2
$\begingroup$

Let $G=\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{R}),\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(\mathbb{R}),\mathrm{Spin}_n(\mathbb{R})$ be a semi-simple simply connected classical group, $\Gamma\subset G$ a discrete and cocompact subgroup. Then Ratner's orbit closure theorem states that for any unipotent subgroup $U$ of $G$, the closure $\overline{\Gamma U}$ is always of the form $\Gamma H$ for some closed subgroup $H$ of $G$ (see here. Note that Ratner's theorem holds for much more general groups than the $G$ considered here).

Now I would like to consider some particular $U$, which is a maximal abelian unipotent subgroup. Then the closure $\overline{\Gamma U}$ is of the form $\Gamma H$ for some closed subgroup $H$ of $G$.

My question is: what can we say about $H$? Is it true that $H=G$? I guess this is a rather trivial question, yet I failed to find an answer by myself nor on the internet. Any help would be appreciated!

Added: if we drop the assumption 'abelian' on $U$, then it is not difficult to see $H=G$: for example, take $G=\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{R})$ and $U$ the subgroup consisting of unipotent upper triangular matrices. Then take a one-parameter unipotent subgroup $U'=1_n+\mathbb{R}E_{1,2}$ of $U$, then $\overline{\Gamma U'}=\Gamma H'$ where $H'$ contains a subgroup $N$ isomorphic to $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{R})$. $N$ can not be contained in the upper triangular Borel subgroup of $G$. So a simple argument shows that $N$ and $U$ generates the whole $G$ and so $H$, a subgroup of $G$ containing $U$ and $N$, must be equal to $G$ (this last sentence is too simplified, see the comments below).

PS: this question is also posted on math stackexchange (here)

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure I get your added argument in the last paragraph, specifically "A simple argument shows": what if $N$ lies in some proper parabolic subgroup containing $U$? $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Nov 14, 2023 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ If your group is HOROSPHERICAL, the orbit closure is easy to determine (Furstenberg, Dani). Minimal horosphericals are (most of the time) abelian (as they are associated to minimal parabolic), for example in $SL_{n}(\mathbb{R})$. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf
    Commented Nov 14, 2023 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ @WillSawin, of course you are right, there are a few ways to derive the result but the OP chose the most complicated way in my opinion. The $U$ orbit is not closed ($\Gamma$ is uniform) and then you must gain an opposite unipotent (that's Ratner's basic argument). Now one may repeat that for all the roots. The more standard way nowadays to handle $U$ (as it is horospherical) is to use equidistribution of horospheres, essentially due to Margulis in his thesis. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf
    Commented Nov 14, 2023 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Will Sawin: you are absolutely right: I overlooked this point and thought that one opposite root would suffice to generate the whole group $G$. Indeed, as Asaf said, what I had in mind is to use Ratner's argument. $\endgroup$
    – Mathew
    Commented Nov 14, 2023 at 21:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is far from recent research and nowadays considered standard facts (Dani's paper is from 81,Furstenberg from 72), I like Dani's Inventiones paper - 10.1007/BF01389173. For the exact characterization of the limits measure, one needs to apply the linearization technique of Dani-Margulis (93, their Gelfand seminar paper). Margulis' paper is from 70 (the english translation about U-flows), this deals with translates of horospheres, but in the compact setting you presented, it is completely equivalent... $\endgroup$
    – Asaf
    Commented Nov 14, 2023 at 23:20

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .