SOME REMARKS ON TOPOLOGICAL ORBIT EQUIVALENCE OF CANTOR MINIMAL SYSTEMS (Q4807433)

In their article [\textit{T. Giordano}, \textit{I. F. Putnam} and \textit{C. F. Skau}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 469, 51--111 (1995; Zbl 0834.46053)], the following theorem was given: (Original Version). Let \((X_i, \varphi_i)\) be Cantor systems. The following is equivalent: (i) \((X_1,\varphi_1)\) is orbit equivalent to \((X_2,\varphi_2)\), and there exists an orbit map \(F: X_1\to X_2\) so that the associated orbit cocycles \(m, n: X_1\to \mathbb{Z}\) each have finitely many points of discontinuity in (necessarily the same) disjoint \(\varphi_1\)-orbits. Assume \(k+ 1\) is the least possible number of discontinuity points by considering all such maps \(F\). (If there are no discontinuity points we set \(k= 0\).) (ii) There exist subgroups, both isomorphic to \(\mathbb{Z}^k\), of \[ \text{Inf}(K^0(X_1,\varphi_1))\quad\text{and}\quad \text{Inf}(K^0(X_2, \varphi_2)), \] respectively, so that the quotient groups \[ K^0(X_i, \varphi_i)/\mathbb{Z}^k,\qquad i= 1,2, \] (with the induced order) are order-isomorphic by a map preserving the distinguished order units (more precisely, the quotient image of the distinguished order units), where \(k\) is the least natural number with this property. In the above statement, while the implication (i)\,\(\to\)\,(ii) is valid, the other implication (ii) \(\to\) (i) is not correct. The author shows it by constructing a concrete counterexample and he gives a new version of the above theorem: (Corrected Version). Let \(G_1\) and \(G_2\) be two simple (acyclic) dimension groups. The following are equivalent. (i) There exist subgroups, both isomorphic to \(\mathbb{Z}^k\), of \(\text{Inf}(G_1)\) and \(\text{Inf}(G_2)\), respectively, so that the quotient groups \[ G_i/\mathbb{Z}^k,\qquad i= 1,2, \] (with the induced order) are order isomorphic by a map preserving the distinguished order units (more precisely, the quotient image of the distinguished order units), where \(k\) is the least natural number with this property. (ii) There exist Cantor minimal systems \((X_i, \varphi_i)\), \(i= 1,2\), so that \(K^0(X_1,\varphi_1)\cong G_1\) and \(K^0(X_2, \varphi_2)\cong G_2\) (where \(\cong\) denotes order isomorphism by a map preserving the distinguished order units), and an orbit map \(F: X_1\to X_2\) so that the associated orbit cocycles \(m,n: X_1\to\mathbb{Z}\) each have \(k+ 1\) discontinuity points in (necessarily the same) disjoint \(\varphi_1\)-orbits. Furthermore, for \(k\geq 1\), \(k+ 1\) is the least possible number of discontinuity points by considering all orbit maps and all Cantor minimal systems satisfying the above condition. If \(k= 0\), the least possible number of discontinuity points is zero.