A COHOMOLOGICAL OBSTRUCTION TO THE
EXISTENCE OF COMPACT CLIFFORD–KLEIN FORMS

arXiv:1601.07359v1 [math.GT] 27 Jan 2016

YOSUKE MORITA

Abstract. In this paper, we continue the study of the existence problem of compact Clifford–Klein forms from a cohomological point of
view, which was initiated by Kobayashi–Ono and extended by Benoist–
Labourie and the author. We give an obstruction to the existence
of compact Clifford–Klein forms by relating a natural homomorphism
from relative Lie algebra cohomology to de Rham cohomology with an
upper-bound estimate for cohomological dimensions of discontinuous
groups. From this obstruction, we derive some examples, e.g. SO0 (p +
r, q)/(SO0 (p, q) × SO(r)) (p, q, r ≥ 1, q : odd) and SL(p + q, C)/ SU(p, q)
(p, q ≥ 1), of a homogeneous space that does not admit a compact
Clifford–Klein form. To construct these examples, we apply H. Cartan’s
theorem on relative Lie algebra cohomology of reductive pairs and the
theory of ε-families of semisimple symmetric pairs.

1. Introduction
1.1. The existence problem of compact Clifford–Klein forms. A
Clifford–Klein form is a double coset space Γ\G/H, where G is a Lie group,
H a closed subgroup of G, and Γ a discrete subgroup of G acting properly
and freely on G/H. It admits a natural structure of a manifold locally modelled on G/H. If Γ\G/H is a Clifford–Klein form, a discrete subgroup Γ of
G is called a discontinuous group for G/H.
It is one of the central open problems in the study of Clifford–Klein
forms to determine all homogeneous spaces admitting compact Clifford–
Klein forms. In the last three decades, this problem attracted considerable attention, and a number of obstructions to the existence of compact
Clifford–Klein forms were found. Some of these obstructions are based on a
homomorphism
η : H • (g, h; R) → H • (Γ\G/H; R)

(g = Lie(G), h = Lie(H)),

which imposes a restriction on cohomology of compact Clifford–Klein forms
([19], [15], [2], [25], [26]). In this paper, we give a new obstruction arising
from this homomorphism.
1.2. Main result. The main result of this paper is as follows:
Theorem 1.1. Let G be a connected linear Lie group and H its connected
closed subgroup. Assume that H N (g, h; R) 6= 0 (N = dim G − dim H). Let
KH be a L
maximal compact subgroup of H and TH a maximal torus of KH .
Let I • = n∈N I n be the graded ideal of H • (g, tH ; R) generated by
M
im(i : H p (g, c; R) → H p (g, tH ; R)),
C, p

1

2

YOSUKE MORITA

where the direct sum runs all connected compact subgroups C of G containing
TH and all p > N + dim KH − dim C. If
im(i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, tH ; R)) ⊂ I N

holds, G/H does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form.
Remark 1.2. We do not know if Theorem 1.1 applies to a more general
case of manifolds locally modelled on G/H.
The key to the proof of Theorem 1.1 is an upper-bound estimate for
cohomological dimensions of discontinuous groups (Lemma 2.2), which was
established by Kobayashi [15] in the reductive case. It imposes another
restriction on cohomology of Clifford–Klein forms. We prove Theorem 1.1
by linking these two restrictions.
Remark 1.3. In [17], Kobayashi gave an obstruction to the existence of
compact Clifford–Klein forms by combining the estimate for cohomological dimensions with the criterion for proper actions. As far as the author
understands, his and our obstructions do not include each other.
1.3. New examples of a homogeneous space without compact
Clifford–Klein forms. Theorem 1.1 provides some new examples of a homogeneous space that does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form. For
example, an irreducible symmetric space G/H does not have a compact
Clifford–Klein form if the corresponding symmetric pair (g, h) is as in Table 1 (see Corollaries 6.1, 6.2 and 6.5):
g

h

Conditions

sl(p + q, C)
sl(p + q, R)
sl(p + q, H)
so(p + q, C)
so(2n + 1, C)
so(2n, C)
so(p + r, q)
sp(p + q, C)
e6,C
e6(6)
e7,C
e7,C
e8,C
f4,C

su(p, q)
so(p, q)
sp(p, q)
so(p, q)
so(2n, 1)
so∗ (2n)
so(p, q) ⊕ so(r)
sp(p, q)
e6(−14)
sp(2, 2)
e7(−5)
e7(−25)
e8(−24)
f4(−20)

p, q ≥ 1
p, q ≥ 1
p, q ≥ 1
p, q ≥ 2, (p, q) 6= (2, 2)
n≥1
n≥3
p, q, r ≥ 1, q : odd
p, q ≥ 1
—
—
—
—
—
—

Table 1. Irreducible symmetric spaces without compact
Clifford–Klein forms
In particular, the nonexistence of a compact Clifford–Klein form of
SO0 (p + 1, q)/ SO0 (p, q)
is rephrased as:

(p, q ≥ 1, q : odd)

COMPACT CLIFFORD–KLEIN FORMS

3

Corollary 1.4. If p, q ≥ 1 and q is odd, then there does not exist a compact complete pseudo-Riemannian manifold of signature (p, q) with constant
positive sectional curvature.
We also obtain some nonsymmetric examples: for example,
SL(n, R)/ SL(m, R)

(n > m ≥ 2, m : even)

does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form (see Corollary 6.6).
Remark 1.5. While the author is preparing this manuscript, Tholozan
[37] announced the nonexistence of compact Clifford–Klein forms of some
homogeneous spaces, such as
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

SO0 (p + r, q)/ SO0 (p, q) (p, q, r ≥ 1, q : odd),
SL(n, R)/ SL(m, R) (n > m ≥ 2, m : even),
SL(p + q, R)/ SO0 (p, q) (p, q ≥ 1, p + q : odd),
SO(n, C)/ SO(m, C) (n > m ≥ 2, m : even),
SO(p + q, C)/ SO0 (p, q) (p, q ≥ 1, p + q : odd),

Our results are sharper for (3), (5) and the same for (1)–(2), (4). Actually,
(4) had been proved by earlier methods [17], [25] too, as well as some special
cases of (1)–(3), (5) as below.
Remark 1.6. We mention some related nonexistence results which can be
obtained by previously known methods:
• Calabi–Markus [7], Wolf [38], [39], Kobayashi [15]: The following homogeneous spaces do not admit infinite discontinuous groups.
In particular, they do not admit compact Clifford–Klein forms:
– SO(p + q, C)/ SO0 (p, q) (p, q ≥ 1, |p − q| ≤ 1),
– SO0 (p + r, q + s)/(SO0 (p, q) × SO0 (r, s))
(p ≥ q ≥ 1, r ≥ s ≥ 0, (r, s) 6= (0, 0)).
• Kulkarni [21]: A homogeneous space
– SO0 (p + 1, q)/ SO0 (p, q) (p, q ≥ 1, p, q : odd)
does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form.
• Kobayashi [16], [17], [18]: The following homogeneous spaces do
not admit compact Clifford–Klein forms:
– SL(2p, C)/ SU(p, p) (p ≥ 1),
– SL(2p, R)/ SO0 (p, p) (p ≥ 1),
– SO0 (p + r, q + s)/(SO0 (p, q) × SO0 (r, s)) (p, q, r, s ≥ 1),
– SO0 (p + r, q)/(SO0 (p, q) × SO(r)) (p + r > q ≥ 1),
– SL(n, R)/ SL(m, R) (n > 3[(m + 1)/2], m ≥ 2).
• Zimmer [40], Labourie–Mozes–Zimmer [22], Labourie–
Zimmer [23]: A homogeneous space
– SL(n, R)/ SL(m, R) (n − 3 ≥ m ≥ 2)
does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form. If, in addition, n ≥
2m, there does not exist a compact manifold locally modelled on this
homogeneous space.
• Shalom [35]: A homogeneous space
– SL(n, R)/ SL(2, R) (n ≥ 4)
does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form.

4

YOSUKE MORITA

• Margulis [24], Oh [28]: Let αn : SL(2, R) → SL(n, R) denote the
real n-dimensional irreducible representation of SL(2, R). Then, a
homogeneous space
– SL(n, R)/αn (SL(2, R)) (n ≥ 4)
does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form.
• Benoist [1], Okuda [29]: The following homogeneous spaces do
not admit non-virtually abelian discontinuous groups. In particular,
they do not admit compact Clifford–Klein forms:
– SL(p + q, C)/ SU(p, q) (p, q ≥ 1, |p − q| ≤ 1),
– SL(p + q, R)/ SO0 (p, q) (p, q ≥ 1, |p − q| ≤ 1),
– SL(p + q, H)/ Sp(p, q) (p, q ≥ 1, |p − q| ≤ 1),
– SO(4p + 2, C)/ SO0 (2p + 2, 2p) (p ≥ 1),
– SO0 (p + q + 1, p + q + 1)/(SO0 (p + 1, p) × SO0 (q, q + 1))
(p ≥ 1, q ≥ 0, p + q : even),
– SL(m + 1, R)/ SL(m, R) (m ≥ 2, m : even).
• Kobayashi–Ono [19], Kobayashi [15], Benoist–Labourie [2],
Morita [25], [26]: There do not exist compact manifolds locally
modelled on the following homogeneous spaces. In particular, they
do not admit compact Clifford–Klein forms:
– SL(p + q, R)/ SO0 (p, q) (p, q ≥ 1, p, q : odd),
– SO0 (p + r, q + s)/(SO0 (p, q) × SO0 (r, s))
(p, q, r ≥ 1, s ≥ 0, p, q : odd).

Remark 1.7. Now we mention some homogeneous spaces admitting compact Clifford–Klein forms:
• Borel–Harish-Chandra [5], Mostow–Tamagawa [27], Borel
[3]: Every Riemannian symmetric space G/K admits a compact
Clifford–Klein form.
• Kulkarni [21], Kobayashi [16], [18], Kobayashi–Yoshino [20]:
The following homogeneous spaces admit compact Clifford–Klein
forms.
– SO(8, C)/ SO0 (7, 1),
– SO0 (p + r, q)/(SO0 (p, q) × SO(r))
((p, q, r) = (1, 2n, 1), (3, 4n, 1), (1, 4, 2), (1, 4, 3), (7, 8, 1), n ≥ 1).

1.4. Outline of the paper. In Section 2, we recall some basic facts on cohomology of Clifford–Klein forms, including the upper-bound estimate for
cohomological dimensions of discontinuous groups and the definition of the
homomorphism η from relative Lie algebra cohomology to de Rham cohomology. The proof of Theorem 1.1 is given in Section 3. The rest of the
paper is devoted to construct examples of a homogeneous space to which
Theorem 1.1 is applicable. In Section 4, we apply H. Cartan’s theorem [8]
on relative Lie algebra cohomology of reductive pairs to Theorem 1.1. We
shall see that, if G/H is a homogeneous space of reductive type satisfying
some invariant-theoretic condition, then Theorem 1.1 is applicable to G/H.
In Section 5, we give a way to construct semisimple symmetric spaces satisfying the condition obtained in Section 4 by using the theory of ε-families,
established by Oshima–Sekiguchi [32]. Finally, in Section 6, we give examples of a homogeneous space without compact Clifford–Klein forms by
applying the results in Sections 4 and 5.

COMPACT CLIFFORD–KLEIN FORMS

5

2. Preliminaries for the proof of Theorem 1.1
We recall some basic facts on cohomology of Clifford–Klein forms. They
are used in Section 3.
2.1. Orientability of Clifford–Klein forms. Let G be a Lie group, H a
closed subgroup of G, and Γ a discrete subgroup of G acting properly and
freely on G/H. The local system of orientation of Γ\G/H is isomorphic to
Γ\G ×H R, where H acts on R via H → {±1}, h 7→ sgn det Adg/h (h). Thus,
Γ\G/H is orientable if H is connected.
2.2. Maximal compact subgroups of Lie groups. The following fact
is fundamental for the computation of cohomology of homogeneous spaces
and Clifford–Klein forms:
Fact 2.1 (Cartan–Malcev–Iwasawa–Mostow, [4, Ch. VII, Th. 1.2], [13,
Ch. XV, Th. 3.1]). Let G be a Lie group with finitely many connected components. Then,
(1) Every compact subgroup of G is contained in some maximal compact
subgroup.
(2) Any two maximal compact subgroups of G are conjugate.
(3) Let K be a maximal compact subgroup of G. Then, there exists linear
subspaces V1 , . . . , Vs of g such that
V1 × · · · × Vs × K → G,

(v1 , . . . , vs , k) 7→ exp(v1 ) . . . exp(vs )k

is a diffeomorphism.
2.3. Cohomological dimensions of discontinuous groups. Recall that
the real cohomological dimension cdR (Γ) of a discrete group Γ is defined as
cdR (Γ) = sup{p ∈ N : H p (Γ; V ) 6= 0 for some RΓ-module V }.
Let G be a connected Lie group, H a connected closed subgroup of G, and Γ
a torsion-free discrete subgroup of G acting properly (and therefore freely)
on G/H. We put
cdR (Γ; G/H) = sup{p ∈ N : H p (Γ\G/H; V) 6= 0 for some RΓ-module V },
where V denotes the local system V ×Γ G/H on Γ\G/H. Remind that
cdR (Γ; G/K) = cdR (Γ), where K is a maximal compact subgroup of G,
because G/K is a classifying space of Γ by Fact 2.1.
Lemma 2.2. Let G, H and Γ be as above. Put N = dim G − dim H. Let
K and KH be maximal compact subgroups of G and H, respectively. Then,
(1) cdR (Γ; G/H) ≤ N ; equality is attained if and only if the Clifford–
Klein form Γ\G/H is compact.
(2) cdR (Γ; G/H) = cdR (Γ) + dim K − dim KH .
Proof. These are proved in [15, §5] when G/H is of reductive type. Our
proof is along the same line.
(1) Since the Clifford–Klein form Γ\G/H is orientable, the Poincaré duality for Γ\G/H is stated as:
BM
H p (Γ\G/H; V) ≃ HN
−p (Γ\G/H; V),

6

YOSUKE MORITA

where the right-hand side is the Borel–Moore homology. This implies
cdR (Γ; G/H) ≤ N , with equality if and only if Γ\G/H is compact.
(2) Take any RΓ-module V . The Cartan–Leray spectral sequence [9,
Ch. XVI, §9] for the Γ-action on G/H is:
E2p,q = H p (Γ; H q (G/H; V )) ⇒ H p+q (Γ\G/H; V).

Since G is connected, its subgroup Γ acts trivially on H q (G/H; R). The
E2 -term of the spectral sequence is thus rewritten as:
Therefore, we have

E2p,q = H p (Γ; V ) ⊗ H q (G/H; R).

cdR (Γ; G/H) = cdR (Γ) + sup{q ∈ N : H q (G/H; R) 6= 0}.

Note that cdR (Γ) = cdR (Γ; G/K) < ∞ by (1). On the other hand,
Lemma 2.3. The composition of an inclusion and a projection
π ◦ i : K/KH → G/KH → G/H

is a homotopy equivalence.

Proof. It directly follows from Fact 2.1 that the inclusion i is a homotopy
equivalence. The projection π is a fibre bundle whose typical fibre H/KH is
contractible again by Fact 2.1, hence a homotopy equivalence ([10, Cor. 3.2]).

Since K/KH is an orientable compact manifold, we obtain from
Lemma 2.3 that
sup{q ∈ N : H q (G/H; R) 6= 0} = sup{q ∈ N : H q (K/KH ; R) 6= 0}
= dim K − dim KH .



2.4. A homomorphism η from relative Lie algebra cohomology to
de Rham cohomology. Let G be a Lie group, H a connected closed subgroup of G, and Γ a discrete subgroup of G acting properly and freely on
G/H. We define η : H • (g, h; R) → H • (Γ\G/H; R) to be the homomorphism
induced from the inclusion map
(Λ(g/h)∗ )h ≃ Ω(G/H)G ֒→ Ω(G/H)Γ ≃ Ω(Γ\G/H).

If a Clifford–Klein form Γ\G/H is compact,
η : H N (g, h; R) → H N (Γ\G/H; R)

(N = dim G − dim H)

(ΛN (g/h)∗ )h

is injective ([26, §3]). Indeed, if Φ ∈
is nonzero, then η([Φ]) ∈
N
H (Γ\G/H; R) is a cohomology class of a volume form, hence nonzero.
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1
Suppose there were a discrete subgroup Γ of G such that Γ\G/H is a compact Clifford–Klein form. Such Γ is always finitely generated ([15, Lem. 2.1]).
By Selberg’s lemma [34, Lem. 8], we can assume Γ is torsion-free without
loss of generality. We shall see that
η ◦ i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, tH ; R) → H N (Γ\G/TH ; R)

is a zero map and injective, which is impossible.

COMPACT CLIFFORD–KLEIN FORMS

7

Let C be any compact connected subgroup of G containing TH . Since Γ
is torsion-free, Γ\G/C is a Clifford–Klein form. By Lemma 2.2, we have
cdR (Γ; G/C) = cdR (Γ) + dim K − dim C

= cdR (Γ; G/H) + dim KH − dim C
= N + dim KH − dim C.

From the commutativity of the diagram
H p (g, c; R)

i

// H p (g, tH ; R)

η

η



H p (Γ\G/C; R)

π∗



// H p (Γ\G/TH ; R),

it follows that
η ◦ i : H p (g, c; R) → H p (g, tH ; R) → H p (Γ\G/TH ; R)
is a zero map for p > N + dim KH − dim C. Therefore
I • ⊂ ker(η : H • (g, tH ; R) → H • (Γ\G/TH ; R)).
In particular,
η ◦ i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, tH ; R) → H N (Γ\G/TH ; R)
is a zero map because im(i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, tH ; R)) ⊂ I N .
Consider another commutative diagram
i

H N (g, h; R)

// H N (g, tH ; R)
η

η



H N (Γ\G/H; R)

π∗

// H N (Γ\G/KH ; R)

π∗



// H N (Γ\G/TH ; R).

As we recalled in Subsection 2.4,
η : H N (g, h; R) → H N (Γ\G/H; R)
is injective. On the other hand, the projections π : Γ\G/KH → Γ\G/H and
π : Γ\G/TH → Γ\G/KH are fibre bundles with typical fibres H/KH and
KH /TH , respectively. The induced homomorphism on cohomology
π ∗ : H N (Γ\G/H; R) → H N (Γ\G/KH ; R)
is isomorphic since H/KH is contractible (Fact 2.1), and
π ∗ : H N (Γ\G/KH ; R) → H N (Γ\G/TH ; R)
is injective by the splitting principle ([12, Th. 6.8.3]). Thus, the composition
map
η ◦ i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, tH ; R) → H N (Γ\G/TH ; R)
is injective. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.



8

YOSUKE MORITA

4. A sufficient condition for Theorem 1.1 in the reductive case
4.1. Cartan’s theorem. We say that (g, h) is a real (resp. complex) reductive pair if g is a real (resp. complex) reductive Lie algebra and h is a
real (resp. complex) subalgebra of g that is reductive in g. In this paper, we
say that a homogeneous space G/H is of reductive type if G is a connected
linear Lie group and H is a connected closed subgroup of G such that (g, h)
is a real reductive pair.
Relative Lie algebra cohomology of real or complex reductive pairs can
be easily computed by H. Cartan’s theorem [8]. Let us briefly recall the
statement of the theorem (see [11], [30]
Let (g, h) be a real or
L for details).
2n−1 g∗ be the primitive subcomplex reductive pair. Let P g∗ =
P
n≥1
space of (Λg∗ )g ([11, Ch. V, §5]). The inclusion P g∗ ⊂ (Λg∗ )g induces an
isomorphism Λ(P g∗ ) ≃ (Λg∗ )g . Fix a transgression τ : P 2n−1 g∗ → (S n g∗ )g
in the Weil algebra of g ([11, Ch. VI, §4]). We introduce a grading on an
algebra (Sh∗ )h ⊗ (Λg∗ )g by
(Q ∈ (Sh∗ )h , α ∈ (Λg∗ )g )

deg(Q ⊗ α) = 2 deg Q + deg α

and define a differential δ on (Sh∗ )h ⊗ (Λg∗ )g by
δ(Q ⊗ 1) = 0,

δ(1 ⊗ α) = −τ (α)|h ⊗ 1

(Q ∈ (Sh∗ )h , α ∈ P g∗ ).

Cartan constructed a quasi-isomorphism of differential graded algebras (i.e.
a homomorphism that induces isomorphism on cohomology)
φ : ((Sh∗ )h ⊗ (Λg∗ )g , δ) → ((Λ(g/h)∗ )h , d)

([11, Ch. X, §2]). This φ is functorial in h, namely, a diagram
((Sh∗ )h ⊗ (Λg∗ )g , δ)

φ

// ((Λ(g/h)∗ )h , d)

rest ⊗1

i



((Sl∗ )l ⊗ (Λg∗ )g , δ)

φ



// ((Λ(g/l)∗ )l , d)

commutes for any subalgebra l of h that is reductive in g, where rest :
(Sh∗ )h → (Sl∗ )l denotes the restriction map.
4.2. A sufficient condition for Theorem 1.1 in terms of invariants.
Proposition 4.1. A homogeneous space G/H of reductive type satisfies
the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 (and therefore does not admit a compact
Clifford–Klein form) if there exist a compact subgroup C of G and a homomorphism of graded algebras φ : (Sh∗C )hC → (Sc∗C )cC such that
(i) dim C > dim KH ,
(ii) C contains a maximal torus TH of KH , and
(iii) the diagram
rest //
rest //
(Sh∗C )hC
S(tH )∗C
❑❑❑
99
t
❑❑❑
tt
t
t
φ
❑
tt
rest ❑❑❑
%%  ttt rest

(Sg∗C )gC

(Sc∗C )cC

commutes.

COMPACT CLIFFORD–KLEIN FORMS

9

Proof. It suffices to see that im(i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, tH ; R)) ⊂ I N . By
(iii),
((Sh∗C )hC ⊗ (Λg∗C )gC , δ)

rest ⊗1

φ⊗1

// (S(tH )∗ ⊗ (Λg∗ )gC , δ)
C
C
❣❣❣33
❣
❣
❣
❣
❣❣❣❣
❣❣❣❣rest
⊗1
❣❣❣❣❣



((Sc∗C )cC ⊗ (Λg∗C )gC , δ)

is a commutative diagram of differential graded algebras. The induced commutative diagram on cohomology
H • (gC , hC ; C)
φ⊗1



i

// H • (gC , (tH )C ; C)
✐✐44
✐
✐✐ ✐
✐
✐
✐
✐✐✐✐ i
✐✐✐✐

H • (gC , cC ; C)
implies

im(i : H N (gC , hC ; C) → H N (gC , (tH )C ; C))

⊂ im(i : H N (gC , cC ; C) → H N (gC , (tH )C ; C)),

or equivalently,
im(i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, tH ; R)) ⊂ im(i : H N (g, c; R) → H N (g, tH ; R)),
while
im(i : H N (g, c; R) → H N (g, tH ; R)) ⊂ I N
by (i). This completes the proof.



5. The case of semisimple symmetric spaces
5.1. Semisimple symmetric pairs. Let g be a real semisimple Lie algebra
and σ an involution of g. Let h = gσ and q = g−σ be the fixed point sets
of σ and −σ, respectively. We call (g, h) a semisimple symmetric pair. We
say that (g, h) is irreducible if g is simple or (g, h) = (l ⊕ l, ∆l) for some
real simple Lie algebra l. Every semisimple symmetric pair can be uniquely
written as a direct sum of irreducible ones.
Take a Cartan involution θ of g such that θσ = σθ. Put k = gθ and
p = g−θ . We have a direct sum decomposition g = k ∩ h ⊕ k ∩ q ⊕ p ∩ h ⊕ p ∩ q.
Let a be a maximal abelian subspace of p ∩ q. For α ∈ a∗ , we put
gα = {X ∈ g : [Y, X] = α(Y )X for any Y ∈ a}.
Then Σ = {α ∈ a∗ : gα 6= 0} r {0} satisfies the axioms of root system ([33,
Th. 5]). We call Σ the restricted root system of (g, h). If h = k, then Σ is
nothing but the restricted root system of the real semisimple Lie algebra g.
We fix a simple system Ψ of Σ and write Σ+ for the set of positive roots
with respect to Ψ.

10

YOSUKE MORITA

5.2. ε-families of semisimple symmetric pairs. Let us review the notion of an ε-family of semisimple symmetric pairs, which was introduced by
Oshima–Sekiguchi [32]. A map ε : Σ → {±1} is called a signature of Σ if it
satisfies
• ε(−α) = ε(α) for any α ∈ Σ, and
• ε(α)ε(β) = ε(α + β) for any α, β ∈ Σ with α + β ∈ Σ.
Given a signature ε of Σ, we define an involution σε of g by
(
σ(X)
(X ∈ zg (a)),
σε (X) =
ε(α)σ(X)
(X ∈ gα , α ∈ Σ).
We write hε = gσε and qε = g−σε . It is easily checked that σε commutes
with σ and θ, and a is a maximal abelian subspace of p ∩ qε . Thus, Σ
is also a restricted root system of the semisimple symmetric pair (g, hε ).
The set F ((g, h)) = {(g, hε ) : ε is a signature of Σ} is called an ε-family of
semisimple symmetric pairs ([32, §6]).
Let α ∈ Σ. Since the involution θσ leaves gα invariant, we have a direct
±
−
sum decomposition gα = g+
α ⊕ gα , where gα are the eigenspaces of θσ with
±
±
eigenvalues ±1, respectively. Put m (α; h) = dim g±
α . Note that m (α; h) =
±
m (−α; h). If ε is a signature of Σ, we have
(
m± (α; h)
if ε(α) = 1,
m± (α; hε ) =
∓
m (α; h)
if ε(α) = −1.
A semisimple symmetric pair (g, h) is said to be basic if m+ (α; h) ≥ m− (α; h)
for any α ∈ Σ with α/2 ∈
/ Σ ([32, Def. 6.4]). A typical example of a basic
pair is a Riemannian symmetric pair (g, k). For any ε-family F of semisimple
symmetric pairs, there exists a basic pair in F unique up to isomorphism
([32, Prop. 6.5]).
5.3. A characterization of the basic pairs. The following result should
be known to experts, but we give a proof for the sake of completeness.
Lemma 5.1. If a semisimple symmetric pair (g, h) is basic, an inequality
dim(k ∩ h) ≥ dim(k ∩ hε ) holds for any signature ε of Σ. Equality is attained
if and only if (g, hε ) is also basic.
Proof. There is a direct sum decomposition
M
k ∩ h = zg (a) ∩ k ∩ h ⊕
{X + σ(X) : X ∈ g+
α }.
α∈Σ+

Hence,

dim(k ∩ h) = dim(zg (a) ∩ k ∩ h) +
Similarly,
dim(k ∩ hε ) = dim(zg (a) ∩ k ∩ hε ) +
= dim(zg (a) ∩ k ∩ h) +

X

X

m+ (α; h).

α∈Σ+

m+ (α; hε )

α∈Σ+

X

α∈Σ+ ,
ε(α)=1

m+ (α; h) +

X

α∈Σ+ ,
ε(α)=−1

m− (α; h).

COMPACT CLIFFORD–KLEIN FORMS

11

Notice that α/2 ∈
/ Σ if ε(α) = −1. Since (g, h) is basic, we have
X
dim(k ∩ h) − dim(k ∩ hε ) =
(m+ (α; h) − m− (α; h)) ≥ 0.
α∈Σ+ ,
ε(α)=−1

If equality is attained, then m+ (α; h) = m− (α; h) for any α ∈ Σ+ with
ε(α) = −1. This implies that m± (α; hε ) = m± (α; h) for any α ∈ Σ, thus
(g, hε ) is basic. Conversely, if (g, hε ) is basic, equality is clearly attained. 
√
5.4. Half-signatures. We say that δ : Σ → {±1, ± −1} is a half-signature
of Σ if it satisfies
• δ(−α) = δ(α)−1 for any α ∈ Σ, and
• δ(α)δ(β) = δ(α + β) for any α, β ∈ Σ with α + β ∈ Σ.
√
We remark that any map Ψ → {±1, ± −1} (resp. Ψ → {±1}) is uniquely
extended to a half-signature (resp. signature) of Σ. Hence, for each signature
ε of Σ, there exist 2r half-signatures δ such that δ2 = ε (r = dim a). Given
a half-signature δ of Σ, we define an automorphism fδ of gC by
(
X
(X ∈ (zg (a))C ),
fδ (X) =
δ(α)X
(X ∈ (gα )C , α ∈ Σ),
and put gδ = {X ∈ g : fδ (X) = X}.
Lemma 5.2 (cf. [31, Lem. 1.3]). Let ε be a signature of Σ and δ a halfsignature of Σ such that δ2 = ε. Then,
(1) fδ (hC ) = (hε )C .
(2) h ∩ gδ = hε ∩ gδ .
Proof. These immediately follows from
M
h = zg (a) ∩ h ⊕
{X + σ(X) : X ∈ gα },
α∈Σ+

hε = zg (a) ∩ h ⊕
gδ = zg (a) ⊕

M

α∈Σ+ ,
ε(α)=1

M

α∈Σ+ ,

{X + σ(X) : X ∈ gα } ⊕

M

{X − σ(X) : X ∈ gα },

α∈Σ+ ,
ε(α)=−1

{X + σ(Y ) : X, Y ∈ gα }.

δ(α)=1

5.5. Semisimple symmetric spaces. Let G be a connected real linear
semisimple Lie group whose Lie algebra is g. Suppose that the involution θ
of g lifts to G, and let H be an open subgroup of Gθ . The homogeneous space
G/H is called a semisimple symmetric space associated with the semisimple
symmetric pair (g, h). Let θ be a Cartan involution of G such that θσ = σθ.
Then K = Gθ and KH = K ∩ H are maximal compact subgroups of G
and H, respectively. Let ε be a signature of the restricted root system Σ of
(g, h). The involution σε of g lifts to G ([36, Lem. 1.6]). Let Hε be an open
subgroup of Gσε . Then KHε = K ∩ Hε is a maximal compact subgroup of
Hε .



12

YOSUKE MORITA

5.6. A sufficient condition for Proposition 4.1 in terms of ε-families.
Now, we can prove:
Proposition 5.3. Let G/H a semisimple symmetric space such that (g, h)
is basic. Let ε be a signature of Σ such that (g, hε ) is not basic. Let δ be
a half-signature of Σ such that δ2 = ε. If rank(k ∩ hε ) = rank(k ∩ hε ∩ gδ ),
then G/Hε satisfies the assumptions of Proposition 4.1 (and therefore does
not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form).
Proof. Let

∼

→ (Sh∗C )hC
(fδ |hC )∗ : (S(hε )∗C )(hε )C −
∼

be the isomorphism induced by fδ |hC : hC −
→ (hε )C (Lemma 5.2 (1)). Take
a maximal torus THε of K ∩ Hε such that tHε ⊂ k ∩ hε ∩ gδ , which exists by
the rank assumption. By Lemma 5.2 (2), we have THε ⊂ K ∩ H. Consider
the following diagram:
(S(hε )∗C )(hε )C
♦♦77

rest♦♦♦♦

(Sg∗C )gC

♦♦♦
♦♦♦



(Sh∗C )hC

❖❖❖
❖❖❖
❖❖
rest ❖❖❖''

❖❖❖
❖❖❖rest
❖❖❖
❖❖❖
''

(fδ |hC )∗

rest



S(tHε )∗C

♦♦77
♦♦♦
♦
♦
♦
♦♦♦ rest

(S(k ∩ h)∗C )(k∩h)C

The right-hand side triangle clearly commutes since fδ |(tHε )C is the identity
map of (tHε )C . Take a Cartan subalgebra j of g containing a. The restriction
map rest : (Sg∗C )gC → Sj∗C is injective by Chevalley’s restriction theorem ([6,
Ch. VIII, §8, no. 3, Th. 1]), while fδ |jC is the identity map of jC . This shows
∼
→ (Sg∗C )gC is the identity map, and therefore the left-hand
that fδ∗ : (Sg∗C )gC −
side triangle commutes. We conclude by Lemma 5.1 that G/Hε satisfies the
assumptions of Proposition 4.1.

6. Examples
6.1. Nonbasic semisimple symmetric spaces of type (C, R). Let us
consider a semisimple symmetric pair (g, h) such that g is a complex semisimple Lie algebra and h its real form (this case is called “type (C, R)” in [32]).
Let ε be a signature of a restricted root system Σ of (g, h) and δ any halfsignature √
such that δ2 = ε. It is easy to check that hε is a real
√ form of g. In
this case, −1a is a maximal abelian subspace of k ∩ hε = −1p ∩ qε and is
contained in k ∩ hε ∩ gδ . This implies rank(k ∩ hε ) = rank(k ∩ hε ∩ gδ ). From
Proposition 5.3, we conclude:
Corollary 6.1. Let G be a connected complex semisimple Lie group and H
its real form. If the semisimple symmetric pair (g, h) is not basic, G/H does
not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form.
For the reader’s convenience, we list in Table 2 the nonbasic pair (g, h)
such that g is a simple complex Lie algebra and h its real form (cf. [32,
§§1, 6]). The sign ⋆ in Table 2 signifies that the nonexistence of a compact
Clifford–Klein form seems to be a new result.

COMPACT CLIFFORD–KLEIN FORMS

⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆

⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆

g

h

Conditions

sl(2n, C)
sl(p + q, C)
so(p + q, C)
so(2n + 1, C)
so(2n, C)
sp(n, C)
sp(p + q, C)
e6,C
e6,C
e6,C
e7,C
e7,C
e7,C
e8,C
e8,C
f4,C
f4,C
g2,C

sl(2n, R)
su(p, q)
so(p, q)
so(2n, 1)
so∗ (2n)
sp(n, R)
sp(p, q)
e6(6)
e6(2)
e6(−14)
e7(7)
e7(−5)
e7(−25)
e8(8)
e8(−24)
f4(4)
f4(−20)
g2(2)

n≥1
p, q ≥ 1
p, q ≥ 2, (p, q) 6= (2, 2)
n≥1
n≥3
n≥1
p, q ≥ 1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

13

Table 2. Irreducible symmetric pairs (g, h) to which Corollary 6.1 is applicable

6.2. Half-signatures arising from hyperbolic elements. Let (g, h) be
a semisimple symmetric pair. As before, let σ be an involution of g corresponding to h and θ a Cartan involution of g commuting with σ. We define
ha = gσθ (= k ∩ h ⊕ p ∩ q) and qa = g−σθ (= k ∩ q ⊕ p ∩ h). The semisimple
symmetric pair (g, ha ) is called the associated pair of (g, h).
Corollary 6.2. A semisimple symmetric space G/H does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form if ha = zg (X0 ) for some X0 ∈ p r {0}.
Proof. Let a be a maximal abelian subspace of p containing X0 and Σ the
restricted root system of g with respect to a. We have a direct sum decomposition qa = qa+ ⊕ qa− , where
M
M
gα .
gα ,
qa− =
qa+ =
α∈Σ,
α(X0 )>0

α∈Σ,
α(X0 )<0

It is easily checked that [qa+ , qa+ ] = [qa− , qa− ] = 0, [qa+ , qa− ] ⊂ ha . Hence, a
map


if α(X0 ) = 0,
0√
√
α 7→
δ : Σ → {±1, ± −1},
−1
if α(X0 ) > 0,

 √
if α(X0 ) < 0.
− −1

is a half-signature of Σ. Put ε = δ2 . By construction, we have h = kε and
ha = gδ . Thus k ∩ kε = k ∩ kε ∩ gδ = k ∩ h. Now, Corollary 6.2 follows from

14

YOSUKE MORITA

Proposition 5.3 if we could prove that (g, h) is not basic. If (g, h) is basic, i.e.
h is isomorphic to k, then σ and θ are two commuting Cartan involutions of
g, hence σ = θ ([14, Proof of Cor. 6.19]). Then g = ha = zg (X0 ), which is
absurd.

For the reader’s convenience, we list in Table 3 the irreducible symmetric
pairs (g, h) such that ha = zg (X0 ) for some X0 ∈ p r {0} (cf. [32, §1]). The
sign ⋆ in Table 3 signifies that the nonexistence of a compact Clifford–Klein
form seems to be a new result. We remark that some examples such as
(sl(p + q, C), su(p, q)) (p, q ≥ 1) appear in both Table 2 and Table 3.
g
⋆ sl(p + q, C)
⋆ sl(p + q, R)
⋆ sl(p + q, H)
su(n, n)
⋆ so(n + 2, C)
⋆ so(2n, C)
so(p + 1, q + 1)
so(n, n)
so∗ (4n)
sp(n, C)
sp(n, R)
sp(n, n)
⋆ e6,C
⋆ e6(6)
e6(−26)
⋆ e7,C
e7(7)
e7(−25)

h

Conditions

su(p, q)
so(p, q)
sp(p, q)
sl(n, C) ⊕ R
so(n, 2)
so∗ (2n)
so(p, 1) ⊕ so(1, q)
so(n, C)
sl(n, H) ⊕ R
sp(n, R)
sl(n, R) ⊕ R
sp(n, C)
e6(−14)
sp(2, 2)
f4(−20)
e7(−25)
sl(4, H)
e6(−26) ⊕ R

p, q ≥ 1
p, q ≥ 1
p, q ≥ 1
n≥1
n≥3
n≥3
p, q ≥ 0, (p, q) 6= (0, 0), (1, 1)
n≥3
n≥2
n≥1
n≥1
n≥1
—
—
—
—
—
—

Table 3. Irreducible symmetric pairs to which Corollary 6.2
is applicable

6.3. Examples obtained by direct computations. In Subsections 6.1
and 6.2, we systematically constructed examples of a homogeneous space
that does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form using Proposition 5.3.
In this subsection, we shall give some examples via direct verification of
Proposition 4.1.
To fix notations, we give explicit generators of (S k g∗C )gC for gC = sl(n, C)
and so(n, C). Define invariant polynomials fk ∈ (S k (gl(n, C)∗ ))gl(n,C) (k =
1, 2, . . . , n) on the Lie algebra gl(n, C) by
det(λIn − X) = λn + f1 (X)λn−1 + f2 (X)λn−2 + · · · + fn (X)

(X ∈ gl(n, C)).

For the convenience, we put f0 = 1 and fk = 0 for k < 0 and k > n. We
use the same notation fk for the restriction of fk to sl(n, C) or to so(n, C).
Then,

COMPACT CLIFFORD–KLEIN FORMS

15

Fact 6.3 ([6, Ch. VIII, §13]).
(1) The n − 1 elements f2 , f3 , . . . , fn generate the algebra (S(sl(n, C)∗ ))sl(n,C) and are algebraically independent. We have f1 = 0.
(2) If n = 2m + 1, the m elements f2 , f4 , . . . , f2m generate the algebra (S(so(n, C)∗ ))so(n,C) and are algebraically independent. We have
f1 = f3 = · · · = f2m+1 = 0.
(3) If n = 2m, the m elements f2 , f4 , . . . , f2m−2 , f˜ generate the algebra (S(so(n, C)∗ ))so(n,C) and are algebraically independent, where
f˜ ∈ (S m (so(n, C)∗ ))so(n,C) is the Pfaffian of n × n skew-symmeric
matrices. We have f1 = f3 = · · · = f2m−1 = 0 and f2m = f˜2 .
Corollary 6.4. A homogeneous space
SO0 (p + r, q)/ SO0 (p, q)

(p, q, r ≥ 1, q : odd)

does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form.
Proof. Put G = SO0 (p + r, q) and H = SO0 (p, q). When p is odd, this has
been already proved ([25, Cor. 1.6 (4)]). Let p be even. Take a compact
subgroup C of G to be
C = SO(p + 1) × SO(q) ⊂ SO0 (p + r, q) = G
and define a homomorphism
φ : (Sh∗C )hC = (S(so(p + q, C)∗ ))so(p+q,C)
→ (S(so(p + 1, C)∗ ))so(p+1,C) ⊗ (S(so(q, C)∗ ))so(q,C) = (Sc∗C )cC
by
φ(f2k ) =

X

i+j=k

f2i ⊗ f2j

(1 ≤ k ≤

p+q−1
).
2

Then C and φ satisfy the assumptions of Proposition 4.1.



Corollary 6.5. An irreducible symmetric space
SO0 (p + r, q)/(SO0 (p, q) × SO(r))

(p, q, r ≥ 1, q : odd)

does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form.
Proof. This is immediate from Corollary 6.4 since SO(r) is compact.



Corollary 6.6. A homogeneous space
SL(n, R)/ SL(m, R)

(n > m ≥ 2, m : even)

does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form.
Proof. Put G = SL(n, R) and H = SL(m, R). Take a compact subgroup C
of G to be
C = SO(m + 1) ⊂ SL(n, R) = G
and define a homomorphism

φ : (Sh∗C )hC = (S(sl(m, C)∗ ))sl(m,C) → (S(so(m + 1, C)∗ ))so(m+1,C) = (Sc∗C )cC
by φ(fk ) = fk (2 ≤ fk ≤ m). Then C and φ satisfy the assumptions of
Proposition 4.1.


16

YOSUKE MORITA

6.4. Enlargement of Lie groups. The following lemma provides some
other examples of a homogeneous space without compact Clifford–Klein
forms.
Lemma 6.7. Let G/H be a homogeneous space of reductive type satisfying
the assumptions of Proposition 4.1. Let G̃ be a Lie group containing G as
a closed subgroup. Let L be a closed subgroup of G̃ such that G ∩ L = {1},
L ⊂ ZG̃ (G) and G̃/(H × L) is a homogeneous space of reductive type. Then
G̃/(H × L) satisfies the assumptions of Proposition 4.1 (and therefore does
not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form).
Proof. Let C be a compact subgroup of G and φ : (Sh∗C )hC → (Sc∗C )cC
a homomorphism of graded algebras satisfying the conditions (i)–(iii) of
Proposition 4.1. Let KL be a maximal compact subgroup of L and
rest : (Sl∗C )lC → (S(kL )∗C )(kL )C

denote the restriction map. Let C̃ = C × KL and
φ̃ : (S(h ⊕ l)∗C )(h⊕l)C = (Sh∗C )hC ⊗ (Sl∗C )lC
φ⊗rest

−−−−→ (Sc∗C )cC ⊗ (S(kL )∗C )(kL )C = (S(c ⊕ kL )∗C )(c⊕kL )C .
Then C̃ and φ̃ satisfy the conditions (i)–(iii) with respect to G̃/(H × L). 
For instance,
SL(p1 + · · · + pn + q, R)/(SL(p1 , R) × · · · × SL(pn , R))
Y
(n ≥ 1, p1 , . . . , pn ≥ 2,
pi : even, q ≥ 1)
i

does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form by Lemma 6.7 and the proof
of Corollary 6.6.
6.5. Relation with an earlier result. We proved in [26] the following
result:
Fact 6.8 ([26, Th. 1.2 (2)]). Let G be a Lie group and H its closed subgroup
with finitely many connected components. Let KH be a maximal compact
subgroup of H. If the homomorphism
i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, kH ; R)

(N = dim G − dim H)

is not injective, there is no compact manifold locally modelled on G/H.
If the homomorphism i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, kH ; R) is not injective,
im(i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, tH ; R)) ⊂ I N

trivially holds. Thus Theorem 1.1 yields the following corollary, which is
slightly weaker than Fact 6.8:
Corollary 6.9. Let G be a connected linear Lie group and H its connected
closed subgroup. Let KH be a maximal compact subgroup of H. If the homomorphism
i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, kH ; R)

(N = dim G − dim H)

is not injective, G/H does not admit a compact Clifford–Klein form.

COMPACT CLIFFORD–KLEIN FORMS

17

Remark 6.10. Recall from [25, §4] that i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, tH ; R)
is injective if and only if so is i : H N (g, h; R) → H N (g, kH ; R), for
i : H • (g, kH ; R) → H • (g, tH ; R) is always injective by a variant of the splitting principle ([12, Th. 6.8.2]).
Acknowledgements. The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude
to Professor Toshiyuki Kobayashi for his advice and encouragement. This
work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 14J08233 and the
Program for Leading Graduate Schools, MEXT, Japan.
References
[1] Y. Benoist, Actions propres sur les espaces homogènes réductifs. Ann. of Math. (2)
144 (1996), 315–347.
[2] Y. Benoist and F. Labourie, Sur les espaces homogènes modèles de variétés compactes.
Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. 76 (1992), 99–109.
[3] A. Borel, Compact Clifford–Klein forms of symmetric spaces. Topology 2 (1963),
111–122.
[4]
, Semisimple groups and Riemannian symmetric spaces. Texts and Readings
in Mathematics, 16. Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 1998.
[5] A. Borel and Harish-Chandra, Arithmetic subgroups of algebraic groups. Ann. of
Math. (2) 75 (1962), 485–535.
[6] N. Bourbaki, Lie groups and Lie algebras. Chapters 7–9. Translated from the 1975
and 1982 French originals by Andrew Pressley. Elements of Mathematics (Berlin).
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.
[7] E. Calabi and L. Markus, Relativistic space forms. Ann. of Math. (2) 75 (1962),
63–76.
[8] H. Cartan, La transgression dans un groupe de Lie et dans un espace fibré principal.
Colloque de topologie (espaces fibrés), Bruxelles, 1950, pp. 57–71, Georges Thone,
Liège; Masson et Cie., Paris, 1951.
[9] H. Cartan and S. Eilenberg, Homological algebra. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1956.
[10] A. Dold, Partitions of unity in the theory of fibrations. Ann. of Math. (2) 78 (1963),
223–255.
[11] W. Greub, S. Halperin and R. Vanstone, Connections, curvature, and cohomology.
Volume III: Cohomology of principal bundles and homogeneous spaces. Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 47-III. Academic Press, New York–London, 1976.
[12] V. W. Guillemin and S. Sternberg, Supersymmetry and equivariant de Rham theory.
With an appendix containing two reprints by Henri Cartan. Mathematics Past and
Present. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[13] G. Hochschild, The structure of Lie groups. Holden-Day, Inc., San Francisco–London–
Amsterdam, 1965.
[14] A. W. Knapp, Lie groups beyond an introduction. Second edition. Progress in Mathematics, 140. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2002.
[15] T. Kobayashi, Proper action on a homogeneous space of reductive type. Math. Ann.
285 (1989), 249–263.
[16]
, Discontinuous groups acting on homogeneous spaces of reductive type. Representation theory of Lie groups and Lie algebras (Fuji-Kawaguchiko, 1990), pp. 59–75,
World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1992.
[17]
, A necessary condition for the existence of compact Clifford–Klein forms of
homogeneous spaces of reductive type. Duke Math. J. 67 (1992), 653–664.
, Discontinuous groups and Clifford–Klein forms of pseudo-Riemannian
[18]
homogeneous manifolds. Algebraic and analytic methods in representation theory
(Sønderborg, 1994), pp. 99–165, Perspect. Math., 17, Academic Press, San Diego,
CA, 1997.
[19] T. Kobayashi and K. Ono, Note on Hirzebruch’s proportionality principle. J. Fac.
Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. 37 (1990), 71–87.

18

YOSUKE MORITA

[20] T. Kobayashi and T. Yoshino, Compact Clifford–Klein forms of symmetric spaces —
revisited. Pure Appl. Math. Q. 1 (2005), 591–663.
[21] R. S. Kulkarni, Proper actions and pseudo-Riemannian space forms. Adv. in Math.
40 (1981), 10–51.
[22] F. Labourie, S. Mozes and R. J. Zimmer, On manifolds locally modelled on nonRiemannian homogeneous spaces. Geom. Funct. Anal. 5 (1995), 955–965.
[23] F. Labourie and R. J. Zimmer, On the non-existence of cocompact lattices for
SL(n)/SL(m). Math. Res. Lett. 2 (1995), 75–77.
[24] G. Margulis, Existence of compact quotients of homogeneous spaces, measurably
proper actions, and decay of matrix coefficients. Bull. Soc. Math. France 125 (1997),
447–456.
[25] Y. Morita, A topological necessary condition for the existence of compact Clifford–
Klein forms. J. Differential Geom. 100 (2015), 533–545.
[26]
, Homogeneous spaces of nonreductive type locally modelling no compact manifold. arXiv:1508.04862v1, preprint.
[27] G. D. Mostow and T. Tamagawa, On the compactness of arithmetically defined homogeneous spaces. Ann. of Math. (2) 76 (1962), 446–463.
[28] H. Oh, Tempered subgroups and representations with minimal decay of matrix coefficients. Bull. Soc. Math. France 126 (1998), 355–380.
[29] T. Okuda, Classification of semisimple symmetric spaces with proper SL(2, R)actions. J. Differential Geom. 94 (2013), 301–342.
[30] A. L. Onishchik, Topology of transitive transformation groups. Johann Ambrosius
Barth Verlag GmbH, Leipzig, 1994.
[31] T. Oshima and J. Sekiguchi, Eigenspaces of invariant differential operators on an
affine symmetric space. Invent. Math. 57 (1980), 1–81.
[32]
, The restricted root system of a semisimple symmetric pair. Group representations and systems of differential equations (Tokyo, 1982), pp. 433–497, Adv. Stud.
Pure Math., 4, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984.
[33] W. Rossmann, The structure of semisimple symmetric spaces. Canad. J. Math. 31
(1979), 157–180.
[34] A. Selberg, On discontinuous groups in higher-dimensional symmetric spaces. Contributions to function theory (internat. Colloq. Function Theory, Bombay, 1960),
pp. 147–164, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, 1960.
[35] Y. Shalom, Rigidity, unitary representations of semisimple groups, and fundamental
groups of manifolds with rank one transformation group. Ann. of Math. (2) 152
(2000), 113–182.
[36] N. Shimeno, A compact imbedding of semisimple symmetric spaces. J. Math. Sci.
Univ. Tokyo 3 (1996), 551–569.
[37] N. Tholozan, Volume and non-existence of compact Clifford–Klein forms.
arXiv:1511.09448v1, preprint.
[38] J. A. Wolf, The Clifford–Klein space forms of indefinite metric. Ann. of Math. (2) 75
(1962), 77–80.
[39]
, Isotropic manifolds of indefinite metric. Comment. Math. Helv. 39 (1964),
21–64.
[40] R. J. Zimmer, Discrete groups and non-Riemannian homogeneous spaces. J. Amer.
Math. Soc. 7 (1994), 159–168.
Graduate School of Mathematical Science, the University of Tokyo, 3-8-1
Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8914, Japan
E-mail address: ymorita@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp

