Introduction

Thompson’s group FF consists of the increasing piecewise linear homeomorphisms of [0,1][0,1] with finitely many pieces, dyadic rational breakpoints, and slopes in 2Z2^{\mathbb{Z}}. We use the multiplication convention hg=h∘ghg=h\circ g and regard FF as a discrete group.

A discrete group GG is amenable if its bounded real-valued functions admit a positive normalized left-invariant mean: a linear functional M:ℓ∞(G;R)→RM:\ell^\infty(G;\mathbb{R})\to\mathbb{R} satisfying M(1)=1M(1)=1, M(φ)≥0M(\varphi)\ge0 whenever φ≥0\varphi\ge0, and M(g↦φ(hg))=M(φ)M(g\mapsto\varphi(hg))=M(\varphi) for every h∈Gh\in G. This invariant-mean viewpoint belongs to the classical theory developed by von Neumann and Day [19, 6]. We use the following forward implication of the Følner criterion [7]: if GG is amenable, then for every finite S⊂GS\subset G and every ε>0\varepsilon>0, there is a nonempty finite A⊂GA\subset G such that

∣hA△A∣∣A∣<ε(h∈S).(1)\frac{\lvert hA\mathbin{\triangle} A\rvert}{\lvert A\rvert}<\varepsilon\qquad(h\in S). \tag*{(1)}

The modern left-translation formulation in [14], Theorem 1.2 bounds the sum of these ratios and hence implies each strict individual bound by taking a smaller tolerance. Thus amenability requires finite sets whose relative boundaries are simultaneously small under any fixed finite family of translations.

Thompson introduced FF in 1965; an early published construction appears in McKenzie and Thompson [11], with the identification explained by Cannon, Floyd, and Parry [5], pp. 215–216. The latter authors record Geoghegan’s 1979 conjecture that FF is nonamenable [5], p. 227. We prove this conjecture.

Theorem 1.1. Thompson’s group FF is not amenable.

Context and prior work. Two classical structural facts help explain the difficulty of the amenability problem. Brin and Squier show that FF contains no nonabelian free subgroup [3], Theorem 3.1, so the familiar free-subgroup obstruction does not apply. Yet FF is not elementary amenable [5], Theorem 4.10: it lies outside the class generated by finite and abelian groups under subgroups, quotients, extensions, and directed unions. Neither fact decides ordinary amenability. The group also has strong topological finiteness properties: Brown and Geoghegan construct a classifying space with finitely many cells in each dimension [4].

Finite approximations have provided several ways to study the remaining question. Moore proves tower lower bounds on the sizes of possible Følner sets [15], Theorem 1.1 and characterizes amenability of FF by a scalar convex Ramsey property for finite rooted ordered binary trees [14], Theorem 3.1. Guba improves densities of finite Cayley subgraphs [8] and derives restrictions on right-invariant means from a partition into seven diagram-defined classes [9]. From an operator-algebraic direction, Haagerup and Olesen prove that simplicity of the reduced group C∗\mathrm{C}^*-algebra of Thompson’s group TT would imply nonamenability of FF [10], Theorem 5.5. These results expose constraints on amenability through finite sets, trees, diagrams, and representations. The proof below uses finite dyadic partitions and scalar correlations of Hilbert-valued colors.

There have also been claims of a complete resolution in both directions. Akhmedov’s 2021 version claims nonamenability through a height-function criterion [1]. Shavgulidze claimed amenability [18]; Moore identified errors in that approach [12]. Moore separately withdrew an amenability claim after Akhmedov identified an error in Lemma 4.13 of that manuscript [13]. That withdrawal concerns a different work from his published Ramsey characterization cited above.

Proof strategy. The proof turns approximate translation invariance of finite averages of scalar functions on FF into an approximate fixed point of a Lipschitz map on a Hilbert ball. The following infinite-dimensional phenomenon supplies a map for which that conclusion is impossible.

Lemma 1.2 (Benyamini–Sternfeld). There are a real Hilbert space HH, a Lipschitz map f:B→Bf:B\to B on its closed unit ball, and a constant δ>0\delta>0 such that

∥f(x)−x∥≥δ(x∈B).\lVert f(x)-x\rVert\ge\delta\qquad(x\in B).

Benyamini and Sternfeld prove this assertion for every infinite-dimensional normed space [2], Theorem, part (3), p. 439. For completeness, Appendix A constructs such a map on L2([0,1];R2)L^2([0,1];\mathbb{R}^2) with δ=1/2\delta=1/2, including all the needed Lipschitz estimates.

Fix this map ff, a positive Lipschitz constant LL, and a large integer DD. A basic dyadic interval is a cell of a uniform dyadic partition, and a basic partition is a finite partition into such cells. Choose DD basic intervals with positive gaps between them and endpoints in (0,1)(0,1), called parents. Put an affine copy of this family inside each parent, calling the copies descendants. When a parent is a union of partition cells, restricting to it and stretching back to [0,1][0,1] gives its normalized restriction. Color each basic partition recursively by applying ff to the mean of its parent-restriction colors when all these restrictions are defined, and by zero otherwise. Proper restriction decreases the number of cells, so the recursion is well founded. For a sufficiently fine image partition under g∈Fg\in F, its parent colors XiX_i and descendant colors YijY_{ij} therefore satisfy

m=1D∑i=1DXi,zi=1D∑j=1DYij,Xi=f(zi)(1≤i≤D).m=\frac{1}{D}\sum_{i=1}^{D}X_i,\qquad z_i=\frac{1}{D}\sum_{j=1}^{D}Y_{ij},\qquad X_i=f(z_i)\quad(1\le i\le D).

The group FF can carry any ordered pair of separated basic intervals with endpoints in (0,1)(0,1) affinely onto any other such pair. Choose a finite set SS of these transports comparing every separated pair among the parents and descendants with one reference pair. The set SS is fixed before the arbitrary nonempty finite set A⊂FA\subset F; only the common partition level, chosen fine enough for A∪SAA\cup SA, may depend on AA. Write η\eta for the largest relative SS-boundary of AA. Exact covariance of normalized restrictions and finite-average cancellation make all averaged scalar correlations of separated interval colors differ from one common value by at most η\eta.

Expand the average over AA of ∥zi−m∥2\lVert z_i-m\rVert^2. The common correlation cancels; diagonal and nested pairs occupy only a fraction 1/D1/D of each relevant sum, as Figure 1 illustrates. Unit-ball bounds control those exceptions, giving a universal constant times D−1+ηD^{-1}+\eta. Since mm is also the mean of the f(zi)f(z_i), convexity and Lipschitz continuity bound the average squared displacement ∥m−f(m)∥2\lVert m-f(m)\rVert^2 by a constant times L2(D−1+η)L^2(D^{-1}+\eta). For large DD and small η\eta, this contradicts the uniform lower bound δ2\delta^2. Section 2 makes the argument precise and proves a uniform positive boundary bound in Proposition 2.3, contradicting (1.1).

Schematic grid showing separated and nested pairs

Figure 1. For fixed ii, the (j,k)(j,k) entry is ⟨XIi⋅Ij,XIk⟩\langle X_{I_i\cdot I_j},X_{I_k}\rangle. Rows index the children of IiI_i and columns index all parents; the grid is schematic. Only column ii contains nested pairs, a fraction 1/D1/D of the D2D^2 terms.

Section 3 records consequences for uniformly bounded representations and percolation, using separate companion theorems.

Recursive colors and finite averages

We prove Theorem 1.1 using the map supplied by Lemma 1.2. The argument uses a single finite average over the group. We first record the dyadic facts that make its correlations comparable.

Dyadic partitions and affine transport

We use the standard dyadic-partition model of FF; see [5], Section 2, Lemma 2.2. We record the restriction and pair-transport facts needed for the finite averages.

A basic dyadic interval is an interval

[k2−r,(k+1)2−r]⊆[0,1],r∈N∪{0},0≤k<2r.[k2^{-r},(k+1)2^{-r}] \subseteq[0,1], \qquad r \in\mathbb{N} \cup\{0\}, \qquad0 \leq k < 2^r.

A basic partition is a finite partition of [0,1][0,1] into such intervals; cells may share endpoints. Its mesh is the greatest length of a cell. A partition TT respects an interval II if II is a union of cells of TT.

For a basic interval II, let sI:[0,1]→Is_I:[0,1]\to I be the increasing affine map, and write I⋅J=sI(J)I\cdot J=s_I(J). If TT respects II, define its normalized restriction by

TI={sI−1(K):K∈T, K⊆I}.T_I=\{s_I^{-1}(K):K\in T,\ K\subseteq I\}.

Both I⋅JI\cdot J and the cells of TIT_I are basic dyadic intervals. Indeed, if II has length 2−r2^{-r}, a basic cell contained in II has length 2−s2^{-s} with s≥rs\geq r; applying sI−1s_I^{-1} gives a cell of length 2−(s−r)2^{-(s-r)} whose left endpoint is a multiple of that length. The affine charts satisfy sI⋅J=sI∘sJs_{I\cdot J}=s_I\circ s_J. Consequently, whenever TT respects both II and I⋅JI\cdot J, the partition TIT_I respects JJ and

(TI)J=TI⋅J.(T_I)_J=T_{I\cdot J}.

Let T(n)T^{(n)} be the uniform partition of [0,1][0,1] into intervals of length 2−n2^{-n}. For g∈Fg\in F, the notation gT(n)gT^{(n)} denotes the partition formed by the images of these cells.

Lemma 2.1. For each g∈Fg\in F, the partitions gT(n)gT^{(n)} are basic for all sufficiently large nn, and their meshes tend to zero. In particular, given a finite set K⊂FK\subset F and a finite family J\mathcal{J} of basic intervals, there is an n0n_0 such that gT(n)gT^{(n)} is basic and respects every member of J\mathcal{J} whenever g∈Kg\in K and n≥n0n\geq n_0.

Proof. The image under gg of each breakpoint is dyadic: starting from g(0)=0g(0)=0, sum the increments on the preceding linear pieces, each a power of two times a dyadic length. Thus every linear piece has the form x↦2qx+bx\mapsto2^q x+b with q∈Zq\in\mathbb{Z} and bb dyadic. Choose nn large enough to resolve all breakpoints, to have n≥qn\geq q on every piece, and to make each corresponding bb an integer multiple of 2q−n2^{q-n}. The image of each uniform cell is then a basic interval of length 2q−n2^{q-n}. There are finitely many slopes, so the mesh tends to zero.

Two basic intervals with intersecting interiors are nested. Hence a basic partition of mesh smaller than the length of a basic interval II respects II: every cell whose interior meets that of II must be contained in II. Apply this observation to the finitely many intervals in J\mathcal{J}, and then take the maximum of the finitely many thresholds for g∈Kg\in K. □

Write I<JI < J when max⁡I<min⁡J\max I < \min J; in particular this notation requires a positive gap. An interval is internal if both its endpoints lie in (0,1)(0,1).

Lemma 2.2. If I<JI < J and I′<J′I' < J' are pairs of internal basic intervals, there is an h∈Fh \in F whose restrictions carry II affinely onto I′I' and JJ affinely onto J′J'.

Proof. The two selected intervals leave three complementary gaps, all of positive length and with dyadic endpoints. Partition each gap into basic cells, for example by a sufficiently fine uniform dyadic grid. Do this for both pairs. Within each corresponding pair of gaps, equalize the numbers of cells by successively bisecting cells on the side with fewer cells. Each bisection increases the number by one. The source and target partitions now have the same number of cells, with the two selected intervals in matching positions. Map corresponding cells increasingly and affinely. All breakpoints are dyadic and all slopes are ratios of basic lengths, hence powers of two. This defines the required element of FF. □\square

The relevant covariance is exact. If hh carries II affinely onto I′I', then h∘sI=sI′h \circ s_I = s_{I'}. Thus, if gT(n)gT^{(n)} and (hg)T(n)(hg)T^{(n)} are basic and respect II and I′I', respectively,

((hg)T(n))I′=(gT(n))I.\left((hg)T^{(n)}\right)_{I'} = \left(gT^{(n)}\right)_I.

Here, as throughout, hg=h∘ghg = h \circ g. To verify the equality, match each source cell CC with its image h(C)h(C) and apply sI′−1∘h=sI−1s_{I'}^{-1} \circ h = s_I^{-1} on II.

The recursive coloring

Fix a real Hilbert space HH, its closed unit ball BB, and a Lipschitz map f:B→Bf : B \to B as in Lemma 1.2. Fix L>0L > 0 and δ>0\delta> 0 such that

∥f(x)−f(y)∥≤L∥x−y∥,∥f(x)−x∥≥δ(x,y∈B).(2)\lVert f(x) - f(y) \rVert\le L\lVert x-y \rVert,\qquad\lVert f(x)-x \rVert\ge\delta\qquad(x,y \in B). \tag*{(2)}

Choose an integer D≥2D \ge2 so that

D>4L2δ2.D > \frac{4L^2}{\delta^2}.

Choose internal basic intervals I1<⋯<IDI_1 < \cdots< I_D. Such a family exists for every finite DD: take 2r>2D2^r > 2D and use Ij=[(2j−1)2−r,2j2−r]I_j = [(2j-1)2^{-r},2j2^{-r}].

Define a color p(T)∈Bp(T) \in B for every basic partition TT by induction on its number of cells:

p(T)={f(1D∑j=1Dp(TIj)),if T respects every Ij,0,otherwise.(3)p(T) = \begin{cases} f\left(\dfrac{1}{D}\sum_{j=1}^{D}p(T_{I_j})\right), & \text{if } T \text{ respects every } I_j,\\ 0, & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \tag*{(3)}

This induction is well founded. In the first case each TIjT_{I_j} has strictly fewer cells than TT, since IjI_j is internal and TT has cells outside it. The average of the previously defined colors belongs to the convex ball BB, so the argument of ff is always in its domain, and p(T)∈Bp(T) \in B.

For the displayed choice ∣Ij∣=2−r|I_j| = 2^{-r}, the one-cell partition T(0)T^{(0)} has color zero, while

p(T(r))=f(0),p(T(2r))=f(f(0)).p(T^{(r)}) = f(0),\qquad p(T^{(2r)}) = f(f(0)).

Indeed, normalizing a restriction to any IjI_j changes these uniform partition levels from rr to 00 and from 2r2r to rr, respectively.

We use the finite family of parent intervals and their descendants

I={Ii:1≤i≤D}∪{Ii⋅Ij:1≤i,j≤D}.\mathcal{I} = \{I_i: 1 \le i \le D\} \cup\{I_i \cdot I_j: 1 \le i,j \le D\}.

All these intervals are internal. Call (n,g)(n,g) admissible if gT(n)gT^{(n)} is a basic partition respecting every member of I\mathcal{I}. For every nn, every g∈Fg \in F, and every I∈II \in\mathcal{I}, define

XI(n)(g)={p((gT(n))I),if (n,g) is admissible,0,otherwise.(4)X_I^{(n)}(g) = \begin{cases} p((gT^{(n)})_I), & \text{if } (n,g) \text{ is admissible},\\ 0, & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} \tag*{(4)}

In particular these are globally defined BB-valued functions. Their scalar correlations

φI,J(n)(g)=⟨XI(n)(g),XJ(n)(g)⟩\varphi_{I,J}^{(n)}(g) = \langle X_I^{(n)}(g), X_J^{(n)}(g) \rangle

are defined on all of FF and have absolute value at most one. By Lemma 2.1, every finite set of group elements is admissible at one common sufficiently large level nn.

A uniform boundary bound

For every ordered pair I<JI < J in I\mathcal{I}, choose, using Lemma 2.2, an element hI,J∈Fh_{I,J} \in F carrying I,JI,J affinely onto I1,I2I_1,I_2, respectively. Let SS be the finite set of these elements. All choices so far, in particular SS, are independent of the finite set to be tested.

For any nonempty finite A⊂FA \subset F, any h∈Fh \in F, and any φ:F→[−1,1]\varphi:F \to[-1,1], cancellation over hA∩AhA \cap A gives

∣1∣A∣∑g∈Aφ(hg)−1∣A∣∑g∈Aφ(g)∣≤∣hA△A∣∣A∣.(5)\left|\frac{1}{|A|}\sum_{g \in A}\varphi(hg) - \frac{1}{|A|}\sum_{g \in A}\varphi(g)\right| \le\frac{|hA \mathbin{\triangle} A|}{|A|}. \tag*{(5)}

This is the finite-average comparison we will apply to the scalar correlations.

Proposition 2.3. For every nonempty finite set A⊂FA \subset F,

max⁡h∈S∣hA△A∣∣A∣≥δ2/L2−4/D4(1−1/D)>0.(6)\max_{h \in S}\frac{|hA \mathbin{\triangle} A|}{|A|} \ge\frac{\delta^2/L^2 - 4/D}{4(1 - 1/D)} > 0. \tag*{(6)}

Proof. Fix such a set AA and put

η=max⁡h∈S∣hA△A∣∣A∣.\eta= \max_{h \in S}\frac{|hA \mathbin{\triangle} A|}{|A|}.

Choose a single nn for which (n,g)(n,g) is admissible for all

g∈A∪SA,SA=⋃h∈ShA.g \in A \cup SA, \qquad SA = \bigcup_{h \in S} hA.

This choice is possible because that union is finite; the level nn may depend on AA. We now fix this nn, omit its superscript, and write

EAψ=1∣A∣∑g∈Aψ(g),α=EAφI1,I2.\mathbb{E}_A\psi= \frac{1}{|A|}\sum_{g \in A}\psi(g), \qquad\alpha= \mathbb{E}_A\varphi_{I_1,I_2}.

Comparing correlations. For I<JI<J in I\mathcal{I} and g∈Ag\in A, admissibility of both gg and hI,Jgh_{I,J}g, together with (2.2), gives

XI(g)=XI1(hI,Jg),XJ(g)=XI2(hI,Jg).X_I(g)=X_{I_1}(h_{I,J}g),\qquad X_J(g)=X_{I_2}(h_{I,J}g).

It follows that φI,J(g)=φI1,I2(hI,Jg)\varphi_{I,J}(g)=\varphi_{I_1,I_2}(h_{I,J}g). Apply (5) to the globally bounded function φI1,I2\varphi_{I_1,I_2} and use (2.9). We obtain

∣EA⟨XI,XJ⟩−α∣≤ηwhenever I,J∈I are strictly separated.(7)\left|\mathbb{E}_A\langle X_I,X_J\rangle-\alpha\right|\leq\eta\qquad\text{whenever }I,J\in\mathcal{I}\text{ are strictly separated}. \tag*{(7)}

The reversed order follows from symmetry of the real inner product. No condition is imposed on nested pairs. Also, a transport hI,Jh_{I,J} need not preserve the other intervals in I\mathcal{I}: admissibility was required separately at its source and target group elements.

The variance estimate. For g∈Ag\in A, put

m(g)=1D∑k=1DXIk(g),zi(g)=1D∑j=1DXIi⋅Ij(g)(1≤i≤D).m(g)=\frac{1}{D}\sum_{k=1}^{D}X_{I_k}(g),\qquad z_i(g)=\frac{1}{D}\sum_{j=1}^{D}X_{I_i\cdot I_j}(g)\qquad(1\leq i\leq D).

These vectors lie in BB. Admissibility ensures that the partition (gT(n))Ii(gT^{(n)})_{I_i} respects each IjI_j. Applying the recursion and (2.1) therefore yields the exact identities

XIi(g)=f(zi(g))(g∈A, 1≤i≤D).X_{I_i}(g)=f\bigl(z_i(g)\bigr)\qquad(g\in A,\,1\leq i\leq D).

Consequently, for every g∈Ag\in A, the displacement bound, the convexity of the squared norm, and the Lipschitz bound give

δ2≤∥m(g)−f(m(g))∥2=∥1D∑i=1D(f(zi(g))−f(m(g)))∥2≤1D∑i=1D∥f(zi(g))−f(m(g))∥2≤L2D∑i=1D∥zi(g)−m(g)∥2.(8)\begin{aligned} \delta^2&\leq\left\|m(g)-f\bigl(m(g)\bigr)\right\|^2\\ &=\left\|\frac{1}{D}\sum_{i=1}^{D}\left(f\bigl(z_i(g)\bigr)-f\bigl(m(g)\bigr)\right)\right\|^2\\ &\leq\frac{1}{D}\sum_{i=1}^{D}\left\|f\bigl(z_i(g)\bigr)-f\bigl(m(g)\bigr)\right\|^2\\ &\leq\frac{L^2}{D}\sum_{i=1}^{D}\left\|z_i(g)-m(g)\right\|^2. \tag*{(8)} \end{aligned}

We bound the finite average of each squared distance in the last line. In the expansion of ∥m∥2\|m\|^2, the D(D−1)D(D-1) off-diagonal terms pair strictly separated parents, so (7) applies. Each of the DD diagonal terms is at most one. The same statements hold for the siblings in ∥zi∥2\|z_i\|^2. Hence

EA∥m∥2≤(1−1D)(α+η)+1D.(9)\mathbb{E}_A\|m\|^2\leq\left(1-\frac{1}{D}\right)(\alpha+\eta)+\frac{1}{D}. \tag*{(9)}
EA∥zi∥2≤(1−1D)(α+η)+1D.(10)\mathbb{E}_A\|z_i\|^2\leq\left(1-\frac{1}{D}\right)(\alpha+\eta)+\frac{1}{D}. \tag*{(10)}

In the mixed term

⟨zi,m⟩=1D2∑j=1D∑k=1D⟨XIi⋅Ij,XIk⟩,\langle z_i,m\rangle=\frac{1}{D^2}\sum_{j=1}^{D}\sum_{k=1}^{D}\langle X_{I_i\cdot I_j},X_{I_k}\rangle,

the D(D−1)D(D-1) terms with k≠ik\ne i pair strictly separated intervals. Each has average at least α−η\alpha-\eta. The remaining DD terms pair a descendant with its own parent; each is at least −1-1 by the unit-ball bound. Figure 1 shows this division of the mixed pairs. Thus

EA⟨zi,m⟩≥(1−1D)(α−η)−1D.(11)\mathbb{E}_{A}\langle z_i,m\rangle\ge\left(1-\frac{1}{D}\right)(\alpha-\eta)-\frac{1}{D}. \tag*{(11)}

Expanding the squared distance and using (9)–(11), the coefficients of α\alpha cancel and give

EA∥zi−m∥2≤4D+4(1−1D)η(1≤i≤D).(12)\mathbb{E}_{A}\lVert z_i-m\rVert^2\le\frac{4}{D}+4\left(1-\frac{1}{D}\right)\eta\qquad(1\le i\le D). \tag*{(12)}

This estimate does not require any sign assumption on α\alpha.

Average (8) over AA and apply (12):

δ2≤L2D∑i=1DEA∥zi−m∥2≤L2(4D+4(1−1D)η).\begin{aligned} \delta^2&\le\frac{L^2}{D}\sum_{i=1}^{D}\mathbb{E}_{A}\lVert z_i-m\rVert^2\\ &\le L^2\left(\frac{4}{D}+4\left(1-\frac{1}{D}\right)\eta\right). \end{aligned}

Rearranging proves (6); its right-hand side is positive by (2.4) and does not depend on AA. □\square

Proof of Theorem 1.1. The fixed finite set SS and the uniform positive lower bound in Proposition 2.3 violate the Følner criterion (1.1). Hence FF is not amenable. □\square

Consequences

Theorem 1.1 allows us to apply two companion results for nonamenable groups. The first concerns representations that are uniformly close to being isometric but cannot be made unitary by an equivalent Hilbert norm. The second concerns percolation on the simple Cayley graphs of FF associated with finite symmetric generating sets. Neither companion result is used in the proof of nonamenability.

Uniformly bounded representations

Corollary 3.1. For every ε>0\varepsilon>0, there are a separable complex Hilbert space HH and a representation π:F→GL⁡(H)\pi:F\to\operatorname{GL}(H) such that sup⁡g∈F∥π(g)∥≤1+ε\sup_{g\in F}\lVert\pi(g)\rVert\le1+\varepsilon, but no bounded invertible operator SS on HH makes every Sπ(g)S−1S\pi(g)S^{-1} unitary.

Proof. The group FF is countable, by its finite dyadic piecewise linear description, and nonamenable by Theorem 1.1, so the conclusion follows from the companion unitarizability theorem [17] (Theorem 1.1).

Percolation on Cayley graphs

For a finite symmetric generating set S⊂F∖{id}S \subset F \setminus\{\mathrm{id}\}, let GSG_S be the simple undirected Cayley graph with edges {x,xs}\{x,xs\}. In Bernoulli bond percolation on this fixed graph, each edge is independently open with probability pp. Write pcp_c for the threshold for existence of an infinite open cluster and pup_u for the threshold for almost-sure uniqueness of the infinite open cluster. The connection kernel Tp(x,y)=Pp(x↔y)T_p(x,y)=\mathbb{P}_p(x \leftrightarrow y) acts on counting-measure ℓ2(F)\ell^2(F), initially on finitely supported functions by summation over yy; put p2→2=sup⁡{p∈[0,1]:Tp is bounded on ℓ2(F)}p_{2 \to2}=\sup\{p\in[0,1]:T_p\text{ is bounded on }\ell^2(F)\}.

Corollary 3.2. For every such generating set SS,

∥Tpc∥2→2<∞,pc<p2→2≤pu.\lVert T_{p_c}\rVert_{2\to2}<\infty,\qquad p_c<p_{2\to2}\leq p_u.

For each fixed p∈(pc,pu)p\in(p_c,p_u), there are almost surely infinitely many infinite open clusters. Moreover, there are deterministic pc<p1<p2<1p_c<p_1<p_2<1, depending on SS, such that in the coupling with independent uniform [0,1][0,1] edge labels UeU_e, opening ee when Ue≤pU_e\leq p, there are almost surely infinitely many infinite open clusters simultaneously for every p∈[p1,p2]p\in[p_1,p_2].

Proof. Apply the companion percolation result [16] (Corollary 1.2) to FF, which is nonamenable by Theorem 1.1.

An explicit map with positive displacement

We give a direct construction of the map needed in Lemma 1.2. This proves the Hilbert-space instance of the Benyamini–Sternfeld theorem [2] directly. The aim is to construct a Lipschitz map G:B→HG:B\to H bounded away from zero and equal to the identity when ∥x∥≥1/2\lVert x\rVert\geq1/2. Then f(x)=−G(x)/∥G(x)∥f(x)=-G(x)/\lVert G(x)\rVert has the required displacement. A tube about a curve with a bounded tail supplies GG.

Proposition A.1. Let H=L2([0,1];R2)H=L^2([0,1];\mathbb{R}^2) be a real Hilbert space and let B={x∈H:∥x∥≤1}B=\{x\in H:\lVert x\rVert\leq1\}. There is a globally Lipschitz map f:B→Bf:B\to B such that

∥f(x)∥=1,∥f(x)−x∥≥12(x∈B).\lVert f(x)\rVert=1,\qquad\lVert f(x)-x\rVert\geq\frac{1}{2}\qquad(x\in B).

Define functions on R\mathbb{R} by

a(t)={t/8,t≤2,5/16−(3−t)2/16,2<t<3,5/16,t≥3,θ(t)={0,t≤1,(t−1)2/2,1<t<2,t−3/2,t≥2.a(t)= \begin{cases} t/8, & t\leq2,\\ 5/16-(3-t)^2/16, & 2<t<3,\\ 5/16, & t\geq3, \end{cases} \qquad \theta(t)= \begin{cases} 0, & t\leq1,\\ (t-1)^2/2, & 1<t<2,\\ t-3/2, & t\geq2. \end{cases}

For w∈[0,1]w\in[0,1], put

v(t)(w)=(cos⁡(θ(t)w),sin⁡(θ(t)w)),γ(t)=a(t)v(t).v(t)(w)=(\cos(\theta(t)w),\sin(\theta(t)w)),\qquad\gamma(t)=a(t)v(t).

Thus ∥v(t)∥=1\lVert v(t)\rVert=1, γ(0)=0\gamma(0)=0, and γ\gamma follows a straight line for t≤1t\leq1; its tail for t≥1t\geq1 lies in the ball of radius 5/165/16. The next lemma shows that, although the positive tail is bounded, curve points whose parameters differ by a fixed amount remain uniformly separated. This permits a tube of fixed radius along the whole curve.

Lemma A.2. The curve γ\gamma is injective, has a bounded Lipschitz derivative, and

c:=inf⁡t∈R∥γ′(t)∥=18.c := \inf_{t \in\mathbb{R}} \lVert\gamma'(t) \rVert= \frac{1}{8}.

Its unit tangent u(t)=γ′(t)/∥γ′(t)∥u(t) = \gamma'(t)/\lVert\gamma'(t) \rVert is Lipschitz, ⟨u(t),v(t)⟩≥0\langle u(t), v(t)\rangle\ge0, and u(t)=v(t)u(t) = v(t) for t≤1t \le1. There is a radius 0<ρ<1/320 < \rho< 1/32 such that every point in

U={x∈H:dist⁡(x,γ(R))<ρ}U = \{x \in H : \operatorname{dist}(x,\gamma(\mathbb{R})) < \rho\}

has a unique nearest point γ(t(x))\gamma(t(x)). Writing e(x)=x−γ(t(x))e(x) = x - \gamma(t(x)), we have e(x)⊥u(t(x))e(x) \perp u(t(x)), and

∣t(x)−t(y)∣≤16∥x−y∥if x,y∈U and ∥x−y∥<ρ.(13)\lvert t(x) - t(y) \rvert\le16\lVert x-y\rVert\quad\text{if } x,y \in U \text{ and } \lVert x-y\rVert< \rho. \tag*{(13)}

Proof. Let J(ξ1,ξ2)=(−ξ2,ξ1)J(\xi_1,\xi_2) = (-\xi_2,\xi_1). Since 0≤w≤10 \le w \le1, the scalar trigonometric Taylor remainders are uniform in ww, which justifies differentiation in HH. We obtain

γ′(t)(w)=a′(t)v(t)(w)+a(t)θ′(t)wJv(t)(w),∥γ′(t)∥2=a′(t)2+a(t)2θ′(t)23.\gamma'(t)(w) = a'(t)v(t)(w) + a(t)\theta'(t)wJv(t)(w), \qquad\lVert\gamma'(t)\rVert^2 = a'(t)^2 + \frac{a(t)^2\theta'(t)^2}{3}.

For t≤2t \le2 the first term is 1/641/64; for t≥2t \ge2 we have a(t)≥1/4a(t) \ge1/4 and θ′(t)=1\theta'(t) = 1. Equality in the claimed lower speed bound holds for t≤1t \le1. The first derivatives match at the junctions 1,2,31,2,3, and their derivatives on the intervening intervals are bounded. On the unbounded negative interval the angular derivatives vanish. Consequently γ′\gamma' is bounded and Lipschitz. The same is true of vv and uu, and ⟨u(t),v(t)⟩=a′(t)/∥γ′(t)∥≥0\langle u(t),v(t)\rangle= a'(t)/\lVert\gamma'(t)\rVert\ge0.

We need the following uniform separation property:

σ(d):=inf⁡∣t−s∣≥d∥γ(t)−γ(s)∥>0(d>0).(14)\sigma(d) := \inf_{\lvert t-s\rvert\ge d} \lVert\gamma(t)-\gamma(s)\rVert> 0 \qquad(d>0). \tag*{(14)}

Indeed, with sinc⁡(q)=sin⁡(q)/q\operatorname{sinc}(q) = \sin(q)/q for q≠0q \ne0 and sinc⁡(0)=1\operatorname{sinc}(0) = 1, we have

⟨v(s),v(t)⟩=sinc⁡(θ(t)−θ(s)).\langle v(s),v(t)\rangle= \operatorname{sinc}(\theta(t)-\theta(s)).

Since ∣sinc⁡(q)∣<1\lvert\operatorname{sinc}(q)\rvert< 1 for q≠0q \ne0, distinct angular parameters give noncollinear unit vectors. On (−∞,1](-\infty,1] the coefficient aa is strictly increasing, whereas θ\theta is strictly increasing on (1,∞)(1,\infty) and aa is positive there. This proves injectivity.

If (14) failed, choose sn<tns_n < t_n with tn−sn≥dt_n-s_n \ge d and ∥γ(tn)−γ(sn)∥→0\lVert\gamma(t_n)-\gamma(s_n)\rVert\to0, and pass to subsequences for which both parameters have limits in the extended real line. Finite limits contradict injectivity. If both limits are −∞-\infty, the distances equal (tn−sn)/8(t_n-s_n)/8 eventually. If only sn→−∞s_n \to-\infty, the first radii tend to infinity while the second remain bounded. If sn→s∈Rs_n \to s \in\mathbb{R} and tn→+∞t_n \to+\infty, the displayed inner product tends to zero, and the squared distances tend to a(s)2+(5/16)2a(s)^2 + (5/16)^2. Finally, if both parameters tend to +∞+\infty, then eventually

∥γ(tn)−γ(sn)∥2=2(5/16)2(1−sinc⁡(tn−sn)).\lVert\gamma(t_n)-\gamma(s_n)\rVert^2 = 2(5/16)^2\bigl(1-\operatorname{sinc}(t_n-s_n)\bigr).

This is bounded away from zero because sup⁡q≥dsinc⁡(q)<1\sup_{q \ge d}\operatorname{sinc}(q) < 1, by continuity and decay at infinity. These cases establish (14).

Write K=Lip⁡(γ′)K = \operatorname{Lip}(\gamma') and Ku=Lip⁡(u)K_u = \operatorname{Lip}(u). Choose d>0d > 0 with Kd≤c/2Kd \le c/2. The estimate

∥γ(t)−γ(s)−(t−s)γ′(s)∥≤K2∣t−s∣2\lVert\gamma(t)-\gamma(s)-(t-s)\gamma'(s)\rVert\le\frac{K}{2}\lvert t-s\rvert^2

then implies

∣⟨γ(t)−γ(s),u(s)⟩∣≥3c4∣t−s∣(∣t−s∣≤d).(15)\left|\langle\gamma(t)-\gamma(s),u(s)\rangle\right| \ge\frac{3c}{4}|t-s| \qquad(|t-s|\le d). \tag*{(15)}

Choose ρ>0\rho>0 so that

ρ<132,4ρ<σ(d),ρKu<c4.(16)\rho<\frac{1}{32},\qquad4\rho<\sigma(d),\qquad\rho K_u<\frac{c}{4}. \tag*{(16)}

For x∈Ux\in U, take a minimizing sequence γ(tn)\gamma(t_n) for the distance from xx to the curve. Its late terms satisfy ∥x−γ(tn)∥<2ρ\lVert x-\gamma(t_n)\rVert<2\rho, so their pairwise distances are less than 4ρ4\rho. By (14) their parameters differ by less than dd. Fixing one late parameter therefore confines all later ones to a compact real interval. A convergent subsequence attains the minimum. Differentiating ∥x−γ(t)∥2\lVert x-\gamma(t)\rVert^2 at any minimizing parameter gives (x−γ(t))⊥u(t)(x-\gamma(t))\perp u(t).

For x,y∈Ux,y\in U with ∥x−y∥<ρ\lVert x-y\rVert<\rho, choose any minimizing parameters t,st,s and write x=γ(t)+etx=\gamma(t)+e_t, y=γ(s)+esy=\gamma(s)+e_s. The curve points are less than 3ρ3\rho apart, so ∣t−s∣<d|t-s|<d. Orthogonality and (15) give

∥x−y∥≥∣⟨γ(t)−γ(s),u(s)⟩∣−∣⟨et,u(s)−u(t)⟩∣≥(3c4−ρKu)∣t−s∣≥c2∣t−s∣.\begin{aligned} \lVert x-y\rVert\ge\left|\langle\gamma(t)-\gamma(s),u(s)\rangle\right|-\left|\langle e_t,u(s)-u(t)\rangle\right| \\ &\ge\left(\frac{3c}{4}-\rho K_u\right)|t-s|\ge\frac{c}{2}|t-s|. \end{aligned}

Taking y=xy=x proves uniqueness; the same inequality proves (13).

We next arrange that a residual perpendicular to the curve’s tangent is carried to a vector perpendicular to v(t)v(t). This will let us change the coefficient along v(t)v(t) without cancellation by that residual.

Lemma A.3. There is a family of orthogonal operators Rt:H→HR_t:H\to H, Lipschitz in operator norm, such that Rtu(t)=v(t)R_tu(t)=v(t) and RtR_t is the identity for t≤1t\le1.

Proof. Suppress tt and put κ=⟨u,v⟩≥0\kappa=\langle u,v\rangle\ge0. Define

Ah=v⟨u,h⟩−u⟨v,h⟩,R=Id⁡+A+A21+κ.Ah=v\langle u,h\rangle-u\langle v,h\rangle,\qquad R=\operatorname{Id}+A+\frac{A^2}{1+\kappa}.

If u,vu,v are independent, then AA is skew-adjoint, A2=−(1−κ2)Id⁡A^2=-(1-\kappa^2)\operatorname{Id} on their span, and RR restricts there to κId⁡+A\kappa\operatorname{Id}+A. This restriction is orthogonal and sends uu to vv, while RR is the identity on the orthogonal complement. If u=vu=v, then A=0A=0 and R=Id⁡R=\operatorname{Id}. These exhaust the cases because κ≥0\kappa\ge0. The formula, the Lipschitz dependence of u,vu,v, and 1+κ≥11+\kappa\ge1 show that t↦Rtt\mapsto R_t is Lipschitz in operator norm, including where u=vu=v.

Proof of Proposition A.1. Fix the tube radius from Lemma A.2 and the rotations from Lemma A.3. Set

b(t)=min⁡{a(t),−1/8},q(t)=b(t)−a(t)=−max⁡{a(t)+1/8,0}.b(t)=\min\{a(t),-1/8\},\qquad q(t)=b(t)-a(t)=-\max\{a(t)+1/8,0\}.

Then ∣q(t)∣≤7/16|q(t)|\le7/16 and Lip⁡(q)≤1/8\operatorname{Lip}(q)\le1/8. Let β,χ:[0,∞)→[0,1]\beta,\chi:[0,\infty)\to[0,1] be the continuous piecewise linear functions specified by

β(r)={1,r≤ρ/4,2−4r/ρ,ρ/4<r<ρ/2,0,r≥ρ/2,χ(r)={1,r≤ρ/2,2−2r/ρ,ρ/2<r<ρ,0,r≥ρ.\beta(r)= \begin{cases} 1, & r\le\rho/4,\\ 2-4r/\rho, & \rho/4<r<\rho/2,\\ 0, & r\ge\rho/2, \end{cases} \qquad \chi(r)= \begin{cases} 1, & r\le\rho/2,\\ 2-2r/\rho, & \rho/2<r<\rho,\\ 0, & r\ge\rho. \end{cases}

Define G:B→HG:B\to H to equal the identity outside UU. For x∈B∩Ux\in B\cap U, write t=t(x)t=t(x), e=x−γ(t)e=x-\gamma(t), r=∥e∥r=\lVert e\rVert, and set

G(x)=γ(t)+β(r)q(t)v(t)+((1−χ(r))Id⁡+χ(r)Rt)e=x+β(r)q(t)v(t)+χ(r)(Rt−Id⁡)e.(17)\begin{aligned} G(x) &= \gamma(t)+\beta(r)q(t)v(t)+\bigl((1-\chi(r))\operatorname{Id}+\chi(r)R_t\bigr)e\\ &=x+\beta(r)q(t)v(t)+\chi(r)(R_t-\operatorname{Id})e. \tag*{(17)} \end{aligned}

First, GG is globally Lipschitz on BB. For tube points at distance less than ρ\rho, (13) controls their parameters, and, with M=sup⁡t∥γ′(t)∥M=\sup_t\lVert\gamma'(t)\rVert, their residuals satisfy

∥e(x)−e(y)∥≤(1+16M)∥x−y∥.\lVert e(x)-e(y)\rVert\leq(1+16M)\lVert x-y\rVert.

Moreover, r(x)=dist⁡(x,γ(R))r(x)=\operatorname{dist}(x,\gamma(\mathbb{R})) is 1-Lipschitz. Every factor in the second line of (17) is therefore Lipschitz for such pairs with uniform constants; the factors are uniformly bounded, using ∥e∥<ρ\lVert e\rVert<\rho, ∣q∣≤7/16|q|\leq7/16, ∥v∥=1\lVert v\rVert=1 and ∥Rt∥=1\lVert R_t\rVert=1. The product estimates give one finite Lipschitz bound for all these pairs. Also, on all of BB,

∥G(x)∥≤1+7/16+2ρ<3/2.\lVert G(x)\rVert\leq1+7/16+2\rho<3/2.

so pairs at distance at least ρ\rho are controlled by 3/ρ3/\rho. For the remaining pairs, let x∈Ux\in U and y∉Uy\notin U. Both cutoffs satisfy β(r),χ(r)≤2(ρ−r)/ρ\beta(r),\chi(r)\leq2(\rho-r)/\rho, whence

∥G(x)−x∥≤(78ρ+4)(ρ−r).\lVert G(x)-x\rVert\leq\left(\frac{7}{8\rho}+4\right)(\rho-r).

Since distance to the curve is 1-Lipschitz and y∉Uy\notin U, ρ−r≤∥x−y∥\rho-r\leq\lVert x-y\rVert. Together with G(y)=yG(y)=y, this proves the required bound across the tube boundary. Outside the tube GG is the identity.

Next, we claim that

∥G(x)∥≥ρ/4(x∈B).(18)\lVert G(x)\rVert\geq\rho/4\qquad(x\in B). \tag*{(18)}

Outside UU, the fact that 0=γ(0)0=\gamma(0) gives ∥G(x)∥=∥x∥≥ρ\lVert G(x)\rVert=\lVert x\rVert\geq\rho. Inside UU, if r≤ρ/2r\leq\rho/2, then χ(r)=1\chi(r)=1 and Rte⊥v(t)R_te\perp v(t), with ∥Rte∥=r\lVert R_te\rVert=r. For r≤ρ/4r\leq\rho/4, the coefficient along v(t)v(t) is b(t)≤−1/8b(t)\leq-1/8; for ρ/4≤r≤ρ/2\rho/4\leq r\leq\rho/2, the perpendicular component has norm at least ρ/4\rho/4. If ρ/2≤r<ρ\rho/2\leq r<\rho, then β(r)=0\beta(r)=0 and the last term in the first line of (17) has norm at most r<ρr<\rho. When t>1t>1, we have a(t)≥1/8a(t)\geq1/8, so ∥G(x)∥≥1/8−ρ>ρ/4\lVert G(x)\rVert\geq1/8-\rho>\rho/4. When t≤1t\leq1, we have Rt=Id⁡R_t=\operatorname{Id} and e⊥v(t)e\perp v(t), so ∥G(x)∥≥r≥ρ/2\lVert G(x)\rVert\geq r\geq\rho/2. This proves (18).

Finally, G(x)=xG(x)=x whenever ∥x∥≥1/2\lVert x\rVert\geq1/2. This holds by definition outside UU. Inside UU, the reverse triangle inequality gives

∣a(t)∣=∥γ(t)∥≥∥x∥−r>1/2−ρ>5/16.|a(t)|=\lVert\gamma(t)\rVert\geq\lVert x\rVert-r>1/2-\rho>5/16.

Since a(t)≤5/16a(t)\leq5/16 everywhere, this forces a(t)<−1/8a(t)<-1/8 and t≤1t\leq1. Thus q(t)=0q(t)=0 and Rt=Id⁡R_t=\operatorname{Id}, so (17) again gives G(x)=xG(x)=x.

Define

f(x)=−G(x)∥G(x)∥.f(x)=-\frac{G(x)}{\lVert G(x)\rVert}.

Normalization on vectors of norm at least ρ/4\rho/4 is Lipschitz with constant at most 8/ρ8/\rho, so ff is globally Lipschitz by (18), and its values have norm one. If ∥x∥<1/2\lVert x\rVert<1/2, then ∥f(x)−x∥≥1−∥x∥>1/2\lVert f(x)-x\rVert\geq1-\lVert x\rVert>1/2. Otherwise G(x)=xG(x)=x, and ∥f(x)−x∥=1+∥x∥≥3/2\lVert f(x)-x\rVert=1+\lVert x\rVert\geq3/2.

References

  1. [1]Azer Akhmedov. Non-amenability of R. Thompson’s group F. arXiv:1310.4395v3, 2021.
  2. [2]Y. Benyamini and Y. Sternfeld. Spheres in infinite-dimensional normed spaces are Lipschitz contractible. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 88(3):439–445, July 1983. doi:10.1090/S0002-9939-1983-0699410-7.DOI
  3. [3]Matthew G. Brin and Craig C. Squier. Groups of piecewise linear homeomorphisms of the real line. Inventiones Mathematicae, 79(3):485–498, 1985. doi:10.1007/BF01388519.DOI
  4. [4]Kenneth S. Brown and Ross Geoghegan. An infinite-dimensional torsion-free FP∞ group. Inventiones Mathematicae, 77(2):367–381, 1984. doi:10.1007/BF01388451.DOI
  5. [5]J. W. Cannon, W. J. Floyd, and W. R. Parry. Introductory notes on Richard Thompson’s groups. L’Enseignement Mathématique (2), 42(3–4):215–256, 1996. Primary article scan.DOI
  6. [6]Mahlon M. Day. Amenable semigroups. Illinois Journal of Mathematics, 1(4):509–544, 1957. doi:10.1215/ijm/1255380675.DOI
  7. [7]Erling Følner. On groups with full Banach mean value. Mathematica Scandinavica, 3:243–254, 1955. doi:10.7146/math.scand.a-10442.DOI
  8. [8]Victor Guba. Cayley graphs of R. Thompson’s group F: New estimates for the density. Journal of Combinatorial Algebra, 9(1/2):145–168, 2025. doi:10.4171/JCA/110.DOI
  9. [9]Victor Guba. On zero-measured subsets of Thompson’s group F. Journal of Algebra, 692:106–122, April 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2025.12.006.DOI
  10. [10]Uffe Haagerup and Kristian Knudsen Olesen. Non-inner amenability of the Thompson groups T and V. Journal of Functional Analysis, 272(11):4838–4852, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2017.02.003.DOI
  11. [11]Ralph McKenzie and Richard J. Thompson. An elementary construction of unsolvable word problems in group theory. In W. W. Boone, F. B. Cannonito, and R. C. Lyndon, editors, Word Problems: Decision Problems and the Burnside Problem in Group Theory, volume 71 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, pages 457–478. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973. doi:10.1016/S0049-237X(08)71914-1.DOI
  12. [12]Justin Tatch Moore. A note on Shavgulidze’s papers concerning the amenability problem for Thompson’s group F. arXiv:1102.0747v2, 2011.arxiv.org/abs/1102.0747
  13. [13]Justin Tatch Moore. Nonassociative Ramsey theory and the amenability of Thompson’s group. arXiv:1209.2063v4, 2012. Withdrawn.arxiv.org/abs/1209.2063
  14. [14]Justin Tatch Moore. Amenability and Ramsey theory. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 220(3):263–280, 2013. doi:10.4064/fm220-3-6.DOI
  15. [15]Justin Tatch Moore. Fast growth in the Følner function for Thompson’s group F. Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics, 7(3):633–651, 2013. doi:10.4171/GGD/201.DOI
  16. [16]OpenAI. Nonuniqueness of percolation on nonamenable quasi-transitive graphs. OpenAI Math Release preprint OAI:Nonuniqueness-of-percolation-on-nonamenable-quasi-transitive-graphs-September-24-2026, 2026. Corollary 1.2.
  17. [17]OpenAI. Unitarizability implies amenability for discrete groups. OpenAI Math Release preprint OAI:Unitarizability-Implies-Amenability-for-Countable-Groups-September-23-2026, 2026. Theorem 1.1.
  18. [18]E. T. Shavgulidze. About amenability of subgroups of the group of diffeomorphisms of the interval. arXiv:0906.0107v1, 2009.
  19. [19]John von Neumann. Zur allgemeinen Theorie des Massen. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 13:73–116, 1929. doi:10.4064/fm-13-1-73-116.DOI

Paper details

Contents