arXiv:1711.01900v2 [math.FA] 18 Jan 2018

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES
MIKAEL DE LA SALLE
Abstract. We prove that every lattice in a product of higher rank simple
Lie groups or higher rank simple algebraic groups over local fields has Vincent
Lafforgue’s strong property (T). Over non-archimedean local fields, we also
prove that they have strong Banach proerty (T) with respect to all Banach
spaces with nontrivial type, whereas in general we obtain such a result with
additional hypotheses on the Banach spaces. The novelty is that we deal with
non-cocompact lattices, such as SLn (Z) for n ≥ 3. To do so, we introduce a
stronger form of strong property (T) which allows us to deal with more general
objects than group representations on Banach spaces, namely families indexed
by a group of operators between different Banach spaces that we can compose
only once. We prove that higher rank groups have this property and that this
property passes to exponentially integrable lattices.

1. Introduction
Kazhdan’s property (T) is a rigidity property for unitary representations of a
locally compact group, which has found numerous applications in various areas of
pure and applied mathematics, see [3]. Vincent Lafforgue’s strong property (T)
is a strengthening of property (T) which deals with representations by bounded
operators with small exponential growth of the norm. Its introduction in [12] was
motivated by the Baum-Connes conjecture, as it is a natural obstruction to apply
Lafforgue’s approach to the Baum-Connes conjecture, see [14]. It has also found
several applications, notably its Banach-space version that we will discuss below, as
it provided the first examples of superexpanders (expanders which do not coarsely
embed into any uniformly convex Banach space), and as it implies strong fixed point
properties for affine actions on Banach spaces. Another notable recent application
is also to dynamics, as it was one of the steps in spectacular progresses on the
Zimmer program [6].
So far strong property (T) has been shown for higher rank connected simple Lie
groups (or higher rank simple algebraic groups over local fields) and their cocompact
lattices. The case when the Lie algebra contains sl3 was proven by Lafforgue in
[12]. The generalization to other algebraic groups was done by Liao [15] (for nonarchimedean local fields) and de Laat and the author [11] (for archimedean local
fields, i.e. R). In particular before the present work it was not known whether
SL3 (Z) has strong property (T). The aim of this article is to extend these results
to cover the lattices which are not cocompact (for example SL3 (Z)) as well. This
will have consequences on the Zimmer program [7]. We also take the opportunity
to state and prove all the results more generally for (lattices in) semisimple groups
rather than simple groups.
M dlS was supported by ANR grants GAMME and AGIRA.
1

2

DE LA SALLE

In the whole article, local field will mean commutative, non-discrete locally compact topological field. So a local field is a finite extension of R (in which case it
is archimedean), or of Qp or Fp ((t)) for some prime number p (in which case it
is non-archimedean). Higher rank simple group will mean either real connected
simple Lie group of real rank ≥ 2, or connected almost F-simple algebraic group
of F-split rank ≥ 2 over a local field F. Higher rank group will stand for a finite
product of Higher rank simple groups. We warn the reader that for us, products
of rank one groups such as SL2 (R) × SL2 (Qp ) are not of higher rank. We refer to
[17, Chapter I] for the terminology. Note that real connected simple Lie group or
real rank ≥ 2 is more general than connected almost simple algebraic group of split
rank ≥ 2 over R. It includes for example some groups with infinite center, as the
infinite covering group of Sp2n (R).
Recall that a lattice in a locally compact group G is a discrete subgroup Γ such
that G/Γ carries a G-invariant Borel probability measure.
Theorem 1.1. Every lattice in a higher rank group has strong property (T).
Examples of lattices in higher rank groups include SLn (Z), SLn (Zp ), SLn (Fp [t])
f 2n (Z) (the preimage of Sp2n (Z) in the
and SLn (Z[ p1 ]) for n ≥ 3, or Sp2n (Z), Sp
universal cover of Sp2n (R)) and Sp2n (Fp [X]) for n ≥ 2. None of these examples is
a cocompact lattice.
When Γ is a cocompact lattice in a locally compact group G, every representation
of Γ by bounded operators on a Hilbert (or Banach) space can be induced in
a satisfactory way to a representation of G by bounded operators on a Hilbert
(Banach) space. This is what allows one to prove that (Banach) strong property
(T) passes to cocompact lattices, see [12]. As we shall explain in §2.2, when Γ
is not cocompact, induction of representations which are not uniformly bounded
does not behave well, and we do not see any reasonable way to define an induced
Banach space representation. This is perhaps a bit surprising for the experts,
because it is now very well understood (this seems to go back at least to the proof
of the normal subgroup theorem by Margulis) that, although they might not be
cocompact, higher rank lattices are very much integrable (for example they are
Lp -integrable for every p < ∞ in the sense of [22]), and these good integrability
properties enable to induce cocycles in a satisfactory way. The new idea that
we introduce to overcome this difficulty is a form of induction of representation
π : Γ → GL(X) which, under some assumption on the integrability of the lattice
and the growth rate of the norm of kπ(γ)k, produces two Banach spaces X, X ′
and a family of bounded operators π
e (g) : X → X ′ for g ∈ G. More generally under
slightly stronger integrability assumptions one can produce an intermediate Banach
space X1 between X0 = X and X2 = X ′ and operators πi (g) : Xi → Xi+1 satisfying
π1 (g)π0 (g ′ ) = π(gg ′ ). It turns out that a form of strong property (T) also holds
for this kind of “representations” of higher rank groups, where one is only allowed
to compose once. And this property passes to lattices in higher rank groups. This
is the content of our main result Theorem 1.2, which contains Theorem 1.1 as a
particular case.
Before stating it, we recall the notion of length function that we use, which
contains as its main examples the word-length with respect to compact symmetric
generating sets. A length function on a locally compact topological group G is a
function ℓ : G → R+ such that

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

3

• ℓ is bounded on compact subsets of G.
• ℓ(g −1 ) = ℓ(g) for every g ∈ G.
• ℓ(gh) ≤ ℓ(g) + ℓ(h) for every g, h ∈ G.
We say that a pair (G, ℓ) of a locally compact group with a length function
satisfies (*) if there exists s, t, C > 0 and a sequence mn of positive probability
measures whose support is contained in {g|ℓ(g) ≤ n} such that the following holds.
Let X0 , X2 be Banach spaces and π : G → B(X0 , X2 ) be a map. If there is a Hilbert
space X1 and two strongly continuous maps π0 : G → B(X0 , X1 ) and π1 : G →
B(X1 , X2 ) and a real number L such that kπi (g)k ≤ Lesℓ(g) for all g ∈ G and
i ∈ {0, 1} and such that π1 (g)π0 (g ′ ) = π(gg ′ ) for all g, g ′ ∈ G, then there is
P ∈ B(X0 , X2 ) such that
kπ(mn ) − P k ≤ CL2 e−tn ,

(1.1)

and such that
(1.2)

lim kπ(δg ∗ mn ∗ δg′ ) − π(mn )k = 0 for every g, g ′ ∈ G.
n

Strong property (T) corresponds to the case when X0 = X1 = X2 = X and π is
a representation. In that case (1.2) is usually replaced by the equivalent property
that P is the unique projection on the space of invariant vectors {x ∈ X|π(g)x =
x∀g ∈ G}, parallel to a π(G)-invariant complement subspace. The condition (1.2)
is nothing but a reformulation which remains meaningful in the above generality
when there is no such thing as invariant vector or projection.
We say that G satisfies (*) if (G, ℓ) satisfies (*) for every length function ℓ, or
equivalently if G is compactly generated and (G, ℓ) satisfies (*) for the word-length
function coming from a compact generating set. See Lemma 2.6 for the equivalence.
Theorem 1.2. Every higher rank group or lattice in it satisfies the above property
(*).
Examples of maps π as in (*) are when X is a topological vector space and
π : G → GL(X ) is a continuous representation of G on X , and when there are three
Banach spaces X0 , X1 , X2 (with X1 a Hilbert space) with continuous embeddings
into X and such that π(g) maps Xi to Xi+1 with norm ≤ Lesℓ(g) . In that situation
we can apply the conclusion of the theorem. In particular, we get, for every x ∈ X0 ,
that π(mn )x converges in the norm of X1 (and hence in the topology of X ) to a
π(G)-invariant vector. In this setting, property (*) has therefore to be seen as a
procedure to systematically produce and locate invariant vectors in X .
I would like to point out that, even if one is only interested in strong property (T)
(so to representations on Hilbert spaces), it is crucial that in property (*) we allow
arbitrary Banach spaces X0 and X2 . Indeed, the induction procedure explained
in Subsection 5.2, which is the heart of this work, cannot produce Hilbert spaces
but more general Banach spaces (namely Hilbert-space valued Lp spaces for various
values of p).
Banach space extensions. Higher rank groups over non-archimedean local fields
and their cocompact lattices are known to satisfy strong Banach property (T) with
respect to every class of Banach spaces of nontrivial (Rademacher) type [13, 15]
(see Section 2 for the definitions). Moreover, this class is essentially the optimal
class. Although some partial results have been obtained [20, 11, 10], it is still not
known whether the same holds over the real numbers. I regard this question as the

4

DE LA SALLE

main open problem on the subject, as a positive answer would settle positively the
conjecture (also attributed to Margulis) in [1] that every action by isometries on a
uniformly convex Banach space of a higher rank lattice has a fixed point, and prove
that the standard Cayley graphs of SL3 (Z/nZ) form a family of superrexpanders.
In this article we also extend to all lattices the above mentionned results.
To state the results, we introduce the following notion: if E is a class of Banach
spaces we say that G (respectively (G, ℓ)) satisfies (∗E ) if in (*) the assumption
that X1 is a Hilbert space is replaced by X1 ∈ E.
The following result extends the results of Lafforgue and Liao [13, 15].
Theorem 1.3. Let G be a higher rank simple group over a non-archimedean local
field, or a lattice therein. Then G satisfies (∗E ) for every class of Banach space E
of nontrivial type.
In particular, every lattice in a higher group over nonarchimedean local fields
has strong property (T) with respect to every Banach space of nontrivial type.
In the real case the conditions we have to impose on the Banach spaces are a
bit longer to state, but we believe that they are equivalent to having nontrivial
type. For n ≥ 2, denote by Sn the unit sphere in euclidean Rn+1 and define a
(n)
(n)
family (Tδ )δ∈[−1,1] of operators on L2 (Sn ) by Tδ f (x) is the average of f on
n
{y ∈ S |hx, yi = δ}.
For θ ∈ R/2π, denote by Sθ the operator on L2 (SU(2)) given by


Z 2π
dϕ
1 e−iθ −eiϕ
u) .
f(√
Sθ f (u) =
−iϕ
eiθ
2π
2 e
0

The following result extends the results of [20, 11, 10]. A version for general
higher rank groups is stated as Theorem 5.10.
Theorem 1.4. Let G be a connected simple Lie group with Lie algebra g and Γ ⊂ G
be a lattice. Then both G and Γ have (∗E ) (and therefore strong (T) with respect to
E) if one of the following conditions holds:
• g contains a Lie subalgebra isomorphic to sp4 , and there is α ∈ (0, 1] and
C > 0 such that for every X ∈ E
π α
(1.3)
kSθ − S π4 kB(L2 (SU(2);X)) ≤ C|θ − | 4 ∀θ ∈ [0, 2π]
4
and

(1.4)

(2)

kTδ

(2)

α

− T0 kB(L2 (Sn ;X)) ≤ C|δ| 2 ∀δ ∈ [−1, 1].

• g contains a Lie subalgebra isomorphic to sl3n−3 for n ≥ 2, and there is
α ∈ (0, 1] and C > 0 such that for every X ∈ E,
(1.5)

(n)

kTδ

(n)

α

− T0 kB(L2 (Sn ;X)) ≤ C|δ| 2 ∀δ ∈ [−1, 1].

All the conditions (1.3), (1.4) and (1.5) imply that X has nontrivial type, and
we believe that they are actually all equivalent. However, we only know that the
condition when g contains sp4 is formally stronger that when it contains sl3 , and
the condition (1.5) becomes formally weaker when n grows. When X is a Hilbert
space, both (1.3) and (1.4) hold with α = 1. Therefore, (1.3) and (1.4) hold if X
is isomorphic to a subspace of an interpolation space [X0 , X1 ]α between a Hilbert
space X1 and an arbitrary Banach space X, or more generally if X is θ-Hilbertian
(with θ = α) in the sense of [19]. This holds in particular if X is isomorphic

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

5

a subspace of a superreflexive Banach lattice [18]. This includes for example all
reflexive Sobolev spaces or Besov spaces.
Since every real simple Lie algebra of real rank ≥ 2 contains a Lie subalgebra
isomorphic to sl3 or sp4 , the preceding implies that every higher rank lattice has
strong (T) with respect to θ-Hilbertian Banach spaces, but the results are more
general as they include some non superreflexive spaces, for example those having
good enough type and cotype exponents, see [20].
We end this introduction with another particular case of the above theorem (see
[10] for the proof that the assumption in Corollary 1.5 implies that (1.5) holds for
n large enough).
Corollary 1.5. Let X be a Banach space for which there is β < 12 and C such
that, for every integer k, every subspace of X of dimension k is at Banach-Mazur
distance ≤ Ck β from ℓk2 . There is NX such that every lattice in a connected simple
Lie group of real rank ≥ NX has strong property (T) with respect to X.
Theorem 1.2, as well as its Banach space generalizations, is proven in several
steps. The first step is to prove the Theorem for the basic building blocks of
higher rank groups, namely for G = SL3 (F), Sp4 (F) for F = R, Qp or Fp ((t)), or
f (R). This is achieved in Section 3. The second step is to extend this to
G = Sp
4
all higher rank groups in Section 4. The last step is to deal with lattices in such
groups in Section 5. A crucial ingredient is the fact that higher rank lattices are
exponentially integrable.
1.1. Acknowledgements. I thank David Fisher and Tim de Laat for many interesting conversations and useful comments. I thank François Maucourant for
allowing me to include his proof of Theorem 5.3, much more elementary and general than my initial argument based on the reduction theory of S-arithmetic lattices.
Even though this argument is no longer present in the final version of this work, I
wish to thank Olivier Taı̈bi and Kevin Wortman for their very patient explanations
on the reduction theory of S-arithmetic lattices in positive characteristic.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Notation. If G is a locally compact group, we will denote by Pc (G) the set of
all compactly supported Borel probability measures on G. To lighten the notation,
the convolution of probability measures m1 , m2 ∈ Pc (G) will be written as m1 m2 .
So
Z
ZZ
f d(m1 m2 ) =
f (g1 g2 )dm1 (g1 )dm2 (g2 ).

We view Pc (G) as a set of linear forms on the space of continuous functions on
G, and equip it with the restriction of the weak-* topology.
If X, X ′ are Banach spaces, a map π : G → B(X, X ′ ) is called strongly continuous
if for every x ∈ X, the map g ∈ G 7→ π(g)x ∈ X ′ is continuous. In Rthat case, for
every m ∈ Pc (G), we denote by π(m) ∈ B(X, X ′ ) the operator x 7→ π(g)xdm(x)
(Bochner integral). By applying the definitions, we readily obtain the following.
Lemma 2.1. If π : G → B(X, X ′ ) is strongly continuous, then the map π : Pc (G) →
B(X, X ′ ) is still strongly continuous.
We recall the definition of Lafforgue’s strong property (T).

6

DE LA SALLE

Fix a left Haar measure dg on G. If ℓ is a length function on locally compact
group G, denote by Cℓ (G) the Banach algebra obtained by completion of convolution
algebra Cc (G) under the norm kf kℓ = sup{kπ(f )k} where the supremum is over all
strongly continuous representations π of G on a Hilbert space for which
kπ(g)k ≤
R
eℓ(g) for every g ∈ G. As for measures, π(f ) is here the operator x 7→ f (g)π(g)xdg.
For example, if ℓ = 0, we obtain C ∗ (G), the full C ∗ -algebra of G.
Definition 2.2. (Lafforgue) A locally compact group G has strong property (T) if
for every length function ℓ, there exists s > 0 such that for every c ≥ 0 the Banach
algebra Csℓ+c (G) has a Kazhdan projection, i.e. an idempotent P such that π(P ) is
a projection on the space of invariant vectors for every representation π satisfying
kπ(g)k ≤ esℓ(g)+c for every g ∈ G
A justification for this definition is the following well-known characterization of
property (T), which in particular asserts that the particular case ℓ = 0, c = 0 in
Definition 2.2 is equivalent to property (T).
Proposition 2.3. For a locally compact group G, the following are equivalent.
(1) G has property (T).
(2) There is a compactly supported probability measure µ on G such that, for
every unitary representation π of G on a Hilbert, kπ(µ) − Pπ k ≤ 12 , where
Pπ is the orthogonal projection on the space of invariant vectors and the
norm is the operator norm on G.
(3) G has a symmetric compact generating set Q and there is a sequence µn of
probability measures supported in Qn such that, for every unitary representation π of G on a Hilbert, kπ(µn ) − Pπ k ≤ 2−n .
(4) for every length function ℓ on G, there are constants C, s > 0 and a sequence
µn of probability measures supported in {g ∈ G|ℓ(g) ≤ n} such that, for
every unitary representation π of G on a Hilbert, kπ(µn ) − Pπ k ≤ Ce−sn .
(5) C ∗ (G) has a Kazhdan projection.
Remark 2.4. Actually this proposition holds representation-by-representation: given
a unitary representation π of a locally compact group G, the following are equivalent:
• π has spectral gap in the sense that the orthogonal of the space of invariant
vectors does not carry almost invariant vectors.
• there is a compactly supported probability measure µ on G such that
kπ(µ) − Pπ k ≤ 12 .
• there is a symmetric compact subset Q ⊂ G, and a sequence of probability
measures µ on Qn such that kπ(µn ) − Pπ k ≤ 2−n .
• for every length function ℓ on G, there are constants C, s > 0 and a sequence µn of probability measures supported in {g ∈ G|ℓ(g) ≤ n} such
that kπ(µn ) − Pπ k ≤ Ce−sn .
If one defines correctly a Kazhdan projection for arbitrary Banach-algebra completions of Cc (G) (see [21]), these definitions are in turn equivalent to the existence of
a Kazhdan projection for the completion of Cc (G) for the norm kf k = kπ(f )k.
If E is a class of Banach spaces, one can denote similarly by Cℓ,E (G) the Banach
algebra obtained by completion of Cc (G) under the norm kf kℓ,E = sup{kπ(f )k}
where the supremum is over all strongly continuous representations π of G on a
Banach space in E for which kπ(g)k ≤ eℓ(g) for every g ∈ G, and define Banach

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

7

strong property (T) with respect to E as strong property (T) by replacing Csℓ+c (G)
by Csℓ+c,E (G).
Recall that a Banach space X has nontrivial Rademacher type (or simply nontrivial type) if there exists p > 1 and a real number T such that
! p1
! p1
X
X
εi xi kp
kxi kp
(2.1)
Ek
≤T
i

i

for every finite sequence xi in X, where εi are iid random variables uniformly distributed in {−1, 1}. This is equivalent to the fact that ℓ1 is not finitely representable
in X: there is N > 0 and c > 1 such that every linear map u between ℓ1N and every
N -dimensional subspace of X satisfies kukku−1k ≥ c.
More generally a class of Banach spaces E has nontrivial type if there exists p > 1
and T < ∞ such that (2.1) holds for every X ∈ E and every finite sequence (xi ) in
X, or equivalently if ℓ1 is not finitely representable in E.
2.2. Why the naive attempt does not work. Let Γ be a lattice in a locally
compact group G. Let Ω ⊂ G be a Borel fundamental domain for G/Γ: (ω, γ) ∈
Ω × Γ 7→ ωγ ∈ G is a bijection.
Let π be a representation of Γ on a Hilbert space X. Consider the topological
e of (Bochner-measurable) functions f : G → X satisfying f (gγ) =
vector space X
−1
π(γ) f (g), moded out by functions that vanish outside of a negligeable set. Make
G act on this space by left translation : π
e(g)f (h) = f (g −1 h).
It is natural to consider the Hilbert space of such functions satisfying moreover
Z
1
( kf (ω)k2X dω) 2 < ∞.
Ω

This space is naturally identified with L2 (Ω; X). Under this identification, if gω =
(g · ω)α(g, ω) is the unique decomposition of gω in G = ΩΓ, then π
e(g) reads as
(e
π (g)f )(ω) = π(α(g −1 , ω)−1 )f (g −1 · ω) ∀g ∈ G, ω ∈ Ω.

The problem that occurs is that π
e(g) preserves L2 (Ω; X) if and only if the function
−1
−1
ω 7→ kπ(α(g , ω) k is essentially bounded on Ω:

Lemma 2.5. The norm of π
e(g) on L2 (Ω; X) is equal to the essential supremum of
−1
−1
ω 7→ kπ(α(g , ω) )k.

Proof. Let Cg be the essential supremum of kπ(α(g −1 , ω)−1 )k. The inequality
k(e
π (g)f )(ω)k ≤ kπ(α(g −1 , ω)−1 )kkf (g −1 · ω)k implies that
Z
2
2
kf (g −1 · ω)k2 dω = Cg2 kf k2L2 (Ω;X)
k(e
π (g)f )(x)kL2 (Ω;X) ≤ Cg
Ω

−1

because ω 7→ g · ω preserves the measure on Ω.
For the other direction, for γ ∈ Γ, denote A = {ω ∈ Ω|α(g −1 , ω)−1 = γ} =
Ω ∩ gΩγ −1 . If A has positive measure, then for every x ∈ X we can consider
1
1
f = χA x. It has norm |A| 2 kxk, and its image χgA π(γ)x has norm |A| 2 kπ(γ)xk.
Taking the supremum over x yields the inequality ke
π (g)k ≥ kπ(γ)k. Taking the
supremum over all g such that Ω ∩ gΩγ −1 has positive measure prove that ke
π (g)k
is larger than or equal to Cg .


8

DE LA SALLE

So in general π
e is not a representation by bounded operators unless Γ is cocompact or π is a uniformly bounded representation. There does not seem to be any
e for which π
other reasonable pseudo-norm on X
e(g) is by bounded operators. There
is always the pseudo norm kf k = ∞ ∀f 6= 0, but this is clearly unreasonable. We
do not give a precise meaning to “reasonable”, but it should at least remember the
whole representation, for example by giving finite norm, for every x ∈ X, to the
constant function equal to x on Ω.
We mention however the construction in [8] where a pseudo-norm is constructed
e which, under the assumption that the bounded cohomology H 1 (Γ; π) is non
on X,
b
e is also non zero.
zero, gives rise to a nonzero space for which Hb1 (G; X)

2.3. Comparing Theorem 1.1 and 1.2. We recall that Cℓ,E (G) has a Kazhdan
1
projection if and only
R if there is a sequence mn of signed compactly supported
measures on G with 1dmn = 1 and C > 0 such that kmn − mn+1 kℓ,E ≤ Ce−n and
such that limn kgmn − mn kℓ,E = 0 for every g ∈ G. Moreover, mn can be taken
to be of the form (m1 )n (the n-th convolution power of m1 ). In particular mn is
supported in {g|ℓ(g) ≤ nR} if m1 is supported in {g|ℓ(g) ≤ R}. Also, if E is stable
by duality and subspaces, then the preceding implies that limn kmn g − mn kℓ,E = 0
for every g ∈ G. For details, we refer to [21] where these assertions were established.
Hence in the particular case when X0 = X1 = X2 = X and π is a representation
on X, property (*) for (G, ℓ) says a bit more than that Csℓ+c (G) has a Kazhdan
projection for every c > 0 : first it says that mn can be taken independant from c,
that C = O(e2c ) and most importantly that mn can be taken to be positive.

2.4. Basic properties. The first basic lemma implies that to prove Theorem 1.2,
it is enough to consider the word-length function with respect to some compact
symmetric generating set (which exists because (*) is formally stronger than property (T), which already implies compact generation), or any other length function
quasi-isometric to it. Indeed, if ℓ is any length function on a locally compact compactly generated group G, and Q is a compact symmetric generating set for G with
associated length function ℓQ , then there is a > 0 such that ℓ ≤ aℓQ . Namely the
supremum of ℓ on Q.
Lemma 2.6. Let ℓ, ℓ′ be two length functions, and a, b > 0 such that ℓ′ ≤ aℓ + b.
If (G, ℓ) has (∗E ) then so does (G, ℓ′ ).
Proof. If (G, ℓ) has (∗E ) with s, t, C and mn , it is immediate that (G, ℓ′ ) has (∗E )
with as , t/a, C ′ and m⌊(n−b)/a⌋ , with C ′ = Ce(2sb+ta+tb)/a .

In each section of the paper, the proof of (*) or (∗E ) is divided in two parts: one
first finds a sequence mn such that, if s > 0 is small enough and π is as in (*), then
π(mn ) converges as in (1.1). Then one proves that (1.2) also holds. This second
part is always much harder than the first. The next remark shows that it is not
necessary to prove the norm convergence in (1.2).
Remark 2.7. In (*), condition (1.2) can be strengthened (or weakened). Indeed,
once one knows that (1.1) holds for every π as in (*), then for any µ1 , µ2 ∈ Pc (G)
one can apply it to the new π ′ given by π ′ (m) = π(µ1 mµ2 ). Indeed, this π ′ satisfies
s
the same assumptions, but with L replaced by Le 2 (R1 +R2 ) if the support of µi is
1It is not known in general if m can be taken to be positive.
n

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

contained in {g|ℓ(g) ≤ Ri }. And so there is
n,
(2.2)

µ1 Pµ2

9

∈ B(X0 , X2 ) such that for every

kπ(µ1 mn µ2 ) − µ1 Pµ2 k ≤ CL2 es(R1 +R2 )−tn .

And so (1.2) is equivalent to each of the following properties:
• δg Pδg′ = P .
′
• kπ(gmn g ′ ) − π(mn )k ≤ 2CL2 es(ℓ(g)+ℓ(g ))−tn .
• for every x ∈ X0 , limn kπ(gmn g ′ )x − π(mn )xk = 0.
• for every x ∈ X0 , limn π(gmn g ′ )x − π(mn )x = 0 weakly.
Lemma 2.8. If (G1 , ℓ1 ) and (G2 , ℓ2 ) have (*) (respectively (∗E )) then so does
(G1 × G2 , ℓ) where ℓ(g1 , g2 ) = max(ℓ1 (g1 ), ℓ2 (g2 )).
(i)

(1)

(2)

Proof. For i = 1, 2, let si , ti , Ci , mn be as in (∗E ) for Gi . Define mn = mn ⊗ mn .
By definition it is a probability measure supported in {g ∈ G1 × G2 |ℓ(g) ≤ n}.
Let π : G1 ×G2 → B(X0 , X2 ) be as in (∗E ) for C, s. We claim that the conclusion
of (∗E ) holds if s > 0 is small enough.
We can compute
(2)

(2)
(1)
kπ(mn ) − π(mn+1 )k ≤ kπ(m(1)
n ⊗ mn ) − π(mn ⊗ mn+1 )k
(2)

(1)

(2)

+ kπ(m(1)
n ⊗ mn+1 ) − π(mn+1 ⊗ mn+1 )k.
(1)

By (1.1) applied to the map g2 ∈ G2 7→ π(mn ⊗ δg2 ), if s ≤ s2 the first term is
dominated by 2C2 L2 e2sn−t2 n . Similarly, if s ≤ s1 the second term is dominated by
2C1 L2 e2s(n+1)−t1 n . So if s = min( t31 , t32 , s1 , s2 ) then
kπ(mn ) − π(mn+1 )k ≤ (2C1 e2s + 2C2 )L2 e−sn .
This implies that π(mn ) is Cauchy and that (1.1) holds with t = s and C =
2C1 e2s +2C2
. The validity of (1.2) follows with a similar proof, taking into account
1−e−s
Remark 2.7.

3. Proof of Theorem 1.2 for SL3 and Sp4
The aim of this section is to prove Theorem 1.2, Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.4
f 4 (R), and Theorem 1.4 for SL3n−3 . As we shall see, the proofs
for SL3 , Sp4 and Sp
use the same two main ingredients as the proofs of strong property (T) : one is
harmonic analysis in the maximal compact subgroups, and the other is a careful
exploration process of the Weyl chambers using some elementary moves coming
from the maximal compact subgroup. These ingredients are the same, but they are
combined in a different way. We will give a complete and essentially self-contained
proof for SL3 and be much more sketchy for the other groups. This allows us to
divide the length of the paper by a factor of at least 2, and we believe that the
interested reader will be able to fill the details. The proof for SL3 (F) is essentially
independant from the local field, but for a better readability we have chosen to first
focus on the real case, and then explain the small changes that one has to make to
deal with non-archimedean local fields.

10

DE LA SALLE

3.1. Case of SL3 (R). We prove the theorem for G = SL3 (R). We denote by
K = SO(3) ⊂ G the maximal compact subgroup. By Lemma 2.6 it is enough to
prove the theorem for the length function ℓ(g) = max(log kgk, log kg −1 k), where
k · k is the norm induced from the natural K-invariant euclidean norm on R3 :
1
k(s1 , s2 , s3 )k = s21 + s22 + s23 2 .
More precisely, we will prove that (SL3 (R), ℓ) has (*) with the parameters s < 14 , t =
1
50
2 − 2s, C = 1−4s and mn any K-biinvariant probability measure on {g|n − 1 ≤
ℓ(g) ≤ n}.
Let π as in Theorem 1.2 with s < 41 . Denote by d the distance on the compactly
supported Borel probability measures on G defined by
d(m, m′ ) = kπ(m) − π(m′ )kB(X0 ,X2 ) .
The following lemma lists the properties of d. In (3) and in the rest of the proof, λ
stands for the left regular representation of K. It is the representation on L2 (K)
given by λ(k)f (·) = f (k −1 ·) for every k ∈ K and f ∈ L2 (K).
Lemma 3.1. The distance d has the following properties.
(1) (Convexity) For every m1 , m2 ∈ Pc (G),

1
m1 + m2 m′1 + m′2
,
) ≤ (d(m1 , m′1 ) + d(m2 , m′2 )).
2
2
2
(2) (Lower-semicontinuity) If Q ⊂ G is compact and mi (resp. m′i ) is a net
of probability measures supported in Q and converging weak-* to m (resp.
m′ ), then d(m, m′ ) ≤ lim inf i d(mi , m′i ).
(3) If µ, µ′ are probability measures on K and g1 , g2 ∈ G then
d(

d(δg1 µδg2 , δg1 µ′ δg2 ) ≤ L2 esℓ(g1 )+sℓ(g2 ) kλ(µ − µ′ )kB(L2 (K)) .
Proof. Property (1) is obvious, and (2) is immediate from the strong continuity of
π0 , π1 (and hence of π), see Lemma 2.1. For (3), consider x ∈ X0 and y ∈ X2∗ .
For every k ∈ K define F (k) = π
e0 (k −1 g2 )x ∈ X1 and H(k) = π
e(g1 k)∗ y ∈ X1∗ . For
k1 , k2 ∈ K we have
hH(k1 ), F (k2 )i = hy, π
e(g1 k1 k2−1 g2 )xi.

We view the continuous function F as an element of L2 (K; X1 ). Its norm is less
than supk∈K kπ0 (k −1 g2 )xk ≤ Lesℓ(g2 ) kxk. Similarly, we view H in the topological
dual L2 (Ω; X1 )∗ , and it has norm ≤ Lesℓ(g1 ) kykX2∗ . We can compute
ZZ
hH(k1 ), F (k2−1 k1 )idµ(k2 )dk1 = hy, π
hH, (λ(µ) ⊗ idX1 )(F )i =
e(δg1 µδg2 )xi.
K

One deduces

|hy, π
e (δg1 (µ − µ′ )δg2 )xi| ≤ kλ(µ − µ′ ) ⊗ idX1 kkF kL2(K;X1 ) kHkL2(K;X1 )∗ ,

which is less than

kλ(µ − µ′ )kB(L2 (K)) L2 esℓ(g1 ) esℓ(g2 ) kxkkyk

because X1 is a Hilbert space. The lemma follows by taking the supremum over all
x and y in the unit balls of X1 and X2∗ respectively.


STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

11

Remark 3.2. If we are in the setting of property (∗E ) (that is if X1 is a Banach
space), then Lemma 3.1 and its proof still holds, with (3) replaced by
d(δg1 µδg2 , δg1 µ′ δg2 ) ≤ L2 esℓ(g1 )+sℓ(g2 ) kλ(µ − µ′ )kB(L2 (K;X1 )) .
We shall prove Theorem 1.2 for SL3 (R) in the generality given by the previous
lemma. So let d be a distance on the compactly supported probability measures on
G satisfying the three conditions (1), (2) and (3) in the previous lemma.
We say that a probability measure ν on a compact group K is admissible if it
is absolutely continuous with respect to the Haar measure on K and if the RadonNikodym derivative is strictly positive and is a coefficient of a finite dimensional
representation of K. We say that ν is central if it belongs to the center of the
convolution algebra of Borel measures on K.
Proposition 3.3. Denote by λK the Haar probability measure on K, seen as a
probability measure on G. There exists C > 0 such that if s < 14 and t := ( 21 − 2s) >
0, then
C
(3.1)
d(λK δg λK , λK δg′ λK ) ≤
L2 e−tℓ(g) .
1 − 4s
For every admissible and central probability measure ν on K, there is C(ν) ∈ R
such that for every g ∈ G,
(3.2)

d(νδg λK , λK δg λK ) ≤ C(ν)L2 e−tℓ(g) .

This proposition easily implies the Theorem. Indeed, the first half implies that
there is P in the completion of (Pc (G), d) (which is contained in B(X0 , X2 ) in our
case) such that d(λK δg λK , P ) ≤ CL2 e−tℓ(g) .
More generally if m0 ∈ Pc (G), applying the same to d′ (m, m′ ) = d(m0 m, m0 m′ )
(which satisfies the same assumptions than d with L2 replaced by L2 esR if m0 is
supported in {g, ℓ(g) = R}), we obtain m0 P in the completion of (Pc (G), d) such
that
(3.3)

d(m0 λK δg λK , m0 P ) ≤ CL2 esR−tℓ(g) .

Lemma 3.4. The map m0 7→ m0 P is lower-semicontinuous.

Proof. Let mi (resp. m′i ), i ∈ I be a net converging weak-* to m0 (resp. m′0 ) and
supported in a common compact subset of G, say {g, ℓ(g) ≤ R}. For every g ∈ G,
(3.3) yields
d(m0 P, m′0 P ) ≤ 2CL2 esR−tℓ(g) + d(m0 λK δg λK , m′0 λK δg λK ).

By the lower-semicontinuity of d, we deduce

d(m0 P, m′0 P ) ≤ 2CL2 esR−tℓ(g) + lim inf d(mi λK δg λK , m′i λK δg λK ),
i

which (by (3.3)) is bounded above by
4CL2 esR−tℓ(g) + lim inf d(mi P, m′i P ).
i

The lemma follows by making ℓ(g) → ∞.



The second half of the proposition implies that d(νδg λK , P ) ≤ (1+C(ν))L2 e−tℓ(g)
if ν is an admissible and central probability measure on K. Using the convexity (1)
and the lower-semicontinuity (2) of d we get that for g1 ∈ G,
d(νδg1 λK δg λK , P ) ≤ (1 + C(ν))L2 e−tℓ(g)+tℓ(g1 ) .

12

DE LA SALLE

Making ℓ(g) → ∞, we obtain νδg1 P = P . By the Peter-Weyl theorem we can find a
sequence νn of admissible and central probability measures on K converging weak-*
to δ1 . By Lemma 3.4 we deduce that
d(P, δg1 P ) ≤ lim inf d(νi P, νi δg1 P ) = 0.
i

To summarize, if mg is the K-biinvariant probability measure on KgK, we have
proven that d(mg , P ) ≤ CL2 e−tℓ(g) and limg d(δg1 mg , P ) = 0 for every g1 ∈ G.
If we consider the distance (m, m′ ) 7→ d(m̌, m̌′ ) for m̌ the image of m by the
inverse map2, we also have limg d(mg δg2 , P ) = 0 for every g2 ∈ G, and hence
limg d(δg1 mg δg2 , P ) = 0. This proves the theorem.
It remains to prove Proposition 3.3. As in Lafforgue’s original proof [12] (see also
the exposition in [20]), the proof is based on the harmonic analysis in the compact
group K.
e ⊂ K of block-diagonal matrices
We introduce the subgroups U, U


 1 0 0 
U = 0 ∗ ∗ ∩ K.


0 ∗ ∗


 ∗ ∗ 0 
e = ∗ ∗ 0 ∩ K.
U


0 0 1
e are both isomorphic to S0(2).
U and U
For δ ∈ [−1, 1] we introduce the following matrix kδ ∈ K with entry (1, 1) equal
to δ :
p


1 − |δ|2 0
δ
−
p
kδ =  1 − |δ|2
δ
0 .
0
0
1
The fundamental inequality proven by Lafforgue in [12, Lemme 2.2] is that
ZZ
1
λ(ukδ u′ ) − λ(uk0 u′ )dudu′ kB(L2 (K)) ≤ 2|δ| 2 .
(3.4)
k
U×U

This implies more generally that if µ1 , µ2 are admissible probability measures on
U , then
ZZ
1
λ(ukδ u′ ) − λ(uk0 u′ )dµ1 (u)dµ2 (u′ )kB(L2 (K)) ≤ C(µ1 , µ2 )|δ| 2 .
(3.5)
k
U×U

See [12] or [10, Proposition 2.1].
For α, β, γ ∈ R with α + β + γ = 0, we denote
 α

e
0 0
D(α, β, γ) =  0 eβ 0  .
0
0 eγ

We simply write Dα for D(2α, −α, −α). It has norm e2α if α ≥ 0.
We start with the proof of (3.1). Denote by Λ the Weyl chamber, that is Λ =
{(a1 , a2 , a3 ) ∈ R3 |a1 ≥ a2 ≥ a3 , a1 + a2 + a3 = 0}. For (a1 , a2 , a3 ) ∈ Λ denote
c(a1 , a2 , a3 ) = λK δD(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK .
2This new distance satisfies the same hypotheses as d.

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

13

By the KAK-decomposition, (3.1) is equivalent to the inequality
′

′

d(c(a1 , a2 , a3 ), c(a′1 , a′2 , a′3 )) ≤ CL2 (|e|−t max(a1 ,−a3 ) + |e|−t max(a1 ,−a3 ) ).
Since Dα commutes with every element of U , we can write
λK δDα kδ Dα λK = λK δDα λU δkδ λU δDα λK .
It therefore follows from (3.4) and the properties of d in Lemma 3.1 that
1

d(λK δDα kδ Dα λK , λK δDα k0 Dα λK ) ≤ L2 e4sα |δ| 2 .
To make this formula more readable we compute the KAK decomposition of Dα kδ Dα .
For δ = 0, we have
(3.6)

Dα k0 Dα = D(α, α, −2α)k0 .

For δ 6= 0 we have the lemma.
e such that
Lemma 3.5. For every r ∈ [α, 4α] there are δ ∈ [0, 1] and ur,α , u′r,α ∈ U
r−4α
δ≤e
≤ 1 and
Dα kδ Dα = ur,α D(r, 2α − r, −2α)u′r,α .

Proof. For δ 6= 0, g = Dα kδ Dα is block diagonal with one eigenvalue e−2α and
another block of the form DkD for D = diag(e2α , e−α ) and k an isometry. In
particular kg −1 k = e2α . If we define rα (δ) ∈ [0, ∞) by kgk = erα (δ) we therefore
e D(rα (δ), 2α − rα (δ), −2α)U
e . By saying that the norm of g is larger
have that g ∈ U
that the absolute value of its (1, 1) entry we get the desired inequality δe4α ≤ erα (δ) .
It remains to show that rα is surjective. But rα is continuous on the interval [0, 1]
so its image contains the interval [rα (0), rα (1)] = [α, 4α]. We do not need it, but it
is not hard to check that rα is actually bijective from [0, 1] onto [α, 4α].

In particular for every (a1 , a2 , a3 ), (a′1 , a′2 , a′3 ) ∈ Λ satisfying a3 = a′3 , by applying
the preceding lemma with −2α = a3 = a′3 we have that,
(3.7)
1
2

d(c(a1 , a2 , a3 ), c(a′1 , a′2 , a′3 ))| ≤ 2L2 (e

a1
2

+(1−2s)a3

a1
2

+ (1 − 2s)a3 =
Notice that if a2 ≥ −1 we have
+ ( 12 − 2s)a3 . Therefore (3.7) implies

(3.8)

+e

a1 +a2 +a3
2

a′1
2

+(1−2s)a′3

+ ( 12

).

− 2s)a3 −

a2
2

≤

1

d(c(a1 , a2 , a3 ), c(a′1 , a′2 , a′3 )) ≤ 7L2 e( 2 −2s)a3 if a3 = a′3 and a2 , a′2 ≥ −1.

If we apply the same for the distance d′ (m, m′ ) = d(ρ∗ m, ρ∗ m′ ) for ρ the Cartan
automorphism



−1
0 0 1
0 0 1
g 7→ 0 1 0 (g −1 )t 0 1 0 ,
1 0 0
1 0 0
we get that
(3.9)

1

d(c(a1 , a2 , a3 ), c(a′1 , a′2 , a′3 )) ≤ 7L2 e−( 2 −2s)a1 if a1 = a′1 and a2 , a′2 ≤ 1.

In particular if cr = c(r, 0, −r) and 1 ≤ r1 ≤ r2 ≤ r1 + 1,
d(cr2 , cr1 ) ≤
≤

d(cr2 , c(r2 , r1 − r2 , −r1 )) + d(c(r2 , r1 − r2 , −r1 ), cr1 )
1

1

7L2 (e−( 2 −2s)r2 + e−( 2 −2s)r2 ).

14

DE LA SALLE

s=t

s=0
s = −1

r=s
Figure 1. The zig-zag path in the Weyl chamber Λ.
This implies (since

P

1

k≥0

e−( 2 −2s)k ≤

3
1−4s )

that for every r, r′ ≥ 1,

′
1
21
1
L2 max(e−( 2 −2s)r , e−( 2 −2s)r ).
1 − 4s
It follows easily from the above estimates that
1
1
35
d(c(a1 , a2 , a3 ), c(a′1 , a′2 , a′3 )) ≤
max(e−( 2 −2s) max(a1 ,−a3 ) , e−( 2 −2s) max(a1 ,−a3 ) ),
1 − 4s
which is exactly (3.1). The previous computations are best understood on a picture
(see Figure 1) : (3.8) expresses that c is almost constant on lines of slope − 21 in the
region s ≥ −1, whereas (3.9) expresses that c is almost constant on vertical lines
in the region s ≤ 0. These estimates are combined by the zig-zag path in Figure 1.
We now move to the proof of (3.2). We start by a general lemma.

d(cr , cr′ ) ≤

Lemma 3.6. Every admissible probability measure ν on K can be written as ν1 µ
for admissible probability measures ν1 on K and µ on U .
Proof. By assumption, the Radon-Nikodym derivative dν/dk of ν is positive and
is a coefficient of a finite dimensional representation V of K. Denote by CV the
finite dimensional space of real-valued matrix coefficients of V , equipped (say) with
the L∞ (K)-norm. Let µn be a sequence of admissible probability measures on U
converging weak-* to δe . Then Tn : f ∈ CV 7→ f ∗ µn ∈ CV converges pointwise to
the identity. Since CV has finite dimension, for n large enough this linear map is
invertible and there is a sequence fn ∈ CV converging to dν/dk such that Tn fn =
dν/dk . Since dν/dk is positive, so is fn for n large enough. In other words, ν1 =
fn dk is a probability measure such that ν1 µn = µ, as requested.

Let us fix ν an admissible and central probability measure on K. Let ν = ν1 µ
be a decomposition given by the previous lemma. Since Dα commutes with every
element of U , one can write for α > 0 and δ ∈ [−1, 1]
νδDα kδ Dα λK = ν1 δDα µδkδ λU δDα λK .

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

15

By the convexity and lower-semicontinuity of d, the distance
d(νδDα kδ Dα λK , νδDα kδ Dα λK )
is therefore bounded by
sup d(δkDα µδkδ λU δDα k′ , δkDα µδk0 λU δDα k′ ).

k,k′ ∈K

By combining this inequality with the last point in Lemma 3.1, (3.5), (3.6) and
Lemma 3.5, we get a constant C(ν) such that for every α and r ∈ [α, 4α]
r

d(νδur,α D(r,2α−r,−2α) λK , νδD(α,α,−2α) λK ) ≤ C(ν)L2 e 2 −(2−4s)α .

In particular and as for (3.8), if a = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) ∈ Λ satisfies a2 ≥ 0 and a3 = −2α,
e such that
there is ua ∈ U
d(νδua D(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK , νδD(α,α,−2α) ) ≤ C(ν)L2 e(1−4s)α .

Let us apply the preceding to the distance d′ (m, m′ ) = d(δuu−1
m, δuu−1
m′ ) for some
a
a
e , which satisfies the same assumptions as d. Note that since ν is central and
u∈U
D(α, α, −2α) commutes with uu−1
a , we have
δuu−1
νδua D(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK = δu νδD(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK
a

and
δuu−1
νδD(α,α,−2α) λK = νδD(α,α,−2α) λK .
a
Therefore we obtain
(3.10)

d(δu νδD(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK , νδD(α,α,−2α) λK ) ≤ C(ν)L2 e(1−4s)α .

In particular, by the triangle inequality
1

d(δu νδD(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK , νδD(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK ) ≤ 2C(ν)L2 e( 2 −2s)a3
e and (a1 , a2 , a3 ) ∈ Λ with a2 ≥ 0. Similarly by applying the Cartan
for every u ∈ U
automorphism ρ (and with ν replaced by its image by ρ) we obtain
1

d(δu νδD(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK , νδD(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK ) ≤ 2C(ν)L2 e−( 2 −2s)a1

e
for every u ∈ U and (a1 , a2 , a3 ) ∈ Λ with a2 ≤ 0. Indeed, ρ exchanges U and U
and preserves ν.
Consider for a moment the particular case a2 = 0. In that situation both estimates can be applied, and give that
1

d(δu νδD(a,0,−a) λK , νδD(a,0,−a) λK ) ≤ 2C(ν)L2 e−( 2 −2s)a
e . But every element of K can be written as a product of ≤ 3
for every u ∈ U ∪ U
e
elements of U ∪ U , so the preceding inequality implies
1

d(δk νδD(a,0,−a) λK , νδD(a,0,−a) λK ) ≤ 6C(ν)L2 e−( 2 −2s)a

for every k ∈ K. If we average with respect to K (and use one last time the
convexity and lower-semicontinuity of d) we obtain
1

d(λK δD(a,0,−a) λK , νδD(a,0,−a) λK ) ≤ 6C(ν)L2 e−( 2 −2s)a .
By (3.10) we get
d(λK δD(α,α,−2α) λK , νδD(α,α,−2α) λK ) ≤ 8C(ν)L2 e−(1−4s)α .

16

DE LA SALLE

By (3.10) again this implies that
1

d(λK δD(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK , νδD(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK ) ≤ 10C(ν)L2 e( 2 −2s)a3
for every (a1 , a2 , a3 ) ∈ Λ with a2 ≥ 0. By symmetry (i.e. by conjugating by the
Cartan automorphism) we also get
1

d(λK δD(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK , νδD(a1 ,a2 ,a3 ) λK ) ≤ 10C(ν)L2 e−( 2 −2s)a1
for every (a1 , a2 , a3 ) ∈ Λ with a2 ≤ 0. To summarize, we have proven that
1

d(λK δg λK , νδg λK ) ≤ 10C(ν)L2 e−( 2 −2s)ℓ(g)

for every g of the form D(a1 , a2 , a3 ). Considering the KAK decomposition, we
obtain the validity of the preceding inequality for g ∈ G be arbitrary. This concludes
the proof of (3.2) and therefore of Theorem 1.2 for SL3 (R).
Remark 3.7. The only place in the proof where we used in an essential way that
X1 is a Hilbert was in the conclusion (3) of Lemma 3.1, which allowed us to exploit
(3.4) and (3.5). However, for Banach spaces we have Remark 3.2, and the rest of
the above proof shows that (SL3 (R), ℓ) satisfies (∗E ) provided that there is α > 0
and C > 0 such that for every δ ∈ [−1, 1] and X ∈ E,
ZZ
α
λ(ukδ u′ ) − λ(uk0 u′ )dudu′ kB(L2 (K;X)) ≤ C|δ| 2
k
U×U

and

k

ZZ

U×U

α

λ(ukδ u′ ) − λ(uk0 u′ )dµ1 (u)dµ2 (u′ )kB(L2 (K;X)) ≤ C(µ1 , µ2 )|δ| 2 .

The first equality is equivalent to (1.4), and the second actually follows from the
first, see [10, Proposition 2.1]. This proves Theorem 1.4 for the group G = SL3 (R).
3.2. Case of SL3 (F). The proof of Theorem 1.2 for G = SL3 (F) and F = Qp or
Fp ((t)) for some prime number p is essentially the same as for F = R.
We only give a rapid overview of the small adjustements one has to make. In
that case the maximal compact subgroup K ⊂ G is SL3 (O) if O is the ring of units
of F (namely O = Zp or Fp [[t]]). It is more natural to prove the theorem for the
length function ℓ(g) = max(log kgk, log kg −1 k), where k · k is the norm induced from
the natural K-invariant norm k(s1 , s2 , s3 )k = max(|s1 |, |s2 |, |s3 |) on F 3 (where |s|
is the standard absolute value on F , i.e. the amount by which the Haar measure
on (F, +) is scaled under the multiplication by s). With this normalization, as for
C0 p
for
the case F = R, Theorem 1.2 holds with any s < 14 , t = 21 − 2s, C = 1−4s
a constant universal constant C0 (independant from p) and for any K-biinvariant
sequence mn supported in {g ∈ G|ℓ(g) = n}.
Indeed, Lemma 3.1 holds in this setting, and all amounts to proving Proposition
e by the same formulas as for the real
3.3. For that, one defines the subgroups U, U
case, but in that case they are both isomorphic to SL2 (O). The matrix kδ ∈ K is
defined for every δ ∈ O by the formula


δ −1 0
kδ = 1 0 0
0 0 1
Both formulas (3.4) and (3.5) hold in this setting, see [12].

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

17

The Weyl chamber is now replaced by its discretized version Λ = {(a1 , a2 , a3 ) ∈
Z3 |a1 ≥ a1 ≥ a3 , a1 + a2 + a3 = 0}, which still parametrizes the K-double cosets
by the matrices
 α

e
0
0
D(α, β, γ) =  0 eβ 0  ,
0
0 eγ
where e denotes the inverse of a uniformizer in O. To fix ideas, e = p−1 if F = Qp
and e = t−1 if F = Fp ((t)).
Lemma 3.5 is replaced by its formal analogue

Lemma 3.8. Let α ∈ N. For every integer r ∈ [α, 4α] there are δ ∈ O and
e such that |δ| ≤ |e|r−4α ≤ 1 and
ur,α , u′r,α ∈ U
Dα kδ Dα = ur,α D(r, 2α − r, −2α)u′r,α .

The proof is similar and actually even simpler than in the archimedean case,
because when F is non-archimedean the operator norm of a matrix g ∈ SL3 (F ) is
simply kgk = maxi,j |gi,j |. Therefore one may take δ = er−4α .
Proposition 3.3 is deduced from (3.4), (3.5) and the preceding lemma in the
same way as in the real case. There is just one difficulty that occurs from the
discreteness of Λ. Indeed, since α has to be an integer in the preceding lemma,
one obtains (3.7) only when a3 = a′3 = −2α is even. A way to obtain the same
inequality also when a3 = a′3 is odd (say equal to 1 − 2α for an integer α) is
to apply the same reasoning (by replacing Dα kδ Dα by Dα kδ Dα−1 ) to the new
distance d′ (m, m′ ) = d(u0 (m), u0 (m′ )) for u0 is the (non-inner) automorphism of
G preserving U and given by
 −1
 

e
0 0
e 0 0
1 0 g 0 1 0 .
(3.11)
u0 (g) =  0
0
0 1
0 0 1

e D(a1 , a2 , a3 )U
e if δ = e2a3 −a1 ,
Indeed, one checks easily that u0 (Dα kδ Dα−1 )) ∈ U
e
and to D(α, α − 1, 1 − 2α)U if δ = 0, and this leads to the validity of (3.7) also
when a3 = a′3 is odd, at the cost of replacing L by L|e|s . The reason for this is that,
since u0 does not preserve the length but only satisfies |ℓ(g) − ℓ(u0 (g))| ≤ log |e|,
Lemma 3.1 holds for d′ with L replaced by L|e|s . The same adjustment has to be
made to obtain (3.2).
Another way to fix this parity issue is to work from the beginning with PGL3 (F)
where the automorphism u0 becomes inner, as in [12].

Remark 3.9. When X1 is a Banach space, Remark 3.7 holds similarly, except that
in that case we know exactly for which Banach spaces α, C > 0 such that for every
δ∈O
ZZ
k

α

U×U

λ(ukδ u′ ) − λ(uk0 u′ )dudu′ kB(L2 (K;X)) ≤ C|δ| 2 .

These are exactly the Banach spaces of nontrivial Rademacher type, see [13]. This
proves Theorem 1.3 for the group G = SL3 (F).

3.3. Case of Sp4 (F). The case of Sp4 (F) for F = R, Qp or Fp ((t)) proceeds in
the same way as for SL3 (F) : Lemma 3.1 holds without any change, and again all
amounts to proving Proposition 3.3. And this is achieved by adapting the known
proofs of strong property (T) [15, 11] in the same way as for SL3 . Actually, the

18

DE LA SALLE

same strategy allows us, as in [11], to prove Theorem 1.2 for the universal cover
f (R). The same arguments also show the conclusion of Theorem 1.3 for Sp (F)
Sp
4
4
f 4 (R). We leave the details to the reader.
and of Theorem 1.4 for Sp4 (R) and Sp

3.4. Case of SL3n−3 (R). A particular case of the results of the next section is that
SLN (R) satisfies property (*) for every N ≥ 3, and more generally that it satisfies
(∗E ) whenever SL3 (R) does. The reason is that SL3 ⊂ SLn . This does not prove
1.4 for SL3n−3 (R) because condition (1.5) is a priori weaker that (1.4). However,
we can inject in the general argument presented in Subsection 3.1 the exploration
process of the Weyl chamber of SL3n−6 that was obtained in [10] using copies of
Sn−1 and obtain Theorem 1.4 for SL3n−3 (R).
4. Generalization to other higher rank groups
We now prove Theorem 1.2 for higher rank groups, using that we already know
f 4 . By Lemma 2.8 we can restrict to the case of
that it holds for SL3 , Sp4 and Sp
higher rank simple groups. The arguments are close to [12, Section 4] and [15, §5].
We refer to these references for the missing details.
We start with the proof for the case when G is a connected simple Lie group of
real rank ≥ 2.
By the classification of higher rank Lie algebras G contains a closed subgroup
H whose Lie algebra is sl3 or sp2 , see [17, Proposition I.1.6.2]. This means that H
f 4 (R). Since, as
is isomorphic to a finite extension of SL3 (R) or Sp2 (R), or to Sp
the reader can easily check, property (*) remains true if one replaces H by a finite
extension or by a quotient by a finite group, we know that the theorem holds for
H: let s(H), t(H) > 0 and mn be a sequence of probability measures supported on
{h ∈ H, ℓ(h) ≤ n} as in the theorem.
Let a ∈ H be the exponential of a nonzero semisimple element a, and g = ⊕λ gλ
be the decomposition as eigenspaces for Ad(a). In this way, for Y ∈ gλ , ad(a)(Y ) =
eλ Y and a exp(Y )a−1 = exp(eλ Y ).
We shall prove that (*) holds for (G, ℓ) with the parameters s, t = t(H) and the
sequence mn (seen as probability measures on G) if s ≤ s(H) is small enough.
Let π be as in (*) for (G, ℓ). Then since s ≤ s(H), we know that there is
P ∈ B(X0 , X2 ) such that
(4.1)

kπ(mn ) − P k ≤ Ce−nt .

Moreover, if µ, ν are probability measures on G supported in {g, ℓ(g) ≤ R} and
{g, ℓ(g) ≤ R′ } respectively then by applying the preceding to π
e(·) = π(µ · ν) we
obtain µ Pν ∈ B(X1 , X2 ) such that
(4.2)

′

kπ(µmn ν) − µ Pν k ≤ CL2 es(R+R )−nt .

We have to prove that µ Pν = P for every µ, ν. By assumption, we know that
µ Pν = P if µ, ν are supported in H. More generally µ Pν only depends on the
images of µ (resp. ν) in G/H (resp. in H\G). Finally as in Lemma 3.4 the map
(µ, ν) 7→ µ Pν is lower-semicontinuous.
Lemma 4.1. The following holds if s is small enough. Let µ, ν be compactly supported measures on G. Then for every λ =
6 0 and Y ∈ gλ ,
µδexp(Y ) Pν

= µ Pν .

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

19

Proof. Since ν 7→ kµδexp(Y ) Pν − µ Pν k is lower semicontinuous, we can restrict the
proof to the case when ν belongs to some dense subset. So we can assume that
ν is absolutely continuous with respect to the Haar measure with a compactly
supported and Lipschitz Radon-Nikodym derivative. By replacing a by a−1 (i.e. a
by −a) we can also assume that λ > 0. Let c be an integer, the value of which will
be determined at the end of the proof. From the preceding discussion, we know
that µδexp(Y ) Pν = µδexp(Y )acn Pν and µ Pν = µδacn Pν . Applying (4.2) with µ replaced
by µδexp(Y )acn and µδacn we obtain by the triangle inequality
′

kµδexp(Y ) Pν − µ Pν k ≤ 2CL2 es(R+R +cnℓ(a)+ℓ(exp(Y )))−nt

+ kπ(µδexp(Y )acn mn ν − µδacn mn ν)k.

t
The first term goes to zero as n → ∞ if s < cℓ(a)
.
Let us bound the second term. Let αn denote the measure µδexp(Y )acn mn ν −
µδacn mn ν. Then αn is supported in {g ∈ G|ℓ(g) ≤ Rn } for some Rn ≤ C ′ + n(1 +
ℓ(a)). Therefore, kπ(αn )k ≤ CL2 esRn kαn kT V . But by the triangle inequality, the
total variation norm kαn kT V of αn is less than

sup kδg−1 a−cn exp(Y )acn g ν − νkT V .

ℓ(g)≤n

However a−cn exp(Y )acn = exp(e−λcn Y ) because Y ∈ gλ . Let C > 0 be such that
ad(g) is eC -Lipschitz on the 1-neighbourhoud of the identity in G for every g with
ℓ(g) ≤ 1. For ℓ(g) ≤ n, ad(g) is enC -Lipschitz on the e−C(n−1) -neighbourhoud of
the identity, so that in particular is c is large enough (namely such that C − λc < 0)
we have that g −1 a−cn exp(Y )acn g is at distance O(e(C−λc)n ) from the identity.
Remembering that ν has a compactly supported and Lipschitz Radon-Nikodym
derivative, we obtain
sup kδg−1 a−cn exp(Y )acn g ν − νkT V = O(e(C−λc)n ).

ℓ(g)≤n

One deduces that kπ(αn )k goes to zero if eC+s(1+ℓ(a))−λc < 1. To conclude, if c is
chosen so that λc > C for every λ 6= 0 in the sectrum of ad(a), then kµδexp(Y ) Pν −
t
λc−C

µ Pν k = 0 provided that s ≤ min( 1+ℓ(a) , cℓ(a) ).
We can now conclude the proof of the theorem, for the value of s ≤ s(H) given
by the preceding lemma. Clearly, the set of elements of G such that µδg Pν = µ Pν
for every compactly supported measures µ, ν on G is a group. Lemma 4.1 shows
that this group contains the group generated by ∪λ6=0 exp(gλ ), which is the whole
group G. Similarly we have that µ Pδg ν = µ Pν for every g ∈ G. In particular we
have δg Pδg′ = Pδg′ = P for every g, g ′ ∈ G. This proves the theorem.
Consider now a non-archimedean local field F an almost F-simple algebraic group
G with F-split rank ≥ 2. We can assume that F = Qp or Fp ((t)) for some prime
number p. Indeed, if F is a finite extension of F ′ then G is isomorphic to an almost
F ′ -simple algebraic group with F ′ -split rank ≥ 2. Moreover, replacing G by a finite
extension, we can assume that G is simply connected as an algebraic group over
F (Lemma 5.5 in [15]). In that case, by Lemma 5.3 and 5.4 in [15], we are in the
same situation as in the real case and the rest of the proof applies with no change.
Remark 4.2. The preceding argument shows more generally that if a higher rank
simple group G contains a group locally isomorphic to a group with property (∗E ),

20

DE LA SALLE

then G also satisfies (∗E ). Together with Remarks 3.9 (resp. 3.7 and Subsection
3.4) this proves Theorem 1.3 (resp. 1.4) for higher rank groups.
5. Passing to lattices
5.1. Facts on lattices. We collect two facts on lattices.
The first one is a celebrated theorem from [16] which asserts that the embedding
of a lattice in a higher rank group is a bilipschitz map.
Theorem 5.1. (Lubotzky–Mozes–Raghunathan) Let G be a higher rank group with
word-length ℓG with respect to some compact generating set, and Γ ⊂ G be a lattice
with word-length ℓΓ with respect to some finite generating set. There is C > 0 such
that for every γ ∈ Γ,
ℓΓ (γ) ≤ CℓG (γ).
The results in [16] do not formally include the preceding statement, as they do not
f 2n (R)). However the general case follows,
include the non-algebraic groups (as Sp
as in [11, Section 7], from the following Lemma which is certainly well-known.

Lemma 5.2. Let G be a higher rank group, with center Z(G) and Γ ⊂ G be a
lattice. The image of Γ in G/Z(G) is a lattice in G/Z(G).
Q
Proof. Write G = i∈I Gi the decomposition of G into finitely many simple pieces:
each Gi is either a connected simple Lie group of real rank ≥ 2, or a connected
almost Fi -simple algebraic group of Fi -split rank ≥ 2 over a local field Fi .
Γ preserves a probability measure on G/Z(G), so we have to prove that the image
of Γ in G/Z(G) is discrete, or equivalently that ΓZ(G) is discrete in G. For this we
prove that the centralizer C of Γ coincides with Z(G), and in particular is discrete.
This is enough: by property (T), Γ is finitely generated, and so discreteness of its
centralizer is equivalent to discreteness of its normalizer (which contains ΓZ(G)).
For each i ∈ I, the group Gi /Z(Gi ) is a linear algebraic group over Fi , and
the image in it of C centralizes the Zariski closure of the image of Γ, which is
Gi /Z(Gi ) by Theorem II.2.5 and Lemma II.2.3 in [17]. Since Gi /Z(Gi ) is centerless,
this
Q implies that the image of C in Gi /Z(Gi ) is trivial. This proves that C ⊂

i∈I Z(Gi ) = Z(G) and the Lemma.
Proof of Theorem 5.1. Let G be a higher rank group and Γ ⊂ G a lattice. Let G′ =
G/Z(G) and Γ′ ⊂ G′ be the image of Γ in the quotient. Denote by ℓ, ℓ′ , ℓΓ , ℓΓ′ , ℓZ
the word-length functions on G, G′ , Γ, Γ′ , Z(G) with respect to some compact generating sets. By Lemma 5.2, Γ′ is a lattice in G′ , and so Γ has finite index in the
preimage in G of Γ. Without loss of generality we can assume that Γ is actually
equal to the preimage in G of Γ′ .
G′ is a finite product of connected almost simple algebraic groups over local
fields, so we can apply [16] to every irreducible component of Γ′ and obtain that
ℓ′Γ′ and ℓ′ |Γ′ are quasi-isometric.
By [9] the central extension G of G′ is given by a bounded 2-cocycle. This
implies that G is quasi-isometric to G′ × Z(G) and that (Γ, ℓΓ ) is quasi-isometric
to (Γ′ × Z(G), ℓΓ′ × ℓZ(G) ) with compatible maps. Puting everything together we
get
(Γ, ℓΓ ) ≃ (Γ′ × Z(G), ℓΓ′ × ℓZ(G) ) ≃ (Γ′ × Z(G), ℓ′ |Γ′ × ℓZ(G) ) ≃ (Γ, ℓ |Γ )

which proves the Theorem.



STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

21

The second result says that, for higher rank lattices, the measure of the cusps
in G/Γ decay exponentially fast. In a first version of this paper, I had sketched
a proof, similar to [17, Section VII.1], relying on Margulis’ arithmeticity theorem
and the Harish-Chandra–Borel–Behr–Harder reduction theorem for S-arithmetic
lattices. François Maucourant explained to me that this is a direct consequence of
property (T) (actually even of spectral gap), and that it applies more generally to
all Lie groups and all simple algebraic groups over local fields [2, 5, 4]. I thank him
for allowing me to include this proof here.
Theorem 5.3. (Maucourant) Let G be a property (T) locally compact group with
length function ℓ, and Γ ⊂ G be a lattice. There is a Borel subset fundamental
domain Ω ⊂ G and s0 > 0 such that
Z
es0 ℓ(g) dx < ∞.
Ω

More generally, if Γ ⊂ G is a lattice in a locally compact group equipped with a
length function ℓ, and if and G y G/Γ has spectral gap, then there is a compact
subset Q ⊂ G such that the image of Qn in G/Γ has measure ≥ 1 − 2−n .

Proof. The second statement is clearly more general than the first, so let us focus
on the second. Equip G/Γ with the unique G-invariant probability measure, and
consider λ, the regular representation of G on L2 (G/Γ). The invariant vectors are
exactly the constant functions on G/Γ. Denote by P : L2 (G/Γ) → L2 (G/Γ) the
orthogonal projection on the constant
functions, i.e. the linear map sending f to
R
the constant function equal to G/Γ f . By Remark 2.4, there is a compact subset
Q ⊂ G and a sequence of probability measures on Qn such that kλ(µn )− P k ≤ 2−n .
We may assume that Q has positive measure.
For an integer n, denote by Ωn the image of Qn in G/Γ. Let fn the indicator
function of Ωn . If g ∈ Qn , we have that gQn+1 contains Q, so
and

hλ(g)fn+1 , fr i = |gΩn+1 ∩ Ω1 | = |Ω1 |

On the other hand, we have
So we have

hλ(µn )fn+1 , f1 i = |Ω1 |
hP fn+1 , f1 i = |Ωn+1 ||Ω1 |.

|Ω1 |(1 − |Ωn+1 |) = h(λ(µn ) − P )fn+1 , f1 i ≤ 2−n .
We deduce 1 − |Ωn+1 | ≤ C2−n = 2C2−n−1 for C = |Ω11 | , which is finite because
Q has positive measure. Replacing Q by some power allows to remove the factor
2C.

5.2. Inducing from exponentially integrable lattices. Our goal in this subsection is to prove the following result.
Theorem 5.4. Let Γ ⊂ G be a lattice in a second countable locally compact group
G and ℓ be a length function on G. Then (G, ℓ) has (*) if and only if (Γ, ℓ |Γ ) has
(*).
Remark 5.5. More generally, if E is a class of Banach spaces which is stable by
X 7→ L2 (Ω, µ; X) for every measure space (Ω, µ), then (G, ℓ) has (∗E ) iff (Γ, ℓ |Γ )
has.

22

DE LA SALLE

Proof. Since (G, ℓ) has (*), in particular G has property (T). By Theorem 5.3, Γ
admits a fundamental domain Ω ⊂ G and s0 > 0 such that
Z
(5.1)
es0 ℓ(x) dx < ∞.
Ω

We can assume furthermore that every element ω of Ω almost minimizes the
length of its Γ-orbit, for example that it satisfies
(5.2)

ℓ(ω) ≤ inf ℓ(ωγ) + 1 for every γ ∈ Γ.
γ∈Γ

Indeed, if (γn )n≥0 is an enumeration of Γ (say with γ0 = e) and if f (ω) = ωγn for
the first n satisfying ℓ(ωγn ) ≤ 1 + inf γ ℓ(ωγ), then we can replace Ω by f (Ω), which
remains a Borel fundamental domain for Γ, which still satisfies (5.1) and which
moreover satisfies (5.2). Of course, in most interesting cases, ℓ is proper and we
can remove the +1 in (5.2).
For convenience we choose the normalization of the Haar measure on G so that
Ω has measure one.
For every g ∈ G and ω ∈ Ω we denote by
gω = (g · ω)α(g, ω)
the unique decomposition of gω as a product of g · ω ∈ Ω and α(g, ω) ∈ Γ. Recall
that (g, ω) 7→ g · ω is a probability measure preserving action of G on Ω, and that
α is a cocycle, i.e. is satisfies the cocycle relation
α(g1 g1 , ω) = α(g1 , g2 · ω)α(g2 , ω)
for every g1 , g2 ∈ G and ω ∈ Ω. We start with a Lemma which shows that, in
a sense close to Shalom’s notion of Lp -integrable lattice, (5.1) implies that Γ is
exponentially integrable.
Lemma 5.6. There is C > 0 such that for every s ≤ s20 ,
Z
esℓ(α(g,ω)) dω ≤ Ce2sℓ(g) .
ω

Proof. We write α(g, ω) = (g · ω)−1 gω. By the symmetry of ℓ and (5.2), we have
ℓ((g · ω)−1 ) = ℓ(g · ω) ≤ ℓ(gω) + 1.

By the subadditivity of ℓ we deduce
ℓ(α(g, ω)) ≤ 1 + 2ℓ(gω) ≤ 1 + 2ℓ(g) + 2ℓ(ω).
R
The lemma follows by integrating, with C = es0 /2 Ω es0 ℓ(ω) dω.



We start with the interesting direction, namely the implication (G, ℓ) has (*) =⇒
(Γ, ℓ |Γ ) has (*).
e > 0 and m
Let se, e
t, C
e n be a sequence of probability measures on {g ∈ G|ℓ(g) ≤ n}
as in (*) for (G, ℓ).
Let π : Γ → B(X0 , X2 ) be such that π(gg ′ ) factors as π1 (g)π0 (g ′ ) for a Hilbert
space X1 and two maps π0 : Γ → B(X0 , X1 ) and π1 : Γ → B(X1 , X2 ). Assume
that there is L > 0 such that kπi (γ)k ≤ Lesℓ(g) for all γ ∈ Γ and i ∈ {0, 1}, with
s = min( s40 , 2se ).

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

23

For x ∈ X0 , g ∈ G and ω ∈ Ω, define π
e0 (g)x(ω) = π0 (α(g −1 , ω)−1 )x ∈ X1 . By
s0
e0 (g)x is L2 -integrable:
Lemma 5.6, since s ≤ 4 the measurable function π
Z
 12
2 2sℓ(α(g−1 ,ω))
2
ke
π0 (g)xkL2 (Ω;X1 ) ≤
L e
kxk dω
≤ CLe2sℓ(g) .
Ω

This proves that π
e0 (g) has norm ≤ CLe2sℓ(g) from X0 to L2 (Ω; X1 ). Similarly, for
2
every f ∈ L (Ω; X1 ) we can bound
Z
Z
−1
Lesℓ(α(g ,ω)) kf (g −1 · ω)kX1 dω
kπ1 (α(g −1 , ω)−1 f (g −1 · ω)kX2 dω ≤
≤

L

Z

e

2sℓ(α(g−1 ,ω))

dω

 21

kf k2 .

Therefore, we can define a map π
e1 (g) : L2 (Ω; X1 ) → X2 by
Z
Z
π
e1 (g)f = π1 (α(g −1 , ω)−1 )f (g −1 · ω)dω = π1 (α(g, ω))f (ω)dω,

and it satisfies ke
π1 (g)k ≤ CLe2sℓ(g) . It is easy to check that π
e0 and π
e1 are strongly
continuous. By the cocycle formula, we have
π
e1 (g)e
π0 (g ′ ) = π
e(gg ′ )

where

π
e(g)x =

Z

π(α(g −1 , ω)−1 )xdω.

e satisfies the assumption in (*), so that there is P ∈
So since s ≤ s2e , the map π
B(X0 , X2 ) such that
e 2 L2 e−etn
ke
π (m
e n ) − P k ≤ CC
and for every g1 , g2 ∈ G
e n δg2 )k = 0.
lim ke
π (m
e n) − π
e(δg1 m
n

(0)
mn

Let us denote by
the probability measure on Γ given as the image of mn ⊗
dω by the map (g, ω) 7→ α(g −1 , ω)−1 . Then by Fubini’s theorem one can write
(0)
π
e(m
e n ) = π(mn ). To summarize, we have proven that whenever π : Γ → B(X0 , X1 )
(0)
is as above with s = min( s40 , 2se ), then π(mn ) is well-defined (i.e. the series
P
(0)
γ mn (γ)π(γ) converges in norm) and is Cauchy in B(X0 , X2 ). In particular,
(0)

for every γ1 , γ2 ∈ Γ, limn π(γ1 mn γ2 ) exists.
We shall prove that this limit is P . To do so we will prove that
(5.3)

lim π(γ1 m(0)
n )x = P x for every x ∈ X0 .
n

for every γ1 ∈ Γ. Before we do so, let us explain how (5.3) allows us to conclude
the proof of Theorem 5.4. By the preceding discussion, (5.3) implies the seemingly
(0)
stronger conclusion that limn kπ(γ1 mn ) − P k = 0. By symmetry (consider the
dual maps π(g −1 )∗ ∈ B(X2∗ , X0∗ )) (5.3) implies that
lim kπ(m(0)
n γ2 ) − P k = 0
n

(0)

(0)

for every γ2 ∈ Γ. And hence kπ(γ1 mn γ2 ) − π(mn )k, which is less than
(0)
(0)
(0)
kπ(γ1 m(0)
n γ2 ) − π(γ1 mn )k + kπ(γ1 mn ) − π(mn )k

24

DE LA SALLE

by the triangle inequality, goes to zero for every γ1 , γ2 ∈ Γ (for the first term, this
is (5.3) applied to the map γ 7→ π(γ1 γ)). The preceding inequality is almost (*)
(0)
for (Γ, ℓ), except that mn is not supported on Bn := {γ ∈ Γ|ℓ(γ) ≤ n}. This is
however almost true for mn/5 , as will be deduced from the following lemma.
Lemma 5.7. If s ≤ s40 , then for every integer n
Z
3s
s0
(− 20 +5s)n
esℓ(γ) 1ℓ(γ)≥5n dm(0)
≤ Ce− 4 n .
n (γ) ≤ Ce
s0

s0

Proof. We have esℓ(γ) 1ℓ(γ)≥5n ≤ e 2 ℓ(γ)−5( 2 −s)n . By integrating and using the
(0)
definition of mn we obtain
Z
Z
s0
s0
−1
sℓ(γ)
(0)
e
1ℓ(γ)≥5n dmn (γ) ≤ sup
e 2 ℓ(α(g ,ω))−5( 2 −s)n dω.
ℓ(g)≤n

One concludes by Lemma 5.6.


(0)

(0)

So one defines mn as the conditional probability mn/5 (· ∩ Bn )/mn/5 (Bn ). By
definition mn is supported on Bn . On the other hand, Lemma 5.7 provides a
constant C ′ (depending on C and s0 only) such that, if s ≤ s40 ,
s0

(0)

kπ(mn ) − π(mn/5 )k ≤ C ′ L2 e− 20 n .
Therefore
for t =

s0 e
min( 20
, 5t )

kπ(mn ) − P k ≤ C ′′ L2 e−tn
e 2 . Similarly
and C ′′ = C ′ + CC
(0)

lim kπ(γ1 mn γ2 ) − π(γ1 mn/5 γ2 )k = 0
n

e

s0 t
for every γ1 , γ2 ∈ Γ. This proves (*) for (Γ, ℓ) with s = min( s40 , 2se ), t = min( 20
, 5 ).
It remains to justify (5.3).
R sℓ(γ)
Fix a probability measure ν0 on Γ with full supportRand satisfying
e
dν0 (γ) <
R
∞. Let ν be the probability measure on G given by f dν = f (ωγ)dωdν0 (γ). We
define a new map π
e1′ (g) : L2 (Ω; X1 ) → L1 (G, ν; X2 ) by setting

R

π
e1′ (g)f (ωγ) = π1 (γ −1 α(g −1 , ω)−1 )f (g −1 · ω),

so that π
e1 (g)f = (e
π1′ (g)f )(ω)dω. To check that π
e1′ (g) maps L2 (Ω; X1 ) to L1 (G, ν; X2 ),
we compute
Z
kπ1 (γ −1 α(g −1 , ω)−1 )f (g −1 · ω)kdωdν0 (γ)
Z
−1
≤ L esℓ(γ) esℓ(α(g ,ω)) kf (g −1 · ωkdωdν0 (γ).

This is less than

L

Z

esℓ(γ) dν0 (γ)Ce2sℓ(g)

by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and Lemma 5.6. Also, we have π
e1′ (g)e
π0 (g ′ ) =
π
e′ (gg ′ ) where
π
e′ (g)x(ωγ) = π(γ −1 α(g −1 , ω)−1 )x
for x ∈ X0 . So (recall 2s ≤ se) we can apply (*) for (G, ℓ). In particular, if x ∈ X0
we get that fn = π
e′ (m
e n )x converges to some f ∈ L1 (G, ν; X2 ), and π
e′ (g m
e n )x
converges to the same f for every g ∈ G.

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

25

On the one hand, for g, g ′ ∈ G and almost every ωγ ∈ G, one checks from the
definitions that
(e
π ′ (gg ′ )x)(ωγ) = (e
π ′ (g ′ )x)(g −1 ωγ).
This means that both functions fn and h 7→ fn (g −1 h) converge in L1 (G, ν; X2 ) to f .
Since ν is equivalent to the Haar measure of G, this implies that f (g −1 h) = f (h) for
almost every h ∈ G. But this holds for every g ∈ G, therefore there exists y ∈ X2
such that f (h) = y for ν-almost every h.
(0)
On the other hand, by definition ofR mn and by the fact that π
e(g) is the com′
position of π
e (g) and of the map f 7→ f dν, we have
Z
(0)
π(mn )x = π
e(m
e n )x = fn (ω)dω
and P x =

R

f (ω)dω = y. Similarly,
ZZ
(0)
π(γ1 mn )x =
π(γ1 α(g −1 , ω)−1 )xdωdm
e n (g)
Z
=
fn (ωγ1−1 )dω.

R
By our choice of ν0 , the map h 7→ h(ωγ1−1 )dω is bounded on L1 (G, ν; X2 ). This
R
(0)
implies that limn π(γ1 mn )x = f (ωγ1−1 )dω, which is equal to y = P x. This
concludes the proof of (5.3) and therefore of the only if direction in Theorem 5.4.
The if direction is easier. Assume that (Γ, ℓ |Γ ) satisfies (*), with s, t, C, (mn )n≥0 .
Without loss of generality we can assume that s ≤ s0 . Let π : G → B(X0 , X1 ) be
as in the definition of (*) with this value of s. We can apply (*) to the restriction
of Rπ to Γ. More generally, for every measure µ1 , µ2 on G such that C(µi ) :=
L esℓ(g) dµi (g) < ∞, we can apply (*) to the map γ 7→ π(µ1 δγ µ2 ) and get an
operator µ1 Pµ2 in B(X0 , X1 ) satisfying
kµ1 Pµ2 − π(µ1 mn µ2 )k ≤ CC(µ1 )C(µ2 )e−tn

and µ1 δγ1 Pδγ2 µ2 = µ1 Pµ2 for every γ1 , γ2 ∈ Γ. But since s ≤ s0 , we can in particular
apply the preceding to µ1 = µ2 = µ the probability measure on Ω, and to its
translates by any
P g ∈ G. For g1 ∈ G, we can decompose the probability measure
δg1 µ as a sum γ∈Γ µγ δγ for a family of measures µγ on Ω suming to µ. This leads
to the equality
X
X
g1 µ Pµ =
µγ δγ Pµ =
µγ Pµ = µ Pµ
γ

γ

where the easy justifications of the convergence are left to the reader. Similarly
g1 µ Pµg2 = µ Pµ for every g1 , g2 ∈ G. This is almost (*) for G and the sequence of
probability measures m
e n = µ ∗ mn ∗ µ. The only issue is that m
e n is not supported
in {g ∈ G|ℓ(g) ≤ n}. This is fixed by suitably truncating m
e n as in the only if
direction.

We also have the following variant of the easy direction in the preceding theorem.

Proposition 5.8. Let G, Γ, ℓ, s0 be as in Theorem 5.4. Let s ≤ s0 and c ≥ 0. If
Csℓ+c (Γ) has a Kazhdan projection, then so does Csℓ+c (G).
More generally if E is a class of Banach spaces and if Csℓ+c,E (Γ) has a Kazhdan
projection, then so does Csℓ+c,E (G).

26

DE LA SALLE

Proof. Let µ be the uniform probability measure on the fundamental domain Ω in
theR hypothesis of Theorem 5.4. Since s ≤ s0 , µ belongs to Csℓ+c,E (G) with norm
the map f ∈ C[Γ] 7→ µf (the convolution of
≤ Ω esℓ(g)+c dµ(g), and more generally
P
µ and of f , seen as the measure γ f (γ)δγ on G) extends to a linear map of norm
R
≤ Ω esℓ(g)+c dµ(g) from Csℓ+c,E (Γ) to Csℓ+c,E (G). We claim that if P ∈ Csℓ+c,E (Γ)
is a Kazhdan projection, then µP ∈ Csℓ+c,E (G) is also a Kazhdan projection. We
have to prove that for every g1 ∈ G, δg1 µP = µP . As in
P the preceding proof, we
can decompose the probability measure δg1 µ as a sum γ∈Γ µγ δγ for a family of
measures µγ on Ω suming to µ. This leads to the desired formula
X
X
δg1 µP =
µγ δ γ P =
µγ P = µP
γ

γ

where the middle inequality is because P is a Kazhdan projection for Γ, and where
the justification of the summability of both series is straighforward.


5.3. End of proof of Theorem 1.2. The fact that every higher rank group satisfies property (*) has already been proven in Section 4. It remains to prove it for
a lattice Γ in higher rank group G. Let ℓ be the word-length function on G with
respect to some compact generating set. By Lemma 2.6 and Lubotzky–Mozes–
Raghunathan’s Theorem 5.1, it is enough to prove that (Γ, ℓ |Γ ) satisfies (*). By
Theorem 5.3 and Theorem 5.4, this follows from the fact, already proven, that G
satisfies (*).
Remark 5.9. If we take into account Remark 5.5 and note that having nontrivial
Rademacher type, as well as (1.3), (1.4), (1.5) are all Banach-space properties which
are stable by the operation X 7→ L2 (Ω, µ; X), we complete similarly the proofs of
Theorem 1.3 and TheoremQ1.4. In fact we get the following more general result.
In the statement, if G = i∈I Gi is a product of higher rank simple groups, the
real factors are those Gi ’s which are real Lie groups, whereas the non-archimedean
factors are the others, that is those Gi ’s which are algebraic groups over nonarchimedean local fields.
Theorem 5.10. Let G be a higher rank group, Γ ⊂ G a lattice and E a class of
Banach spaces. Then both G and Γ have (∗E ) (and therefore strong (T) with respect
to E) if one of the following conditions holds:
• G has no real factor and E has nontrivial Rademacher type.
• the Lie algebra of every real factor of G contains a Lie subalgebra isomorphic
to sp4 of sl3 , and there is α ∈ (0, 1] and C > 0 such that (1.3) and (1.4)
hold for every X ∈ E.
• the Lie algebra of every real factor of G contains a Lie subalgebra isomorphic
to sl3n−3 for n ≥ 2, and there is α ∈ (0, 1] and C > 0 such that (1.5) for
every X ∈ E.
References
[1] Uri Bader, Alex Furman, Tsachik Gelander, and Nicolas Monod. Property (T) and rigidity
for actions on Banach spaces. Acta Math., 198(1):57–105, 2007.
[2] Bachir Bekka and Yves Cornulier. A spectral gap property for subgroups of finite covolume
in Lie groups. Colloq. Math., 118(1):175–182, 2010.
[3] Bachir Bekka, Pierre de la Harpe, and Alain Valette. Kazhdan’s property (T), volume 11 of
New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.

STRONG PROPERTY (T) FOR HIGHER RANK LATTICES

27

[4] Bachir Bekka and Alexander Lubotzky. Lattices with and lattices without spectral gap.
Groups Geom. Dyn., 5(2):251–264, 2011.
[5] M. B. Bekka. On uniqueness of invariant means. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 126(2):507–514,
1998.
[6] Aaron Brown, David Fisher, and Sebastian Hurtado. Zimmer’s conjecture: Subexponential
growth, measure rigidity, and strong property (T). arXiv:1608.04995, 2016.
[7] Aaron Brown, David Fisher, and Sebastian Hurtado. Zimmer’s conjecture for actions of
SL(m, ̥). arXiv:1710.02735, 2017.
[8] Maxime Gheysens and Nicolas Monod. Fixed points for bounded orbits in Hilbert spaces.
Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4), 50(1):131–156, 2017.
[9] A. Guichardet and D. Wigner. Sur la cohomologie réelle des groupes de Lie simples réels.
Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4), 11(2):277–292, 1978.
[10] Tim de Laat, Masato Mimura, and Mikael de la Salle. On strong property (T) and fixed point
properties for Lie groups. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 66(5):1859–1893, 2016.
[11] Tim de Laat and Mikael de la Salle. Strong property (T) for higher-rank simple Lie groups.
Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3), 111(4):936–966, 2015.
[12] Vincent Lafforgue. Un renforcement de la propriété (T). Duke Math. J., 143(3):559–602, 2008.
[13] Vincent Lafforgue. Propriété (T) renforcée banachique et transformation de Fourier rapide.
J. Topol. Anal., 1(3):191–206, 2009.
[14] Vincent Lafforgue. Propriété (T) renforcée et conjecture de Baum-Connes. In Quanta of
maths, volume 11 of Clay Math. Proc., pages 323–345. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,
2010.
[15] Benben Liao. Strong Banach property (T) for simple algebraic groups of higher rank. J.
Topol. Anal., 6(1):75–105, 2014.
[16] Alexander Lubotzky, Shahar Mozes, and M. S. Raghunathan. The word and Riemannian
metrics on lattices of semisimple groups. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (91):5–53
(2001), 2000.
[17] G. A. Margulis. Discrete subgroups of semisimple Lie groups, volume 17 of Ergebnisse der
Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (3)].
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
[18] G. Pisier. Some applications of the complex interpolation method to Banach lattices. J.
Analyse Math., 35:264–281, 1979.
[19] Gilles Pisier. Complex interpolation between Hilbert, Banach and operator spaces. Mem.
Amer. Math. Soc., 208(978):vi+78, 2010.
[20] Mikael de la Salle. Towards strong banach property (T) for SL(3, R). Israel Journal of Mathematics, 211(1):105–145, 2015.
[21] Mikael de la Salle. A local characterization of Kazhdan projections and applications. arXiv
1604.01616, 2016.
[22] Yehuda Shalom. Rigidity of commensurators and irreducible lattices. Invent. Math., 141(1):1–
54, 2000.
UMPA, CNRS ENS de Lyon, Lyon, France
E-mail address: mikael.de.la.salle@ens-lyon.fr

