3
$\begingroup$

Given a pseudo Anosov mapping class $f:S_{g,n}\rightarrow S_{g,n}$ is the Lefschetz number for $f^m$ negative for some $m$ depending only on $(g,n)$?

The Lefschetz number of a mapping class $f$ can be defined as $2-Tr(f^{\star})$ where $f^{\star}$ is the induced map on $H_1(S_{g,n},\mathbb{Z})$.

If the leading eigenvalue for the action on homology is 1 then we are done. If the leading eigenvalue $\lambda\neq1$ then the sequence of Lefschetz numbers is dominated $\lambda^m$ and so the Lefschetz number will eventually be negative.

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You might want to define the Lefschetz number... $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Aug 11 '13 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ @IgorRivin The Lefschetz number is quite standard, it is defined to be the alternating sum over dimension of the trace of the induced map on homology. See mathworld.wolfram.com/LefschetzNumber.html for instance. $\endgroup$ – Vidit Nanda Aug 12 '13 at 3:04
  • $\begingroup$ @IgorRivin added the definition for the case being considered. $\endgroup$ – user38496 Aug 12 '13 at 3:45
  • $\begingroup$ For any $(g,n)$, there is a universal lower bound on $|\lambda|>1$ - does that imply what you want? $\endgroup$ – Ian Agol Aug 12 '13 at 4:52
  • $\begingroup$ @IanAgol This is my intuition but I want to show that the integer $m$ depends only on (g,n) and so it seems to me a universal gap between the first and second eigenvalues modulus is necessary. $\endgroup$ – user38496 Aug 12 '13 at 5:17
2
$\begingroup$

Your question may be recast as:

Is there an $N(n)$ such that for any integral matrix $A\in SL(n,\mathbb{Z})$, there is $k\leq N(n)$ with $tr(A^k)>2 $ (with a few small exceptional cases)? (this is not quite equivalent, since the image of $Mod(S_{g,n})$ is not all of $SL(H_1(S_{g,n}))$, but it certainly implies what you want)

Let the singular values of $A$ be denoted $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_n$, so that $det(xI-A)=\prod_{i=1}^n (x-\lambda_i)$. Then $tr(A^k)=\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i^k =p_k(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n)=p_k$, where $p_k$ is the power symmetric polynomial of degree $k$ in $n$ variables. Now, we observe that $p_k$ is a polynomial in $p_1,\ldots, p_n$ for $k>n$. I found another mathoverflow question which computed the first few of these.

Consider $n=2$ (note, $SL(2)=Sp(2)$), and suppose $|p_1(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)|=|\lambda_1+\lambda_2|=|\lambda_1+\lambda_1^{-1}| \leq 2$. It turns out then that $|tr(A^k)|\leq 2$ for all $k$, and $A$ is either parabolic or elliptic (and similarly if $|p_2|\leq 2$). So assume $p_1,p_2 \leq -3$. Then $p_3=-p_1^3 +\frac32 p_1p_2 \geq \frac{81}{2}$. Thus, $N(2)$ exists (where one excludes $|tr(A)|\leq 2$.

Now, consider $n=3$. One has the relation $p_4=\frac16 p_1^4−p_1^2p_2+\frac12 p_2^2+\frac43 p_1p_3$. Suppose that $p_1\leq -R$, for some $R>>0$, and $p_2,p_3\leq 2$. Then one has $p_4 = \frac16 p_1^4-p_1^2p_2 +\frac12 p_2^2+\frac43 p_1p_3 \geq \frac16 R^4 -2R^2 -\frac43 2R$. Then choose $R$ large enough that $\frac16 R^4 -2R^2 -\frac83 R >2 $, then one has $p_4 >2$ if $p_1\leq -R$. Now, suppose $p_2\leq -R$ or $p_3 \leq -R$. Then we similarly conclude that $p_8 >2$ or $p_{12} >2$. Otherwise, $ -R\leq p_i\leq 2$ for $1\leq i\leq 3$, and there are only finitely many characteristic polynomials $det(xI-A)$ of such matrices, since the elementary symmetric polynomials are determined by the power sum symmetric polynomials. Thus, there is a uniform $N(3)$ such that for some $k\leq N(3)$, $tr(A^k)>2$.

Similarly, for $n=4$, $p_5=−\frac{1}{24} p_1^5+\frac{5}{12} p_1^3p_2−\frac58 p_1p_2^2−\frac56 p_1^2p_3+\frac56 p_2p_3+\frac54 p_1p_4$. The leading order term here is $-\frac{1}{24} p_1^5$, so if $p_1\leq -R$ for $R>>0$, and $p_2,p_3,p_4\leq 2$, one concludes that $p_5 \geq \frac{1}{24} R^5 -\frac{5}{6} R^3 +\frac58 R p_2^2 -\frac56 R^2 p_3 +\frac56 p_2 p_3 - \frac52 R$. If $p_3 < 0, 0<p_2<2$, then the term $\frac56 p_2p_3$ will be dominated by the term $-\frac56 R^2 p_3$ for $R>>0$. If $p_2 <0, 0<p_3<2$, then $\frac56 p_2p_3$ will be dominated by $\frac58 R p_2^2$, and otherwise $\frac56 p_2 p_3 \geq 0$. So we conclude that for $R>>0$ and $p_1\leq -R$, $p_5>2$. Similar to before, we may replace $p_1$ with $p_2, p_3$, or $p_4$ if any of these is $\leq -R$, to conclude that $p_{5i}>2$ for $i=2,3$ or $4$, and otherwise there will be only finitely many possibilities. So $N(4)$ exists.

Addendum: I now have a proof for general $n$.

There's a similar pattern to the general formula for $p_{n+1}$ in terms of $p_1,\ldots,p_n$, which is given in a comment by Darij Grinberg to this question. He gives the formula: $$ p_{n+1}= (n+1)\sum_{i=2}^{n+1} \frac{(-1)^i}{i!} \sum_{j_1,\ldots,j_i\geq 1; j_1+\cdots+j_i=n+1} \frac{1}{j_1 \cdots j_i} p_{j_1}\cdots p_{j_i}= 0.$$ This gives the same leading order asymptotics $p_{n+1}=(-1)^np_1^{n+1} + O(p_1^n)$. This sum has the property that if $p_1,\ldots,p_n <0$, then all the terms are positive, since each term is a product of the form $(-1)^i p_{j_1}\cdots p_{j_i}$.

Theorem Consider monic degree $n$ polynomials $q(x)\in \mathbb{R}[x]$, $q(x)=\prod_{i=1}^n (x-\lambda_i)$. There is a compact subset $C_\delta$ of the space of monic degree $n$ polynomials so that if $q(x)\notin C_\delta$, then $p_k(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n) > \delta$ for some $k \leq n(n+1)$.

Proof Assume $p_1,\ldots,p_n \leq \delta$. We'll assume $p_1 \leq -R$, for some $R>>0$, to be determined. If $p_2,\ldots,p_n \leq 0$, then $p_{n+1} \geq \frac{1}{n!} R^n > \delta$ for $R>>0$. So assume some subset $0< p_{l_1},\ldots ,p_{l_m} \leq \delta$. Consider all the terms of the expression of $p_{n+1}$ in which an odd number of $p_{l_1},\ldots, p_{l_m}$ appear (with multiplicity), then these terms will be $\leq 0$, and the rest of the terms will be positive. However, these terms will be dominated by a term replacing each $p_{l_i}$ with $p_1^{l_i}$. This correspondence is not 1-1, and the coefficients may differ, but by making $R>>0$ large enough, we may guarantee that all the negative terms will be bounded above by corresponding large positive terms. Thus, in this case we may show that $p_{n+1}>\delta$ for $R>>0$.

Now, suppose $p_k \leq -R$ for some $1\leq k\leq n$. Then by the same reasoning, $p_{k(n+1)} >\delta$, essentially replacing $A$ with $A^k$.

So our compact set $C_\delta$ consists of $-R\leq p_i \leq \delta, 1\leq i\leq n$.

Now, consider monic degree $n$ polynomials with integer coefficients. There are only finitely many in $C_2$, so for all these, there will be some uniform power $N(n)$ so that $p_k >2$ for some $k\leq N(n)$. In fact, we see that for all but finitely many polynomials, $k\leq n(n+1)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why are there only finitely many monic integer polynomials of degree $n$ in $C_2$? $\endgroup$ – user38496 Sep 3 '13 at 23:48
  • $\begingroup$ @user38496: The elementary symmetric functions of $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n$ are rational functions of the power symmetric values, and give the coefficients of the monic polynomial with those roots. So given a compact set of power-symmetric functions, there are finitely many associated polynomials. $\endgroup$ – Ian Agol Sep 3 '13 at 23:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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