Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If $\Gamma\subseteq SL(n,\mathbb{R})$ is a lattice (i.e. discrete and finite covolume), does $\Gamma$ necessarily contain some $\mathbb{R}$-diagonalizable copy of $\mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$?

I know that the answer is yes if the lattice is cocompact, and that the answer is also yes in the case $\Gamma=SL(n,\mathbb Z)$. So I wonder if every lattice satisfies this property.

share|improve this question
1  
What exactly does your second sentence mean??? –  Igor Rivin Jul 3 '12 at 23:46
    
I've edited the question to make it clearer. Hopefully I didn't change what the OP is asking. –  John Pardon Jul 4 '12 at 0:16
    
Ah, much better! –  Igor Rivin Jul 4 '12 at 0:37
    
That is what I meant, thanks for the correction. –  ALB Jul 4 '12 at 3:24
    
@ALB: I am curious as to why the proof is easier for uniform lattices?! –  Igor Rivin Jul 4 '12 at 4:38

2 Answers 2

up vote 11 down vote accepted

The answer is yes. It is theorem [2.13] of the following paper of Prasad and Raghunathan:

Prasad, Gopal; Raghunathan, M. S. Cartan subgroups and lattices in semi-simple groups. Ann. of Math. (2) 96 (1972), 296–317.

There is also a lot of information in this paper: http://www.math.bgu.ac.il/~barakw/papers/clorbit.pdf

Note that diagonalizable copies of $\mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$ in $\Gamma$ correspond to closed orbits for the action of the full diagonal subgroup of $SL(n,\mathbb{R})$ on $SL(n,\mathbb{R})/\Gamma$.

This is related to the Margulis conjecture which (with some caveats) states that the closure of any orbit of the full diagonal on $SL(n,\mathbb{R})/\Gamma$ is algebraic, i.e. is itself the closed orbit of some subgroup. This conjecture is the biggest open problem in homogeneous dynamics (and in particular implies the Littlewood conjecture in number theory).

share|improve this answer

This is a theorem of G. Prasad and M.S. Raghunathan. See Theorem 7.2 in this paper of Steve Hurder's (rigidity of Anosov actions) -- the original reference is a bit less friendly.

share|improve this answer
    
@Alex Eskin and Igor Rivin: Ok, thank you for your precise answers and additionnal information. –  ALB Jul 4 '12 at 16:22

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.