Consider the action of $SL_2(\mathbb R)$ on real projective space $P^1(\mathbb R)$; given $A \in SL_2(\mathbb R)$ and $\alpha \in P^1(\mathbb R)$ we write $A . \alpha \in P^1(\mathbb R)$ for this action. Let $\mu$ be a probability measure on $SL_2(\mathbb R)$ and $\nu$ a probability on $P^1(\mathbb R)$. The convolution $\mu * \nu$ is then defined.

Let us call $\mu$ smoothing if it has the property that for any $\alpha \in P^1(\mathbb R)$, we have that $\mu * \delta_\alpha$ is absolutely continuous w.r.t. Lebesgue measure on $P^1(\mathbb R)$ (here, $\delta_\alpha$ is the unit Dirac mass at $\alpha$). Clearly, if $\mu$ is absolutely continuous on $SL_2(\mathbb R)$ then $\mu$ is smoothing. However, the converse is not true: for instance, take $\mu$ to be the law of rotation matrices by an angle $\theta$ chosen uniformly from $[0,2 \pi)$.

Given $\mu$, let us write $\bar \mu$ for the law of $A^{-1}$ when $A$ is distributed with law $\mu$.

Question: If $\mu$ is smoothing, does it follow that $\bar \mu$ is also smoothing?

Edit (5-17-2018): I thought of a possible direction and would be happy to hear comments about it.

Parametrizing $P^1(\mathbb R)$ by the extended real line $\bar {\mathbb R} = \mathbb R \cup \{ \infty\}$, the action of $SL(2, \mathbb R)$ is given by Mobius transformations. To wit, if $$ A = \left( \begin{array}{c c} a & b \\ c & d \end{array} \right) $$ and $x \in P^1(\mathbb R) \cong \bar{\mathbb R}$, then $A$ maps $$ x \mapsto \frac{a x + b}{c x + d} \, . $$ This action preserves the cross ratio $$ (z_1, z_2; z_3, z_4) = \frac{z_1 - z_3}{z_1 - z_4} \frac{z_2 - z_4}{z_2 - z_3} $$ Plugging in $z = z_1, z_2 = 1, z_3 = 0, z_4 = \infty$ and letting $w_i = A . z_i, i = 2,3,4$ and $w = A.z$, we have $$ z = (w, w_2; w_3, w_4) \, . $$ That is, $z = A^{-1} . w$ is essentially determined by the random variables $w_i, i = 2,3,4$. In this way we can perfectly reconstruct the law $\bar \eta$ of $A^{-1}$ using the joint law of $(w_2, w_3, w_4)$.

Punchline: Under the smoothing property, the law of each $w_i$ is smooth on $\bar {\mathbb R}$. If the joint law of $(w_2, w_3, w_4)$ were smooth on $\bar {\mathbb R}^3$, then $\bar \eta$ is smoothing.

However, smoothness of the joint law does not follow from the smoothing property for $\eta$: a simple example is that $(w_2, w_3, w_4)$ is supported on some 1D curve in $\bar {\mathbb R}^3$. In fact, there are plenty of possible and quite ugly distributions for the joint law $(w_2, w_3, w_4)$ and this makes me wonder about a counterexample.

Your Answer


By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.