Maximal subgroups of SL(n, Z)
arXiv:1511.05767v2 [] 17 Apr 2016

Tsachik Gelander and Chen Meiri
April 19, 2016

Dedicated to the 75’th birthday of Herbert Abels

1

Introduction

More than three decades ago, in a remarkable paper [MS81], Margulis and Soifer proved
existence of maximal subgroups of infinite index in SL(n, Z), answering a question of Platonov.
Moreover, they proved that there are uncountably many such subgroups. Since then, it is
expected that there should be examples of various different nature. However, as the proof is
non-constructive and relies on the axiom of choice, it is highly non-trivial to lay one’s hands
on specific properties of the resulting groups.
Our purpose here is to show that indeed, maximal subgroups ∆ ≤ SL(n, Z) of different
nature do exist. However, our methods say nothing about the intrinsic algebraic structure of
∆. We do not gain any understanding about the abstract groups ∆, instead we are focusing
on the way it sits inside SL(n, Z). The two point of views that we consider are:
• The associated permutation representation Γ y Γ/∆.
• The action of ∆ on the associated projective space P = Pn−1 (R).
The main results of this paper are:
Theorem 1.1. Let n ≥ 3. There are 2ℵ0 infinite index maximal subgroups in SL(n, Z).
Theorem 1.2. Let n ≥ 3. There exists a maximal subgroup ∆ of SL(n, Z) which does not have
a dense orbit in P. In particular, the limit set of ∆ (in the sense of [CG00]) is nowhere-dense.
Theorem 1.3. Let n ≥ 3. There exists an infinite index maximal subgroup M of PSL(n, Z)
and an element g ∈ PSL(n, Z) such that M ∩ gM g −1 = {id}.
Theorem 1.4. Let n ≥ 3. There exists a primitive permutation action of SL(n, Z) which is
not 2-transitive.
1

Remark 1.5. The theorems remain true also for SL(n, Q) instead of SL(n, Z).
Remark 1.6. Recall that the Margulis–Soifer theorem is much more general, i.e. holds for any
finitely generated non-virtually-solvable linear group Γ. Our results however relies on special
properties of SL(n, Z), n ≥ 3. In particular one important ingredient for us is the beautiful
result of Venkataramana about commuting unipotents, Theorem 2.8. Another ingredient is
the result of Conze and Guivarc’h, Theorem 2.12. Some of our results can be extended to the
class of arithmetic groups of higher Q-rank.
Acknowledgment: The first author was partially supported by ISF-Moked grant 2095/15.
The second author was partially supported by ISF grant 662/15.

2

Preliminaries

In this paper we always assume that n ≥ 3.

2.1

Projective space

Let n ≥ 3. The letter P denotes the (n − 1)-dimensional real projective space and fix some
compatible metric distP on P. For every 0 ≤ k ≤ n − 1, the set Lk of k-dimensional subspaces
of P can be endowed with the metric defined by
distLk (L1 , L2 ) := max{distP (x, Li ) | x ∈ L3−i for 1 ≤ i ≤ 2}
for every L1 , L2 ∈ Lk . Note that Lk is naturally homeomorphic to the Grassmannian Gr(k +
1, Rn ). For ε > 0 and a subset A ⊆ P we denote (A)ε := {x ∈ P | distP (x, A) < ε} and
[A]ε := {x ∈ P | distP (x, A) ≤ ε}. If A = {p} then we usually write (p)ε and [p]ε instead of
(A)ε and [A]ε .

2.2

Unipotent elements

Definition 2.1 (Rank 1 unipotent elements). We say that a unipotent element u has rank 1 if
rank(u−In ) = 1. The point pu ∈ P which is induced by the euclidean line {ux − x | x ∈ Rn } is
called the point of attraction of u. The (n − 2)-dimensional subspace Lu ⊆ P which is induced
by the euclidean (n − 1)-dimensional space {x ∈ Rn | ux = x} is called the fixed hyperplane of
of u. The set of rank-1 unipotent elements in SL(n, Z) is denoted by U.
The following two lemmas follow directly from the definition of U and are stated for future
reference.

2

Lemma 2.2 (Structure of unipotent elements). The set U can be divided into equivalence
classes in the following way: u, v ∈ U are equivalent if there exist non-zero integers r and s
such that us = v r . The map u 7→ (pu , Lu ) is a bijection between equivalence classes in U and
the set of pairs (p, L) where p ∈ P is a rational point and L ⊆ Ln−2 is an (n − 2)-dimensional
rational subspace which contains p.
Lemma 2.3 (Dynamics of unipotent elements). Let u ∈ U. For every ε > 0 and every
δ > 0 there exists a constant c such that if m ≥ c and v = um , then v k (x) ∈ (pu )ε for every
x ∈ P \ (Lu )δ and every k 6= 0. Note that the previous lemma implies that pu = pv and
Lu = Lv .

2.3

Schottky systems

Definition 2.4. Assume that S is a non-empty subset of U and A ⊆ R are closed subsets of
P. We say that S is a Schottky set with respect to the attracting set A and the repelling set
R and call the triple (S, A, R) a Schottky system if for every u ∈ S there exist two positive
numbers δu ≥ εu such that the following properties hold:
1. uk (x) ∈ (pu )εu for every x ∈ P \ (Lu )δu and every k 6= 0;
2. If u 6= v ∈ S then (pu )εu ∩ (Lv )δv = ∅;
3. ∪u∈S (pu )εu ⊆ A;
4. ∪u∈S (Lu )δu ⊆ R.
Definition 2.5. The Schottky system (S, A, R) is said to be profinitely-dense if S generates a
profinitely-dense subgroup of SL(n, Z). We say that the Schottky system (S+ , A+ , R+ ) contains
the Schottky system (S, A, R) if S+ ⊇ S, A+ ⊇ A and R+ ⊇ R.
Lemma 2.6. Let (S, A, R) be a Schottky system. Assume that [p]ε ∩ A = ∅ and [L]δ ∩ R = ∅
where δ ≥ ε > 0 and p is a rational point which is continued in a rational subspace L ∈ Ln−2 .
Denote A+ = A ∪ [p]ε and R+ = R ∪ [L]δ . Then there exist v ∈ U with p = pv , L = Lv such
that (S+ , A+ , R+ ) is Schottky system which contains (S, A, R) where S+ := S ∪ {v}.
Proof: Lemma 2.2 implies that there exists u ∈ U such that pu = p and Lu = L. Lemma 2.3
implies that there exists m ≥ 1 such that v := um satisfies the required properties. 
The following lemma is a version of the well known ping-pong lemma:
Lemma 2.7 (Ping-pong). Let (S, A, R) be a Schottky system. Then the natural homomorphism ∗u∈S hui → hSi is an isomorphism.
3

An important ingredient for our methods is the following beautiful result:
Theorem 2.8 (Venkataramana, [Ve87]). Let Γ be a Zariski-dense subgroup of SL(n, Z). Assume that u ∈ U ∩ Γ, v ∈ Γ is unipotent and hu, vi ' Z2 . Then Γ has finite index in SL(n, Z).
In particular, if Γ is profinitely-dense then Γ = SL(n, Z).
Note that if u, v ∈ SL(n, Z) ∩ U and pu = pv then (u − 1)(v − 1) = (v − 1)(u − 1) = 0 and
in particular uv = vu. Thus we get the following lemma:
Lemma 2.9. Let g ∈ SL(n, Z) and u1 , u2 ∈ U. Assume that pu2 = gpu1 and Lu2 6= gLu1 .
Then hu1 , g −1 u2 gi ' Z2 .
Lemma 2.10. Assume that g is an element of SL(n, Z), (S, A, R) is a profinitely-dense
Schottky system, δ ≥ ε > 0, p1 and p2 are rational points and L1 and L2 are rational (n − 2)dimensional subspaces such that the following conditions hold:
1. ([p1 ]ε ∪ [p2 ]ε ) ∩ R = ∅ and ([L1 ]δ ∪ [L2 ]δ ) ∩ A = ∅;
2. [p1 ]ε ∩ [L2 ]δ = ∅ and [p2 ]ε ∩ [L1 ]δ = ∅;
3. p1 = gp2 and L1 6= gL2 .
Denote A+ = A ∪ [p1 ]ε ∪ [p2 ]ε and R+ = R ∪ [L1 ]δ ∪ [L2 ]δ . Then there exists a set S+ ⊇ S such
that (S+ , A+ , R+ ) is a Schottky system which contains (S, A, R) and hS+ , gi = SL(n, Z).
Proof: For every 1 ≤ i ≤ 2 choose ui ∈ U such that pui = pi and Lui = Li . Lemma 2.9 implies
that hu1 , g −1 u2 gi ' Z2 . Lemma 2.3 implies that there exists m ≥ 1 such that (S+ , A+ , R+ ) is
m
Schottky system where v1 := um
1 , v2 := u2 and S+ := S ∪ {v1 , v2 }. Theorem 2.8 implies that
hS+ , gi = SL(n, Z). 
Definition 2.11. Let 1 ≤ k ≤ n. A k-tuple (p1 , . . . , pk ) of projective points is called generic
if p1 , . . . , pk span a (k − 1)-dimensional subspace of P. Note that the set of generic k-tuples of
P is an open subset of the product of k copies of the projective space, indeed it is even Zariski
open.
Theorem 2.12 (Conze-Guivarc’h, [CG00]). Assume that n ≥ 3 and that Γ ≤ SL(n, R) is a
lattice. Then Γ acts minimally of the set of generic (n − 1)-tuples.
Corollary 2.13. Assume that n ≥ 3 and Γ ≤ SL(n, R) is a lattice. For every 1 ≤ i ≤ 2
let pi ∈ Li ∈ Ln−2 . Then for every positive numbers ε and δ there exists g ∈ Γ such that
gp1 ∈ (p2 )ε and gL1 ∈ (L2 )δ .
The proof of the following Proposition is based on the proof of the main result of [AGS14].
4

Proposition 2.14. Assume that n ≥ 3 and p ∈ L ∈ Ln−2 . Then for every δ ≥ ε > 0 there
exists a finite subset S ⊆ U such that (S, A, R) is a profinitely-dense Schottky system where
A := [p]ε and R := [L]δ .
Proof: We recall some facts about Zariski-dense and profinitely-dense subgroups. For a
positive integer d ≥ 2 let πd : SL(n, Z) → SL(n, Z/dZ) be the modulo-d homomorphism and
denote Kd := ker πd .
(a) If H ≤ SL(n, Z) and πp (H) = SL(n, Z/pZ) for some odd prime p then H is Zariski-dense,
[We96] and [Lu99].
(b) The strong approximation theorem of Weisfeiler [We84] and Nori [No87] implies that if
a subgroup H of SL(n, Z) is Zariski-dense then there exists some positive integer q such
that πd (H) = SL(n, Z/dZ) whenever gcd(q, d) = 1.
(c) If H ≤ SL(n, Z), π4 (H) = SL(n, Z/4Z) and πp (H) = SL(n, Z/pZ) for all odd primes p
then H is profintiely-dense in SL(n, Z).
Fix δ ≥ ε > 0 and set A := [p]ε and R := [L]δ . For every 1 ≤ i ≤ 2n2 − n, fix a point pi
beloning to an (n − 2)-dimensional subspace Li and positive numbers δi ≥ εi > 0 such that
the following two conditions hold:
1. ∪1≤i≤2n2 −n (pi )εi ⊆ A and ∪1≤i≤2n2 −n (Li )δi ⊆ R;
2. For every 1 ≤ i 6= j ≤ 2n2 − n, (pi )εi ∩ (Lj )δj = ∅.
For every 1 ≤ i 6= j ≤ n, let ei,j ∈ SL(n, Z) be the matrix with 1 on the diagonal and on the
(i, j)-entry and zero elsewhere and let e1 , . . . , en2 −n be an enumeration of the ei,j ’s. Denote
the exponent of SL(n, Z/3Z) by t. If g1 , . . . , gn2 −n ∈ K3 and k1 , . . . , kn2 −n are positive integers
then π3 (H1 ) = SL(n, Z/3Z) where ui := gi eitki +1 gi−1 and H1 := hui | 1 ≤ i ≤ n2 − ni. Note
that for every u ∈ U and g ∈ SL(n, Z), pgug−1 = gpu and Lgug−1 = gLu . Thus, Lemma 2.3 and
Corollary 2.13 imply that it is possible to choose gi ’s and ki ’s such that:
3. uki (x) ∈ (pi )εi for every 1 ≤ i ≤ n2 − n, every x 6∈ (Li )δi and every k 6= 0.
In particular, {u1 , . . . , un2 −n } is a Schottky set with respect to A and R which generates a
Zariski-dense subgroup H1 .
The strong approximation theorem implies that there exists some positive integer q such
that πd (H1 ) = SL(n, Z/dZ) whenever gcd(q, d) = 1. Denote the exponent of SL(n, Z/q 2 Z) by
r. As before, there exist gn2 −n+1 , . . . , g2n2 −2n ∈ Kq2 and positive integers kn2 −n+1 , . . . , k2n2 −2n
i +1 −1
such that the elements of the form ui := gi erk
gi satisfy:
i
4. πq2 (H2 ) = SL(n, Z/q 2 Z) where H2 := hui | n2 − n + 1 ≤ i ≤ 2n2 − 2ni;
5

5. uki (x) ∈ (pi )εi for every n2 − n + 1 ≤ i ≤ 2n2 − 2n, every x 6∈ (Li )δi and every k 6= 0.
Denote S := {u1 , . . . , u2n2 −2n }. Item (c) implies that πd (hSi) = SL(n, Z/dZ) for every
d ≥ 1. Thus, (S, A, R) is the required profinitely-dense Schottky system. 
The following lemma will be needed in Section 5.
Lemma 2.15. Assume that k is an element of SL(n, Z), δ ≥ ε > 0, p1 , p2 and p3 are rational
points and L1 , L2 and L3 are rational (n − 2)-dimensional subspaces such that the following
conditions hold
• For every 1 ≤ i 6= j ≤ 3, pi ∈ Li and [pi ]ε ∩ [Lj ]δ = ∅;
• p2 = kp1 , p3 := k 2 p1 , L2 = kL1 , L3 6= k 2 L1 ;
Denote A := ∪1≤i≤3 [pi ]ε and R := ∪1≤i≤3 [Li ]δ . Then there exists a profinitely-dense Schottky
system (S, A, R) such that hSi ∩ khSik −1 6= {id} and hS, ki = SL(n, Z).
Proof: Proposition 2.14 implies that there exists a finite S0 = {u1 , . . . , ur } ⊆ U such that
(S0 , A0 , R0 ) is profinitely-dense Schottky system where A0 := [p1 ]ε and R0 := [L1 ]δ . A quick
look at the proof of this proposition implies that we can assume that pu1 = p1 and Lu1 = L1 .
Denote w2 := ku1 k −1 and choose w3 ∈ U such that pw3 = p3 , Lw3 = L3 . Lemma 2.9 implies
that hu1 , k −2 w3m k 2 i ∼
= Z2 for every m 6= 0. Lemma 2.3 implies that for large enough value of
m, (S, A, R) is a profinitely-dense Schottky system where S := S0 ∪ {w2m , w3m }. Note that
w2 ∈ hSi ∩ khSik −1 and that Theorem 2.8 implies that hS, ki = SL(n, Z). 

3

Proof of Theorem 1.1

Zorn’s lemma implies that every proper subgroup H of SL(n, Z) is contained in a maximal
subgroup M (Since SL(n, Z) is finitely generated an increasing union of proper subgroups is a
proper subgroup). If H is profinitely-dense then so is M ; hence M should have infinite index.
Thus, Theorem 1.1 follows for the following proposition:
Theorem 3.1. Let n ≥ 3. There exist 2ℵ0 infinite-index profinitely-dense subgroups of
SL(n, Z) such that the union of any two of them generates SL(n, Z).
Proof: For every non-negative integer i fix a rational point pi belonging to a rational (n − 2)dimensional subspace Li and two numbers δi ≥ εi > 0 such that [pi ]εi ∩ [Lj ]δj = ∅ for every
i 6= j. Let A and R be the closures of ∪i≥0 (pi )i and ∪i≥0 (Li )δi respectively. Proposition 2.14
implies that there exists a finite subset S0 ⊆ U such that (S0 , A0 , R0 ) is a profinitely-dense
Schottky system where A0 = [p0 ]ε0 and R0 = [L0 ]δ0 . Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3 imply that for every
i ≥ 1 there are ui,1 , ui,2 ∈ U such that:
6

1. pi = pui,1 = pui,2 and Lui,1 6= Lui,2 ⊆ (Li )δi (hence, hui,1 , ui,2 i ∼
= Z2 );
2. uki,j (x) ∈ (pi )ε for every 1 ≤ j ≤ 2, every x 6∈ (Li )δi and every k 6= 0.
For every function f from the positive integers to {0, 1} the set Sf := S0 ∪ {ui,f (i)|i≥1 } is a
Schottky set with respect to the attracting set A and the repelling set R. If f and g are
distinct function then Sf ∪ Sg contains {ui,1 , ui,2 } for some i ≥ 1 so Theorem 2.8 implies that
hSf ∪ Sg i = SL(n, Z). 
Theorem 1.1 implies that there are non-conjugate infinite-index maximal subgroups in
SL(n, Z). Indeed, since SL(n, Z) is countable so is the conjugacy class of every infinite index
subgroup. We can say a little more:
Proposition 3.2. There are infinite-index maximal subgroups whose actions on P have different topological properties. For example, when n ≥ 4 some but not all infinite-index maximal
subgroups M of SL(n, Z) have the following property:
There exists a finitely-generated subgroup H ≤ M and a 2-dimensional subspace l ∈ L2
which is contained in the closure of every H-orbit.
The existence of maximal subgroups with this property follows form the existence of maximal subgroup M which contains an element g ∈ SL(n, Z) with eigenvalues α1 , . . . , αn such
that α1m and αnm are not real for all m ≥ 1 and |α1 | < |αi | < |αn | for all 2 < i < n − 1. The
construction of maximal subgroups without this property can be done by using similar ideas
to the ones used in the proofs of Theorems 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 below.

4

Proof of Theorem 1.2

In order to prove the Theorem 1.2 it is enough to find an infinite-index maximal subgroup ∆
and two open subsets U and V such that gU ∩ V = ∅ for all g ∈ ∆. Let V ∨ be the dual of
V := Rn . The natural map form P = Gr(1, V ) to Gr(n − 1, V ∨ ) is an SL(n, Z)-equivariant
homeomorphism. Thus, Theorem 1.2 follows from the following proposition:
Proposition 4.1. Let L1 and L2 be distinct (n − 2)-dimensional subspaces of P. There exist
ρ > 0 and a free profinitely-dense subgroup H such that if L ⊆ (L2 )ρ and gL ⊆ (L1 )ρ for some
g ∈ SL(n, Z) and some (n − 2)-dimensional subspace L then hg, Hi = SL(n, Z).
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of Proposition 4.1. The basic idea is to
find ρ > 0 for which Lemma 2.10 allows us to inductively construct an ascending sequence
(Sk , AK , Rk )k≥0 of profintely-dense Schottky system such that hSk , gk i = SL(n, Z) for every
k ≥ 1 where (gk )k≥1 is an enumeration of the g’s such that g(L2 )ρ ∩ (L1 )ρ 6= ∅.
7

Before starting with the formal proof let us briefly explain the main idea of the proof. Let
(S0 , A0 , R0 ) be a profintly-dense Schottky system such that L1 ∩ A0 = ∅ and L2 \ R0 6= ∅.
Assume for simplicity that g1 L2 = L1 . Our goal is to show that we can find a finite Schottky
system (S1 , A1 , R1 ) which contains (S0 , A0 , R0 ) such that hS1 , g1 i = SL(n, Z). Choose a point
w ∈ L2 \ R0 . We would like to apply Lemma 2.10 with respect to w and g1 w and suitable
hyperplanes w ∈ Lw and gw1 ∈ Lg1 w . The problem is that it is possible that g1 w ∈ R0 , so the
assumptions of Lemma 2.10 do not hold no matter what Lw and Lg1 w are. Therefore we first
construct a Schottky system (S∗ , A∗ , R∗ ) such that w 6∈ R∗ , S∗ := S ∪ {u} and g1 w ∈ Lu .
Note that there is a lot of freedom in choosing the fixed hyperplane Lu and the attracting
point pu of u. The existense of (S∗ , A∗ , R∗ ) is guaranteed by some technical assumptions on
(S0 , A0 , R0 ); One of these assumptions is the requirement that A0 ∩ L1 = ∅ which guarantees
that g1 w 6∈ A0 . Denote h := g1−1 ug1 so h(w) = w. Note that if (S1 , A1 , R1 ) is a finite Schottky
system such that hS1 , hi = SL(n, Z) then also hS1 , g1 i = SL(n, Z). The advantage now is that
we can choose a rational point w1 which is very close to w such that hw1 6= w1 and hw1 is also
very close to w. In particular w1 , hw1 6∈ R∗ . Once more we use some technical assumptions
on (S∗ , A∗ , R∗ ) to show that there exist rational hyperplanes w1 ∈ Lw1 and hw1 ∈ Lgw1 and
positive numbers ε and δ for which the assumptions of Lemma 2.10 hold. Thus, there exists
a finite Schottky system (S1 , A1 , R1 ) such that hS1 , hi = SL(n, Z).
We now start the formal proof. Let L0 ,L1 and L2 be fixed distinct rational (n − 2)dimensional subspaces of P and let p0 ∈ L0 \ L1 ∪ L2 be a fixed point. We will use p0 and L0
in the last part of the proof to construct the profinitely-dense Schottky system (S0 , A0 , R0 ).
Claim 4.2. There exists ρ > 0 with the following properties:
1. For every x ∈ [L1 ]ρ there exists an (n − 2)-dimensional subspace Lx containing x such
that Lx ∩ [p0 ]ρ = ∅ and Lx \ [L0 ∪ L1 ∪ L2 ]ρ 6= ∅.
2. For every (n − 2)-dimensional subspace L ⊆ [L2 ]ρ there exist x ∈ L \ [L0 ∪ L1 ]ρ and an
(n − 2)-dimensional subspace Lx containing x such that Lx is not contained in [L2 ]ρ and
Lx ∩ [p0 ]ρ = ∅.
Proof of Claim 4.2: Fix ρ0 > 0 such that:
• L0 and L1 are not contained in [L2 ]ρ0 ;
• p0 6∈ [L1 ]ρ0 .
For every x ∈ [L1 ]ρ0 there exist an (n − 2)-dimensional subspace Lx containing x and ρx > 0
such that Lx ∩ [p0 ]ρx = ∅ and Lx \ [L0 ∪ L1 ∪ L2 ]ρx 6= ∅. Since [p0 ]ρx and [L0 ]ρx are closed sets, if
y is close enough to x and the hyperplane Ly containing y is chosen to be close enough to Lx
8

then Ly ∩ [p0 ]ρx = ∅ and Ly \ [L0 ∪ L1 ∪ L2 ]ρx 6= ∅. Thus, the compactness of [L1 ]ρ0 implies that
there exists a uniform ρ1 > 0 such that for every x ∈ [L1 ]ρ0 there exists an (n − 2)-dimensional
subspace Lx containing x such that Lx ∩ [p0 ]ρ1 = ∅ and Lx \ [L0 ∪ L1 ∪ L2 ]ρ1 6= ∅.
The set of (n − 2)-dimensional subspaces of P which are contained in [L2 ]ρ0 is compact.
Thus, a similar argument to the one above implies that there exist ρ2 > 0 such that for every
(n−2)-dimensional subspace L ⊆ [L2 ]ρ0 there exist x ∈ L\[L0 ∪L1 ]ρ2 and an (n−2)-dimensional
subspace Lx containing x such that Lx is not contained in [L2 ]ρ2 and Lx ∩ [p0 ]ρ2 = ∅. Then
ρ := min(ρ0 , ρ1 , ρ2 ) satisfies the requirements. 
We fix ρ > 0 which satisfies the requirements of Claim 4.2.
Claim 4.3. Assume that A ⊆ R are closed sets such that:
1. [L0 ∪ L1 ]ρ ⊆ R and [p0 ]ρ ⊆ A;
2. For every x ∈ [L1 ]ρ there exists an (n − 2)-dimensional subspace Lx containing x such
that Lx ∩ A = ∅ and Lx \ (R ∪ [L2 ]ρ ) 6= ∅;
3. For every (n − 2)-dimensional subspace L ⊆ [L2 ]ρ there exist x ∈ L \ R and an (n − 2)dimensional subspace Lx containing x such that Lx is not contained in [L2 ]ρ and Lx ∩A =
∅.
Then for every (n − 2)-dimensional subspace L which is disjoint from A, not contained in
[L2 ]ρ and contains a point p ∈ L \ R there exists δ > 0 such that:
4. Items 2 and 3 hold for A∗ := A ∪ [p]δ and R∗ := R ∪ [L]δ instead of A and R.
5. [p]δ ∩ R = ∅ and [L]δ ∩ A = ∅.
Proof of Claim 4.3: For every x ∈ [L1 ]ρ there exists an (n − 2)-dimensional subspace
Lx containing x such that item 2 holds. By a small deformation of Lx we can assume that
p 6∈ Lx and Lx 6= L (so Lx in not contained in L ∪ R). Thus, there exists δx > 0 such that
Lx ∩ (A ∪ [p]δx ) = ∅ and Lx \ (R ∪ [L2 ]ρ ∪ [L]δx ) 6= ∅. If y is close enough to x and the
hyperplane Ly containing y is chosen to be close enough to Lx then Ly ∩ (A ∪ [p]δx ) = ∅ and
Ly \ (R ∪ [L2 ]ρ ∪ [L]δx ) 6= ∅. Thus, the compactness of [L1 ]ρ implies that there exists a uniform
δ1 > 0 such that for every x ∈ [L1 ]ρ there exists an (n−2)-dimensional subspace Lx containing
x such that Lx ∩ (A ∪ [p]δ1 ) = ∅ and Lx \ (R ∪ [L2 ]ρ ∪ [L]δ1 ) 6= ∅
Let L3 be an (n − 2)-dimensional subspaces of P which is contained in [L2 ]ρ so L3 6= L.
Item 3 states that there exists x ∈ L3 \ R and an (n − 2)-dimensional subspace Lx containing
x such that Lx is not contained in [L2 ]ρ and Lx ∩ A =
6 ∅. The set R is closed so by a small
deformation we can assume that x 6∈ L and p 6∈ Lx . Hence, there exists δL3 > 0 such that
x 6∈ [L]δL3 and Lx ∩ [p]δL3 = ∅. If L4 is very close to L3 then we can pick y ∈ L4 \ R which
9

is very close to x and an (n − 2)-dimensional subspace Ly containing y which is close to Lx
such that Ly is not contained in [L2 ]ρ , Ly ∩ A = ∅, y 6∈ [L]δL3 and Ly ∩ [p]δL3 = ∅. The set
of (n − 2)-dimensional subspaces of P which are contained in [L2 ]ρ is compact and thus there
exists a uniform δ2 > 0 such that for every (n − 2)-dimensional subspace L ⊆ [L2 ]ρ there exist
x ∈ L \ R ∪ [L0 ]δ2 and an (n − 2)-dimensional subspace Lx containing x such that Lx is not
contained in [L2 ]ρ and Lx ∩ (A ∪ [p]δ2 ) = ∅. Finally, if 0 < δ3 < min{dist(A, L), dist(R, p)}
then δ := min(δ1 , δ2 , δ3 ) satisfies the requirements. 
Claim 4.4. Assume that ρ > 0, A and R satisfies the assumptions of Claim 4.3 and (S, A, R)
is a profinitely-dense Schottky system. Let g ∈ SL(n, Z) be a non-identity element for which
there exists an (n − 2) dimensional subspace L such that L ⊆ [L2 ]ρ and gL ⊆ [L1 ]ρ . Then
there exists (S+ , A+ , R+ ) which still satisfies the assumptions of Claim 4.3 (with respect to
the same ρ) and hS+ , gi = SL(n, Z).
Proof of Claim 4.4: Item 3 of Claim 4.3 implies that there exists a point w ∈ L\A∪R and
an (n − 2)-dimensional subspace Lw containing w which is not contained in [L2 ]ρ such that
Lw ∩ A = ∅. Denote w1 := gw and note that w 6= w1 since w 6∈ [L1 ]ρ while w1 ∈ [L1 ]ρ . Item 2
of Claim 4.3 implies that there exists an (n − 2)-dimensional subspace Lw1 containing w1 and
a point p1 ∈ Lw1 such that Lw1 ∩ A = ∅ and p1 ∈ Lw1 \ (R ∪ [L2 ]ρ ). By a small deformations
we can assume that w, w1 , p1 , Lw and Lw1 are rational and that w 6∈ Lw1 and p1 6∈ Lw . Set
r := min{dist(w, Lw1 ), dist(p1 , Lw ))}. Claim 4.3 implies that there exists 0 < δ1 < r such that
items 4 and 5 of Claim 4.3 hold for A∗ := A ∪ [p1 ]δ1 and R∗ := R ∪ [Lw1 ]δ1 instead of A and R.
Lemma 2.6 implies that there exists u ∈ U with pu = p1 and Lu = Lw1 such that (S∗ , A∗ , R∗ )
is Schottky system where S∗ := S ∪ {u}. Note that w 6∈ A∗ ∪ R∗ and that Lw ∩ A∗ = ∅.
Denote h := g −1 ug. Since h(w) = w and h is not the identity, there exists a point p2
such that p2 and p3 := hp3 are distinct and close as we wish to w. Moreover, we can assume
that p2 , p3 6∈ R∗ ∪ A∗ are rational points and that there exist rational (n − 2)-dimensional
subspaces Lp2 and Lp3 containing p2 and p3 such that Lp2 ∩ A = ∅ and Lp3 ∩ A = ∅ (just
choose L2 and L3 to be very close to Lw ). Finally by slightly deforming Lp2 and Lp3 we can
guarantee that Lp3 6= hLp2 , p2 6∈ Lp3 and p3 6∈ Lp2 . Claim 4.3 applied to A∗ and R∗ implies
that there exists 0 < δ2 < min(dist(p3 , L2 ), dist(p2 , L3 )) for which items 4 and 5 hold. An
additional use of Claim 4.3 with respect to A∗ ∪ [p2 ]δ2 and R∗ ∪ [L2 ]δ2 implies that there exists
a positive number δ3 such that items 4 and 5 hold with respect to A+ := A∗ ∪ [p2 ]δ2 ∪ [p3 ]δ3
and R+ := R∗ ∪ [L2 ]δ2 ∪ [L3 ]δ3 . Lemma 2.10 implies that there exists S∗ ⊆ S+ such that
(S+ , A+ , R+ ) is a Schottky system and hS+ , gi = SL(n, Z). 
We are ready to complete the proof of Proposition 4.1. Let (gi )i≥1 be an enumeration
of the elements g of SL(n, Z) for which there exists an (n − 2) dimensional subspace L such
10

that L ⊆ [L2 ]ρ and gL ⊆ [L1 ]ρ . Proposition 2.14 and Claim 4.2 imply that there exists a
profinitely-dense Schottky system (S0 , A0 , R0 ) such that A0 := [p0 ]ρ and R0 := [L0 ∪ L1 ]ρ .
Claim 4.2 allows us to recursively construct an ascending sequence (Si , Ai , Ri )i≥0 of profinitelydense Schottky systems such that hSi , gi i = SL(n, Z) for every i ≥ 1. The set ∪k≥0 Sk freely
generates a free profinitely-dense subgroup H with the required property.

5

Proof of Theorems 1.3 and 1.4

It is enough to show that there exists elements g, k ∈ SL(n, Z) and an infinite-index profinitelydense subgroup H such that kHk −1 ∩ H 6= {id}, hH, ki = SL(n, Z) and gM g −1 ∩ M = {id}
for every H ≤ M  SL(n, Z). Indeed, if M is any maximal subgroup which contains H then
SL(n, Z) acts primitively on SL(n, Z)/M but the action is not 2-transitive since the stabiliser
of the pair (M, kM ) is not trivial while the stabiliser of the pair (M, gM ) is trivial.
Definition 5.1. We say that the quadruple (S, A, N , R) is a (profinitely-dense) Schottky
system if the triple (S, A, R) is a (profinitely-dense) Schottky system and N is an open set
which contains A.
Before starting with the formal proof let us explain the main idea of the proof. Choose
g ∈ SL(n, Z) which fixes some point p ∈ P. Let (S0 , A0 , N0 , R0 ) be a profintiely dense
Schottky system such that gN0 ∩ N0 = ∅. Given a non-identity h ∈ SL(n, Z) we would like
to construct a Schottky system (S1 , A1 , N1 , R1 ) which contains (S0 , A0 , N0 , R0 ) such that
either hS0 , hi = SL(n, Z) or hS0 , g −1 hgi = SL(n, Z). In particular, every maximal subgroup
of SL(n, Z) which contains S1 does not contain {h, g −1 hg}. Since gN0 ∩ N0 = ∅, either
h(p) 6∈ N0 or g −1 hg(p) 6∈ N0 . Assume for example that the first case hold. Then we can use
the same technique as in the proof of Theorem 1.2 to construct (S1 , A1 , N1 , R1 ) such that
hS0 , hi = SL(n, Z). In particular, we need to add an element u ∈ U to S0 such that h(p) ∈ Lu
and Lu ∩ A0 = ∅. This is the place where we need the open set N0 ; A0 might contain some
closed ball B for which there exists a sequence of points (zn )n≥1 such that z := limn→∞ zn ∈ B
and zn 6∈ A0 for every n ≥ 1. If (Ln )n≥1 is any sequence of hyperplanes such that zn ∈ Ln and
Ln ∩ B = ∅ for every n ≥ 1 then limn→∞ Ln is the tangent hyperplane L to B at the point z.
The problem is that L might intersect the interior of A0 . Therefore, if h(p) is very close to B
it might happen that L ∩ A0 6= ∅ for every hyperplane L which contains h(p). In particular,
it is not possible to find an element u with the required properties. In order to avoid this
problem we use the open set N0 to guarantee that h(p) is not too close to A0 . Note that we
don’t need the open sets in the proof of Theorem 1.2 because we have a better control on the
projective actions of the elements we deal with (they send some line in a given open set to
some other given open set).
11

Claim 5.2. Let p ∈ P be fixed by a non-identity element g ∈ SL(n, Z). Let k ∈ SL(n, Z) be
an element such that id, k, k 2 , g, gk, gk 2 are pairwise distinct elements. Then there exists a
profinitely-dense Schottky system (S, A, N , R) which satisfies:
1. p 6∈ N ∪ R ∪ gN ∪ gR and N ∩ gN = ∅;
2. If x 6∈ N then there exists x ∈ Lx ∈ Ln−2 and px ∈ Lx such that px 6∈ N ∪ R, gpx 6∈ N
and Lx ∩ A = ∅;
3. khSik −1 ∩ hSi =
6 {id} and hS, ki = SL(n, Z).
Proof: Choose rational points p1 , p2 and p3 and rational (n − 2)-dimensional subspaces L1 ,
L2 and L3 such that:
• For every 1 ≤ i 6= j ≤ 3, pi ∈ Li and pi 6∈ Lj ;
• p2 = kp1 , p3 := k 2 p1 , L2 = kL1 , L3 6= kL1 and p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 , p5 , p6 are pairwise distinct
where p4 := gp1 , p5 := gp2 and p6 := gp3 ;
• p 6∈ ∪1≤i≤3 Li (so p 6∈ ∪1≤i≤3 Li ∪1≤i≤3 gLi since gp = p).
A compactness argument implies that there exist δ > 0 such that:
a) For every 1 ≤ i 6= j ≤ 3, [pi ]δ ∩ [Lj ]δ = ∅;
b) N ∩ gN = ∅ where N := ∪1≤i≤3 (pi )δ ;
c) p 6∈ N ∪ R ∪ gN ∪ gR where R := ∪1≤i≤3 [Li ]δ ;
d) For every x ∈ P there exists x ∈ Lx ∈ Ln−2 and px ∈ Lx such that px 6∈ N ∪ R and
gpx 6∈ N .
An additional compactness argument implies that there exists δ > ε > 0 such that:
e) For every x 6∈ N there exists x ∈ Lx ∈ Ln−2 and px ∈ Lx such that px 6∈ N ∪R, gpx 6∈ N
and Lx ∩ A = ∅ where A := ∪1≤i≤3 [pi ]ε .
Items (a), (b), (c), (e) and Corollary 2.15 imply that the required (S, A, N , R) exists. 
Claim 5.3. Let p ∈ P be fixed by a non-identity element g ∈ SL(n, Z). Assume that
(S, A, N , R) is a profinitely-dense Schottky system which satisfies:
1. p 6∈ N ∪ R ∪ gN ∪ gR and N ∩ gN = ∅;
12

2. If x 6∈ N then there exists x ∈ Lx ∈ Ln−2 and px ∈ Lx such that px 6∈ N ∪ R, gpx 6∈ N
and Lx ∩ A = ∅;
Then for every non-identity h ∈ SL(n, Z), (S, A, N , R) is contained in a Schottky system
(S+ , A+ , N+ , R+ ) which still satisfies assumptions 1 and 2 and such that hS+ , hi = SL(n, Z)
or hS+ , g −1 hgi = SL(n, Z).
Proof: By replacing h with g −1 hg if necessary we can assume that y := hp 6∈ N . Under
this assumption we will show that there exists a Schottky system (S+ , A+ , N+ , R+ ) which
satisfies assumption 1 and 2 and hS+ , hi = SL(n, Z). Assumption 2 implies that there exist
y ∈ Ly ∈ Ln−2 and py ∈ Ly such that py 6∈ N ∪ R, gpy 6∈ N and Ly ∩ A = ∅. By making
small deformations we may assume that: y and Ly are rational, gpy 6= py and p 6∈ Ly . A
compactness argument implies that there exists δ > 0 such that:
a) [py ]δ ∩ R = ∅ and [Ly ]δ ∩ A = ∅;
b) N0 ∩ gN0 = ∅ where N0 := N ∪ (py )δ ;
c) p 6∈ N0 ∪ R0 ∪ gN0 ∪ gR0 where R0 := R0 ∪ [Ly ]δ ;
d) For every x 6∈ N there exists x ∈ Lx ∈ Ln−2 and px ∈ Lx such that px 6∈ N0 ∪ R0 ,
gpx 6∈ N0 and Lx ∩ A = ∅.
An additional compactness argument implies that there exists δ > ε > 0 such that:
e) If x 6∈ N0 then there exists x ∈ Lx ∈ Ln−2 and px ∈ Lx such that px 6∈ N0 ∪R0 , gpx 6∈ N0
and Lx ∩ A0 = ∅ where A0 := A ∪ [py ]ε .
Corollary 2.6 and items (a), (b), (c) and (e) implies that there exists u ∈ U such that
pu = py , Lu = Ly and (S0 , A0 , N0 , R0 ) is a Schottky system which still satisfies Assumptions
1 and 2 where S0 = S ∪ {u}. Note that h−1 uhp = p and that if (S+ , A+ , N+ , R+ ) contains
(S0 , A0 , N0 , R0 ) and hS+ , h−1 uhi = SL(n, Z) then also hS+ , hi = SL(n, Z).
Since h−1 uh has infinite order there exists some m ≥ 1 such that id, f, g, gf are pairwise
distinct elements where f := h−1 um h. Thus, every open neighbourhood of p contains a
rational point p1 such that p1 , p2 := f p1 , p3 := gp1 and p4 := gf p1 are 4 distinct points
which are contained in this neighbourhood. If this neighbourhood does not intersect N0 then
assumption 2 implies that for every 1 ≤ i ≤ 2 there exists an (n − 2)-subspace pi ∈ Li ∈ Ln−2
such that Li ∩ A0 = ∅. By using small deformations we can assume that the Li ’s and pi ’s are
rational, L2 6= f L1 , p 6∈ Li and pj 6∈ Li for every 1 ≤ i 6= j ≤ 4.
A compactness arguments implies that there exists δ > 0 such that:
a) For every 1 ≤ i 6= j ≤ 2, [pi ]δ ∩ (R0 ∪ [Lj ]δ ) = ∅ and [Li ]δ ∩ A0 = ∅;
13

b) N+ ∩ gN+ = ∅ where N+ := N0 ∪ (p1 )δ ∪ (p2 )δ ;
c) p 6∈ N+ ∪ R+ ∪ gN+ ∪ gR+ where R+ := R0 ∪ [L1 ]δ ∪ [L2 ]δ ;
d) If x 6∈ N0 then there exists x ∈ Lx ∈ Ln−2 and px ∈ Lx such that px 6∈ N+ ∪ R+ ,
gpx 6∈ N+ and Lx ∩ A0 = ∅.
An additional compactness argument implies that there exists δ > ε > 0 such that:
e) If x 6∈ N+ then there exists x ∈ Lx ∈ Ln−2 and px ∈ Lx such that px 6∈ N+ ∪ R0 ,
gpx 6∈ N+ and Lx ∩ A+ = ∅ where A+ := A ∪ [p1 ]ε ∪ [p2 ]ε .
Corollary 2.10 and items (a), (b), (c) and (e) imply that there exists S+ ⊇ S such that
(S+ , A+ , N+ , R+ ) is a Schottky system which satsfies items 1 and 2 and hS+ , f i = SL(n, Z).

We are now ready to complete the proof of Theorems 1.3 and 1.4. Let (hi )i≥1 be an
enumeration of the non-identity elements of SL(n, Z). Let p ∈ P be fixed by a non-identity
element g ∈ SL(n, Z). Let k ∈ SL(n, Z) be an element such that id, k, k 2 , g, gk, gk 2 are pairwise
distinct elements. Claims 5.2 and 5.3 allow us the recursively construct ascending sequence
(Si , Ai , Ni , Ri )i≥0 of profintely-dense Schottky systems such that khS0 ik −1 ∩ hS0 i =
6 {id} and
hS0 , ki = SL(n, Z) and for every i ≥ 1 either hhi , Si i = SL(n, Z) or hg −1 hi g, Si i = SL(n, Z).
The subgroup H := hSi | i ≥ 0i has the required properties stated in the first paragraph of
this section.

6

The SL(n, Q) case

Margulis’ and Soifer’s paper is concerned only with finitely generated group. In [GG08] the
first author and Glasner studied infinite index maximal subgroups in general linear groups
and proved a criterion for their existence. The goal of this section is to show that Theorems
1.3, 1.4 and 1.2 hold also for SL(n, Q). Since the proofs are very similar to the ones given for
SL(n, Z), we only sketch the required modifications needed for proving the SL(n, Q) version
of Theorem 1.3.
The first modification concerns the elements in the generating set S. It is not enough
anymore to deal only with unipotent elements. We say that an element g ∈ SL(n, Q) is
strongly-semisimple if it has a unique eigenvalue λ+
g of maximal absolute value and a unique
+
eigenvalue λ−
g of minimal absolute value. Let pg be the projective point corresponding to
+
+
the λ+
g -eigenspace and Lg ∈ Ln−1 the projective hyperplane corresponding to Im(Id − λg ).
+
+
−
Denote p−
g := pg −1 and Lg := Lg −1 . To simplify the notation, if u ∈ U (in particular u is not
−
+
−
strongly-semisimple) we denote p+
u = pu := pu and Lu = Lu := Lu .
14

Definition 6.1. Assume that S is a non-empty subset of SL(n, Q) consisting of elements
which are either strongly-semisimple or unipotent of rank 1. Let A ⊆ R be closed subsets of
P. We call the triple (S, A, R) a Schottky system if for every g ∈ S there exist two positive
numbers δg ≥ εg such that the following properties hold:
−
+
−
1. g k (x) ∈ (p+
g , pg )εg for every x ∈ P \ (Lg ∪ Lg )δg and every k 6= 0;
+
−
−
2. If g 6= h ∈ S then (p+
g , pg )εg ∩ (Lh ∪ Lh )δh = ∅;
−
3. ∪g∈S (p+
g , pg )εg ⊆ A;
−
4. ∪g∈S (L+
h , Lh )δv ⊆ R.

The basic idea in the proof of Theorem 1.2 is to pick two small enough disjoint open subset
U, V ⊆ P and to construct enumeration (gk )k≥1 of all the elements g ∈ SL(n, Z) such that
gU ∩ V = ∅. (In the proof we passed to the dual space but it is merely a convenience.) The
second step is to construct a unipotent Schottky system (S0 , A0 , R0 ) such that the following
items hold for k = 0:
(1) hSk i is profintiely dense in SL(n, Z);
(2) hSk i ∩ {gi | i ≥ 1} = ∅;
(3) There exists Sk+1 ⊇ Sk , Ak+1 ⊇ Ak and Rk+1 ⊇ Rk such that hSk+1 , gk+1 i = SL(n, Z)
and the first two items still hold for (Sk+1 , Ak+1 , Rk+1 ).
The main part of the proof of Theorem 1.2 is to inductively construct an ascending sequence
(Sk , Ak , Rk )k≥0 such that for every k ≥ 0 items (1)–(3) hold. Any infinite index maximal
subgroup ∆ of SL(n, Z) which contains Λ := h∪k≥1 Sk i has empty intersection with {gk | k ≥
1}. The existence of ∆ follows from Zorn’s lemma.
The fact that the gk ’s belong to SL(n, Z) is not used in the construction, and it is possible
to take enumeration (gk )k≥1 of all the elements g ∈ SL(n, Q) such that gU ∩ V = ∅ and
to inductively construct an ascending sequence (Sk , Ak , Rk )k≥0 such that for every k ≥ 0
items (1)–(3) hold where the equality hSk+1 , gk+1 i = SL(n, Z) in item (3) is replaced with
hSk+1 , gk+1 i ⊇ SL(n, Z). However, it is not possible to directly apply Zorn’s lemma since
SL(n, Q) is not finitely generated and the union of ascending sequence of proper subgroups of
SL(n, Q) might be equal to SL(n, Q). Thus, Λ might not be contained in a maximal subgroup.
An additional problem is that even if Λ is contained in a maximal subgroup then this maximal
subgroup might contain SL(n, Z) and have a non-empty intersection with {gk | k ≥ 1}.
In order to overcome these problems we take enumeration (Ck )k≥1 of the left cosets of
SL(Z[1/p]) in SL(n, Q) where p is some odd prime. One start with a unipotent Schottky
system (S0 , A0 , R0 ) in SL(Z[1/p]) such that the following items hold for k = 0:
15

(1∗ ) hSk ∩ SL(n, Z)i is profintiely dense in SL(n, Z) and Sk \ SL(n, Z) 6= ∅;
(2∗ ) hSk i ∩ {gi | i ≥ 1} = ∅;
(3∗ ) There exists Sk+1 ⊇ Sk , Ak+1 ⊇ Ak and Rk+1 ⊇ Rk such that:
(a) The first two items still hold for (Sk+1 , Ak+1 , Rk+1 );
(b) hSk+1 , gk+1 i ⊇ SL(n, Z);
(c) If k 6= 0, hSk+1 i ∩ Ck 6= ∅.
It is possible to inductively construct an ascending sequence (Sk , Ak , Rk ) such that for
every k items (1∗ )–(3∗ ) hold. The new requirement, Part (c) of item (3∗ ), brings almost no
difficulty since SL(n, Z[1/p]) is dense in SL(n, R) so in every coset it is easy to find an element
which still plays ping-pong with the elements of Sk . Note that this is the place where we
need to deal with strongly semi-simple elements since an element which is very close to a
strongly semi-simple element is strongly semi-simple while an element which is very close to
a unipotent element might not be unipotent. Denote Λ := hSk i. An ascending sequence of
proper subgroups which contain Λ cannot be equal to SL(n, Q). Indeed, if this happens then
one of the subgroups in the union contains the finitely generated group SL(n, Z[1/p]) and
has non-trivial intersections with all the cosets of SL(n, Z[1/p]) so it is equal to SL(n, Q), a
contradiction. Zorn’s lemma implies that Λ is contained in some maximal subgroup ∆. We
need to show that ∆ ∩ {gk | k ≥ 1} = ∅. Assume otherwise, then item (3∗ ) implies that ∆
contains SL(n, Z). Since SL(n, Z) is a maximal subgroup of SL(n, Z[1/p]), item (1∗ ) implies
that ∆ contains SL(n, Z[1/p]). But ∆ non-trivially intersects all the cosets of SL(n, Z[1/p]),
so ∆ = SL(n, Q), a contradiction.

7

Questions

Question 7.1. Does SL(n, Z) have a finitely generated infinite-index maximal subgroup? This
question appears in Margulis and Soifer’s paper and it is still open. Note that general finitely
generated linear groups which are not virtually-solvable might but don’t have to contain such
subgroups. For example, non-commutative free groups do not have finitely generated infinite
index maximal subgroups. On the other hand, as pointed out by Yair Glasner, the finitely
generated linear group SL(n, Z[1/p]), where p is a prime integer, contains the finitely generated
subgroup SL(n, Z) as a maximal subgroup.
Question 7.2. Margulis and Soifer proved that every finitely generated linear group which is
not virtually-solvable contains uncountably many maximal subgroups. The proof of Theorem
1.1 uses Venkatramana’s theorem which in turn is based on the congruence subgroup property.
16

Thus, our techniques do not give an answer to the following question: Does every finitely
generated linear group which is not virtually-solvable contains 2ℵ0 maximal subgroups?
Question 7.3. Does SL(n, Z) contain two infinite-index non-isomorphic maximal subgroups?
When n ≥ 4 Margulis and Soifer proved that SL(n, Z) contains an infinite-index maximal
subgroup which has a subgroup isomorphic to Z2 . It is also not hard to construct infinite-index
maximal subgroups of SL(n, Z) which have non-trivial torsion elements for n ≥ 3. Thus, a
positive answer to any one of the following three questions would provide an example of two
infinite-index non-isomorphic maximal subgroups:
Question 7.4. Does SL(n, Z) contain a torsion-free infinite-index maximal subgroup?
Question 7.5. Does SL(n, Z) contain an infinite-index maximal subgroup which does not have
a subgroup isomorphic to Z2 ?
Question 7.6. Does SL(n, Z) contains a maximal subgroup which is a free group?
Note that it is possible that all the infinite-index maximal subgroups of a given finitely
generated linear group are isomorphic. For example, this is the case for a non-commutative
free group.
Question 7.7. An element g ∈ SL(3, Z) is called complex if for every m ≥ 1 the matrix
g m has a non-real eigenvalue. Is it possible that an infinite-index Zariski-dense subgroup
of SL(3, Z) contain a complex element? The thin subgroups that arise from standard pingpong arguments on projective space do not contain complex elements. More surprisingly, the
thin surface subgroups constructed in the work of Long–Reid–Thistlethwaite [LRT11] do not
contain complex elements. A positive answer to the above question would provide the first
example (to the best of our knowledge) of a thin group whose limit set is P (In fact this group
would act minimally on pairs of distinct elements of projective space). A negative answers
would provide a very strong restriction on the structure of thin groups.
Question 7.8. Very little is known about permutation actions of SL(n, Z). In light of theorem
1.4 it is natural to ask if SL(n, Z) have 2-transitive actions? More generally, does SL(n, Z)
have highly transitive actions? In an upcoming joint paper with Glasner we prove that all
convergence groups (and in particular, linear groups of real-rank 1) have highly transitive
permutation actions. Another question of this nature is: Does SL(n, Z) have non-equivalent
primitive permutation actions?
Question 7.9. Call a subset S ⊆ SL(n, Z) fat if [SL(n, Z) : hSi] = ∞ but every Zariski-dense
subgroup of SL(n, Z) which contains S is of finite index. Venkataraman’s theorem (Theorem
2.8 above) implies that if u, v are unipotent elements, u has rank 1 and hu, vi is isomorphic to
Z2 then {v, u} is a fat subset. Question 7.7 asks if {g} is a fat subset whenever g is a complex
element. What are the fat subsets of SL(n, Z)?
17

References
[AGS14] M. Aka, T. Gelander and G.A. Soifer.Homogeneous number of free generators. J.
Group Theory 17 (2014), no. 4, 525539.
[CG00] J.-P. Conze and Y. Guivarc’h, Limit sets of groups of linear transformations. Ergodic
theory and harmonic analysis (Mumbai, 1999). Sankhya Ser. A 62 (2000), no. 3, 367–385.
[GG08] T. Gelander and Y. Glasner, Countable primitive groups. Geom. Funct. Anal. 17
(2008), no. 5, 1479–1523.
[LRT11] D.D. Long, A. Reid and M. Thistlethwaite, Zariski dense surface subgroups in
SL(3,Z). Geom. Topol. 15 (2011), no. 1, 1–9.
[Lu99] A. Lubotzky, One for almost all: generation of SL(n,p) by subsets of SL(n,Z). Algebra,
K-theory, groups, and education (New York, 1997), 125–128, Contemp. Math., 243, Amer.
Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1999.
[MS81] G. Margulis and G. A. Soifer, Maximal subgroups of infinite index in finitely generated
linear groups. J. Algebra 69 (1981), no. 1, 1-23.
[No87] M.V. Nori, On subgroups of GLn (Fp ). Invent. Math. 88 (1987), no. 2, 257–275.
[We96] T. Weigel, On the profinite completion of arithmetic groups of split type. Lois
d’algébres et variétés algébriques (Colmar, 1991), 79–101, Travaux en Cours, 50, Hermann, Paris, (1996).
[We84] B. Weisfeiler, Strong approximation for Zariski-dense subgroups of semisimple algebraic groups. Ann. of Math. (2) 120 (1984), no. 2, 271–315.
[Ve87] T.N. Venkataramana, Zariski dense subgroups of arithmetic groups. J. Algebra 108
(1987), no. 2, 325–339.

18

