^1\left(cl\left(𝒱_{g1}\right)\right)`$. For $`l`$ in $`\{0,\mathrm{},g\}`$, $`\pi ^1\left(𝒱_l\right)`$ is called the $`l`$-stratum of the $`𝔾`$-ball. Any $`𝔾`$ ball inherits a smooth structure, a right $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action, a local $`𝔾`$-action defined outside the singular locus and a Riemannian metric which is invariant under the local $`𝔾`$-action where it is defined.

Let $`proj`$ be the standard projection $`proj:B(x,r,𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_p)B(x,r)`$. A $`𝔾`$-sheet in the $`𝔾`$-ball $`B(x,r,𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_p)`$ is the image of $`B(x,r)`$ by a section of $`proj`$.

The following lemma, whose proof is straightforward, describes the situation around the center of a $`𝔾`$-ball of type $`p`$.

###### Lemma 4.1

In a $`𝔾`$-ball with type $`p`$, there exists a neighborhood of each point $`y`$ which is a $`𝔾`$-ball centered at $`y`$ of type $`q`$ where $`q`$ in $`\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$. Furthermore, if $`y`$ is not in the singular locus, then $`q=1`$.

A map $`\tau :B(x_2,r_2,𝒞_1^2,\mathrm{},𝒞_{p_2}^2)B(x_1,r_1,𝒞_1^1,\mathrm{},𝒞_{p_1}^1)`$ is a $`𝔾`$-local submersion if:

* The map $`\tau `$ preserves the smooth structure i.e. it maps:

+ the singular locus into the singular locus;
    + the $`𝔾`$-sheets into $`𝔾`$-sheets.
* There exists $`g`$ in $`𝔾`$ such that $`\tau `$ projects on the right multiplication by $`g`$ on $`B(x_2,r_2)`$ i.e. $`proj\tau (.)=proj(.).g`$.

A $`𝔾`$-local submersion is a $`𝔾`$-local isometry if it is one-to-one. It this case, the two $`𝔾`$-balls have the same radius and the same type and the inverse map is also a $`𝔾`$-local isometry.

### 4.2 Global models

Consider a compact metric space $`S`$ and assume there exist a cover of $`S`$ by open sets $`U_i`$ and chart homeomorphisms $`h_i:U_iV_i`$ where $`V_i`$ is an open set in some $`𝔾`$-ball. These open sets and homeomorphisms define an atlas of a $`𝔾`$-branched manifold structure on $`S`$ if the transition maps $`h_{i,j}=h_jh_i^1`$ satisfy the following property:

For each point $`y`$ in $`h_i\left(U_iU_j\right)`$, there exists a neighborhood $`B_y`$ of $`y`$ which is a $`𝔾`$-ball contained in $`h_i\left(U_iU_j\right)`$ and a neighborhood $`B_{h_{i,j}\left(y\right)}`$ of $`h_{i,j}\left(y\right)`$ which is a $`𝔾`$-ball contained in $`h_j\left(U_iU_j\right)`$ such that the restriction of $`h_{i,j}`$ to $`B_y`$ is a local $`𝔾`$-isometry from $`B_y`$ to $`B_{h_{i,j}\left(y\right)}`$.

Two atlas are equivalent if their union is again an atlas. A $`𝔾`$-branched manifold is the data of a metric compact space $`S`$ together with an equivalence class of atlas $`𝒜`$.

###### Lemma 4.2

A $`𝔾`$-branched manifold is canonically equipped with a smooth structure, a Riemannian metric, a stratification which is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-left invariant, and a local right $`𝔾`$-action defined outside of the singular locus which preserves the Riemannian metric.

Proof:

The smooth curve on a $`𝔾`$-branched manifold is a curve that, when read in a chart, remains in a $`𝔾`$ -sheet and is mapped by $`proj`$ onto a smooth curve in some $`𝔾`$.

In a chart, the Riemannian metric is the pullback of standard invariant metric on $`𝔾`$ by $`proj`$. It is clear that this choice is coherent with respect to changes of charts.

The stratification $`𝒮`$ is defined as follows: For $`l`$ in $`\{0,\mathrm{},g\}`$, the $`l`$-stratum of $`𝒮`$ is the set of points which, when read in a chart, have a neighborhood which is a $`𝔾`$-ball and belong to the $`l`$-stratum of this $`𝔾`$-ball. This property is independent on the chart and is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-left invariant. A $`l`$-region is a connected component of the $`l`$-stratum. The finite partition of $`S`$ in $`l`$-regions, for $`l`$ in $`\{0,\mathrm{},g\}`$, is called the natural stratification of the $`𝔾`$-branched manifold. The union of all the $`l`$ -regions for $`l`$ in $`\{0,\mathrm{},d1\}`$ forms the singular locus $`Sing(S)`$ of $`S`$.

Outside of the singular locus, a neighborhood of a point is modeled on a neighborhood in $`𝔾`$, it is thus possible to define a local $`𝔾`$ action.

Let $`S`$ be a $`𝔾`$-branched manifold and $`x`$ a point in $`S`$. The injectivity radius of $`x`$ is the supremum of the radii of all $`𝔾`$-sheets centered at $`x`$. The injectivity radius of $`S`$, denoted $`inj\left(S\right)`$, is the infimum over all $`x`$ in $`S`$ of the injectivity radius of $`x`$. The $`𝔾`$-action radius is the infimum of all connected components of $`SSing\left(S\right)`$ of the supremum of the radius of a $`𝔾`$-ball embedded in the connected component, we denote it $`size\left(S\right)`$.

Let $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ be two $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds. A continuous surjection $`\tau :S_2S_1`$ is a $`𝔾`$-submersion if for any $`y`$ in $`S_2`$ there exist a neighborhood $`B_y`$ of $`y`$ which is a $`𝔾`$-ball (when read in a chart) and a neighborhood $`B_{\tau \left(y\right)}`$ of $`\tau \left(y\right)`$ which is a $`𝔾`$-ball (when read in a chart) such that the restriction of $`\tau `$ to $`B_y`$ is a $`𝔾`$-local submersion from $`B_y`$ to $`B_{\tau \left(y\right)}`$. It is a strong $`𝔾`$-submersion if $`\tau \left(B_y\right)`$ is in a $`𝔾`$-sheet of $`B_{\tau \left(y\right)}`$.

###### Lemma 4.3

Let $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ be two $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds and $`\tau :S_2S_1`$ a $`𝔾`$-submersion. Then $`inj(S_2)inj(S_1)`$ and $`size(S_2)size(S_1)`$.

Proof: A $`𝔾`$-submersion $`\tau :S_2S_1`$ preserves the metric of the $`𝔾`$-branched surfaces. It follows that for any $`𝔾`$-sheet $`_1`$ in $`S_1`$, there exists a $`𝔾`$-sheet $`_1`$ in $`S_2`$ (isometric to $`_1`$) that is mapped on $`_1`$ by $`\tau `$, which implies the lemma.

### 4.3 Projective limits

For $`n1`$, let $`S_n`$ be a sequence of $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds and $`\tau _n:S_{n+1}S_n`$ a sequence of strong $`𝔾`$-submersions. Let us recall that the elements of the projective limit  $`\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n)`$ consist in the elements $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n,\mathrm{})`$ in the product $`{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}S_n`$ such that $`\tau _n\left(x_{n+1}\right)=x_n`$ for all $`n1`$. Since all the $`S_n`$’s are compact, $`{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}S_n`$ equipped with the product topology is compact. The projective limit being a closed subset of this product, is also compact. For every $`i1`$, we denote by $`p_i`$ the natural continuous map $`p_i:\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n)S_i`$.

###### Proposition 4.4

For $`n1`$, let $`S_n`$ be a sequence of $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds and $`\tau _n:S_{n+1}S_n`$ a sequence of strong $`𝔾`$-submersions. Then, the projective limit $`\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n)`$ is equipped with a natural local $`𝔾`$-action.

Proof: As we have already observed (Lemma 4.2), there exists a local $`𝔾`$-action on each $`𝔾`$-branched manifold $`S_n`$ outside of the singular locus. It is straightforward to observe that this action commutes with the $`𝔾`$-submersions $`\tau _n`$. Consider now a point $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n,\mathrm{})`$ in the projective limit $`\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n)`$. From Lemma 4.3, there exist a positive number $`r>0`$ and a sequence of $`𝔾`$-sheets $`_n`$ in $`S_n`$ centered at $`x_n`$, with radius $`r`$ such that $`\tau _n\left(_{n+1}\right)=_n`$ for all $`n1`$. When the maps $`\tau _n`$ are $`𝔾`$-submersion, this sequence $`𝒮_n`$ is not necessarily unique. However, it is unique when the maps $`\tau _n`$ are required to be strong $`𝔾`$-submersions. For $`g`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\times B_r\left(0\right)𝔾`$, and for each $`n1`$, we define in a chart $`x_n.g=e_n\left(g\right)`$ where $`e_n:\mathrm{\Gamma }\times B_r\left(0\right)S_n`$ is the isometric embedding defining $`_n`$. It is plain to check that $`\tau _n(x_{n+1}.g)=x_n.g`$ for all $`n1`$.

### 4.4 $`𝔾`$-solenoids and projective limits of $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds

The following theorem relates $`𝔾`$-solenoids and projective limits of $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds.

###### Theorem 4.5

Let $`𝔾`$ be a connected Lie group, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ its maximal compact subgroup and $`M`$ a $`𝔾`$-solenoid:

1. there exist a sequence $`S_n`$ of $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds and a sequence of strong $`𝔾`$-submersions $`\tau _n:S_{n+1}S_n`$ such that $`M`$ is homeomorphic to the projective limit $`\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n)`$;
2. the local $`𝔾`$-action on $`\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n)`$ extends to a $`𝔾`$-action and the homeomorphism realizes a conjugacy between the two dynamical systems $`(M,𝔾)`$ and $`(\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n),𝔾)`$;
3. $`\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}inj\left(S_n\right)=+\mathrm{}`$ and $`\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}size\left(S_n\right)=+\mathrm{}`$.
4. and all the $`g`$-regions of $`S_n`$ have the homotopy type of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$;
5. If $`M`$ is minimal then all the $`S_n`$’s are connected.

Proof: Consider a polyhedral box decomposition $`_1`$ of $`M`$ together with the following equivalence relation $``$ that identify two points that are in a same vertical in the closure of a box of the decomposition. The whole construction we made in the previous section has been adapted so that the quotient space $`M/`$ inherits a natural structure of $`𝔾`$-branched manifold $`S_1`$. Let us denote by $`p_1:MS_1`$, the standard projection. From Theorem 3.1 any minimal $`𝔾`$-solenoid admits a tower system i.e. a sequence of polyhedral box decompositions $`\left(_n\right)_{n1}`$ such that for each $`n1`$, $`_{n+1}`$ is zoomed out of $`_n`$. We associate with this sequence the corresponding sequence of $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds $`S_n`$ and maps $`p_n:\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)S_n`$. Remark that two points which are on a same vertical in a closed box in $`_{n+1}`$ are also on a same vertical of a box in $`_n`$. This defines a map $`\tau _n:S_{n+1}S_n`$. It is clear that $`\tau _n`$ is a $`𝔾`$-submersion and that $`\tau _n\pi _{n+1}=\pi _n`$, for all $`n1`$. Furthermore, since each $`_{n+1}`$ is zoomed out of $`_n`$, we know that a vertical in the vertical boundary of a box in $`_n`$ contains or is disjoint from any vertical boundary of a box in $`_{n+1}`$. It follows that $`\tau _n`$ maps a small neighborhood of a point in the singular set of $`𝒮_{n+1}`$ into a $`𝔾`$-sheet of $`𝒮_n`$ and thus it is a strong $`𝔾`$-submersion.

At this point, we have constructed a sequence $`S_n`$ of $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds and a sequence of strong $`𝔾`$-submersions $`\tau _n:S_{n+1}S_n`$ and a map $`p:\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔾\left(X\right)\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n)`$ defined by:

$$p\left(x\right)=(p_1\left(x_1\right),\mathrm{},p_n\left(x_n\right),\mathrm{}).$$

Its is plain to check that $`p`$ is a homeomorphism and that it maps the local $`𝔾`$ actions on onto the other. Since the $`𝔾`$ action on $`M`$ is global, so is the local action on $`\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n)`$. Thus, the homeomorphism is a conjugacy between the two dynamical systems $`(M,𝔾)`$ and $`(\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n),𝔾)`$.

Since each $`g`$-region in $`S_{n+1}`$ is made of isometric copies of more than one region $`S_n`$, we immediately get that $`\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}inj\left(S_n\right)=+\mathrm{}`$ and $`\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}size\left(S_n\right)=+\mathrm{}`$. The fact that the box decompositions $`_n`$ are polyhedral yields that the $`g`$-regions of $`S__n`$ have the homotopy type of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The fact that minimality implies connectedness is plain.

## 5  Transverse invariant measures of $`𝔾`$-solenoid

### 5.1 Transverse invariant measure and Ruelle-Sullivan current

Consider an atlas of a $`𝔾`$-solenoid $`M`$ given by the charts $`h_i:U_iV_i\times T_i`$ where the $`T_i`$’s are totally disconnected metric sets and the $`V_i`$’s are open subsets in $`𝔾`$. A finite transverse invariant measure on $`M`$ (see ) is the data of a finite positive measure on each set $`T_i`$ in such a way that if $`B`$ is a Borelian set in some $`T_i`$ which is contained in the definition set of the transition map $`\gamma _{ij}`$ then:

$$\mu _i\left(B\right)=\mu _j\left(\gamma _{ij}\left(B\right)\right).$$

It is clear that the data of a transverse invariant measure for a given atlas provides another invariant measure for any equivalent atlas and thus gives an invariant measure on each vertical. Thus it makes sense to consider a transverse invariant measure $`\mu ^t`$ of a $`𝔾`$ solenoid. The fact that the leaves of a lamination carry a structure of $`g`$-dimensional manifold, where $`g`$ is the dimension of $`𝔾`$ allows us to consider differential forms on $`M`$. A $`k`$-differential form on $`M`$ is the data of $`k`$-differential forms on the open sets $`V_i`$ that are mapped one onto the other by the differential of the transition maps $`g_{ij}`$. We denote by $`A^k\left(M\right)`$ the set of $`k`$-differential forms on $`M`$. A foliated cycle is a linear form from $`A^g\left(M\right)`$ to $``$ which is positive on positive forms and vanishes on exact forms.

There exists a simple way to associated with a transverse invariant measure a foliated cycle. Consider a $`g`$-differential form $`\omega `$ in $`A^g\left(M\right)`$ and assume for the time being, that the support of $`\omega `$ is included in one of the $`U_i`$’s. In this case, the form can be seen as a form in $`V_i\times T_i`$. By integrating $`\omega `$ on the slices $`V_i\times \left\{t\right\}`$ we get a real valued map on $`T_i`$ that we can integrate against the transverse measure $`\mu _i`$ to get a real number $`𝒞_{\mu ^t}\left(\omega \right)`$. When the support of $`\omega `$ is not in one of the $`U_i`$’s, we choose a partition of the unity $`\left\{\varphi _i\right\}_i`$ associated with the cover of $`M`$ by the open sets $`U_i`$ and define:

$$𝒞_{\mu ^t}\left(\omega \right)=\underset{i}{}𝒞_{\mu ^t}\left(\varphi _i\omega \right).$$

It is clear that we have defined this way a linear form $`𝒞_{\mu ^t}:A^g\left(M\right)`$ which does not depend on the choice of the atlas in $``$ and of the partition of the unity. It is also easy to check that this linear form is positive for positive forms. The fact that $`𝒞_{\mu ^t}`$ vanishes on closed form is a simple consequence of the invariance property of the transverse measure. The foliated cycle $`𝒞_{\mu ^t}`$ is called the Ruelle-Sullivan current associated with the transverse invariant measure $`\mu ^t`$. It turns out that the existence of a foliated cycle implies the existence of a transverse invariant measure (see ) and thus both points of view: transverse invariant measure and foliated cycle are equivalent. We denote $`^t\left(M\right)`$ the convex set of transverse invariant measure on $`M`$.

### 5.2 Transverse and $`𝔾`$-invariant measures

Let us now use the fact a $`𝔾`$-solenoid carries a $`𝔾`$ action and assume that there exist a finite measure $`\mu `$ on $`M`$ which is invariant for the $`𝔾`$-action. This invariant measure defines a transverse invariant measure. For any Borelian subset of a transverse set $`T_i`$:

$$\mu _i\left(B\right)=\frac{\mu \left(h_i^1\left(V_i\times B\right)\right)}{\lambda _𝔾\left(V_i\right)},$$

where $`\lambda _𝔾`$ stands for the measure in $`𝔾`$ which is invariant under the right action of $`𝔾`$. Conversely, consider a transverse invariant measure $`\mu ^t`$ of the $`𝔾`$-solenoid $`M`$. Let $`f:M`$ be a continuous function and assume for the time being that the support of $`f`$ is included in one of the $`U_i`$’s. In this case, the map $`fh_i^1`$ is defined on $`V_i\times T_i`$. By integrating $`fh_i^1`$ on the sheets $`V_i\times \left\{t\right\}`$ against the measure $`\lambda _𝔾`$ of $`𝔾`$, we get a real valued map on $`T_i`$ that we can integrate against the transverse measure $`\mu _i`$ to get a real number $`{\displaystyle f𝑑\mu }`$. When the support of $`f`$ is not in one of the $`U_i`$’s, we choose a partition of the unity $`\left\{\varphi _i\right\}_i`$ associated with the cover of $`M`$ by the open sets $`U_i`$ and define:

$$f𝑑\mu =\underset{i}{}f\varphi _i𝑑\mu .$$

It is clear that we have defined this way a finite measure on $`M`$ which does not depend on the choice of the atlas in its equivalence class and of the partition of the unity and is invariant under the $`𝔾`$-action.

Thus, for a $`𝔾`$-solenoid $`M`$, the following 3 points of view are equivalent:

* A finite transverse invariant measure;
* a foliated cycle;
* a finite $`𝔾`$-invariant measure on $`M`$.

### 5.3 Transverse invariant measures and homology

Let us first recall few elementary facts about the (cellular) homology of $`S`$. Consider the natural stratification of $`S`$, $`𝒱_0,\mathrm{}𝒱_l`$, where, for $`i=0,\mathrm{}g`$, $`𝒱_i`$ is decomposed into a finite number $`a_i`$ of $`i`$-regions that we orient and order in an arbitrary way but for the orientation of the $`g`$-regions which is the natural orientation induced by the $`𝔾`$-manifold structure. We refine this stratification by regions to get a cell decomposition and we orient each $`g`$-cell according to the orientation of the $`g`$-region that contains it. We denote by $`C_i(S,)`$ the free $``$-module which has as (ordered) basis the set of ordered and oriented $`i`$-cells. By convention, for any oriented $`i`$-cell $`e`$, $`e=1e`$, and it consists of the same cell with the opposite orientation. Notice that with the exception of the $`g`$-cells orientation, there are no canonical choices for the above orders and orientations, but these choices will be essentially immaterial in our discussion.

We define the linear boundary operator:

$$_{i+1}:C_{i+1}(S,)C_i(S,)$$

which assigns to any $`i+1`$-region, the sum of the $`i`$-regions that are in its closure pondered with a positive sign (resp. negative) if the induced orientation fits (resp. does not fit) with the orientation chosen for these $`i`$-regions. It is clear that $`_i_{i+1}=0`$.

The space $`Z_i(S,)=\mathrm{Ker}_i`$ is called the space of $`i`$-cycles of $`S`$ and the space $`B_i(S,)=_{i+1}\left(C_{i+1}(S,)\right)`$ is called the space of $`i`$-boundaries of $`S`$. In fact, $`B_i(S,)Z_i(S,)`$ and $`H_i(S,)=Z_i(S,)/B_i(S,)`$ is the $`i^{th}`$ homology group of $`S`$. Notice that $`H_g(S,)=Z_g(S,)`$.

A standard result of algebraic topology insures that (up to $``$-module isomorphism) $`H_i(S,)`$ is a topological invariant of $`S`$ that coincides with the $`i^{th}`$ singular homology of $`S`$ (see for example ).

It is important to observe that a $`g`$-chain $`z`$ is a $`g`$-cycle (i.e. $`_d\left(z\right)=0`$) if and only if:

* two $`g`$-cells which are in a same region $`R_i`$ appear in $`z`$ with the same coefficient;
* the coefficients of $`z`$ satisfy the “switching rules”(or Kirchoff-like laws): this means that along every $`g1`$-region $`e`$ of $`S`$ the sum of the weights on the germs of $`d`$-cells along $`e`$ on one side equal the sum of the weights of the germs of $`d`$-cells on the other side.

Identifying the free $``$-module which has as (ordered) basis the set of ordered and oriented $`g`$-regions with of $`^{a_g}`$, the homology group $`H_g(S,)`$ is then the subspace of $`^{a_g}`$ defined by the switching rules.

We denote by $`H_g^+(S,)`$ the intersection of $`H_g(S,)`$ with the positive cone in $`^{a_i}`$.

###### Theorem 5.1

Let $`M`$ be a $`𝔾`$-solenoid and $`S_n,`$ $`n1,`$ be a sequence of $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds and $`\tau _n:S_{n+1}S_n`$ a sequence of strong $`𝔾`$-submersions such that the two dynamical systems $`(M,𝔾)`$ and $`(\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n),𝔾)`$ are conjugate. Then:

$$^t\left(M\right)\mathrm{is}\mathrm{isomorphic}\mathrm{to}\underset{}{lim}(H_g^+(S_n,),\tau _{n,})$$

where $`\tau _{n,}:H_g(S_{n+1},)H_g(S_n,)`$ is the map induced by $`\tau _n`$ on homology.

Proof: Let us choose one of these branched manifolds $`S_n`$ together with the natural projection $`p_n:MS_n`$. Let $`R_{1,n},\mathrm{},R_{p\left(n\right),n}`$ be the ordered sequence of $`g`$-regions of $`S_n`$ equipped with the natural orientation and choose a $`g`$-region $`R_{i,n}`$ of $`S_n`$. The set $`p_n^1R`$ reads in some chart $`V_{i,n}\times T_{i,n}`$. A transverse measure $`\mu ^t`$ associates a weight $`w\left(R_{i,n}\right)=\mu ^t\left(T_{i,n}\right)`$ with $`R_{i,n}`$ and thus defines an element $`i_n\left(\mu _t\right)`$ in $`C_g(S_n,)`$. The fact that the transverse measure is invariant implies that the switching rules are satisfied, thus $`i\left(\mu _t\right)`$ is in $`H_g(S_n,).`$ Since a transverse invariant measures associate a positive weight to each region, we conclude that $`i\left(\mu _t\right)`$ is in $`H_g^+(S_n,)`$.

Let $`R_{1,n+1},\mathrm{},R_{p\left(n+1\right),n+1}`$ be the ordered sequence of regions of $`S_{n+1}`$ equipped with the natural orientation and $`^p\left(n+1\right)`$ the associated $``$-module. By identifying $`H_g(S_{n+1},)`$ with a the subspace of $`^{p\left(n+1\right)}`$ defined by the switching rules and $`H_g(S_n,)`$ with a the subspace of $`^{p\left(n\right)}`$ defined by the switching rules, we assign to the linear map

$$f_{n,}:H_g(S_{n+1},)H_g(S_n,),$$

a $`n\left(p\right)\times n\left(p+1\right)`$ matrix $`A_n`$ with integer non negative coefficients. The coefficient $`a_{i,j,n}`$ of the $`i^{th}`$ line and the $`j^{th}`$ column is exactly the number of pre images in $`R_j^{}`$ of a point in $`R_i`$. Thus we have the relations:

$$w\left(R_{i,n}\right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{j=p\left(n+1\right)}{}}a_{i,j,n}w\left(R_{j,n+1}\right).$$

for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},p\left(n\right)`$ and all $`j=1,\mathrm{}p\left(n+1\right),`$ which exactly means that $`\tau _{n,}i_n=i_{n+1}.`$ Thus any finite, transverse, invariant measure can be seen as an element in $`\underset{}{lim}(H_g^+(S_n,),\tau _{n,})`$.

Conversely, let $`T_{1,1},\mathrm{}T_{p\left(1\right),1}`$ be the vertical associated with each $`g`$-region of the first $`𝔾`$-branched manifold $`S_1`$. Since the $`T_{i,1}`$’s are totally disconnected metric spaces, they can be cover by a partition in clopen sets with arbitrarily small diameters. Such a partition $`𝒫`$ is finer than another partition $`𝒫^{}`$ if the defining clopen sets of the first one are included in clopen sets of the second one. Consider a sequence of partitions $`𝒫_n`$, $`n0`$ of $`T_{i,1}`$ such that, for all $`n0`$ , $`𝒫_{n+1}`$ is finer than $`𝒫_n`$ and the diameter of the defining clopen sets of $`𝒫_n`$ goes to zero as $`n`$ goes to $`+\mathrm{}`$. A finite measure on $`T_{i,1}`$ is given by the countable data of non negative numbers associated with each defining clopen sets of each partition $`𝒫_n`$ which satisfy the obvious additivity relation. An element $`y=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_n,\mathrm{})`$ in $`\underset{}{lim}(H_g^+(S_n,),\tau _{n,})`$ provides us such a sequence of partitions $`𝒫_n`$ defined as follows:

* let $`\widehat{\pi }_1:p^1\left(R_{i,1}\right)T_{i,1}`$ the chart map composed with the projection;
* the clopen sets of $`𝒫_n`$ are the $`\widehat{\pi }_i\left(p_n^1\left(R_{j,n}\right)R_{i,1}\right)`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},p\left(n\right)`$.

The fact that all the $`y_n`$’s satisfy the switching rules implies that the transverse measure is invariant.

###### Corollary 5.2

* If the dimension of $`H_g(S_n,)`$ is uniformly bounded by $`N`$, then $`^t\left(M\right)`$ contains at most $`N`$ ergodic measures up to a global rescaling;
* if furthermore the coefficients of all the matrices $`A_n`$ are uniformly bounded, then $`^t\left(M\right)`$ is reduced to a single direction i.e. the transverse dynamics is uniquely ergodic.

Proof. The proof is standard and can be found in  in a quite similar situation in the particular case when $`g=1`$. To prove the first statement we may assume that the dimension of the $`H_g(S_n,)`$’s is constant and equal to $`N`$. The set $`^t\left(M\right)`$ is a convex set and its extremal directions coincide with the set of ergodic measures. Since $`^t\left(M\right)`$is isomorphic to $`\underset{}{lim}(H_g^+(S_n,),\tau _{n,})`$ the convex cone $`^t\left(M\right)`$ is the intersection of the convex nested sets:

$$^t\left(M\right)=_{n0}W_n$$

where

$$W_n=\tau _{1,}\mathrm{}\tau _{n1,}\left(H_g^+(S_n,)\right).$$

Since each convex cone $`W_n`$ possesses at most $`N`$ extremal lines, the limit set $`^t\left(M\right)`$ possesses also at most $`N`$ extremal points and thus at most $`N`$ ergodic measures.

In order to prove the second statement, consider two points $`x`$ and $`y`$ in the positive cone of $`^N`$. Let $`T`$ be the largest line segment containing $`x`$ and $`y`$ and contained in the positive cone of $`^N`$. We recall that the hyperbolic distance between $`x`$ and $`y`$ is given by:

$$Hyp(x,y)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\left(m+l\right)\left(m+r\right)}{l.r},$$

where $`m`$ is the length of the line segment $`[x,y]`$ and $`l`$ and $`r`$ are the length of the connected components of $`T[x,y]`$. Positive matrices contract the hyperbolic distance in the positive cone of $`^N`$. Since the matrices corresponding to the maps $`f_n`$ are uniformly bounded in sizes and entries, this contraction is uniform. Because of this uniform contraction, the set $`^t\left(M\right)`$ is one dimensional.

###### Remark 5.3

When the Lie group $`𝔾`$ is not amenable, there is no reason a priori that a $`𝔾`$-solenoid $`M`$ possesses transverse invariant measures. Thus in such a case, when writing $`M`$ as an inverse limit of $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds:

$$M=\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n),$$

we must have $`H_g^+(S_n,)=0`$ for each $`n1`$.

###### Remark 5.4

As we have seen, considering the a $`𝔾`$-solenoid as a projective limit of $`𝔾`$-branched manifolds allows us to give a topological characterization of the invariant measures. It turns out that in the case of $``$-solenoid, i.e. $``$-action free action on the Cantor set, the description in terms of projective limit of graphs, yields a topological characterization of some other dynamical invariants (topological entropy, semi-conjugacy to rotations etc…) . It is likely that a similar approach works in the general case of $`𝔾`$-solenoids. Furthermore, projective limits of graphs can be used to construct $``$-solenoid with some nice exotic properties (for example minimal, uniquely ergodic and with infinite topological entropy or with many ergodic invariant measures) and a simple way to construct these examples is to use Toeplitz systems (branches with equal lengths) . At least in the case of $`^d`$-solenoid, similar constructions can be done by considering $`^d`$-branched manifolds made of tori with dimension $`d`$ glued along tori with dimension $`d1`$.

## 6 Appendices

### 6.1  $`𝔼^d`$-solenoids

The Lie group $`𝔼^d`$ of affine orientation preserving isometries of the Euclidean space $`^d`$ is the semi-direct product $`SO\left(d\right)^d`$. Thus in addition to the $`𝔼^d`$-action on a $`𝔼^d`$-solenoid $`M`$, there exists also a $`^d`$-(sub) action. Choose a point $`x`$ in $`M`$, we denote by $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}\left(x\right)`$ the closure of the orbit $`x+^d`$ in $`M`$.

###### Proposition 6.1

For each $`x`$ in a minimal $`𝔼^d`$-solenoid $`M`$, the $`^d`$-invariant subset $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}(x)`$ is $`^d`$-minimal i.e.all its $`^d`$-orbits are dense in $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}(x)`$.

Proof: Let $`g`$ be an element in $`𝔼^d`$ and $`x`$ a point in $`M`$. Since $`\left(x+^d\right).g=x.g+^d`$, we have: $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}(x.g)=\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}\left(x\right).g`$. Any $`^d`$-action on a compact set possesses a minimal invariant subset, thus there exists $`x_0`$ in $`M`$ such that $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}\left(x_0\right)`$ is $`^d`$-minimal. It follows that for any $`g`$ in $`𝔼^d`$, $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}(x_0.g)`$ is either equal to or completely disjoint from $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}\left(x_0\right)`$, but in both cases it is also $`^d`$-minimal. Since $`M`$ is minimal for the $`𝔼^d`$-action, any point $`x`$ in $`M`$, belongs to a $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}(x_0.g)`$ for some $`g`$ in $`𝔼^d`$ and thus $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}\left(x\right)`$ is also $`^d`$-minimal.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$ be the stabilizer of $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}\left(y\right)`$ in $`𝔼^d`$ i.e. the closed subgroup of the $`\gamma `$’s in $`SO\left(d\right)`$ such that $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}\left(y\right).\gamma =\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}\left(y\right)`$. The stabilizers associated with two different points in $`M`$ are conjugate. The proof of the following proposition is immediate:

###### Proposition 6.2

Let $`M`$ be a minimal, $`𝔼^d`$-solenoid. Then, for any $`y`$ in $`M`$, the following $`2`$ assertions are equivalent:

* $`\omega _{𝔼^d,^d}\left(y\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝔼^d}\left(y\right)`$;
* $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y=SO\left(d\right)`$.

Furthermore if one of these properties is satisfied for some $`y`$ in $`M`$, then it is also satisfied for any other $`y^{}`$ in $`M`$.

A minimal, $`𝔼^d`$-solenoid which satisfies one of the properties in Proposition 6.2 is called isotropic.

Consider now a projective limit of $`𝔼^2`$-branched manifolds associated with a free minimal $`𝔼^2`$-solenoid $`M=\underset{}{lim}(S_n,\tau _n)`$. The $`𝔼^2`$-action on the hull $`M`$ decomposes itself into two parts when projected on the$`𝔼^2`$-branched manifold $`S_n`$. On one hand, the $`SO\left(2\right)`$-action on $`M`$ projects by $`p_n`$ on the $`SO\left(2\right)`$ action on the $`𝔼^2`$-branched manifold $`S_n`$. On the other hand, there is of course no $`^2`$-action on $`S_n`$ but for any $`y`$ in $`M`$, $`\omega _{𝔼^2,^2}\left(y\right)`$ projects on a closed subset of $`S_n`$ which is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$ invariant. The $`𝔼^2`$-branched manifold $`S_n`$ is foliated by the projection of the orbits $`y+^2`$ for $`y`$ in $`M`$. In the particular case when $`M`$ is isotropic, all the projected $`^2`$-orbits are dense.

### 6.2  $`^d`$-solenoids

In the particular case when the group $`𝔾=^d`$ we have the following result:

###### Proposition 6.3

Any minimal $`^d`$-solenoid admits a rectangular box decomposition.

Proof: Consider rectangular boxes that read in charts of an atlas, $`R\times T`$, where $`R`$ is a rectangle with faces parallel to the one of the unit $`d`$-cube generated by the canonical basis of $`^d`$ and $`T`$ is a totally disconnected set. We call such rectangular boxes well oriented rectangular boxes The intersection of two well oriented rectangular boxes is a finite union of well oriented rectangular boxes and that the closure of the union of two well oriented rectangular boxes is also the closure of the union of a finite collection of pairwise disjoint well oriented rectangular boxes. It follows that there exists a finite collection rectangular boxes $`R_1\times T_1\times ,\mathrm{},R_n\times T_n`$ pairwise disjoint and whose closures cover the whole solenoid. This yields the following result:

###### Theorem 6.4

Any minimal $`^d`$-solenoid is orbit equivalent to an $`^d`$-solenoid which fibers on the $`d`$-torus.

Proof: Consider a minimal $`^d`$-solenoid $`M`$. From Proposition 6.3, we can associate with $`M`$ a rectangular box decomposition $``$ which by projection along the vertical direction in the boxes gives a $`^d`$\- branched manifold $`S_{}`$ whose $`d`$-regions are $`d`$-dimensional rectangles. Consider the $`\left(1\right)`$-stratum of the stratification of $`S_{}`$. It is made with a finite number of $`1`$-dimensional edges parallel to the directions of the vectors of the canonical orthonormal basis and a finite number of vertices. Assume that all the sizes of these edges are commensurable i.e. there exists a positive real $`\tau `$ such that the $`^d`$-branched manifold $`S`$ can be filled with $`d`$-cubes with size $`\tau `$ that intersect on their boundary, full faces to full faces. This induces a projection $`\pi :S𝕋^d`$ where $`𝕋^d`$ is the $`d`$-torus $`^d/\tau ^d`$ which commutes with translations. In the general case, the sizes of the rectangles are not commensurable. However, we can perform a change of the metric $`g`$ in the leaves that satisfies the following properties:

* at each point in $`S_{}`$ the metric $`g`$ preserves the orthogonality of basis corresponding in charts to the canonical basis of $`^d`$;
* in the chart associated with each rectangular box of the box decomposition, the metric $`g`$ is independent on the choice of the point on same vertical;
* the size of the rectangles are commensurable when computed with the metric $`g`$.

This new metric defines a homeomorphism between the $`^d`$-solenoid $`S_{}`$ and an $`^d`$-solenoid which possesses a box decomposition in commensurable rectangles and thus fibers on a $`d`$-torus. As a direct consequence, we recover a result obtained by L. Sadun and R. Williams :

###### Corollary 6.5

Let $`X`$ be a strongly aperiodic, repetitive, Delone set of $`^d`$-finite type, then there exists a strongly aperiodic, repetitive, Delone set of $`^d`$-finite type $`Y`$ which is $`^d`$-orbit equivalent to $`X`$ and is contained in the lattice $`^d`$.


format: text

text:
# Non-trivial 1-classes in the homology of the real moduli spaces 𝑀̄_{0,𝑛} and related structures

## 1 Discrete Spectral warm-up

We built a sequence of 2 dimensional complexes. Its study , inspired by spectral graph theory, can guide the study of the real moduli spaces $`\overline{M}_{0,n}`$. Also, these complexes give a counterexample to a tempting conjecture.

1. Let G(n) be the Schreier coset graph of S(n), the symmetric group, modulo D(n), the dihedral group, with respect to the following set T of generators. T is a set of $`n\left(n3\right)/2`$ involutions from $`S_n`$. For every pair (k, l), $`0<k<l<n+1`$, where (k,l) is different from (1, n), we define d:=d(k, l)(x)=l+k-x , if x is between k and l. Otherwise, x is a fixed point.

The vertices of G(n) are the right coset classes S(n)/D(n). There is an edge between D(n)g and D(n)h , if there is t in T such that D(n)g=D(n)ht.

Any regular graph ( a graph where any vertex has the same degree) is a Schreier coset graph of a group G, modulo a subgroup H, with respect to a set of generators T.

Let B(n) the following 2 dimensional cellular complex. Its 1-skeleton is given by G(n). For any u and v in T, such that u and v commutes, there is a face around D(n)a, D(n)av, D(n)avu, and D(n)au.

As we will prove, rank $`H_1`$(B(n)) = rank $`H_1\left(\overline{M_{0,n}}\left(R\right)\right)`$. So, the study of B(n) is important. The first barycentric subdivision transforms any cellular complex into a simplicial one.

2.Definition 1. For any 2 dimensional simplicial complex, the link of a vertex v is the graph L(v) whose vertices are the edges incident to v, and whose edges are the faces between 2 incident edges to v. So, the graph is the intersection between the cone from v and a plane.

The Laplacian of a simple finite connected graph is the matrix of entries a(i,j)/$`\sqrt{(d\left(i\right)d\left(j\right)}`$, where the rows and columns are indexed over vertices of the graph. d(v) is the degree of a vertex v, i.e the number of vertices joined with v. a(i,j) is 1 if and only if there is an edge between i and j. .

Why do we need this graph? The cohomology with real coefficients of a compact simplicial complex is zero IF:

a. \[Ballmann\]: for every vertex v, the first positive eigenvalue of the Laplacian on L(v) is greater than 1/2. See also .

or IF:

b. \[Zuk\]: for any 2 vertices a and b of the complex, joined by an edge, the average of their first positive eigenvalue of the Laplacians on L(a) and L(b) is greater than 1/2. .

Let us formulate the tempting conjecture:  The first cohomology with real coefficients is zero, if the average of first positive eigenvalue of any 3 vertices of the same triangle is greater than 1/2. This conjecture is not true. A counterexample is given by the spaces B(n). As we will see, their first cohomology is always different from zero, even if the conditions from the statement of this conjecture are satisfied for n greater than 70!

The first barycentric subdivision of B(n) has 3 types of vertices. The first one is a center of a face. Its link is an 8-gon. The first positive eigenvalue is 1 - sin($`\pi `$/4). The second one is a center of an edge. Its link is a bipartite graph and its first positive eigenvalue is 1. A wonderful treatment of this theoretical and computational subject is give in . Every vertex from G(n) has the same isomorphic link, because of the regularity of the Schreier coset graphs. The last type of vertex is a vertex from the old G(n). The first positive eigenvalue of its link, $`\lambda `$(n) was computed by Matlab 6.1 using a C++ program, available at the author’s web page. $`\lambda `$(n) is an increasing function of n.

$`\lambda `$(6)=0.1888 $`\lambda `$(7)=0.1891 $`\lambda `$(50)=0.2070 $`\lambda `$(70)=0.2084

There is the following explanation of the increasing behavior of $`\lambda `$(L(n)),(L(n)= the link of a vertex from G(n)).

L(n) is the graph whose vertices are the diagonals of an n-gon. 2 vertices are joined by an edge if the interiors of the diagonals do not intersect. L(n) has a D(n) symmetry. Also, it is included in L(n+1).If K(n) is the complete graph of n vertices, there is a covering map from the cartesian product L(n) X K(n+1) to L(n+1) . So, any eigenvalue of the latter graph is an eigenvalue of the former graph , too (see Chung). Also, the eigenvalues of a cartesian product are sums of separate eigenvalues, because the Laplacian of a cartesian product is a tensor product of separate matrices. Zero is always an eigenvalue, so the smallest eigenvalue of the cartesian product is the minimum between the smallest eigenvalue of L(n) and K(n). In this case, it is the smallest positive eigenvalue of L(n). We’ve got the desired inequality between 2 consecutive $`\lambda `$(n)’s.

Note: applying Zuk’s Theorem to hypergraphs. , we get that any closed path in G(n) is a sum of closed paths of length 4. We did not find an equivalent statement in algebraic geometry.

## 2 The first homology group of $`\overline{M_{0,n}}(R)`$

In their Quantum Invariants and Knot Theory books and articles, Turaev, Kassel and Dror bar-Nathan use ”graphical proofs” and diagrammatic calculus, for algebraic or categorical data. There is an intricate relation between formal algebraic structures and concrete geometrical objects. Even if it is elementary, it is useful to describe the path towards $`H_1\left(\overline{M_{0,n}}\left(R\right)\right)`$ because this is a way to understand the proofs and the formalism of Loday and the appearance of these spaces as Operads.

To keep track of the first homology group, we will use the cellular decomposition of M=$`\overline{M}_{0,n}\left(R\right)`$, after Devadoss . We apply the dual block complex, pp.380, and restrict to level two of its filtration.

Let $`K_{n1}`$ be the n-3-convex polytope whose partial order set of its faces is isomorphic with the partial order set of an n-gon with a couple of non-intersecting diagonals. The partial orders are given by inclusions. $`K_{n1}`$ is called the associahedron. There is such a convex polytope \[Ziegler-Lectures on Polytope p.310\]! $`K_{n1}`$ has the acyclic carrier property , so we can apply the classical theorems from \[Munkres pp 225\]. The codimension k faces of the associahedron are indexed by n-gons with k non-intersecting diagonals.

DIAG is the following set of $`n\left(n3\right)/2`$ involutions from $`S_n`$. For every pair (k, l), $`0<k<l<n+1`$, where (k,l) is different from (1, n), we define d:=d(k, l)(x)=l+k-x , if x is between k and l. Otherwise, x is a fixed point. Let P be a fixed n-gon, with edges labeled 1,2,3…n. For every diagonal of P we can associate an element of DIAG in the following way: any diagonal determines a partition of 1,2…n. Take the one which doesn’t contain n: it’s between 2 numbers, k and l. Then the associated d will be d(k,l), and we say that d(k,l) is supported by the diagonal of the n-gon P. Throughout the paper, the word ”diagonal” means a diagonal of the n-gon, or the involution carried by the diagonal.

Take $`n!`$ copies of $`K_{n1}`$. For every permutation of $`S_n`$, label the edges of the n-gon with $`\sigma \left(1\right),\sigma \left(2\right)\mathrm{}..\sigma \left(k\right),\mathrm{}.\sigma \left(n\right)`$. So the codimension k faces are labeled by decorated n-gons with k non-intersecting diagonals. Now we build our space $`\overline{M}_{0,n}\left(R\right)`$. Two codimension k faces of different $`K_{n1}`$’s are identified (glued) if the permutations $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ which color the edges of the n-gons satisfy the following condition “flip” or gluing condition: there are $`d_1,d_2,\mathrm{}.,d_i`$ couple of elements of DIAG, supported by the diagonals of the second face, such that $`\sigma _1=\sigma _2d_1d_2\mathrm{}d_i`$. ( $``$ means composition of functions ).

The top dimensional faces (without diagonals) are identified by the action of $`D_n`$, the dihedral group. So we can begin with $`\left(n1\right)!`$/2 copies of $`K_{n1}`$, indexed over $`S_n`$/$`D_n`$. Two codimension k faces are identified if their classes modulo the dihedral group $`D_n`$ contain 2 permutations which satisfy the flip condition from the previous paragraph.

The Homology is encoded in the gluing process above. M(our moduli space) is a smooth compact (n-3)-manifold, non-orientable if the dimension is higher than 1.

Recall the construction of the dual block complex. Let X be a compact homology n-manifold. Let sdX be the first barycentric subdivision. The simplices of sdX are $`[\overline{a},\overline{b}\mathrm{}\overline{z}]`$ where $`ab\mathrm{}..z`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }`$ is the barycenter of $`\sigma `$ , a simplex of X.

Given a simplex $`\sigma `$, D($`\sigma `$), the block of $`\sigma `$, is the union of the open simplices of sdX, where $`\sigma `$ is the final vertex; i.e. ”$`\sigma `$ = z” in the notation above. We have dim $`\sigma `$ \+ dim D($`\sigma `$) = dim manifold.

2.0.Let $`X_p`$ be the dual p-skeleton of X, the union of all D($`\sigma `$) such that dim D($`\sigma `$) is smaller or equal to p. $`\text{D}_p`$ = $`H_p`$($`X_p`$ , $`X_{p1}`$). The boundary operator is the boundary operator in the exact sequence of the triple ($`X_p`$ , $`X_{p1}`$ , $`X_{p2}`$). $`\text{D}_p`$ = $`H_p`$($`X_p`$ , $`X_{p1}`$) is the free abelian group generated by the blocks of dimension p of X, arbitrarily oriented, i.e. the blocks from the previous statement label the elements of a basis. How can we deal with the boundary operator of the dual block complex? Fortunately it has a nice geometric meaning. The dual blocks form a CW decomposition of X. Let a and b be 2 cells, dim(a)=p and dim(b)=p-1. $`a`$ is a formal sum of p-1 cells, with integer coefficients. The coefficient of b is given by ”the incidence coefficient”, which is the degree of a map that sends the boundary of a (i.e. $`S^{p1}`$) to a bouquet of p-1 spheres = $`X_{p1}`$/$`X_{p2}`$, and then projected to a p-1 sphere. So the boundary map shows how the boundary of the cell is patched by p-1 spheres.

2.1 We would like to apply the previous settings to X = $`\overline{M}_{0,n}\left(R\right)`$. The associahedra give a cellular, not a simplicial decomposition of X. We have to take the first barycentric subdivision of X. Fortunately, the barycenters of the faces of the associahedra are already labelled by n-gons with a couple of diagonals, where the edges of the n-gons bear a permutation.

A maximal simplex in X is a sequence of n-3 barycenters, i.e a chain of length n-3, which joins 2 vertices at the distance n-2 , in the graph G(n) from the previous section. Its dual block, of dimension 0, is its barycenter, which can be labelled by the simplex itself. In the notation from 2.0 section, $`\text{D}_0`$ is the free abelian group generated by these simplices.

A codimension 1 simplex of a simplex above is a face of the simplex above. Its dual block is a segment between 2 maximal simplices which share the same face (X is a manifold !). $`\text{D}_1`$ is the free abelian group generated by these segments, arbitrarily oriented.

There are 2 types of segments: the segments inside the same associahedron, and the segments between 2 different associahedra.

Similarly, $`\text{D}_2`$ is the free abelian group generated by 4 segments which form the boundary of a 2-cell, arbitrarily oriented. Any dim 2 block is shared by exactly 4 dim 1 blocks and exactly 4 dim 0 blocks, thereby building a structure similar with the structure of 4 cubes in 3 dimensions.

The boundary morphisms between D’s are ”normal”: a segment goes to the difference of its vertices, and a 2-face goes to a sum of edges, correlated by signs.

$`H_1\left(\overline{M}_{0,n}\left(R\right)\right)`$ =$`Ker\left(_1\right)/Im\left(_2\right)`$

The barycenters of the maximal simplices above and the edges among them form a new graph, called GG(n). There is a following pictorial transformation between G(n) and GG(n): -the vertices of G(n) become circles. Between these circles, instead of one edge e , there are m(e) edges. m(e) is the following number: any edge e is decorated by a diagonal of the n-gon. m(e) is the number of diagonals which do not intersect e. The tips and the tails of these edges are inside the circles and there are connected by a system of pipes given by the barycentric subdivision of the associahedra.

An element of $`D_1`$ is a formal sum of edges, decorated with reals. We can decorate the edges of with any algebraic structure V. Between 2 vertices of G(n) there is a vector from the tensor product of m(e) copies of V.

Theorem 1. There is an isomorphism between the first homology groups with real coefficients of B(n) and $`\overline{M}_{0,n}`$. It is given by the following function F: If the m(e) edges (between circles) are decorated by a couple of real numbers in GG(n), we associate their sum to the edge e in G(n). Using the fact that the associahedron is homeomorphic with a closed ball, it is easy to prove the statement above. It is true only for real coefficients !There are 3 questions to be answered in this proof:

1. If the definition is independent of the numbers (it depends only on the homology class). the image of a boundary is a boundary. By a boundary, we mean a formal sum of 4 edges, colored by + or -1, according to their orientation , which are geometric boundaries of 2-blocks etc.

2. If we can define an inverse of F. We can define a function G from the homology of $`B\left(n\right)`$ to $`H_1\left(M\right)`$, defined on generators in the following way. : the edge e colored by number x goes to the sum of the m(e) edges from GG(n),colored by the same number x/m(e) \- a kind of trace-diagonal process. We do not have any obstructions: the associahedron is aspherical, so it is possible to assign numbers to the edges inside them , such that the result is a flux in GG(n). ( a flux is an assignment of numbers to edges such that the sum for every vertex is zero, see section 4). A physics of this process is given by the concept of ”pressure”: the pressure of a gas inside the associahedron is zero. it is just a distribution of pressures given by the numbers from the external faces.

3. If they are inverse to each other. It is easy, to see that this is the case.

## 3 Koszulness and Koszul Duality for Operads. <br>Combinatorics. The beginning of a project.

If, instead of real numbers, we decorate the graphs above with vector spaces, and ”arrows” means morphisms (we already fixed an arbitrarily orientation for edges), our result is exactly the Theorem 4.3 of Loday : the simplex and the Stasheff quadratic operads are Koszul.

The 2 operads above are Koszul dual to each other. A natural question is: what is the dual diagrammatic calculus?

An associahedron can be divided in standard simplices using the barycentric subdivision. Is it possible to divide a standard simplex in a couple of associahedra? For example, a 2-simplex can be divided in 9 pentagons.

Maybe an inductive study can show that it is true for any n. Is it the right structure for the dual picture?

In a very recent paper by Stanley  the ”right” picture showed up: A simplex can be divided in chambers, such that these chambers are products of lower dimensional simplices, and the partial order set , under inclusion, of the faces of the chambers are isomorphic with the associahedron.We call it ”the associahedron internal to an n-simplex”. Instead of ”associahedra” we can use standard simplices, glued together as the corresponding associahedra are glued together. This is just the beginning of the picture. An axiomatic treatment is needed to complete the duality. Also, it is worth to study the universality or the freeness of the above structures, as the role played by tangles for braided categories.

The subject above opened the following questions:

1. Is it possible to divide an n-simplex in a couple of associahedra. Is it possible to apply induction?

2. Does the Stanley construction give rise to a simplicial complex equivalent with the real moduli spaces? A study of the automorphism group of Stanley’s construction can show how can we glue the faces of the simplices. This simplicial decomposition can be useful in homological computations.

3. Is it possible to build an operad based on simplices, following the ideas above ? Lower dimensional faces of associahedra are products of lower dimensional associahedra. The chambers of the decomposition of an n-simplex are products of lower simplices. The natural boundary or co-boundary maps among chambers can give this structure.

## 4 Non-trivial 1-classes in the homology of the real moduli spaces $`\overline{M}_{0,n}`$

Because of the homology isomorphism above, it is enough to study $`B\left(n\right)`$, to get the desired results of this section. A partial study of these spaces is given in .

The notes below is a study of real vector spaces or subspaces generated by formal sums of oriented edges in G(n). We found 4 special types of cycles in B(n):

1. Cycles given by k non-intersecting diagonals in the n-gon, and by k numbers of zero sum. (picture 1 for k=3).

These cycles are boundaries, they are zero in homology. A cycle of this type is the 1-skeleton of a k-dimensional cube. For every k numbers $`a_i`$ with zero sum, we can decorate the vertices of the cycle with + or - $`a_i`$ in such a way we get a cycle. We can write the 1-skeleton like a sum of cycles of length 4, so it is zero in homology.

2. Cycles given by regular k-gons. (picture 2 for k=4)

3. Cycles given by Reiner’s duality : Let a and b 2 vertices of G(n) at the distance n-2. The vertices which are on the paths of length n-2 form a self-dual lattice. So, it is enough to color the edges of G(n) with numbers, only for the first half of the lattice. The remaining part is the anti-symmetric.

We did not find a way to decide if the previous 2 types of cycles are zero or not in homology.

4. Cycles give by the graph $`G(n,k)`$, the subgraph of $`G\left(n\right)`$ induced by the vertices of distance at most k from the identity vertex.

These are cycles of ”finite type”. For k=2, the computation of the dimension M of the space of cycles was made in . These cycles survive in the whole homology of B(n), they cannot be cancelled by external boundaries.

Let us mention the formulas for M, and a sketch of the proof.

$$M=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }n=4\hfill \\ 4\hfill & \text{if }n=5\hfill \\ n\left(n3\right)/2+P\hfill & \text{if }n>5,n3k\hfill \\ n\left(n3\right)/2+P+\text{n/3[n+3/6]}\hfill & \text{if }n>5,n=3k\hfill \end{array}$$

P= the number of unordered pairs (a,b), where a,b are 2 parallel diagonals in a regular n-gon. It is not hard to find a precise formula for P: for every direction w, we have to count how many diagonals are on this direction. If there are z=z(w) diagonals,then $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z}{2}\right)`$ is the contribution of w. Any direction is given by the diagonals which pass through a fixed vertex A. We still have 3 more directions, given by AB, AC and BC, where AB and AC are edges of the n-gon.

Let A be a maximal set of vertices of $`G\left(n\right)`$, such that the distance between any 2 vertices is greater than 4. In this case the small graphs of distance at most 2 from every vertex of A are disjointed. They give independent non-zero cycles in $`B\left(n\right)`$ (see the proof of Theorem 2).

So, the rank of the first homology is at least M times the cardinal of A.

Theorem: The cardinal of A is at least (n-9)! ,if n is big enough.

Proof: A is maximal. so for any vertex x from G(n)-A , there is a vertex b(x) from A such that the distance from x to b(x) is at most 4. Otherwise, we could add x to A, in contradiction with the maximality of A.

Let’s say that A is smaller than (n-9)!. Then, G(n)-A is greater than n! - (n-9)! = (n-9)!\*P(n), where P is a polynomial of degree 9. b is a function from a set with at least (n-9)!\*P(n) elements, to a set A of at most (n-9)! elements. So, there is an element y from A, covered by at least P(n) elements from pre-image. So there are at least P(n) elements at the distance at most 4 from y. The degree of every vertex is n(n-3)/2, so at most $`n^2`$. There are at most $`n^4`$ elements at the distance 2 from y. There are at most $`n^6`$ elements at the distance 3 from y. There are at most $`n^8`$ elements at the distance 2 from y. Totally, there are at most Q(n)= $`n^2`$ \+ $`n^4`$ \+ $`n^6`$ \+ $`n^8`$ vertices at distance at most 4 from x. For n big enough, P $`>`$ Q. Contradiction.

The sketch of the proof for the lower bound M.

Definition. Let $`G(n,k)`$ and $`B(n,k)`$ be the graph and the sub-complex of $`B\left(n\right)`$ generated by the vertices of distance at most k from the vertex represented by the identity.

Theorem 2. The inclusion i:from $`B(n,k)`$ to $`B\left(n\right)`$ gives a monomorphism in the 1-homology with real coefficients, if k is smaller than n-3.

Note: the condition ”k is smaller than n-3” is essential. G(n) is a graph divided in levels but it natural metric. there are n-2 levels. All vertices from the first n-3 levels can be represented by ”permutations of type k” .A permutation of type k is a product of k non-intersecting involutions (”diagonals”) from T .

Proof. Let a be a formal sum of edges which satisfy $`i_{}`$(a)=0. So, a is a sum of boundaries= a sum of boundaries from $`B(n,k)`$ \+ a sum of boundaries outside $`B(n,k)`$. The support of a is in $`B(n,k)`$, so the last sum , let’s call it A, is zero. A is a sum of partial sums, given by a couple of non-intersecting diagonals. The sum of the corresponding edges can be recovered by boundaries inside $`B(n,k)`$, so a is zero in the homology of $`B(n,k)`$. So, the kernel of $`i_{}`$ is zero.

Theorem 3. The rank of $`H_1(`$B(n,2)$`)`$ is M.

We need ”the theory of fluxes”. from graph theory. For every oriented graph G, let A be the real vector space of basis the oriented edges . The vectors are formal sums of these edges, with real coefficients. A flux is a formal sum which satisfy the following property : for every vertex v, the sum of the coefficients of the edges which enter in v is equal to the sum of the coefficients of the edges which leave v. The vector space of all fluxes has the dimension m-n+1.\[Bollobas pp.51-54\], where m is the number of edges and n is the number of vertices of G. This formula gives us the opportunity to compute the rank as the difference between 2 dimensions of vectors spaces (the kernel and the imagine), the dimensions being separately computed.

The kernel is the space of fluxes. The image is studied using the properties of the graph $`G(n,2)`$. Using a similar proof as above, we can restrict to the complex $`A(n,2)`$, induced in $`G(n,2)`$ by all vertices except the vertex represented by identity.

Notation: $`\left(MN+1\right)_T`$ = the dimension of the space of fluxes in the graph T, of M edges and N vertices.

The rank of $`H_1\left(A(n,2)\right)`$ = $`\left(MN+1\right)_{A(n,2)}`$ \- dim(V U W)=$`\left(MN+1\right)_{A(n,2)}`$ \- dim(V) - dim(W) + dim(V $``$ W), where

V = the space generated by boundaries which are inside $`A(n,2)`$ (called ”relations”).

W=the space of fluxes generated by boundaries outside $`A(n,2)`$, which contain the identity vertex.

M=the number of edges of $`A(n,2)`$= $`n\left(n3\right)/2\left[n\left(n3\right)/21\right]`$

N=the number of vertices of $`A(n,2)`$=n(n-3)/2 + S, where S =1/3 $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{2}\right)`$ $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)`$ (the number of pairs of non-intersecting diagonals).

dim(W)= $`mn+1_W`$ = S - n(n-3)/2 +1

dim( V $``$ W)=the dimension of the space E generated by some special cycles of length 3 (supported by lines which form an equilateral triangle).

dim(V)=S - the number of pairs of parallel diagonals - A. A is the number of independent relations between cycles of length 3, supported by lines which form an equilateral triangle. So it is equal to the number of these cycles minus the dimension of the space generated by them in W. Fortunately, we do not need to compute this last number. A + dim( V $``$ W) = the number of equilateral triangles supported by 3 diagonals of an n-gon. We apply the formulas above and we compute the announced result on M.

The result is a consequence of a combinatorial analysis on the graph $`G(n,2)`$. It is fine enough to be carefully performed, but it is elementary: it is a study of formal sums of n-gons with 1 or 2 diagonals, with real coefficients.

Notes about the graphs G and $`G(n,2)`$: diam(G)=n-2 (proof by induction). Every vertex has degree n(n-3)/2. For any vertex v, take a permutation s from v, which is a class modulo $`D_n`$. Then sd, where d runs in DIAG, represents the neighbors of v.

2 vertices are joined by an edge in only 2 situations: ”a non-intersecting diagonal is added.” Or the picture is symmetrized about a diameter perpendicular to a diagonal d, and d disappears. More precisely: in these vertices, there are 2 permutations represented by a product of a couple of permutations from DIAG, and there are only 2 situations when the vertices are joined.

There are 2 types of good cycles of length 4: when the opposite vertices are on different levels, or when the opposite vertices are on the same level. The first situation is possible when we add 2 non-intersecting diagonals.In the second situation, the 4 vertices are like: $`(a,b,ac,bc)`$, where b is the symmetric of a with respect to the diameter perpendicular on c (called the symmetry diagonal). a and c are non-intersecting diagonals.

So the good cycles from V are linearly independent (because the edges are met only one time, in these structures), except for one situation: if there are a,b,c whose lines form an equilateral triangle, the 3 good cycles whose symmetry diagonals are a,b,c are not independent: their sum is a vector of W. But we can have a couple of these triads, and the sum can be zero (so we have a relation). This explains the computations of the dimensions of vector spaces above.