We know that principal congruence subgroups are characteristic in $SL(n,\mathbb Z)$. Suppose $\Gamma$ is a finite index subgroup of $SL(n,\mathbb Z)$ and $\Gamma_m$ is a principal congruence subgroup of level m contained in $\Gamma$. Will it be characteristic in $\Gamma$?


This is false. Consider the case $n=2$, and let $p$ be a prime. Let $A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0 & -1 \\\ p & 0\end{array}\right] $ be an Atkin-Lehner involution (considered as an element of $PGL_2(\mathbb{Q})$), and consider the subgroup $\Gamma_0(p) = \{ \left[\begin{array}{cc}a & b \\\ c & d\end{array}\right]\in SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) | c\equiv 0(\mod p) \}$. Then one may check that for $B\in \Gamma_0(p)$, $A^{-1} B A = \left[\begin{array}{cc}d & -c/p \\\ -pb & a\end{array}\right] \in \Gamma_0(p)$, so $A\in Aut(\Gamma_0(p))$. Also, the principal congruence subgroup $\Gamma(p) \leq \Gamma_0(p)$. However, consider the matrix $C=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1 & 0 \\\ p & 1\end{array}\right] \in \Gamma(p)$. Then one has $A^{-1} C A = \left[\begin{array}{cc}1 & -1 \\\ 0 & 1\end{array}\right] \notin \Gamma(p)$. Thus, the subgroup $\Gamma(p)\leq \Gamma_0(p)$ is not characteristic. This extends to all $n$, taking the appropriate congruence subgroup by extending trivially $\mod p$.

  • $\begingroup$ Is it standard to use "Atkin-Lehner involution" to refer to the matrix and not just its inner automorphism (or PGL class)? I don't have any alternative terminology to suggest, but it really bothered me when I read the assertion that the matrix is an involution. $\endgroup$ – Ben Wieland Sep 6 '11 at 20:36
  • $\begingroup$ @ Ben: I'm referring to the element of PGL. I realize it's usually normalized to have determinant 1, but I wanted to make it clear that it lies in $PGL_2 Q$. $\endgroup$ – Ian Agol Sep 6 '11 at 20:56
  • $\begingroup$ I would refer to A as an Atkin-Lehner involution but would probably apologize for doing so if Ben got in my face about it. $\endgroup$ – JSE Sep 6 '11 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Ben: I apologize. I guess I can't ask A.O.L. if he would mind. $\endgroup$ – Ian Agol Sep 7 '11 at 0:48
  • $\begingroup$ @Agol: we can simply take $A \in SL(2,\mathbb Q)$. Thanks for the answer. $\endgroup$ – Poove Sep 8 '11 at 20:55

As noted by in the answer to this question:

Automorphisms of $SL_n(\mathbb{Z})$

by @Guntram, Margulis super rigidity implies that an authomorphism of a lattice (which a finite index subgroup of $SL(n, \mathbb{Z})$ is) extends to an automorphism of $SL(n, \mathbb{Q}).$ So, the answer to your previous question

Principal congruence subgroups of $SL(n, \mathbb{Z})$

works just as well here.

  • $\begingroup$ That is for $n\ge 3$. For $n=1$ the result is also true, but for $n=2$ a finite index subgroup may not contain a congruence subgroup at all. $\endgroup$ – Mark Sapir Sep 6 '11 at 14:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark: yes, I was assuming higher rank (since, as you say, for $n=2$ the situation is completely different...) $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Sep 6 '11 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\Gamma_m$ isn't characteristic in $SL_n(Q)$. It isn't even normal. Also, superrigidity only says that an automorphism of a lattice virtually extends to an automorphism of the ambient group. $\endgroup$ – Ben Wieland Sep 6 '11 at 18:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I never said $\Gamma_m$ was characteristic in $SL_n(\mathbb{Q}).$ $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Sep 6 '11 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Igor Rivin: Any automorphism of $\Gamma$ extends(super rigidity) to an automorphism of $SL(n,\mathbb R)$, for n>2. But it not necessarily restricts as an automorphism to $SL(n,\mathbb Z)$, instead it restricts to the normalizer of $\Gamma$ in $SL(n,\mathbb R)$, Which is again a proper finite index subgroup of $SL(n,\mathbb Z)$. So mathoverflow.net/questions/62446/… doesn't say $\Gamma_m$ is characteristic in $\Gamma$. $\endgroup$ – Poove Sep 8 '11 at 21:09

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.