Skip to main content
17 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 13, 2016 at 14:33 answer added YCor timeline score: 1
Jul 13, 2016 at 11:45 vote accept Ian Morris
Jul 13, 2016 at 4:21 answer added Venkataramana timeline score: 4
Jun 9, 2016 at 9:14 comment added Uri Bader @GeoffRobinson I wrote the proof as promised (even though it is not as simple as I wanted it to be).
Jun 7, 2016 at 16:18 answer added Misha timeline score: 6
Jun 7, 2016 at 14:27 comment added Uri Bader @GeoffRobinson, the proof I see involves taking Zariski closure and getting a group satisfying $\text{tr}(g)=\text{tr}(g^{-1})$. This means in particular that every element has 1 as an ev. I can see that either our group $G$ is compact, or is conjugated into $\text{SO}(2,1)$ which in turn reduces the problem to dim=2. I am not happy with it because I suppose I (or someone else) could come with a simpler proof after some thinking. If it doesn't happen I will write the argument above.
Jun 7, 2016 at 13:23 comment added Geoff Robinson @UriBader : If you see how to fix it, you should! It would be useful.
Jun 7, 2016 at 11:46 comment added Uri Bader @friedrichknop I deleted an earlier answer gave, as it was not complete. I see how to fix it, but I don't want it to be hanged there like that. Thank you for your comment.
Jun 7, 2016 at 11:02 comment added Neil Strickland By the other comments, we can assume $\det=1$ and that all eigenvalues are on the unit circle. This can be formulated as a condition on the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial, which depend continuously on the matrix, so it will be harmless to replace $G$ by $\overline{G}$, so we can assume that $G$ is closed. Now $G$ is subconjugate to $SO(3)$ iff it is compact (because we can use integration wrt Haar measure to find an invariant inner product). So the real problem is to prove compactness.
Jun 7, 2016 at 10:48 answer added Uri Bader timeline score: 8
Jun 7, 2016 at 10:03 history edited Ian Morris CC BY-SA 3.0
added 43 characters in body
Jun 6, 2016 at 19:45 comment added Ian Morris @Anton: I speculate that the group case might be easier than the semigroup case partly just because it is a proper subcase, but also because in the group case one has access to tools like Haar measure and maximal compact subgroups.
Jun 6, 2016 at 19:29 comment added Ian Morris @Anton: firstly it's unpublished, and a published result (or one which I can verify myself) would reassure me of its correctness. Secondly, in general and where possible I would prefer to use an argument which I understand. Thirdly, I hope in the process to learn some methods with which to understand related problems.
Jun 6, 2016 at 19:06 comment added Geoff Robinson You can also assume that every element of $G$ has $1$ as an eigenvalue: using Denis Serre's comment if an element $g$ of $G$ has three real eigenvalues, none of which is $1$, all must be $-1$, and the elements of $G$ of determinant $1$ form a normal subgroup of $G$ of index $2$ which is a direct factor of $G$. If $g$ has two non-real eigenvalues, then the other is $\pm 1$ and if it is not $1$, then you can assume $-I$ to $G$ without affecting the hypotheses, so $G$ is again a direct product of its determinant $1$ matrices and $<-I >$.
Jun 6, 2016 at 17:44 comment added user1688 If it follows from the paper you cite, why don't you just cite that paper? And why do you expect the group case to be easier?
Jun 6, 2016 at 16:56 comment added Denis Serre Because $\det$ is a morphism, as well as $|\det|^{-1/3}$, you may replace $G$ by $H$, which consists of the matrices $|\det A|^{-1/3}A$. This reduces the question to the case where the spectral radius of $A$ equals $1$ for every $A\in G$.
Jun 6, 2016 at 14:24 history asked Ian Morris CC BY-SA 3.0