A (discrete) group is **amenable** if it admits a finitely additive probability measure (on *all* its subsets), invariant under left translation. It is a basic fact that every abelian group is amenable. But the proof I know is surprisingly convoluted. I'd like to know if there's a more direct proof.


The proof I know runs as follows.


1. Every finite group is amenable (in a unique way). This is trivial.
2. $\mathbb{Z}$ is amenable. This is not trivial as far as I know; the proof I know involves choosing a non-principal ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$. This means that $\mathbb{Z}$ is amenable in many different ways, i.e. there are many measures on it, but apparently you can't write down any measure 'explicitly' (without using the Axiom of Choice).
3. The direct product of two amenable groups is amenable. This isn't exactly trivial, but the measure on the product is at least constructed canonically from the two given measures.
4. Every finitely generated abelian group is amenable. This follows from 1--3 and the classification theorem.
5. The class of amenable groups is closed under direct limits (=colimits over a directed poset). This is like step 2: it seems that there's no *canonical* way of constructing a measure on the direct limit, given measures on each of the groups that you start with; and the proof involves choosing a non-principal ultrafilter on the poset.
6. Every abelian group is amenable. This follows from 4 and 5, since every abelian group is the direct limit of its finitely generated subgroups.


Is there a more direct proof? Is there even a one-step proof? 




---


**Update** Yemon Choi suggests an immediate simplification: replace 1 and 4 by


1'. Every quotient of an amenable group is amenable. This is simple: just push the measure forward.


4'. Every f.g. abelian group is amenable, by 1', 2 and 3.


This avoids using the classification theorem for f.g. abelian groups.


Tom Church mentions the possibility of skipping steps 1--3 and going straight to 4. If I understand correctly, this doesn't use the classification theorem either. The argument is similar to the one for $\mathbb{Z}$: one still has to choose an ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$. (One also constructs a Følner sequence on the group, a part of the argument which I didn't mention previously but was there all along). 


Yemon, Tom and Mariano Suárez-Alvarez all suggest using one or other alternative formulations of amenability. I'm definitely interested in answers like that, but it also reminds me of the old joke:



> 
> Tourist: Excuse me, how do I get to Edinburgh Castle from here?
> 
> 
> Local: I wouldn't start from here if I were you.
> 
> 
> 


In other words, if a proof of the amenability of abelian groups uses a different definition of amenability than the one I gave, then I want to take the proof of equivalence into account when assessing the simplicity of the overall proof.


Jim Borger points out that if, as seems to be the case, even the proof that $\mathbb{Z}$ is amenable makes essential use of the Axiom of Choice, then life is bound to be hard. I take his point. However, one simplification to the 6-step proof that I'd like to see is a merging of steps 2 and 5. These are the two really substantial steps, but they're intriguingly similar. None of the answers so far seem to make this economy. That is, every proof suggested seems to involve two separate Følner-type arguments. 



Why are abelian groups amenable?
Here is a simpler argument, combining 1--6 into one step.


Let $G$ be a countable abelian group generated by $x\_1,x\_2,\ldots$. Then a Følner sequence is given by taking $S\_n$ to be the pyramid consisting of elements which can be written as


$a\_1x\_2+a\_2x\_2+\cdots+a\_nx\_n$ with $\lvert a\_1\rvert\leq n,\lvert a\_2\rvert\leq n-1,\ldots,\lvert a\_n\rvert\leq 1$.


The invariant probability measure is then defined by $\mu(A)=\underset{\omega}{\lim}\lvert A\cap S\_n\rvert / \lvert S\_n\rvert$ as usual.


A more natural way to phrase this argument is:


1. The countable group $\mathbb{Z}^\infty$ is amenable.
2. All countable abelian groups are amenable, because amenability descends to quotients.


But I would like to emphasize that there is really only one step here, because the proof for $\mathbb{Z}^\infty$ automatically applies to any countable abelian group. This two-step approach is easier to remember, though. (The ideas here are the same as in my other answer, but I think this formulation is much cleaner.)




---


2016 Edit: Here is an argument to see that $S\_n$ is a Følner sequence. It is quite pleasant to think about precisely where commutativity comes into play.


Fix $g\in G$ and any finite subset $S\subset G$. We first analyze the size of the symmetric difference $gS\bigtriangleup S$. Consider the equivalence relation on $S$ generated by the relation $x\sim y$ if $y=x+g$ (which is itself neither symmetric, reflexive, or transitive). We will call an equivalence class under this relation a "$g$-string". Every $g$-string consists of elements $x\_1,\ldots,x\_k\in S$ with $x\_{j+1}=x\_j+g$.


The **first key observation** is that $\lvert gS\bigtriangleup S\rvert$ is **at most twice the number of $g$-strings**. Indeed, if $z\in S$ belongs to $gS\bigtriangleup S$, then $z$ must be the "leftmost endpoint" of a $g$-string; if $z\notin S$ belongs to $gS\bigtriangleup S$, then $z-g$ must be the "rightmost endpoint" of a $g$-string; and each $g$-string has at most 2 such endpoints (it could have 1 if the endpoints coincide, or 0 if $g$ has finite order). 


Our goal is to prove for all $g\in G$ that $\frac{\lvert gS\_n \bigtriangleup S\_n\rvert}{\lvert S\_n\rvert}\to 0$ as $n\to \infty$. Since $\lvert abS\bigtriangleup S\rvert\leq\lvert abS\bigtriangleup bS\rvert+\lvert bS\bigtriangleup S\rvert= \lvert aS\bigtriangleup S\rvert+\lvert bS\bigtriangleup S\rvert$, it suffices to prove this for all $g\_i$ in a generating set. 


By the observation above, to prove that $\frac{\lvert g\_iS\_n \bigtriangleup S\_n\rvert}{\lvert S\_n\rvert}\to 0$, it suffices to prove that $\frac{\text{# of $g\_i$-strings in $S\_n$}}{\lvert S\_n\rvert}\to 0$. Equivalently, we must prove that the reciprocal $\frac{\lvert S\_n\rvert}{\#\text{ of $g\_i$-strings in $S\_n$}}$ diverges, or in other words that **the average size of a $g\_i$-string in $S\_n$ diverges**.


We now use the specific form of our sets $S\_n=\{a\_1g\_1+\cdots+a\_ng\_n\,|\, \lvert a\_i\rvert\leq n-i\}$. For any $i$ and any $n$, set $k=n-i$ (so that $\lvert a\_i\rvert\leq k$ in $S\_n$). The **second key observation** is that **every $g\_i$-string in $S\_n$ has cardinality at least $2k+1$** unless $g\_i$ has finite order. Indeed given $x\in S\_n$, write it as $x=a\_1g\_1+\cdots+a\_ig\_i+\cdots+a\_ng\_n$; then the elements $a\_1g\_1+\cdots+bg\_i+\cdots+a\_ng\_n\in S\_n$ for $b=-k,\ldots,-1,0,1,\ldots,k$ belong to a single $g\_i$-string containing $x$. If $g\_i$ does not have finite order, these $2k+1$ elements must be *distinct*. This shows that the minimum size of a $g\_i$-string in $S\_n$ is $2n-2i+1$, so for fixed $g\_i$ the average size diverges as $n\to \infty$.


When $g\_i$ has finite order $N$ this argument does not work (a $g\_i$-string has *maximum* size $N$, so the average size cannot diverge). However once $N<2k+1$, the subset containing the $2k+1$ elements above is closed under multiplication by $g\_i$. In other words, once $n\geq i+N/2$ the set $S\_n$ is $g\_i$-invariant, so $\lvert g\_iS\_n\bigtriangleup S\_n\rvert=0$.


I'm grateful to David Ullrich for pointing out that this claim is not obvious, since the quotient of a Følner sequence need not be a Følner sequence (Yves Cornulier gives an example [here](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1283824/folner-sets-in-a-quotient-of-a-f-g-amenable-group)).


