MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $\Gamma$ be a discrete cocompact subgroup of the euclidean motion group $$ G={\mathbb R}^d\rtimes O(d). $$ Let $\phi:G\to O(d)$ the projection homomorphism. Is it true that $\phi(\Gamma)$ is finite?

share|cite|improve this question
Aakumadula, why not post this as an answer? It seems sufficiently precise and comprehensive – Yemon Choi Mar 6 '13 at 16:13
Yemon Choi, I thought this was just a reference. But I see your point, that it will look like an unanswered query. – Venkataramana Mar 6 '13 at 17:04
up vote 6 down vote accepted

The answer is yes. This is a theorem of Bieberbach (see Corollary (8.26) of the book "Discrete Subgroups of Lie Groups" by M.S.Raghunathan (Springer Ergebnisse Tract).

share|cite|improve this answer
Interesting (to me!) that this is an established result, since without the co-compactness assumption the conclusion fails: an irrational winding in SO(2) combined with the one-dimensional discrete subgroup of translations immediately gives a non-discrete image in SO(2). – paul garrett Mar 7 '13 at 0:47
Professor Garrett, I do not understand your remark. If I have an element of the form $(v,r)$ in the semi-direct product of ${\mathbb R}^2$ with $SO(2)$, where $r$ is an irrational rotation, there is no guarantee that itw powers (vector component) is discrete: the $n$-th power vector component is of the form $(1+r+\cdots +r^{n-1})v$, which can well converge. – Venkataramana Mar 7 '13 at 1:16
Of course, you can take $v\in {\mathbb R}^n$ $n\geq 3$ which is fixed by the rotation $r$, in which case you get a discrete group. When you assume "co-compactness", the vector parts are sufficiently many that the rotation parts do not always fix the vector part. – Venkataramana Mar 7 '13 at 1:24
@Aakumadula: indeed, this is a funny situation. It is late for me here in my time-zone, but (in case you'd not already in your own time thought through the facts) I'll add comments tomorrow which I hope will clarify the thing that'd been in my mind. Irrelevant to the question as posed. yes. – paul garrett Mar 7 '13 at 2:00

Your Answer


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.