6
$\begingroup$

Kazhdan himself proved in his 1967 paper (where he introduced property (T)) that simple Lie groups $G$ of real rank $\textrm{rk}_{\mathbf{R}}(G) \geq 2$ have the property (T). This fact can be proven by different methods, e.g. (like in Bekka-de la Harpe-Valette) by proving the corresponding fact for $\textrm{SL}_3$ and $\textrm{Sp}_4$ and reducing the general case to these groups, or alternatively, by proving a relative property (T) for the pair $(\textrm{SL}_2(\mathbf{R}) \ltimes \mathbf{R}^2, \mathbf{R}^2)$ and reducing the general case similarly.

I am also familiar that the complementary series $(\pi_{\lambda})_{-1 < \lambda < 0}$ show that $\textrm{SL}_2(\mathbf{R})$ does not have property (T). I am wondering whether there is a conceptual reason (along the lines of rank 1 groups have insufficient directions) why property (T) cannot be proven for rank $1$ like in higher rank, and how to formalize this conceptual reason. I know that this is a very imprecise question, and I would be really happy with any intuitions.

Thank you very much in advance!

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Indeed, there is no semidirect product inside ($\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbf{R})\ltimes\mathbf{R}^2$ in rank one groups. These play an essential role in the proofs (by Harpe-Valette / Bekka-Harpe-Valette and most others). $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Jun 13 at 14:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It does not even fail for all rank 1 groups, just for "most." $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 13 at 14:52
  • $\begingroup$ @MoisheKohan the proof definitely fails for all rank 1 groups. The proof of Property T for $\mathrm{Sp}(n,1)$ is very different. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Jun 13 at 16:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MoisheKohan ah indeed. To clarify (to OP): some of the noncompact rank 1 groups have Kazhdan's Property T, but the proof is different (and harder). The first proof is due to Kostant. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Jun 13 at 16:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you. I actually knew that, and the title was therefore quite misleading. I edited it appropiately. $\endgroup$
    – cxrlo
    Commented Jun 13 at 17:15

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .