Some aspects in the theory of representations of discrete groups. II (Q1813895)

Here we consider mainly equivalence relations among irreducible unitary representations (IURs) of an infinite wreath product group, constructed in the first part [Jap. J. Math., New Ser. 16, 197-268 (1990; Zbl 0729.22007)] of these notes. We keep to the notations of part I. 1. Commutativity of two kinds of inducing processes. Let \(T\) be a group and \(S\) its subgroup. Consider wreath product groups \({\mathfrak S}_A(S)\) and \({\mathfrak S}_A(T)\). Then we have two kinds of inducing representations: the usual one an the WP-inducing. We give a certain commutativity of these inducing processes. Start with a datum \(R = \{A, \rho_s, \chi,\;a = (a_\alpha)_{\alpha \in A}\}\) for an elementary representation of \(\rho(R)\) of \({\mathfrak S}_A(S)\). On the one hand, put \(\widetilde {\rho}_T = \text{Ind}^T_S \rho_S\), and let \(\widetilde {a}_\alpha = \text{Ind}^T_S a_\alpha \in V(\widetilde {\rho}_T)\) be the induced vector of \(a_\alpha \in V(\rho_S)\). Then \(\widetilde {a} = (\widetilde {a}_\alpha)_{\alpha \in A}\) is a reference vector for \((\widetilde {V}_\alpha)_{\alpha \in A}\) with \(\widetilde {V}_\alpha = V(\widetilde {\rho}_T)\), and denote it as \(\widetilde{a} = \text{Ind}^T_S a\). Thus we get a datum \(\widetilde {R} = \{A, \widetilde {\rho}_T, \chi, \widetilde{a}\}\) for \({\mathfrak S}_A(T)\) and correspondingly an elementary representation \(\rho (\widetilde {R})\) of \({\mathfrak S}_A(T)\). On the other hand, we have the induced representation \(\text{Ind} (\rho(R); {\mathfrak S}_A (S) \uparrow {\mathfrak S}_A(T))\). Theorem 1. Let \(R\) be a datum for an elementary representation of \({\mathfrak S}_A(S)\). Then the two representations \(\rho (\widetilde {R})\) and \(\text{Ind} (\rho(R); {\mathfrak S}_A(S) \uparrow {\mathfrak S}_A(T))\) of \({\mathfrak S}_A (T)\) are canonically equivalent to each other. A similar assertion holds for standard representations for \({\mathfrak S}_A (S)\) and \({\mathfrak S}_A (T)\). -- 2. Equivalence relations among standard representations. Take two induced representations \(\rho (Q_i) = \text{Ind} (\pi(Q_i); H(Q_i) \uparrow {\mathfrak S}_A(T))\), \(i = 1,2\), of \({\mathfrak S}_A (T)\), called standard, and let the corresponding data be \[ Q_1 = \{(A_\gamma, \rho^\gamma_{T_{1\gamma}}, \chi_{1\gamma})_{\gamma \in \Gamma},\;(a_1(\gamma))_{\gamma \in \Gamma},\;(b_{1\gamma})_{\gamma \in \Gamma}\}, \] \[ Q_2 = \{(B_\delta, \rho^\delta_{T_{2\delta}}, \chi_{2\delta})_{\delta \in \Delta},\;(a_2(\delta))_{\delta \in \Delta},\;(b_{2\delta})_{\delta \in \Delta}\}, \] where, in particular, \((A_\gamma)_{\gamma\in \Gamma}\) and \((B_\delta)_{\delta \in \Delta}\) are partitions of \(A\), and \(T_{1\gamma}\) and \(T_{2\delta}\) are subgroups of \(T\). For an element \(\zeta\) of \({\mathfrak S}_A\), we call an adjustment of \(Q_2\) by \(\zeta\) the datum \[ ^\zeta Q_2 = \{(\zeta (B_\delta), \rho^\delta_{T_{2\delta}}, \chi_\delta)_{\delta \in \Delta}, (a_2(\delta))_{\delta\in \Delta},\;(b_{2\delta})_{\delta \in \Delta}\}. \] Then \(\rho(Q_2)\) is equivalent to \(\rho(^\zeta Q_2)\) in a trivial fashion. -- Theorem 2. Assume that two data \(Q_1\) and \(Q_2\) satisfy the condition \((Q1)\), i.e., \(|\Gamma_f|\leq 1\), \(|\Delta_f|\leq 1\), and that both \(\rho(Q_1)\) and \(\rho(Q_2)\) are irreducible. Then they are mutually equivalent if and only if the following conditions hold: (EQU1) Replacing \(Q_2\) by its adjustment by an element in \({\mathfrak S}_A\) if necessary, we have a 1-1 correspondence \(\kappa\) of \(\Gamma\) onto \(\Delta\) such that \(A_\gamma = B_{\kappa (\gamma)}\) for \(\gamma \in \Gamma\). Further \(\chi_\gamma = \chi_{\kappa(\gamma)}\) for \(\gamma \in \Gamma\), and \(\text{Ind}^T_{T_{1\gamma}} \rho^\gamma_{T_{1\gamma}} \cong \text{Ind}^T_{T_{2\delta}} \rho^\delta_{T_{2\delta}}\) for \(\gamma \in \Gamma_f\) and \(\delta= \kappa(\gamma)\). -- (EQU2) For \(\gamma \in \Gamma_\infty = \Gamma \setminus \Gamma_f\), replace \(\delta = \kappa(\gamma)\) by \(\gamma\), and put \(T_{0\gamma} = T_{1\gamma} \cap T_{2\gamma}\). Then, for every \(\gamma \in \Gamma_\infty\), there exist an IUR \(\rho^\gamma_{T_{0\gamma}}\) of \(T_{0\gamma}\) and a reference vector \(a_0(\gamma) = (a_{0\alpha})_{\alpha\in A_\gamma}\), \(a_{0\alpha}\in V(\rho^\gamma_{T_{0\gamma}})\), \(|a_{0\alpha}|= 1\), such that for \(j = 1, 2\), \(\rho^\gamma_{T_{j\gamma}} \cong \text{Ind} (\rho^\gamma_{T_{0\gamma}}; T_{0\gamma} \uparrow T_{j\gamma})\) and \(a_j(\gamma)\) is Moore-equivalent to the induced vector \(\text{Ind}(a_0 (\gamma); T_{0\gamma} \uparrow T_{j\gamma})\) in the extended sense. -- (EQU3) For \(\gamma \in \Gamma_\infty\), put \(\chi_{0\gamma} = \chi_{1\gamma}\) \((= \chi_{2\gamma})\) and \(Q_{j\gamma} = \{A_\gamma, \rho^\gamma_{T_{j\gamma}}, \chi_{j\gamma}, a_j(\gamma)\}\), \(0 \leq j \leq 2\), and consider IURs \(\Pi(Q_{j\gamma})\) of \(H_{j\gamma} = {\mathfrak S}_{A_\gamma} (T_{j\gamma})\). Then there exists a unit vector \(b_{0\gamma} \in V(\Pi(Q_{0\gamma}))\) for every \(\gamma \in \Gamma_\infty\) such that \((b_{j\gamma})_{\gamma \in\Gamma_\infty}\), \(j = 1, 2\), are respectively Moore-equivalent in the extended sense to \((\widetilde {b}_{j\gamma})_{\gamma\in \Gamma_\infty}\) with \(\widetilde {b}_{j\gamma} = \text{Ind}(b_{0\gamma}; H_{0\gamma} \uparrow H_{j\gamma})\), with respect to the representations \(\Pi(Q_{j\gamma})\) and \(\text{Ind}(\Pi(Q_{0\gamma})\); \(H_{0\gamma} \uparrow H_{j\gamma})\). Here note that, under the condition (EQU2), the IUR \(\Pi(Q_{j\gamma})\) is equivalent to the induced one \(\text{Ind} (\Pi(Q_{0\gamma})\); \(H_{0\gamma} \uparrow H_{j\gamma})\) for \(j = 1, 2\), by Theorem 1.