6
$\begingroup$

Is the braid group with $n$ strings $\mathcal{B}_n$ known to be a lattice in a connected semi-simple Lie group ? (for $n$, say, bigger than $3$)

Or is it known that it cannot be such a lattice ?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ At least they are linear (Krammer, Bigelow): ams.org/journals/jams/2001-14-02/S0894-0347-00-00361-1 . $\endgroup$ – few_reps May 23 '15 at 15:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There's a positive case : the Burau rep. at $t=-1$ furnishes an epi. $B_3\to SL_2(\mathbf Z)$. This lifts as an iso. $B_3\to \tilde{SL}_2(\mathbf Z)$, the latter group being the preimage of $SL_2(\mathbf Z)$ in the universal covering $\tilde{SL}_2(\mathbf R)$ of $SL_2(\mathbf R)$. The natural bijection $\tilde{SL}_2(\mathbf R)/\tilde{SL}_2(\mathbf Z)\to \tilde{SL}_2(\mathbf R)/SL_2(\mathbf Z)$ shows that this subgroup is a lattice, and $\tilde{SL}_2(\mathbf R)$ is semi-simple since its Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{sl}_2$. $\endgroup$ – few_reps May 23 '15 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ sorry for the typo, the bijection is $\tilde{SL}_2(\mathbf R)/\tilde{SL}_2(\mathbf Z)\to {SL}_2(\mathbf R)/{SL}_2(\mathbf Z)$. $\endgroup$ – few_reps May 23 '15 at 21:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For $n\ge 4$ $B_n$ (as well as any of its finite index subgroups) is certainly not a lattice in any connected Lie group (semisimple or not). Due to usual rigidity results, the only possible candidates would be $\mathbf{R}\times S$ for $S$ simple of rank 1, and $\tilde{S}$ when $S$ is simple of rank 1 with infinite $\pi_1$. This can probably be discarded (I have a simple algebraic argument for $n\ge 9$ but probably there's a general one). $\endgroup$ – YCor May 24 '15 at 2:55
  • $\begingroup$ @YCor : Thank you for the answer, although I don't understand the details. Which rigidity results are you thinking of ? Could you be a bit more specific ? $\endgroup$ – Selim G May 24 '15 at 6:22
5
$\begingroup$

Proposition: no finite index subgroup of $B_n$, for any $n\ge 4$, is isomorphic to a lattice in any virtually connected Lie group.

Assume that some finite index subgroup $H$ of $B_n$, $n\ge 4$, is a lattice in a virtually connected Lie group $G$. Modding out if necessary, we can assume that the compact radical (=largest compact normal subgroup) of $G$ is trivial. Let $M$ be the largest amenable closed normal subgroup in $G$ (it can be obtained by first taking the largest solvable closed normal [not necessarily connected] subgroup $R$ and defining $M$ as the inverse image of the compact radical of $G/R$). Then classical arguments (see Raghunathan's book) show that $M\cap H$ is a lattice in $G$. Since the amenable radical of $H$ is cyclic, it follows that $M\cap H$ is cyclic. So $M$ is a Lie group, with trivial compact radical, with a cyclic lattice; hence $M$ is either trivial or isomorphic to either $\mathbf{Z}$ the infinite (discrete) dihedral group, or $\mathbf{R}$, or the group of isometries of $\mathbf{R}$.

Define $H'=H/(M\cap H)$ and $S=G/M$. Then $H'$ is a lattice in $S$. Since $S$ has a trivial amenable radical, it is semisimple with no compact factors and trivial center. Actually $M\cap H$ is necessarily infinite, since a lattice in a semisimple group with trivial center cannot have a nontrivial cyclic normal subgroup.

There exists a unique decomposition $S=S_1\times\dots\times S_k$ with each $S_i$ semisimple, such that for every $i$, $H'\cap S_i$ is an irreducible lattice in $S_i$. For every $i$ such that $S_i$ has real rank $\ge 2$, the Kazhdan-Margulis theorem implies that $H'\cap S_i$ has no finite index subgroup with a surjective homomorphism onto $\mathbf{Z}$. On the other hand, $H'$ is virtually residually (torsion-free nilpotent), which implies that it has a finite index subgroup all of whose infinite subgroups have a surjective homomorphism onto $\mathbf{Z}$. We deduce that for every $i$, $S_i$ has real rank 1.

It is known that the quotient $B_n/Z$ of $B_n$ by its center and its finite index subgroups satisfy: for any two normal subgroups centralizing each other, at least one of the two is trivial. This follows, for instance, from the existence of a faithful linear representation of $B_n/Z$ such that the Zariski closure of the image is simple with trivial center. We deduce that $k=1$ (because otherwise $H'\cap S_1$ and $H'\cap S_2$ centralize each other and are non-abelian).

We deduce that $S$ is a simple group of real rank 1. (It follows that the unit component of $G$ is isomorphic to either $\mathbf{R}\times S$ or, in case $S$ has an infinite fundamental group, to the universal covering of $S$.)

Now let me get a contradiction by proving the following result (using only a properness assumption with no finite covolume requirement):

Proposition: if $\Gamma$ is the group obtained by modding out any finite index subgroup $\Lambda$ of $B_4$ by its center, then $\Gamma$ has no proper homomorphism $f$ into any $S$ where $S$ is any connected simple Lie group of real rank 1.

Fix $n$ such that $t^n\in\Lambda$ for all $t\in B_4$. Let $x_1\dots,x_3$ be the canonical generators of $B_4$, so that $x_1^n,\dots,x_3^n$ belong to $\Lambda$. Define $w=(x_1x_2x_1)^{2n}$; it is a nontrivial central element of $B_2=\langle x_1,x_2\rangle$. Then $\langle x_1^n,w\rangle$ is free abelian of rank 2, and so is its image in $\Gamma$. If $f(x_1^n)$ is loxodromic, then its axis is preserved by $f(w)$ and we obtain a proper action of $\mathbf{Z}^2$ on this axis, a contradiction, so $f(x_1^n)$ is a horocyclic isometry (I mean "parabolic" but the latter is in conflict with the meaning of "parabolic" for algebraic subgroups of $S$); the same argument shows that $f(w)$ is horocyclic as well, with the same fixed point at infinity. A symmetric argument shows that $f(x_3^n)$ is horocyclic as well, with a priori another fixed point at infinity, but since it commutes with $f(x_1^n)$ this has to be the same fixed point. On the other hand, it is easy to show that $\langle (x_1x_2x_1)^2,x_3^2\rangle$ generate a free group of rank 2, and hence the subgroup of $\Gamma$ generated by $w$ and $x_3^n$ is also free of rank 2. But the horocyclic subgroups of $S$ are nilpotent and we obtain a contradiction.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice, indeed. $\endgroup$ – few_reps May 30 '15 at 2:21

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.