How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Amenable Groups and Folner Criteria — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Amenable Groups and Folner Criteria
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Cayley Graphs, Word Metrics and Quasi-Isometry
- Chain Conditions, Semisimple Modules and the Wedderburn–Artin Theorem
- Composition Series, the Jordan–Hölder Theorem and Solvable Groups
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Filters and Ultrafilters
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Free Groups and Presentations
- Free Modules, Exact Sequences, Projective and Injective Modules
- Free Products and Amalgamation
- Geometric Actions Svarc Milnor and Growth
- Graphs, Walks and Connectivity
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Matchings, Covers, Menger and Network Flows
- Metric Spaces
- Modules over a Principal Ideal Domain and the Canonical Forms
- Modules, Submodules, Quotient Modules and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Semidirect Products, Automorphism Groups and Split Extensions
- Suprema and Infima
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- Tensor Products of Modules
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
These examples compute concrete Folner families in abelian groups, isolate a standard extension argument for the lamplighter group, and show by direct computation that amenability and subexponential growth are not equivalent. The free-group examples keep the two standard witnesses of nonamenability visible: large boundary and paradoxical decomposition.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
Intervals in Z are Folner sets
Example
For and any finite subset , the intervals are eventually -Folner for every .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite set and a real .
-Folner sets are defined by the symmetric-difference estimate (Folner sets and the Folner condition).
Under the ultrafilter lemma, such Folner families witness amenability through the Folner criterion (Under the ultrafilter lemma, the Folner condition is equivalent to amenability).
Verification
Let . For every , the translate differs from only near the two ends of the interval, so .
Since , the ratio is at most and therefore tends to uniformly in . Hence is eventually -Folner in the sense of [L1], illustrating the criterion [L2].
Boxes in Z^n are Folner sets
Example
For and any finite subset , the boxes
form a Folner family.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite set and a real .
Folner sets are measured by relative symmetric-difference boundary (Folner sets and the Folner condition).
Under the ultrafilter lemma, such Folner families witness amenability through the Folner criterion (Under the ultrafilter lemma, the Folner condition is equivalent to amenability).
Verification
Let . For each , the translate differs from only inside the -thick boundary layers of the cube, so .
Because , the ratio tends to as uniformly in . Hence the boxes are eventually -Folner by [L1], illustrating [L2].
Under the ultrafilter lemma, finite groups and locally finite groups are amenable
Example
Assume the ultrafilter lemma. Every finite group is amenable, and the direct sum is an infinite amenable group.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The finite-group case, the countable direct sum , and the ultrafilter lemma.
Finite groups are amenable (Finite groups are amenable).
Under the ultrafilter lemma, locally finite groups are amenable (Under the ultrafilter lemma, solvable groups and locally finite groups are amenable).
Verification
The finite case is exactly [L1].
Every finitely generated subgroup of is supported on finitely many coordinates and is therefore finite. Thus is locally finite, and [L2] makes it amenable.
Under the ultrafilter lemma, the standard lamplighter group is amenable
Example
Assume the ultrafilter lemma. The lamplighter group
is amenable.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The semidirect product with the shift action of on the lamp coordinates, and the ultrafilter lemma.
An external semidirect product is the group built from an action by automorphisms ( The external semidirect product ).
Under the ultrafilter lemma, locally finite groups are amenable (Under the ultrafilter lemma, solvable groups and locally finite groups are amenable).
Extensions of amenable groups are amenable (Extensions of amenable groups are amenable).
Under the ultrafilter lemma, abelian groups are amenable (Under the ultrafilter lemma, abelian groups are amenable).
Verification
The base group is locally finite, because a finitely generated subgroup is supported on finitely many coordinates and is therefore finite. Thus [L2] makes amenable.
The quotient of by the normal base group is , which is abelian and hence amenable by [L4]. Therefore [L3] applies to the semidirect product from [L1] and shows that the lamplighter group is amenable.
Boundary expansion in the free group
Example
In the free group with symmetric generating set , the balls satisfy
In particular their one-sided generator boundary proportion stays uniformly positive.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The free group with the symmetric generating set .
The rank-two free group is nonamenable (The free group of rank two is nonamenable).
Verification
For every , one has . Every element of has reduced-word length exactly , and every reduced word of length is obtained by taking its length- prefix in and multiplying by its final letter in . Hence and Therefore
In particular the one-sided generator boundary ratio of the balls never approaches . This explicit boundary expansion is the geometric obstruction behind the nonamenability recorded in [L1].
A paradoxical decomposition of a free group of rank two
Example
The free group admits a paradoxical decomposition.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The free group .
Paradoxical decompositions are the translated finite partitions from Paradoxical decompositions of groups.
The rank-two free group is nonamenable (The free group of rank two is nonamenable).
Verification
For let be the set of nonempty reduced words beginning with , and put and . Define , , , and .
The four sets in step 1.1 are pairwise disjoint and partition : the nonidentity reduced words have one of the four possible first letters, and has been moved from into the piece containing the identity.
Reduction of the first letter gives and , hence . Similarly , hence . Therefore the pieces in step 1.1 with translators satisfy [L1] and form a paradoxical decomposition.
Under the ultrafilter lemma, amenability does not imply subexponential growth
Statement refuted
Every amenable finitely generated group has subexponential growth.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The false claim above and the ultrafilter lemma.
Exponential growth is one of the growth types in the standard comparison hierarchy (Polynomial, subexponential, exponential, and intermediate growth).
Under the ultrafilter lemma, the standard lamplighter group is amenable (Under the ultrafilter lemma, the standard lamplighter group is amenable).
Counterexample
Let with generators for the shift and for toggling the lamp at the origin. For every subset , the element obtained by walking from to , toggling exactly the lamps in on the way, has word length at most ; different subsets give different group elements.
Therefore the ball of radius contains at least elements, so has exponential growth in the sense of [L1]. Together with [L2], this amenable group refutes the statement.