INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

arXiv:1407.2872v3 [math.GR] 22 Jan 2016

YAIR GLASNER

With an appendix by Tsachik Gelander and Yair Glasner
Abstract. Let Γ < GLn (F ) be a countable non-amenable linear group with a
simple, center free Zariski closure. Let Sub(Γ) denote the space of all subgroups
of Γ with the, compact, metric, Chabauty topology. An invariant random
subgroup (IRS) of Γ is a conjugation invariant Borel probability measure on
Sub(Γ). An IRS is called nontrivial if it does not have an atom in the trivial
group, i.e. if it is nontrivial almost surely. We denote by IRS0 (Γ) the collection
of all nontrivial IRS on Γ.
Theorem 0.1. With the above notation, there exists a free subgroup F < Γ
and a non-discrete group topology on Γ such that for every µ ∈ IRS0 (Γ) the
following properties hold:
• µ-almost every subgroup of Γ is open.
• F · ∆ = Γ for µ-almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ).
• F ∩ ∆ is infinitely generated, for every open subgroup. In particular this
holds for µ-almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ).
• The map
Φ : (Sub(Γ), µ)

→

(Sub(F ), Φ∗ µ)

∆

7→

∆∩F

is an F -invariant isomorphism of probability spaces.
A more technical version of this theorem is valid for general countable
linear groups. We say that an action of Γ on a probability space, by measure
preserving transformations, is almost surely non free (ASNF) if almost all
point stabilizers are non-trivial.
Corollary 0.2. Let Γ be as in the Theorem above. Then the product of finitely
many ASNF Γ-spaces, with the diagonal Γ action, is ASNF.
Corollary 0.3. Let Γ < GLn (F ) be a countable linear group, A  Γ the
maximal normal amenable subgroup of Γ - its amenable radical. If µ ∈ IRS(Γ)
is supported on amenable subgroups of Γ then in fact it is supported on Sub(A).
In particular if A(Γ) = hei then ∆ = hei, µ almost surely.

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 28D15; Secondary 34A20, 20E05, 20E25,
20E42.
Key words and phrases. IRS, linear groups, group topology, non-free action, amenable radical.
1

2

YAIR GLASNER

Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Invariant random subgroups
1.2. Examples
1.3. Induction, restriction and intersection
1.4. The main theorems
1.5. Non-free actions on probability spaces
2. Essential subgroups and recurrence
2.1. Essential and locally essential subgroups
2.2. The stabilizer topology on a free group
3. Preliminary proofs
3.1. Covering of IRS
3.2. Projective dynamics
4. Proof of the main theorem
4.1. Reduction to the simple case
4.2. A good projective representation
4.3. Definition of the stabilizer topology and the main technical theorem
4.4. A proof that the main theorem follows from the existence of a good
cover
5. The construction of a good cover
5.1. A cover by infinite subgroups
5.2. A geometric construction of an infinite cover
5.3. Finitely generated groups in positive characteristic
5.4. A nearly Zariski dense essential cover
5.5. Abundance of very proximal elements
5.6. Putting the very proximal elements {aΣ } in general position
5.7. Poincaré recurrence estimates for multiple measures
5.8. An independent set
5.9. Conclusion
Appendix A. A relative version of Borel density theorem - By Tsachik
Gelander and Yair Glasner
References

2
2
4
5
5
7
8
8
10
11
11
12
17
17
19
20
21
22
23
23
25
28
29
30
32
33
34
37
39

1. Introduction
Before discussing our main theorem and some corollaries, we need to develop the
language of invariant random subgroups.
1.1. Invariant random subgroups. Let Γ be a discrete countable group and
Sub(Γ) the collection of all subgroups of Γ endowed with the compact Chabauty
topology. A basis for this topology is given by sets of the form
UM (C) = {D ∈ Sub(Γ) | D ∩ M = C ∩ M } .
Where C ∈ Sub(Γ) and M ⊂ Γ is a finite subset. In other words, Sub(Γ) ⊂ 2Γ
inherits its topology from the Tychonoff topology on 2Γ . The last definition shows
that Sub(Γ) is a compact metrizable space. Every subgroup Σ ∈ Sub(Γ) gives rise

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

3

to two closed subsets, the collection of its subgroups and supergroups
Sub(Σ)

= {∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) | ∆ < Σ} ⊂ Sub(Γ)

Env(Σ)

= {∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) | Σ < ∆} ⊂ Sub(Γ).

The latter is referred to as the envelope of Σ, it is open whenever Σ is finitely
generated. The collection of open sets
[
{Env(Σ) | Σ ∈ Sub(Γ) f.g.} {Sub(Γ) \ Env(Σ) | Σ ∈ Sub(Γ) f.g.} .
forms a basis for the topology of Sub(Γ) since:


\
UM (C) = Env(hM ∩ Ci) ∩ 
Sub(Γ) \ Env(hδi) .
γ∈M \C

The group Γ acts (continuously from the left) on Sub(Γ) by conjugation Γ ×
Sub(Γ) → Sub(Γ) namely (g, H) 7→ gHg −1 . The following definition plays a central
role in all of our discussion:
Definition 1.1. Let Γ be a countable group. An invariant random subgroup or
an IRS on Γ is a Borel probability-measure µ ∈ Prob(Sub(Γ)) which is invariant
under the Γ action. We denote the space of all invariant random subgroups on Γ
by IRS(Γ) = ProbΓ (Sub(Γ)).
An IRS is called nontrivial if it does not have an atom at the trivial group hei.
The collection of all nontrivial IRS will be denoted IRS0 (Γ). An IRS is ergodic if
it is an ergodic measure with respect to the action of Γ.
As is customary in probability theory, we will sometimes just say that ∆ is an
IRS in Γ and write ∆ 2 Γ, when we mean that some µ ∈ IRS(Γ) has been implicitly
fixed and that ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) is a µ-random sample. Thus in our terminology above
saying that an IRS is nontrivial means that it is nontrivial almost surely.
Remark 1.2. The theory of invariant random subgroups can be developed also in
the more general setting where Γ is a locally compact second countable group. In
that case Sub(Γ) is taken to be the space of all closed subgroups of Γ and it is again
a compact metrizable space. We will not pursue this more general viewpoint here.
We refer the interested reader to the paper [ABB+ 11] and the references therein.
The term “IRS” was introduced in a pair of joint papers with Abért and Virág
[AGV13, AGV14], however the paper of Stuck-Zimmer [SZ94] is quite commonly
considered as the first paper on this subject. That paper provides a complete
classification of IRS in a higher rank simple Lie group G, by showing that every
ergodic IRS is supported on a single orbit (i.e. conjugacy class), either of a central
normal subgroup or of a lattice. A similar classification is given of the ergodic IRS
of a lattice Γ < G. These are supported either on a finite central subgroup or
on the conjugacy class of a finite index subgroup. Recent years have seen a surge
of activity in this subject, driven by its intrinsic appeal based on the interplay
between group theory and ergodic theory, as well as by many applications that
were found. We mention in combinatorics and probability [AGV13, AL07, LP15,
Can], representation theory and asymptotic invariants [ABB+ 11, ABB+ , BG04,
Rai], dynamics [Bow14, Ver12], group theory [AGV14, Ver10, Bow, BGKb, BGKa,
GM14, KN13, TTD] and rigidity [SZ94, Bek07, PT, CPa, CPb, HT, TD, Cre].
Topological analogues of IRS were introduced in [GW15].

4

YAIR GLASNER

The current paper initiates a systematic study of the theory of IRS in countable linear groups. The theory of linear groups is known as a benchmark of sorts
in group theory. Contrary to the wild nature of general countable groups, linear
groups support a very elaborate structure theory. On the other hand they exhibit
a very wide array of phenomena. They are not too specialized, compared for example with abelian, nilpotent or even amenable groups. In this capacity methods
and questions that were addressed in the setting of linear groups are often pushed
further to other groups of “geometric nature”. Hyperbolic and relatively hyperbolic groups, acylindrically hyperbolic groups, convergence groups, mapping class
groups, Out(Fn ), and even just residually finite groups are some of the examples.
Undoubtably many of the methods developed here can be applied in many of these
other geometric settings.
One question which is inaccessible for linear groups, or for any other family of
groups that is not extremely special, is the study of all subgroups of a given group
Γ. This is out of reach even for lattices in higher rank simple Lie groups, where
we do have a complete understanding of seemingly similar problems such as the
classification of all quotient groups or of all finite dimensional representations. An
outcome of the Stuck-Zimmer paper [SZ94] is that, in the presence of an invariant
measure - an IRS - the situation changes dramatically. For a lattice in a simple Lie
group almost every subgroup, with respect to any IRS, is either finite central or of
finite index. We would like to draw the attention to this formation of quantifiers. It
will appear frequently, as we attempt to follow a similar path, proving in the setting
of a countable linear group Γ, statements that hold for almost every subgroup with
respect to every IRS.
1.2. Examples.
Example 1.3. Normal subgroups: If N  Γ is a normal subgroup then the Dirac
measure δN supported on the single point N ∈ Sub(Γ) is an IRS.
Example 1.4. Almost normal subgroups: If H < Γ is such that [Γ : NΓ (H)] < ∞
then we will say that H is an almost normal subgroup. In this case a uniformly
chosen random conjugate of H is an IRS. Normal and finite index subgroups are
both examples of almost normal subgroups.
Example 1.5. Probability-measure preserving actions: If Γ y (X, B, µ) is an action
on a probability space by measure preserving transformations then the stabilizer
Γx := {γ ∈ Γ | γx = x} 2 Γ of a µ-random point x ∈ X is an IRS. The probability
measure responsible for this IRS is Φ∗ (µ) where Φ : X → Sub(Γ) is the stabilizer
map x 7→ Γx . Note that such an IRS is nontrivial if and only if it comes from an
action that is almost surely non free. Following our convention that and IRS is
called nontrivial if it is nontrivial almost surely.
It was shown in [AGV14, Proposition 13] that every invariant random subgroup
of a finitely generated group is obtained in this fashion:
Lemma 1.6. For every invariant random subgroup ν ∈ IRS(Γ) of a countable
group there exists a probability-measure preserving action Γ y (X, B, µ) such that
ν = Φ∗ (µ) where Φ : X → Sub(Γ) is the stabilizer map x 7→ Γx .
This was later generalized to the setting of locally compact second countable groups
in [ABB+ , Theorem 2.4].

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

5

1.3. Induction, restriction and intersection. Let Σ < Γ be a subgroup. The
Γ
natural, Σ-invariant, restriction map RΣ
: Sub(Γ) → Sub(Σ) given by the intersection with Σ is defined by the formula ∆ 7→ ∆∩Σ. This map is clearly continuous and
Γ
it gives rise to a map on invariant random subgroups RΣ
: IRS(Γ) → IRS(Σ).
∗
We will denote this map by µ 7→ µ|Σ . Thus for any µ ∈ IRS(Γ) the original
restriction map becomes a Σ invariant map of probability spaces:
Γ
RΣ
: (Sub(Γ), µ) → (Sub(Σ), µ|Σ )

∆

7→ ∆ ∩ Σ

A map in the other direction exists only if Σ is of finite index in Γ. In this case
we obtain an induction map IRS(Σ) → IRS(Γ) given by
µ 7→ µ|Γ =

[Γ:Σ]
X
1
(γi )∗ µ,
[Γ : Σ] i=1

where γi are coset representatives for Σ in Γ. Since the measure µ is Σ invariant this
expression does not depend on the choice of these representatives. In the setting of
locally compact groups this construction can be generalized to the case where Σ is
a lattice in Γ, or more generally a subgroup of co-finite volume. All one has to do
is replace the sum by an integral over Γ/Σ with respect to the invariant probability
measure.
The intersection µ1 ∩ µ2 of µ1 , µ2 ∈ IRS(Γ) is defined as the push forward of the
product measure under the (continuous) map
Sub(Γ) × Sub(Γ) → Sub(Γ)
(∆1 , ∆2 ) 7→ ∆1 ∩ ∆2 .
This can also be thought of as restricting the IRS µ1 to a µ2 -random subgroup or
vice versa.
1.4. The main theorems. In our main theorem below we adopt the following
convention. If Sub(Γ) = S0 t S1 t S2 t . . . t SL is a partition into Γ-invariant sets
and if µ ∈ IRS(Γ) we set a` = µ(S` ) and µ` (A) = µ(A ∩ S` )/a` ∈ IRS(Γ), so that
PL
µ = `=0 a` µ` , is the standard decomposition of µ as a convex combination of IRS
supported on these parts.
Theorem 1.7. (Main theorem, IRS version) Let Γ < GLn (F ) be a countable linear
group with a connected Zariski closure and A = A(Γ) its amenable radical. Then
there exists a number L = L(Γ) ∈ N, proper free subgroups {F1 , F2 , . . . , FL } ⊂
Sub(Γ) and a partition into Γ-invariant subsets Sub(Γ) = S0 t S1 t . . . t SL such
that for every µ ∈ IRS(Γ) the following properties hold:
Amm: ∆ < A for µ0 -almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ).
Free: F` ∩ ∆ is a non-abelian infinitely generated free group, for every 1 ≤
` ≤ L and µ` -almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ).
Me-Dense: F` ·∆ = Γ, for every 1 ≤ ` ≤ L and µ` -almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ).
Isom: The map
RFΓ` : (Sub(Γ), µ` ) → (Sub(F` ), µ` |F` )
∆

7→ ∆ ∩ F

6

YAIR GLASNER

is an (F` -equivariant) isomorphism of probability spaces, for every 1 ≤ ` ≤
L and µ` -almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ). 1.
Finally, it is possible to satisfy the conclusion of the theorem with L = 1 if and only
if Γ/A contains no nontrivial commuting almost normal subgroups (as in Example
1.4).
Remark 1.8. The free groups in the theorem are in general not finitely generated.
Remark 1.9. Property Free of the theorem follows directly from property Isom
when the measure has no atoms since such a measure will always give measure zero
to the countable subset of finitely generated subgroups of F .
Remark 1.10. Sometimes we will use the notation `-Free to denote the property
Free in the theorem above for a specific value of 1 ≤ ` ≤ L, and similarly for the
other properties.
An important corollary of the main theorem is:
Corollary 1.11. Let Γ < GLn (F ) be a countable linear group. If ∆ 2 Γ is an IRS
in Γ that is almost surely amenable, then ∆ < A(Γ) almost surely.
This theorem was vastly generalized in a beautiful paper of Bader, Duchesne
and Lécureux [BDL] who prove the exact same theorem without the linearity assumption.
In the Appendix (A), jointly with Tsachik Gelander, we give a short proof for this
corollary. This short proof avoids many of the technicalities of the main theorem
as well as all of the projective dynamical argument.
The main Theorem 1.7 assumes its most appealing form when A(Γ) = hei and
L(Γ) = 1. As mentioned in the abstract these conditions are satisfied whenever Γ
is nonamenable and has a simple, center free, Zariski closure. Before stating the
theorem in this specific case we note the following:
Remark 1.12. If Γ < GLn (F ) is not finitely generated and char(F ) > 0 then it is
possible for an amenable group Γ to have a simple Zariski closure. An example is
the group PSLn (F ) when F is a locally finite field, such as the algebraic closure of
Fp . This is the reason why many Tits-alternative type proofs restrict themselves
to finitely generated groups in positive characteristic. In Theorem 1.7 we were are
able to subsume the amenable case into the statement of the general theorem.
Definition 1.13. Given a representation χ : Γ → GLn (Ω) we say that µ ∈ IRS(Γ)
is χ non free if χ(∆) 6= hei for µ almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ). We denote the collection
of all such IRS by
IRSχ (Γ) = {µ ∈ IRS(Γ) | µ(Sub(ker(χ))) = 0}.
Theorem 1.14. (Main theorem, simple version) Let Γ be a nonamenable countable
group and χ : Γ → GLn (F ) a linear representation whose image has a simple, center
free, Zariski closure. Then there is a group topology Stχ on Γ such that µ almost
every subgroup ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) is open for every µ ∈ IRSχ (Γ). Moreover there exists
a proper free subgroup F < Γ such that the following properties hold for every
µ ∈ IRSχ (Γ):
1Explicitly this means that, after restricting to conullsets in the domain and range this becomes
a measurable, measure preserving bijection with measurable inverse.

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

7

χ-Me-Dense: F · ∆ = Γ, for µ almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ)
χ-Non-Disc: F ∩ ∆ 6= hei for every open subgroup ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ)
χ-Isom: The restriction map
RFΓ : (Sub(Γ), µ) →
∆ 7→

(Sub(F ), µ|F )
∆∩F

is an F -invariant isomorphism of probability spaces for every µ ∈ IRSχ (Γ).
In the more specific setting in which this theorem is set, it is actually stronger
than Theorem 1.7 in two ways. It proves the existence of a topology and it no
longer requires the Zariski closure to be connected.
The group topology defined above is called the χ-stabilizer topology on Γ. When
χ is injective, we just refer to the stabilizer topology St on Γ. The actual definition
of the topology is quite technical and we postpone it to Subsection 4.3. A special
case where Γ = Fr is a nonabelian free group is particularly interesting. This case
is treated separately in Subsection 2.2 which gives a conceptual understanding of
the topology, while avoiding the technical complications.
We call any group F < Γ satisfying the property Me-Dense appearing in the
theorem measurably dense. Note though that this property is, at least a-priori
weaker than actual density in the stabilizer topology. Property Non-Disc on the
other hand is equivalent to the assertion that e is an accumulation point of F \ {e}.
In particular it shows that the stabilizer topology is non-discrete. In fact F is a
non discrete subgroup of Γ in the stabilizer topology.
1.5. Non-free actions on probability spaces. In view of Example 1.5 we can
restate the main theorems in terms of actions on probability spaces without any
reference to IRS. In the main theorem below we choose to pass to a finite index
subgroup, instead of restricting to groups with a connected Zariski closure. The
proofs are straightforward and are left to the reader.
Theorem 1.15. (Main theorem, p.m.p version) Let Γ < GLn (F ) be a countable
linear group, A = A(Γ) its amenable radical. Then there exists a finite index
subgroup Γ0 < Γ, a number L ∈ N and proper free subgroups F1 , F2 , . . . , FL < Γ
such that for every action, by measure preserving transformations, on a standard
Borel probability space, Γ y (X, B, µ) there exists a Borel measurable partition into
Γ0 -invariant subsets:
X = X0 t X1 t X2 t . . . t XL ,
with the following properties:
• Γx < A for almost every x ∈ X0 .
• F` · x ⊃ Γ0 · x for every 1 ≤ ` ≤ L and almost every x ∈ X` .
• F` ∩ Γx is an infinitely generated free group for every 1 ≤ ` ≤ L and almost
every x ∈ X` .
• For every 1 ≤ ` ≤ L and almost every pair of points (x, y) ∈ X`2 we have
that
(F` ∩ Γx = F` ∩ Γy ) ⇒ (Γx = Γy )
Moreover if Γ/A contains no nontrivial elementwise commuting normal subgroups
then we can take L = 1 and Γ0 = Γ in the above theorem.
Recall from the abstract that an action Γ y (X, B, µ) is almost surely non-free
(ASNF) if almost all stabilizers Γx are non-trivial.

8

YAIR GLASNER

Theorem 1.16. (simple p.m.p version) Assume that Γ is a countable non-amenable
linear group with a simple center free Zariski closure. Then there exists a free
subgroup F < Γ with the property that for every ASNF action of Γ the two groups
Γ and F have almost surely the same orbits. In other words the actions of Γ and
F are orbit equivalent.
Corollary 1.17. (Actions with amenable stabilizers are free) Let Γ < GLn (F ) be a
countable linear group and Γ y (X, B, µ) a measure preserving action on a standard
Borel probability space such that Γx is almost surely amenable. Then Γx < A almost
surely. In particular if Γ has a trivial amenable radical every action with amenable
stabilizers is essentially free.
As in Corollary 1.11, here too the linearity assumption on Γ is unnecessary due
to the beautiful work of Bader-Duchesne-Lécureux [BDL].
The non trivial intersection of almost every two instances of (possibly equal)
IRS’s translates to the following:
Theorem 1.18. (Non freeness of product actions) Let Γ be a countable, nonamenable linear group with a simple center free Zariski closure. If αi : Γ →
Aut(X, B, µ), 1 ≤ i ≤ M are ASNF probability measure preserving actions then
M
M
M
so is the product action ΠM
i=1 : Γ → (X , B , µ ).
We conclude the introduction by mentioning two places where the results of this
paper have been used. In a beautiful paper [TD, Corollary 5.11] Robin Tucker-Drob
shows that for a countable linear group Γ the condition A(Γ) = hei is equivalent
to the fact that any probability measure preserving action of Γ that is weakly
contained in the Bernoulli shift Γ y [0, 1]Γ is actually weakly equivalent to the
Bernoulli. This last property is what Tucker-Drob refers to as the shift minimality
of the group Γ which has many other equivalent formulations [TD, Proposition 3.2].
Corollary 1.11 was also used in [AGV14, Theorem 5] to show that if Γ is a
finitely generated linear group with A(Γ) = hei and Xn is a sequence of Schreier
graphs for which the spectral radius of the random walk on L02 (Xn ) converges to
the spectral radius of Γ then Xn also converge to Γ in the sense of BenjaminiSchramm. Both of these results are now valid for general countable groups, due to
the Bader-Duchesne-Lécureux Theorem [BDL].
2. Essential subgroups and recurrence
2.1. Essential and locally essential subgroups. The definition of locally essential subgroups, and the lemma that follows are, in my opinion, the most important
new tools introduced in this paper. These notions are specific to the theory of IRS
in countable groups and so far they do not have satisfactory generalizations to the
locally compact case.
Definition 2.1. Let µ ∈ IRS(Γ), a subgroup Σ < Γ is called µ-essential if
µ(Env(Σ)) > 0. In words Σ is µ-essential if there is a positive probability that
a µ-random subgroup contains Σ. A subgroup is called essential if it is µ-essential
for some µ ∈ IRS(Γ). We denote the collections of µ-essential subgroups and of
essential subgroups by
[
E(µ) := {Σ ∈ Sub(Γ) | µ(Env(Σ)) > 0} ,
E(Γ) =
E(µ).
µ∈IRS(Γ)

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

9

An element γ ∈ Γ is essential essential if the cyclic group that it generates is
essential. Note that the essential elements and subgroups of Γ associated with an
IRS are deterministic objects.
Recall that a group Γ is said to satisfy a property locally, if this property holds
for every finitely generated subgroup of Γ. In particular this terminology is used in
the following:
Definition 2.2. Given a countable group Γ and µ ∈ IRS(Γ) we say that ∆ ∈
Sub(Γ) is µ-locally essential if every finitely generated subgroup of ∆ is µ-essential.
We say that ∆ is locally essential if it is µ-locally essential for some µ ∈ IRS(Γ).
Lemma 2.3. (The locally essential lemma) Let Γ be a countable group and µ ∈
IRS(Γ). Then µ-almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) is locally essential.
Proof. Let H1 , H2 , . . . ∈ Sub(Γ) be an enumeration of the finitely generated subgroups of Γ that are not µ-essential. Then by definition µ(Env(Hi )) = 0 for every
i, but
[
{∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) | ∆ is not locally essential} =
Env(Hi ),
i

which has measure zero as a countable union of nullsets.



Definition 2.4. We will say that a subgroup ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) is recurrent if for every finitely generated subgroup Σ < ∆ and for every group element γ ∈ Γ the
corresponding set of return times

N (∆, Env(Σ), γ) =
n ∈ N | γ n ∆γ −n ∈ Env(Σ)

=
n ∈ N | γ −n Σγ n < ∆
is infinite. We will say that ∆ is locally essential recurrent if it is both locally
essential and recurrent. We will denote the collection of recurrent subgroups by
Rec(Γ) and the collection of nontrivial recurrent subgroups by Rec0 (Γ) = Rec(Γ) \
{hei}.
Corollary 2.5. Let Γ be a countable group and µ ∈ IRS(Γ). Then µ-almost every
∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) is recurrent.
Proof. This basically follows directly from the locally essential lemma combined
with Poincaré recurrence. We elaborate:
Fix µ ∈ IRS(Γ). For a finitely generated subgroup Σ ∈ Sub(Γ) and a group
element γ ∈ Γ we denote by
Ξ(Σ, γ) = {∆ ∈ Env(Σ) | N (Env(Σ), ∆, γ) is finite},
the set of subgroups that
S fail to be recurrent due to this specific pair (Σ, γ). Clearly
Rec(Γ) = Sub(Γ) \ ( Ξ(Σ, γ)) where the union ranges over all finitely generated
subgroups Σ and over all elements γ ∈ Γ. Since there are only countably many pairs
(Σ, γ) ∈ Subf.g. (Γ)×Γ, it is enough to fix such a pair and show that µ(Ξ(Σ, γ)) = 0.
This is clear when Σ fails to be µ-essential. When µ(Env(Σ)) > 0 it follows from
Poincaré recurrence.


10

YAIR GLASNER

2.2. The stabilizer topology on a free group. In this section we sketch the
existence proof of the stabilizer topology when Γ = Fr is a nonabelian free group.
This illustrates the main geometric idea of the argument while avoiding many of
the technical details of the main proof. It will also illustrate the importance of the
locally essential lemma.
Theorem 2.6. Let Γ be a countable group and ∆1 , ∆2 ∈ Sub(Γ) two recurrent
subgroups. Then for every pair of elements δi ∈ ∆i
[δ1n1 , δ2n2 ] ∈ ∆1 ∩ ∆2 ,
for infinitely many pairs (n1 , n2 ) ∈ Z2 .
Proof. By recurrence, applied to the cyclic subgroup hδ2 i < ∆2 we know that
δ1n1 δ2 δ1−n1 ∈ ∆2 infinitely often and hence [δ1n1 , δ2n2 ] ∈ ∆2 for every n2 and infinitely
many values of n1 . An identical argument shows that [δ1n1 , δ2n2 ] ∈ ∆1 for every n1
and infinitely many values of n2 and the claim follows.

Recall that elements in a group Γ are called independent if they freely generate
a free group.
Lemma 2.7. Let {∆1 , . . . , ∆J } ⊂ Sub(Fr ) be non-abelian subgroups of the free
group Fr . Then we can find J independent elements δi ∈ ∆i .
Proof. In a free group two elements commute if and only if they are contained in
a cyclic subgroup. A nonabelian free group is clearly not a union of finitely many
cyclic subgroups, so by induction we find a sequence of elements δi0 ∈ ∆i that
are pairwise non-commuting. Fix a free generating set Fr = hSi and consider the
action of Fr on its Cayley tree T = Cay(Fr , S). If we write δi0 = ηi θi ηi−1 where θi
is cyclicly reduced then δi0 acts on T as a hyperbolic tree automorphism whose axis
is the bi-infinite geodesic labeled periodically . . . θi θi θi . . . and passing through ηi .
In particular these J axes have 2J distinct end pointsin ∂T . Now by the standard
ping-pong lemma we can find integers nj such that δj = (δj0 )nj | 1 ≤ j ≤ J are
independent. Note that the groups ∆j may very well be identical this does not
change the details of the above proof.

Recall that a collection of subgroups Base ⊂ Sub(Γ) forms a basis of identity
neighborhoods of a topology if it satisfies the following properties (i) It is conjugation invariant (ii) It is a filter base, namely for every ∆1 , ∆2 ∈ Base there
exists some ∆3 ∈ Base with ∆3 < ∆1 ∩ ∆2 (see [Bou60, Proposition 1, TGIII.3]).
A collection of subgroups SB forms a sub-basis of identity neighborhoods if it is
closed under conjugation. Such a sub-basis yields a basis consisting of all possible
intersections of finitely many subgroups taken from SB. The resulting topology
will be discrete if and only if there are subgroups {∆1 , ∆2 , . . . , ∆M } ⊂ SB with
∩M
i=1 ∆i = hei.
Theorem 2.8. Let Fr be a nonabelian free group. Then Rec0 (Fr ) the nontrivial
recurrent subgroups form a sub-basis of identity neighborhoods for a non-discrete
group topology. This topology has the property that for every µ ∈ IRS(Fr ), µ-almost
every hei =
6 ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) is open.
Proof. The last statement follows directly from Corollary 2.5, so all we have to
TJ
prove is that given {∆j | 1 ≤ j ≤ J} ⊂ Rec0 the intersection j=1 ∆j 6= hei.

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

11

Recall that by Definition 2.4 the groups ∆j themselves are not allowed to be
trivial. Let δj ∈ ∆j be independent elements as in Lemma 2.7. We assume by
TJ−1
induction on J that we have already found an element w ∈ j=1 ∆j . We include
in the induction hypothesis the requirement that w ∈ hδ1 , δ2 , . . . , . . . , δJ−1 i, and
that when it is written as a reduced word in these free generators it assumes the
−1
form w = δ1 w0 δJ−1
. Applying the induction hypothesis to ∆J , ∆J−1 , . . . , ∆2 in this
TJ
order we obtain another element u ∈ j=2 ∆j which can be written as a reduced
word in δ2 , . . . , δJ assuming the form u = δJ u0 δ2−1 .
Now we can find n, m ∈ Z such that
v := [wn , um ] ∈ ∩Jj=1 ∆j .
This element is automatically contained in ∆j for every 2 ≤ j ≤ J − 1 and by
Theorem 2.6 (m, n) can be chosen in such a way that v ∈ ∆1 ∩ ∆J as well. Finally
it is clear that v ∈ hδ1 , δ2 , . . . , δJ i and that when it is written as a reduced word in
these free generators it assumes the form v = δ1 v 0 δJ−1 . This completes the induction
and, in particular shows that v 6= e, as required.

3. Preliminary proofs
3.1. Covering of IRS. Throughout this section Γ is any countable group, µ ∈
IRS(Γ), I ⊂ IRS(Γ) is a (Borel measurable) set of invariant random subgroups. We
will say that a subgroup is I-essential if it is µ-essential for some µ ∈ I. Denote by
E(I) the set of all I-essential subgroups. When I is understood we will often omit
it from the notation writing just E. We will use letters such as F, H ⊂ E to denote
Borel subsets of Sub(Γ); less formally we will refer to Borel subsets F, H ⊂ E as
families of subgroups.
Definition 3.1. We will say that A family of subgroups F covers µ, if their envelopes cover Sub(Γ), up to a µ-nullset. In other words if µ-almost every ∆ ∈
Sub(Γ) contains some Σ ∈ F. F covers I if it covers every µ ∈ I.
It becomes easier to cover if you use smaller subgroups. For example if hei ∈ F
then F covers all of IRS(Γ). If F is the collection of all finitely generated subgroups then clearly F \{hei} still covers IRS0 (Γ) - the nontrivial invariant random
subgroups (recall that we say an IRS is nontrivial if it is nontrivial almost surely).
A major theme of the current paper is to take such trivial covers and refine them
to covers by larger and more interesting subgroups. The notion of refinement of a
cover is made explicit in the following definition:
Definition 3.2. Assume that F covers µ as in the previous definition. We say
that a family of essential subgroups H refines this cover and write F <µ H, if for
every Σ ∈ F and for µ-almost every ∆ ∈ Env(Σ) there exists Θ ∈ H such that
Σ < Θ < ∆. If I ⊂ IRS(Γ) is covered by F we will say that H refines this cover
and write F <I H if F <µ H, ∀µ ∈ I.
Definition 3.3. We say that a family of essential subgroups F is monotone if it
is closed under passing to larger essential subgroups. Namely F is monotone if,
together with every Σ ∈ F the collection F contains all the groups in Env(Σ) ∩ E.
For example, the collections of infinite essential subgroups is monotone while the
collection of finite essential subgroups is usually not. The following lemma is useful
in the construction of refined covers.

12

YAIR GLASNER

Lemma 3.4. Let µ ∈ IRS(Γ), and F, H ⊂ E(µ) two (Borel) families of µ-essential
subgroups. Assume that F is monotone and covers µ. If every Σ ∈ F is contained
in some Θ ∈ H. Then µ is covered by H and F <µ H.
Proof. Assume, by way of contradiction that for some Ξ ∈ F the set


[
Y = Y (Ξ) = Env(Ξ) \ 
Env(Θ)
Θ∈H ∩Env(Ξ)

is of positive measure. Since F does cover we can find some Σ ∈ F such that
µ(Env(Σ) ∩ Y ) > 0. Consider the essential subgroup Σ0 := ∩∆∈Env(Σ)∩Y ∆ > Σ.
By definition Σ0 > Σ so by monotonicity Σ0 ∈ F. So that there exists some Θ ∈ H
with Θ > Σ0 . This implies that Env(Θ) ⊂ Env(Σ0 ) = Y ∩ Env(Σ) ⊂ Y in contrast
to the definition of Y . This shows that F <µ H. The fact that H covers follows
upon taking Ξ = hei in the argument above.

Assume that ∆ = Γx 2 Γ is realized as the stabilizer of a µ-random point for
some probability-measure preserving action Γ y (X, B, µ) as in Example (1.5) of
Subsection 1.2. For any subgroup Σ < Γ we denote Fix(Σ) = {x ∈ X | σx = x ∀σ ∈
σ} and for any subset O ⊂ X we denote ΓO = {g ∈ Γ | gx = x for almost all x ∈
O}. Then, up to nullsets, Env(Σ) = {Γx | x ∈ Fix(Σ)} and the essential subgroups
are exactly these subgroups Σ < Γ such that µ(Fix(Σ)) > 0. An essential covering
by the essential subgroups {Σ1 , Σ2 , . . .} is just a covering (up to nullsets) of the
form X = ∪i Fix(Σi ).
3.2. Projective dynamics. Our main theorem is reminiscent of the Tits alternative. Indeed the main part of the proof lies in the construction of the dense free
subgroup F from Theorem 1.14. We follow the geometric strategy put forth by Tits
in [Tit72] and further developed in [MS79], [MS81], [BG07] and many other papers.
According to this strategy, the free group is constructed by first finding a projective
representation exhibiting rich enough dynamics and then playing, ping-pong on the
corresponding projective space. In particular the paper [BG07] describes how to go
about this when the group Γ fails to be finitely generated. In this case the topological field can no longer be taken to be a local field, but rather a countable extension
of a local field - which is no longer locally compact. The corresponding projective
space in this case is no longer compact, but it is still a bounded complete metric
space and the dynamical techniques used in the ping pong game still work. Following [GG08, Section 7.2] we give a short survey of the necessary projective dynamics
that will be needed. We refer the reader to [BG03, Section 3], [BG07, Sections 3
and 6] for the proofs. Section 6 in the last mentioned paper deals explicitly with
the non finitely generated setting. We recommend skipping the technical details in
this section in a first reading and referring to them only when they become needed
in the proof.
Let k be a local field k·k the standard norm on k n , i.e. the standard
P Euclidean
norm if k is Archimedean and kxk = max1≤i≤n |xi | where x =
xi ei when k
is non-Archimedean and (e1 , . . . , en ) is the canonical basis of k n . Let K be an
extension field of finite or countable degree over k, by [Lan02, XII, 4, Th. 4.1, p.
482] the absolute value on k extends to K. The norm on both fields extends in
the usual way to Λ2 k n (resp. Λ2 K n ). The standard metric on P(K n ) is defined
kv∧wk
, where [v] denotes the projective point corresponding to
by d([v], [w]) = kvkkwk

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

13

v ∈ K n . All our notation will refer to this metric, and in particular if R ⊂ P(K n )
and  > 0 we denote the  neighborhood of R by (R) = {x ∈ P(K n ) | d(x, R) < }.
The projective space P(k n ) is embedded as a compact subset of the complete metric
space P(K n ).
Let U < PGLn (K) be the subgroup preserving the standard norm and hence
also the metric on P(K n ) and A+ = {diag(a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) ∈ PGLn (K) | |a1 | ≥
|a2 | ≥ . . . ≥ |an |}. The Cartan decomposition (see [BT72, Section 7]) is a product
decomposition PGLn (K) = U A+ U , namely each g ∈ PGLn (K) as a product g =
kg ag kg0 where kg , kg0 ∈ U and ag ∈ A+ . This is an abuse of notation because only
the ag component is uniquely determined by g, but we will be careful not to imply
uniqueness of kg , kg0 . A calculation shows that a diagonal element a ∈ A+ acts as
2
an |a1 /an | -Lipschitz transformation on P(K n ) which immediately implies:
Lemma 3.5. ( [BG03, Lemma 3.1]) Every projective transformation g ∈ PGLn (K)
is bi-Lipschitz on P(K n ).
For  ∈ (0, 1), we call a projective transformation g ∈ PGLn (K) -contracting
if there exist a point vg ∈ P(K n ), called an attracting point of g, and a projective
hyperplane Hg < P(K n ), called a repelling hyperplane of g, such that
g (P(K n ) \ (Hg ) ) ⊂ (vg ) .
Namely g maps the complement of the -neighborhood of the repelling hyperplane
into the -ball around the attracting point. We say that g is -very contracting
if both g and g −1 are -contracting. A projective transformation g ∈ PGLn (K)
is called (r, )-proximal for some r > 2 > 0, if it is -contracting with respect to
some attracting point vg ∈ P(K n ) and some repelling hyperplane Hg , such that
d(vg , Hg ) ≥ r. The transformation g is called (r, )-very proximal if both g and g −1
are (r, )-proximal. Finally, g is simply called proximal (resp. very proximal) if it
is (r, )-proximal (resp. (r, )-very proximal) for some r > 2 > 0. The attracting
point vg and repelling hyperplane Hg of an -contracting transformation are in
general not uniquely defined. Still under rather mild conditions it is possible to
find a canonical choice of vg and Hg which are fixed by g and all of its powers:
Lemma 3.6. ([BG07, Lemma 3.1]) Let  ∈ (0, 41 ). There exist two constants
c1 , c2 ≥ 1 (depending only on the field K) such that if g ∈ PGLn (K) is an (r, )proximal transformation with r ≥ c1  then it must fix a unique point v g inside
its attracting neighborhood and a unique projective hyperplane H g lying inside its
repelling neighborhood2. Moreover, if r ≥ c1 2/3 , then the positive powers g n , n ≥ 1,
n
are (r − 2, (c2 ) 3 )-proximal transformations with respect to these same v g and H g .
Proof. The proof of this lemma in [BG07, Section 3.4] is done for a local field k.
Most of the proof carries over directly to the larger field K, except for the existence
of a g-fixed hyperplane H g ⊂ R(g). That part of the proof uses a compactness
argument, which does not work of the larger field K.
We consider the action of the transpose g t on the projective space over the dual
P((K n )∗ ). Points are can be identified with hyperplanes in P(K n ) and vice-versa so
if we prove that g t is still (r, ) contracting with the same constants the first part of
2by this we mean that if v, H are any couple of a pointed a hyperplane with d(v, H) ≥ r s.t.
the complement of the -neighborhood of H is mapped under g into the -ball around v, then v g
lies inside the -ball around v and H g lies inside the -neighborhood around H

14

YAIR GLASNER

the proof in Breulliard-Gelander’s proof would apply and give rise to a fixed point
in the dual projective space, corresponding to the desired fixed hyperplane. Given
vectors v, w ∈ K n and linear functionals f, h ∈ (K n )∗ , all of them of norm one, we
will use the following formulas
d([v], [w])
d([v], [ker f ])
Hd([ker f ], [ker h])

= kv ∧ wk

(3.1)

= |f (v)|

(3.2)

=

max

x∈ker h

|f (x)|
= kf ∧ hk = dP((K n )∗ ) ([f ], [h])
kxk

(3.3)

Where Hd denotes the Hausdorff distance. All distances are measured in P(K n )
except in the very last expression, where the contrary is explicitly noted. Equations
(3.1),(3.2) appear in [BG03, Section 3]. The first and last equalities in (3.3) follow
directly form (3.2) and (3.1) respectively. To check the middle equality in (3.3) let
us choose a basis so that h = (h1 , 0, 0 . . . , 0), f = (f1 , f2 , . . . , fn ). In this basis the
inequality we wish to prove becomes
max

(x2 ,...,xn )∈K n−1

|f2 x2 + f3 x3 + . . . fn xn |
= kf2 eˆ1 ∧ eˆ2 + f3 eˆ1 ∧ eˆ3 + . . . + fn eˆ1 ∧ eˆn k .
kxk

Which is indeed true.
Let (H, v) be a hyperplane and unit vector in K n realizing the fact that g is
(r, )-proximal. We claim that the transpose g t is (r, )-proximal with respect to
the dual hyperplane point pair (L, f ). Explicitly f is a norm one linear functional
with ker(f ) = H; and L = {l ∈ (K n )∗ | l(v) = 0}. The fact that g is -contracting
with respect to (H, v) translates, using Equations (3.1), into
|f (u)| ≥  kuk

⇒

kgu ∧ vk ≤  kguk .

Assume that φ is any norm one functional with dP((K n )∗ ) ([φ], [L]) > . Considering
v as a functional on (K n )∗ with kernel L, the second line in (refeq) gives |φ(v)| > .
The same equation, now with φ considered as a functional on K n implies that
dP(K n ) ([ker(φ)], [v]) > . Since g is by assumption  contracting this means that
 t

|g φ(x)|
 > Hd(g −1 ker(φ), H) = Hd(ker(g t φ), H) = max
= d([g t φ], [f ]).
x∈H
kxk
Which is exactly the desired -contraction.
Note also that
dP((K n )∗ ) ([f ], [L]) = dP((K n )∗ ) ([f ], [ker v]) = |f (v)| = dP(K n ) ([ker f ], v) ≥ r.
So that g t is indeed (r, ) contracting with respect to ([L], [f ]). Applying the
Breulliard-Gelander proof we obtain a unique g t fixed point [η] ∈ ([f ]) which,
under the additional assumptions on (r, ) is also a common attracting point for
all powers of g t . We set H g = ker(η). Clearly this is a g fixed subspace and it is
easy to verify that it serves as a common repelling hyperplane for all the powers of
g.

In what follows, whenever we add the article the (or the canonical) to an attracting point and repelling hyperplane of a proximal transformation g, we shall mean
these fixed point v g and fixed hyperplane H g obtained in Lemma 3.6. Moreover,
when r and  are given, we shall denote by A(g), R(g) the -neighborhoods of v g , H g
respectively. In some cases, we shall specify different attracting and repelling sets

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

15

for a proximal element g, denoting them by A(g), R(g) ⊂ P(K n ) respectively. This
means that

g P(K n ) \ R(g) ⊂ A(g).
If g is very proximal and we say that A(g), R(g), A(g −1 ), R(g −1 ) are specified
attracting and repelling sets for g, g −1 then we shall always require additionally
that


A(g) ∩ R(g) ∪ A(g −1 ) = A(g −1 ) ∩ R(g −1 ) ∪ A(g) = ∅.
Very proximal elements are important as the main ingredients for the construction of free groups using the famous ping-pong lemma:
Lemma 3.7. (The ping-pong Lemma) Suppose that {gi }i∈I ⊂ PGLn (K) is a set
of very proximal elements, each associated with some given attracting and repelling
sets for itself and for its inverse. Suppose that for any i 6= j, i, j ∈ I the attracting
set of gi (resp. of gi−1 ) is disjoint from both the attracting and repelling sets of both
gj and gj−1 , then the gi ’s form an independent set, i.e. they freely generate a free
group.
A set of elements which satisfy the condition of Lemma 3.7 with respect to
some given attracting and repelling sets will be said to form a ping-pong set (or a
ping-pong tuple).
A novel geometric observation of the papers [BG03, BG07] is that an element
g ∈ PGLn (K) is -contracting, if and only if it is 0 -Lipschitz on an arbitrarily
small open set. This equivalence comes with an explicit dependence between the
two constants, as summarized in the lemma below:
Lemma 3.8. ([BG03, Proposition 3.3 and Lammas 3.4 and 3.5]). There exists some
constant c, depending only on the local field k < K, such that for any  ∈ (0, 41 )
and d ∈ (0, 1),
2

• if g ∈ PGLn (K) is (r, )-proximal for r > c1 , then it is c d 2 -Lipschitz
outside the d-neighborhood of the repelling hyperplane,
• Conversely, if g ∈ PGLn (K) is 2 -Lipschitz on some open neighborhood
then it is c-contracting.
Here c1 is the constant given by Lemma 3.6 above.
Proof. The proof for the case K = k is given by the Proposition and two Lemmas
indicated between brackets in the statement of the lemma are stated for a local
field k. There the equivalence between the two properties is established via a third
property, namely that |(a2 )g /(a1 )g | < c00 2 .
It is routine to go over the proofs there and verify that they work in our more
general situation. Basically there is only one thing to notice. In the proof that
-contraction implies |a2 (g)/a2 (g)| < 2 /|π| (the converse implication of [BG03,
Proposition 3.3]), the constant does depend on the field in a non-trivial way. Indeed
|π| here is the absolute value of the uniformizer of the (non-Archimedean in this
case) local field. However when one passes to a larger field the the situation only
gets better as the norm of the uniformizer can only grow. If ultimately the value
group of K is non-discrete one can do away with |π| altogether (taking |π| = 1 as
it were).


16

YAIR GLASNER

The above Lemma will enable us to obtain contracting elements - we just have
to construct elements with good Lipschitz constants on an arbitrarily small open
set. What we really need, in order to play ping-pong are very-proximal elements.
To guarantee this we need to assume that our group is large enough.
Definition 3.9. A group G ≤ PGLn (K) is called irreducible if it does not stabilize
any non-trivial projective subspace. It is called strongly irreducible if the following
equivalent conditions hold
• It does not stabilize any finite union of projective hyperplanes,
• Every finite index subgroup is irreducible,
• The connected component of the identity in its Zariski closure is irreducible.
We will say that a projective representation ρ : G → PGLn (K) is reducible or
strongly irreducible if the image of the representation has the same property.
The equivalence of the first two conditions is clear. The equivalence with the
third property follows from the fact that fixing a projective subspace is a Zariski
closed condition. It turns out that if a group is strongly irreducible and it contains
contracting elements then the existence of very proximal elements is guaranteed.
Lemma 3.10. (See [BG03, Proposition 3.8 (ii) and (iii)]) Suppose that G ≤
PGLn (K) is a group which acts strongly irreducibly on the projective space P(K n ).
Then there are constants
(G), r(G), c(G) > 0
such that if g ∈ G is an -contracting transformation for some  < (G) then for
some f1 , f2 ∈ G the element gf1 g −1 f2 is (r(G), c(G))-very proximal.
Combining the above two lemmas we obtain.
Lemma 3.11. Suppose that Σ ≤ PGLn (K) is a group which acts strongly irreducibly. Then there are constants (Σ), r(Σ), c(Σ) > 0 such that for every λ ∈
PGLn (K) which is locally -Lipschitz
for some  < (Σ) there exist f1 , f2 ∈ Σ such
√
that λf1 λ−1 f2 is (r(Σ), c(Σ) )-very proximal.
Finally, we will need the following two elementary lemmas.
Lemma 3.12. A projective linear transformation [B] ∈ PGLn (K) that fixes n + 1
(projective) points in general position is trivial.
Proof. By definition, n + 1 vectors in K n represent projective points in general
position if any i of them span an i-dimensional subspace as long as i ≤ n. If
{v0 , v1 , . . . , vn } are n + 1 eigenvectors of B in general position then by counting
considerations there must be at least one eigenspace V < K n of dimension l containing at least l + 1 of these vectors. If the vectors are in general position then
l = n, so B has only one eigenvalue and is hence projectively trivial.

Lemma 3.13. Assume that ρ : Γ → PGLn (K) is a strongly irreducible projective
representation. Then every orbit ρ(Γ)v contains a set of n + 1 points in general
position.
Proof. Without loss of generality we assume the field is algebraically closed. Let
Z
H = ρ(Γ) be the Zariski closure,
H(0) the connected component of the identity and

(0)
−1
(0)
Γ =ρ
ρ(Γ) ∩ H (K) . Strong irreducibility is equivalent to the irreducibility

of ρ Γ(0) , thus the ρ(Γ(0) )-orbit of every non trivial vector v ∈ k n contains a basis

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

17

B := {v = v1 , . . . , vn }. Let V i := span{v1 , v2 , . . . , vˆi , . . . , vn } - the ith element
missing. Assume by way of contradiction that ρ(Γ(0) )v ⊂ ∪ni=1 V i . Since taking a
vector into a subspace is a Zariski closed condition we obtain, upon passing to the
Zariski closure that
H(0) (K) = ∪ni=1 Hi

Hi = {h ∈ H(0) (K) | h(v) ∈ Vi (K)}

This is a union of Zariski closed sets, and since H(0) is Zariski connected we have
H (0) (K) = Hi for some i contradicting irreducibility of H(0) .

4. Proof of the main theorem
In this chapter we reduce the proof of the Main Theorem 1.7, to our Main
Technical Theorem 4.5 concerning the existence of a certain cover. That theorem
is is then proved in the following chapter.
4.1. Reduction to the simple case. At first we prove the Main Theorem 1.7,
assuming the validity of its the simple version 1.14.
The proof is preceded by two lemmas. As mentioned in Remark 1.12, a group
with a simple Zariski closure might be amenable. If it is not amenable though, it
has no nontrivial normal amenable subgroups:
Lemma 4.1. If Γ < GLn (F ) is a nonamenable linear group with a Zariski closure
that is simple and has no finite normal subgroups, then A = A(Γ) = hei.
Z

Z

Proof. Let H = Γ be the Zariski closure. Since A is normal in H our assumptions
Z
imply A > H(0) whenever A(Γ) 6= hei. Assume by contradiction that the former
case holds. By Schur’s theorem [Weh73, Theorem 4.9] every torsion linear group
is locally finite and hence in particular amenable; since by assumption this is not
the case for Γ we can fix an element of infinite order γ ∈ Γ. The group Θ = hγ, Ai,
being amenable by cyclic, is still amenable and its Zariski closure still contains
H(0) . The group Θ cannot contain a non-trivial normal solvable subgroup S  Θ.
 Z (0)
Indeed if S were such a subgroup then S
 H(0) would be a Zariski closed
normal solvable subgroups, since the Zariski closure of a solvable subgroup is still
solvable. Clearly there is no such group. Now, the Tits alternative [Tit72, Theorem
2] implies that Θ is a locally finite group contrary to the existence of the infinite
order element γ.

Lemma 4.2. If ∆ 2 Γ is an IRS in a countable group Γ that is almost surely finite
then the centralizer ZΓ (∆) is of finite index in Γ almost surely.
Proof. The collection of finite subgroups of Γ is countable. Any ergodic measure
that is supported on a countable set has finite orbits which in our case means that
∆ has a finite conjugacy class almost surely. Thus NΓ (∆) is of finite index almost
surely. The claim follows since ZΓ (∆) is the kernel of the action of NΓ (∆) on the
finite group ∆.

Proof. (Theorem 1.7 follows from Theorem 1.14)
Let η1 : Γ → GLn (Ω) be an injective representation, realizing our given group Γ
Z

as a linear group over an algebraically closed field Ω, let G1 = η1 (Γ) be its Zariski
closure which is by assumption connected. Replacing η1 by η2 = ι ◦ η1 where ι is
the natural map to the semisimple quotient G1 / Rad(G1 ) we obtain a new linear

18

YAIR GLASNER
Z

representation where G2 = η2 (Γ) is semisimple. The map η2 is no longer faithful
but its kernel, being solvable and normal, is contained in the amenable radical.
Moreover η2 (A) < η2 (Γ) is a normal amenable subgroup.
The Lie algebra g := Lie(G2 ) decomposes as a direct sum of simple Lie alge0
bras g = ⊕L
`=1 h` which are invariant since G2 is connected. Thus we obtain a
representation
0

{eqn:prod}

L
Y
`=1

0

χ` = Ad ◦ η2 : Γ →

L
Y

GL(h` ) < GL(g),

(4.1)

`=1

where the representation χ` : Γ → GL(h` ) is defined by the above equation as
Z

the restriction to the `th invariant factor. Let us denote by H` = χ` (Γ) the
Zariski closure of these representations; these are simple center free groups. By
rearranging the order of the factors we may assume that χ` (Γ) is nonamenable for
every 1 ≤ ` ≤ L and is amenable for every L + 1 ≤ ` ≤ L0 .
Let us set A` := ker(χ` )  Γ. The group A0 := ∩L
`=1 A` is contained in the
amenable radical A(Γ), it is clearly normal and it is amenable as both ker(Ad◦η2 )|Γ0
0
0
and (Ad ◦ η2 )(∩L
`=1 A` ) < hei × . . . × hei × χL+1 (Γ ) × . . . × χL0 (Γ ) are. Let us set
`
L
0
1
L
A := ∩i=`+1 Ai for 0 ≤ ` ≤ L; thus A  A  . . .  A = Γ. Corresponding to this
sequence of subgroups is the following stratification Sub(A0 ) ⊂ Sub(A1 ) ⊂ . . . ⊂
Sub(AL ) = Sub(Γ). Setting S0 = Sub(A0 ) and S` = Sub(A` ) \ Sub(A`−1 ), 1 ≤ ` ≤
L we can decompose Sub(Γ) as a disjoint union of the form Sub(Γ) = S0 tS1 . . .tSL .
Clearly χ` (∆) 6= hei for every ∆ ∈ S` .
Now fix µ ∈ IRS(Γ) and decompose it according to this stratification by setting
a` := µ(S` ), and µ` (B) := µ(B ∩ S` )/a` , for every 0 ≤ ` ≤ L and Borel subset
PL
B ⊂ Sub(Γ). Clearly µ =
`=0 a` µ` as in the statement of the theorem. The
groups F` for 1 ≤ ` ≤ L are provided for upon application of theorem 1.14 to the
representations {χ` | 1 ≤ ` ≤ L}.
By definition µ0 is supported on Sub(A0 ) so property Amm is automatic. Similarly µ` is supported on S` and S` ∩ Sub(ker(χ` )) = ∅ so that µ` ∈ IRSχ` (Γ) for
every 1 ≤ ` ≤ L. Thus properties `-Me-Dense and `-Isom in theorem 1.7 follow
directly from the corresponding properties in Theorem 1.14. For property `-Free.
We can decompose µ` = µNA
+ µA
`
` to an atomic part and a non-atomic part. From
Remark 1.9 property χ-Free follows directly form χ-Isom for the non-atomic part.
Therefor we may assume that µ` is completely atomic. This means that every ergodic component is supported on a finite orbit, or in other words that the IRS is
supported on subgroups with finite index normalizers. So ∆ ∩ F also has a finite
index normalizer in F , µ` almost surely. Since F itself is not finitely generated (by
the proof of Theorem 1.14) it follows easily from properties of free groups that so
is ∆ ∩ F .
It remains to be shown that it is possible to choose L = 1 if and only if Γ/A
contains two nontrivial commuting almost normal subgroups. If L ≥ 2 in the
above construction then Γ/A contains two commuting normal subgroups ker χ1
and ∩L
`=2 ker(χ` ).
Conversely let hei =
6 M, N Γ be two almost normal subgroups such that M, N 6<
A = A(Γ) but [M, N ] < A(Γ). Still assume by way of contradiction that the
conclusion of the theorem holds with L = 1. For convenience of notation we will
set F = F1 .

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

19

As explained in Example 1.4, both M and N appear with positive probability
as instances of two invariant random subgroups µM , µN ∈ IRS(Γ). Thus by the
statement of the theorem F · N = Γ and O := F ∩ M is a non-abelian free group.
These two equations imply that OA is an almost normal subgroup of Γ/A. Indeed
let Γ0 = NΓ (M ), which is by assumption a finite index subgroup in Γ. If we
set F 0 = F ∩ Γ0 then F 0 N is of finite index in Γ. Clearly N < NΓ (OA), and
F 0 < NΓ (O) so that together Γ0 A < NΓ (OA).
Now, applying the theorem again to the almost normal subgroup OA we obtain,
Γ = F · OA = F A; but A ∩ F is an amenable normal subgroup of F hence trivial.
So that Γ = F n A and Γ/A ∼
= F is a free group which of course does not have two
commuting almost normal subgroups, a contradiction.

4.2. A good projective representation. Let χ : Γ → GLn (F ) be the simple
representation given in Theorem 1.14. As explained in the beginning of Subsection
3.2 the first step in proving Theorem 1.14 is to fix a projective representation
ρ : Γ → PGLn (K) over a topological field K with enough elements that exhibit
proximal dynamics on P(K n ). This section is dedicated to this task. The notation
fixed here will be used without further mention in the rest of the paper.
When Γ fails to be finitely generated K is in general not a local field. When
this happens it is crucial to have a Zariski dense finitely generated subgroup Π < Γ
whose image under the representation will fall into the PGLn (k) for some local
subfield k < K. When Γ is finitely generated one can take k = K and Π = Γ. For
the convenience of the reader we will try to indicate places where the argument in
this case is more streamlined. We start with a few lemmas.
Lemma 4.3. Let Γ < GLn (Ω) be a non-amenable group with simple center free
Zariski closure. Then there exists a non-amenable finitely generated subgroup Π < Γ
Z
Z
that has the same Zariski closure Π = Γ . Hence Π is also non-amenable with a
simple center free Zariski closure.
Z

Proof. Let H = Γ and let H(0) be the Zariski connected component of the identity
in H. Since [H : H(0) ] < ∞ it is enough to find a finitely generated subgroup Π < Γ
Z
such that Π > H(0) .
Let {γ1 , γ2 , . . . , γm } be elements of Γ generating a subgroup Π0 with the property
Z
that I = Π0 is of maximal possible dimension. By Schur’s theorem [Weh73,
Theorem 4.9] every torsion linear group is locally finite and in particular amenable.
Since Γ is by assumption nonamenable it contains an element γ1 ∈ Γ of infinite
Z
order. The group hγ1 i is at least one dimensional and hence, also dim(I) ≥ 1.


Z (0)
Now by our maximality assumption, for every γ ∈ Γ we have hI, γi
= I(0)
and in particular γ normalizes I(0) . Since Γ has a simple center free Zariski closure
that implies I(0) = H(0) .
A group is amenable if and only if all of its finitely generated subgroups are
amenable. If every finitely generated group containing Π were amenable this would
imply that Γ is amenable too, as the union of all these groups. Thus, after possibly
replacing Π with a larger finitely generated subgroup, we may always assume that
Π is non-amenable. This concludes the proof.

Proposition 4.4. Let Π be a finitely generated group and χ : Π → GLn (f ) be a
representation with a simple center free Zariski closure. Then there is a number

20

YAIR GLASNER

r > 0, a local field k an embedding f ,→ k, an integer n, and a faithful strongly
irreducible projective
representation φ : H(k) → PGLn (k) defined over k, such that

for any  ∈ 0, 2r there is g ∈ Π for which χ(g) ∈ H(0) (k) and φ ◦ χ(g) acts as an
(r, )-very proximal transformation on P(k n ).
Proof. See [BG07, Theorem 4.3] (also [GG08, Theorem 7.6]) for a much more general statement. The faithfulness follows from the simplicity of the Zariski closure.

If Γ is finitely generated we apply the above theorem with f = F, Π = Γ and fix
once and for all the local field k = K, the representation
ρ = φ ◦ χ : Γ = Π → PGLn (k) = PGLn (K),
 Z (0)
and ρ(g) is (r, )-very proximal
and an element g ∈ Γ such that ρ(g) ∈ Γ
where  is chosen so as to satisfy the conditions of Lemma 3.6. Namely r ≥
c1 2/3 , where c1 is the constant, given in that lemma. We denote by v g±1 , H g±1 the
attracting and repelling points and hyperplanes associated to g in that lemma.
If Γ is not finitely generated then we apply Lemma 4.3 and fix, once and for
all, a nonamenable finitely generated subgroup Π < Γ such that χ(Π)Z = χ(Γ)Z .
Let f < F be the finitely generated subfield generated by the matrix coefficients of
χ(Π). Applying Proposition 4.4 to χ|Π : Π → PGLn (f ) we obtain a number r > 0,
a local field k an embedding f ,→ k, an integer n, and a faithful strongly irreducible
projective
 representation φ : H(k) → PGLn (k) defined over k, such that for any
 ∈ 0, 2r there is g ∈ Π for which χ(g) ∈ H(0) (k) and φ ◦ χ(g) acts as an (r, )-very
proximal transformation on P(k n ). Let ρ := φ ◦ χ : Π → PGLn (k).
Setting K = k ⊗f F , the absolute value on the local field k extends to an absolute
value on the extension field K [Lan02, XII, 4, Th. 4.1, p. 482]. The new field K
is not locally compact any more and if the original field k was non-Archimedean
then the corresponding extension of the discrete valuation to K is a real valuation
that need no longer be discrete. However K is still a complete valued field. The
representation φ, defined as it is over k, extends to a representation which we will
still call by the same name φ : H(K) → PGLn (K) which gives rise to an extension
ρ = φ ◦ χ : Γ → PGLn (K).
4.3. Definition of the stabilizer topology and the main technical theorem.
Let χ : Γ → GLn (F ) be the group representation given in Theorem 1.14. We fix
all the notation defined in Subsection 4.2 and in particular the projective representation ρ : Γ → PGLn (K). The relevant class of invariant random subgroups
appearing in Theorem 1.14 is:
IRSχ (Γ) = {µ ∈ IRS(Γ) | χ(∆) 6= hei for µ-almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) }
Note that by the construction of the projective representation in the previous section ker(ρ) = ker(χ) so we can equivalently refer to the above class as IRSρ (Γ).
Let E f.g. be the collection of finitely generated IRSχ -essential subgroups. Namely
these subgroups that are finitely generated and µ-essential for some µ ∈ IRSχ .
Clearly this countable collection of subgroups covers IRSχ . All of our main theorems
will follow from the following theorem asserting the existence of a sufficiently good
refinement of this cover. The following theorem is the main technical theorem of
the current paper, we defer its proof to the following chapter.

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

21

Theorem 4.5. There exists a collection of subgroups H = {Θ1 , Θ2 , . . .} ⊂ E f.g.
and a list of elements {f (p, q, γ) | p, q ∈ N, γ ∈ Γ} with the following properties.
(1) E f.g. <IRSχ H, (see Definition 3.2).
(2) {f (p, q, γ) | p, q ∈ N, γ ∈ Γ} are independent.
(3) f (p, q, γ) ∈ Θq γΘp , ∀p, q ∈ N, γ ∈ Γ.
Theorem 4.5 enables us to define a basis of identity neighborhoods that will
give rise to the stabilizer topology. As discussed right before Theorem 2.8, we can
define a group topology by fixing a conjugation invariant sub-basis SB ⊂ Sub(Γ) of
identity neighborhoods consisting of subgroups. A basis for the
 topology near the
identity will consist of finite intersections of the form Base = ∩M
i=1 ∆i | ∆i ∈ SB .
Hence the resulting topology will be discrete if and only if there are subgroups
{∆1 , ∆2 , . . . , ∆M } ⊂ SB with ∩M
i=1 ∆i = hei.
Definition 4.6. Let Γ be a countable group. Given any collection of subgroups H ⊂
Sub(Γ), the recurrent sub-basis associated with H is the collection of all subgroups

SBH := ∆ ∈ Rec(Γ) | ∀γ ∈ Γ, ∃Θ ∈ H such that Θ < γ∆γ −1 .
We denote by BaseH and τH the basis of identity neighborhoods and topology
constructed from SBH respectively.
If H covers then this construction gives rise to a topology for which almost every
subgroup is open.
Proposition 4.7. (Almost every subgroup is open) Let Γ be a countable group
I ⊂ IRS(Γ) and H ⊂ Sub(Γ) a family of subgroups that covers I. Then for every
µ ∈ I, µ-almost every subgroup hei 6= ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) is open with respect to the
topology τH .
Proof. Fix µ ∈ I, we will actually show that µ-almost every subgroup is in SBH .
The proof that µ almost every subgroup is recurrent is identicalSto the one given
 in
Corollary 2.5. By
our
assumption
that
H
covers
µ
so
that
µ
Env(Θ)
= 1.
Θ∈H
T
 −1 
S
Consequently µ
= 1, because Γ is countable and µ
γ∈Γ γ
Θ∈H Env(Θ) γ
is invariant. This completes the proof as we have shown that the two conditions
for being in SBH are satisfied almost surely.

4.4. A proof that the main theorem follows from the existence of a good
cover. In this section we prove Theorem 1.14 assuming Theorem 4.5. The rest of
the paper will be dedicated to the proof of the latter.
Proof. (of Theorem 1.14 assuming Theorem 4.5). Let χ : Γ → GLn (F ) be as in
Theorem 1.14 and apply Theorem 4.5 which gives rise to the covering family H and
the independent set {f (p, q, γ)}. Now:
• Construct the stabilizer topology by setting Stχ := τH ,
• Construct the free group by setting F = hf (p, q, γ) | p, q ∈ N, γ ∈ Γi.
It follows from Proposition 4.7 that µ-almost every subgroup is open in this topology
for every µ ∈ IRSχ (Γ).
We first verify the equation appearing in property χ-Me-Dense:
F ∆ = Γ,

∀µ ∈ IRSχ (Γ) and for µ-almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ).

Fix µ ∈ IRSχ and some γ ∈ Γ. By Property (1) of Theorem 4.5, for µ-almost every
∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) there is a p ∈ N such that Θp < ∆. Since µ is conjugation invariant,

22

YAIR GLASNER

there is also almost surely some q ∈ N such that γ −1 Θq γ < ∆. Set f = f (p, q, γ).
Now by Property (3) f = θq γθp for some θp ∈ Θp , θq ∈ Θq so that we can write


γ = f θp−1 γ −1 θq−1 γ ∈ f Θp γ −1 Θq γ ⊂ f ∆ ⊂ F ∆.
Note that this does not show that F is dense in the stabilizer topology.
Proving χ-Non-Disc of the theorem will also show that this topology is non
discrete. First note that for every p the group Θp ∩ F is a nonabelian free group as
it contains the free group hf (p, p, θ) | θ ∈ θp i < Θ ∩ F . To proceed we have to show
TJ
that for every every basic open set of the form j=1 ∆j where {∆1 , . . . , ∆J } ⊂ SB
contains a nontrivial element of F . This is proved in precisely the same way as
Theorem 2.8, only we have to take care that the elements δj appearing in that
proof satisfy δj ∈ ∆j ∩ F .
Let µ1 , µ2 ∈ IRSχ (Γ). By Proposition 4.7 µi -almost every subgroup of Γ is open.
Thus for µ1 × µ2 almost every pair (∆1 , ∆2 ) ∈ Sub(Γ)2 both subgroups are open
and by the previous paragraph, so is their intersection ∆1 ∩ ∆2 . This immediately
implies that µ1 ∩ µ2 ∈ IRSχ (Γ), where µ1 ∩ µ2 is the intersection IRS defined in
Subsection 1.3.
To establish property χ − Isom we have to show that the restriction map is an
isomorphism.
Φ : (Sub(Γ), µ) → (Sub(F ), µ|F )
∆

7→ ∆ ∩ F

This is clearly a measure preserving F -invariant surjective map. By Souslin’s theorem [Kec95, Corollary 15.2] it is enough to show that Φ is essentially injective on
Sub(Γ). In other words we wish to show that Φ(∆) 6= Φ(∆0 ) for µ × µ almost every
(∆, ∆0 ) ∈ Sub(Γ)2 such that ∆ 6= ∆0 . Applying Theorem 4.5 (1), we conclude that
µ × µ-almost surely there is some Θ ∈ H with Θ < ∆ ∩ ∆0 . Since by assumption ∆ 6= ∆0 , after possibly switching the roles of ∆, ∆0 we can find an element
δ ∈ ∆ \ ∆0 . Repeating the argument from the proof for property χ-Me-Dense, we
can find a non-trivial element of F in the coset
f ∈ F ∩ δΘ ⊂ F ∩ δ(∆ ∩ ∆0 ) = (F ∩ ∆) ∩ (F ∩ δ∆0 ).
Since two cosets of the same group are disjoint f ∈ (F ∩∆)\(F ∩∆0 ) = Φ(∆)\Φ(∆0 );
establishing the injectivity.

Note 4.8. The dynamical interpretation of the argument used in the proof of property χ-Me-Dense, that was used twice in the above proof is as follows. By Lemma
1.6 every µ ∈ IRSχ arises as the point stabilizer of a probability-measure preserving action Γ y (X, B, µ). Since H covers we can find, for every γ ∈ Γ and
for almost every x ∈ X, some p, q such that Γx > Θp and Γγx > Θq . Hence
γx = θq γθp x, ∀θp ∈ Θp , θq ∈ Θq . Theorem 4.5 above provides a free subgroup with
generators in each and every one of these double cosets. Thus for every probabilitymeasure preserving action of Γ with the property that χ(Γx ) 6= hei almost surely,
Γ and F have the same orbits almost surely.
5. The construction of a good cover
Finally we arrive at the proof of Theorem 4.5. The proof proceeds in a few steps
in which we construct successive refinements for our cover of the collection IRSχ .

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

23

5.1. A cover by infinite subgroups. Our first goal is to show that IRSχ (Γ)
admits a cover by essential subgroups whose ρ-image is infinite. This now follows as
a direct corollary of the Bader-Duchesne-Lécureux Theorem [BDL]. In this section
we show how. The following two sections are dedicated to my original construction
of such a cover, which is geometric and of independent interest.
Fix µ ∈ IRSχ (Γ) and assume by way of contradiction that there is no such
essential cover. In this case we shall further assume that |ρ(H)| < ∞ for every
µ-essential subgroup - just by conditioning on the event:
{∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) | |ρ(H)| < ∞, ∀H ∈ E(µ) ∩ Sub(∆)}
which we assumed has positive probability. The locally essential lemma 2.3 now
implies that ρ(∆) is locally finite, and in particular amenable, µ-almost surely. Now
by the Bader-Duchesne-Lécureux theorem the IRS is contained in the amenable
radical A(Γ) almost surely, and the latter is trivial by Lemma 4.1.
5.2. A geometric construction of an infinite cover. In this section we assume
either that char(F ) = 0 or that Γ is finitely generated. Countable, non finitely
generated groups in positive characteristic will be treated separately in the next
section.
As in the previous section it is enough to prove that the only µ ∈ IRSχ (Γ)
supported on locally finite subgroups of Γ is the trivial IRS. Given such µ, it follows
from the theory of linear groups that there exists a number M such that ρ(∆) admits
a subgroup Λ(∆) of index at most M that fixes a point s(∆) ∈ P(k n ), almost
surely. Indeed if Γ is linear in characteristic zero then every locally finite subgroup
is virtually abelian, with a bound on the index of the abelian subgroup by Schur’s
theorem [Weh73, Corollary 9.4] and the claim follows from Mal’cev’s Theorem
[Weh73, Theorem 3.6]. If Γ is finitely generated it follows from [Weh73, Corlloary
4.8] that there is a bounded index subgroup consisting of unipotent elements, which
is therefore unipotent.
Let g ∈ Γ be any element whose ρ image is very proximal and also satisfies the
condition r > c1 2/3 appearing in Lemma 3.6. The existence of one such element is
guaranteed at the end of Subsection 4.2. Adhering to the notation set in Subsection
3.2 we donate by v g , H g , v g−1 , H g−1 the canonical attracting points and repelling
hyperplanes of g, g −1 respectively.
We claim that ρ(γ) fixes v g for every essential element γ ∈ Γ. Indeed, by
the definition of an essential element, Env(γ) := {∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) | γ ∈ ∆} is a set of
positive measure. Thus by Poincaré recurrence, for almost all ∆ ∈ Env(γ) the
sequence of return times


N (∆, Env(γ)) = nk | g nk ∆g −nk ∈ Env(γ) = nk | g −nk γg nk ∈ ∆ ,
is infinite. Fix such a recurrent point ∆ ∈ Env(γ) which is, at the same time,
locally finite. Many such exist because both properties hold with probability one the first by Poincaré recurrence, the second by the locally essential lemma 2.3.
Now we follow the dynamics of the same elements on the projective space. Let
Λ = Λ(∆) < ∆ be the finite index subgroup of ∆ fixing the point , s = s(∆) ∈ P(k n )
as constructed in the beginning of this section. Let Ω := ∆ · s be the (finite) orbit
n→∞
of this point. Assume first that Ω ∩ H g = ∅. In this case ρ(g n )ω −→ v g for every
ω ∈ Ω and consequently

24

YAIR GLASNER


ρ(γ)(v g )

= ρ(γ)
=


lim ρ (g nk ) s

k→∞

lim ρ g nk g −nk γg nk

k→∞



s ∈ lim ρ (g nk ) Ω = {v g } .
k→∞

Consider now the general case when Ω ∩ H g 6= ∅. In the next two paragraphs we
will exhibit a sequence of very proximal elements gn who satisfy Ω ∩ H gn = ∅, and
limn→∞ v gn = v g . By the previous paragraph the essential element γ fixes v gn and
since the fixed point set of ρ(γ) is closed we conclude that ρ(γ)v g = v g . As desired.
We can find an element σ ∈ Γ such that the following conditions hold:
• ρ(σ)(Ω) ∩ H g = ∅.
• ρ(σ)v g 6∈ H g .
• ρ(σ −1 )v g−1 ∈
6 H g−1 .
Indeed we will even find such an element in Γ(0) - the intersection of Γ with the connected component of its Zariski closure. The strong irreducibility of ρ(Γ) is equivalent to the irreducibility of ρ(Γ(0) ) (see Definition 3.9). Thus for every ω ∈ P(K n )
the collection Dω := {σ ∈ Γ(0) | ρ(σ) · ω 6∈ H g } is non empty and Zariski open.
Since Γ(0) is Zariski connected the sets Dω are open and dense. A similar dense
open set can be constructed for the last condition E := {σ ∈ Γ(0) : ρ(σ −1 )v g−1 6∈
H g−1 }. Our desired element can be chosen as any element in the intersection
σ ∈ (∩ω∈Ω Dω ) ∩ Dvg ∩ E. Having chosen such a σ we let d be the minimal distance
attained in all the above relations, namely:



d ρ(σ)ω, H g > d ∀ω ∈ Ω, d ρ(σ)v g , H g > d, d ρ(σ −1 )v g−1 , H g−1 > d.
Now consider the sequence of elements gn := g n σ. If A(g n ), R(g n ), A(g −n ),
R(g −n ) are attracting and replying neighborhoods for ρ(g n ) then A(gn ) = A(g n ),
R(gn ) = ρ(σ −1 ) (R(g n )), A(gn−1 ) = ρ(σ −1 ) (A(g −n )), R(gn−1 ) = R(g −n ) will be
attracting and repelling neighborhoods for gn . For large enough values of n we
can assume that the original neighborhoods are arbitrarily small A(g n ) ⊂ (v gn ) =
(v g ) , R(g n ) ⊂ (H g ) , etc’. Where (·) stands for the -neighborhood. In particular
if d is the bound constructed in the previous paragraph and we choose n large
enough so that d > /2. The above inequalities will imply immediately that
Ac(gn ) ∩ R(gn ) = A(gn−1 ) ∩ R(gn−1 ) = R(gn ) ∩ Ω = ∅
The first two ensure that ρ(gn ) is again very proximal. The last one shows that
Ω ∩ A(gn ) = ∅ for every n ≥ N . Thus as mentioned above we have ρ(λ)v gn = v gn
and passing to the limit this completes the proof that v g is fixed by all essential
elements.
Since the representation ρ : Γ → GLn (K) is strongly irreducible Lemma 3.13
yields n + 1 points in general position in the orbit {γ0 v g , γ1 v g . . . , γn v g }. Since
γi v g is the attracting fixed point for the very proximal element γi gγi−1 , the above
proof implies that all of these n + 1 points are fixed by every essential element
γ ∈ Γ. By Lemma 3.12 ρ(γ) is trivial for every essential element. Finally the locally
essential lemma 2.3 implies that ρ(∆) = hei for µ-almost every ∆ contradicting our
assumption µ ∈ IRSχ .

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

25

5.3. Finitely generated groups in positive characteristic. Here we treat the
case where the group Γ is linear in positive characteristic and non finitely generated.
Just as in the previous section it is enough to prove that the only µ ∈ IRSχ (Γ)
supported on locally finite subgroups of Γ is the trivial IRS.
The geometric strategy employed in the previous section to show that such IRS
cannot exist is quite general. Loosely speaking two geometric properties of the
action on the projective plane were used:
(1) Every locally finite subgroup fixes a point (or a finite number thereof)
(2) There are enough proximal elements
The problem is that when Γ is linear over a field of positive characteristic and, at the
same time, fails to be finitely generated the action on the projective space P(K n )
no longer satisfies condition (1) above. For example if F < K is a locally finite
field then PGLn (F ) < PGLn (K) is locally finite, but does not fix any projective
point in P(K n ). We assumed explicitly that ρ(Γ) is not an amenable group and in
particular it cannot be of this form. Still ρ(Γ) may contain many such locally finite
subgroups and we have to show that the IRS is not supported on these.
We will use the action of PGLn (K) on its (affine) Bruhat-Tits building X =
X(K n ) and show that X does satisfy the desired conditions. Note that in this
generality the building X is neither locally finite nor simplicial. This is due, respectively, to the facts that the residue field might no longer be finite and the
value group might fail to be discrete. Bruhat-Tits buildings in this generality were
treated by Brhuat-Tits [BT72, BT84] but a geometric axiomatization of such affine
buildings was given only later in the thesis of Anne Parreau [Par00].
We will follow the notation in the excellent survey paper [RTW14, Section 1]. In
particular we set V = K n and denote by N (V, K)diag the set of all diagonalizable
non-Archimedean norms on V (these are discussed in some detail in [Wei95]) and
we identify the building X = X (V, K) = N (V, K)diag / ∼ with the collection of
all such norms modulo homothety k·k ∼ c k·k , c > 0.
P A norm is diagonalized by
a basis e = {e1 , . . . , en } of V, if it is of the form k ai ei kc = maxi {eci |ai |} for
some vector c = (c1 , . . . , cn ). Thus the collection of all norms diagonalized by a
given basis is identified with {k·kc | c ∈ Rn } ∼
= Rn . The image of these Euclidean
spaces in X (V, K) are the apartments of the building, they are n − 1 dimensional
spaces of the form Ae = Rn /h(1, 1, . . . , 1)i. The important features for us are that
the building X is still a CAT(0) space (see [RTW14, Section 1.1.3]) and it still
has a finite dimensional Tits boundary. In fact, since the base field is complete,
the boundary ∂X is naturally identified with the spherical building of PGLn (K).
Recall that the zero skeleton ∂X 0 of the spherical building consists of non-trivial
proper subspaces of V . The higher dimensional simplexes correspond to flags of
such subspaces. We will say that a vertex of ∂X is of type i if it corresponds to an
i-dimensional subspace.
These conditions are important because they are exactly these needed for the
following theorem of Caprace-Monod.
Proposition 5.1. ([CM09, Corollary 3.4]) Let X be a CAT(0) space with finite
dimensional Tits boundary. Then every locally finite group acting on X fixes a
point in X t ∂X.
Thus we may assume that almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) fixes some point s(∆) ∈
X t ∂X. Since the action of PGLn (K) on ∂X preserves types we may, and shall,

26

YAIR GLASNER

assume that whenever s(∆) ∈ ∂X then it is actually a vertex in the spherical
building, of type i(∆).
Let us write µ as a convex combination of IRS with disjoint supports as follows
µ = cX µX + c1 µ1 + cH µH where:
• µX -almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) has a fixed point inside X.
• µ1 -almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) does not have a fixed point in X but it does
fix a vertex of type 1 in ∂X.
• µH -almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) fixes neither a point in X nor a vertex of type
1 in ∂X. So that s(∆) ∈ ∂X is a vertex of higher type.
For µX almost very ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) we insist that s(∆) ∈ X. Similarly for µ1 almost
every ∆ we take s(∆) to be a vertex of type 1. We will treat each of these measures
separately. Note that only µX can be trivial as the other two give measure zero
to the trivial group. Therefore what we have to prove is that µX ({hei}) = 1 and
that the other two measures cannot exist and hence cX = 1, c1 = cH = 0. The
measure µ1 is easiest, µ1 -almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) fixes a point in P(V ) and we
argue exactly as in the previous section.
For µX the argument is very similar. Let g ∈ Γ be an element whose ρ image
is (r, )-very proximal with attracting point v g and repelling hyperplane H g in the
projective plane P(V ). Let ṽg = hvg i ∈ ∂X be the associated g fixed point in the
spherical building ∂X. ρ(g) will act as a hyperbolic isometry on the building X.
Just as in the previous section it would be enough to show that ṽg , and hence also
v g is fixed by every µX -essential element γ ∈ Γ.
Pick ∆ ∈ Env(γ) that is simultaneously locally finite and recurrent in the sense
that g −n γg n ∈ ∆ infinitely often. Let s = s(∆) ∈ X be the corresponding fixed
point. The element ρ(g) acts as a hyperbolic element on X with attracting point
ṽg ∈ ∂X. Thus for every sequence ni ∈ N (∆, Env(hγi), g) the sequence ρ(g ni )s
i→∞

consists of ρ(∆) fixed points converging to the attracting point ρ(g ni )s → ṽg . We
conclude using the fact that set of ρ(γ) fixed points is closed.
We turn to µH , which is the hardest of the three. The following Lemma shows
that µH cannot be supported on totally reducible subgroups. We first recall the
definition.
Definition 5.2. A subspace of V is called totally reducible if it decomposes as a
direct sum of irreducible ρ(∆) modules. We say that ρ(∆) is totally reducible if V
itself is totally reducible as a ρ(∆) module.
Lemma 5.3. Let K be a complete valued field, ∆ a locally finite group and ρ : ∆ →
PGLn (K) a totally reducible representation, all of whose irreducible components are
of dimension ≥ 2. Then ρ(∆) fixes a point in the affine Bruhat-Tits building X of
PGLn (K).
Proof. Assume that V = W1 ⊕ W2 ⊕ . . . ⊕ Wl is the decomposition into ρ(∆)irreducible representations. Since each Wi is of dimension at least two we consider
the affine building Y = Y1 × Y2 × . . . × Yl corresponding to the group PGL(W1 ) ×
PGL(W2 ) × . . . × PGL(Wl ). The boundary of this product is the spherical join
of the boundaries of the individual factors ∂Y = ∂Y1 ∗ ∂Y2 ∗ . . . ∗ ∂Yl , see [BH99,
Definition 5.13, Corollary 9.11]. ∂Y embeds as a sub-building of ∂X. Since the
group ρ(∆) preserves the direct sum decomposition, it acts on this building. Being
locally finite as it is, Proposition 5.1 implies that ρ(∆) has a fixed point in Y ∪ ∂Y .
If the fixed point is on the boundary we may assume again that it is a vertex;

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

27

but ∂Y 0 = ∂Y10 t . . . t ∂Yl0 so that in fact we have a fixed vertex in ∂Yi for
some i. This corresponds to a proper invariant subspace of Wi which is impossible
since the action of ρ(∆) on Wi is irreducible. So there is a ρ(∆) fixed point y =
(y1 , y2 , . . . , yl ) ∈ Y . Each yi corresponds to a homothety class of norms, let k·ki
be a norm on Wi representing this homothety class. Consider the subspace of X
consisting of all homothety classes of norms that coincide with these fixed norms
on each Wi .
R = {k·k ∈ N (V, K)diag | ∃(d1 , d2 , . . . , dl ) ∈ Rl s.t. kwk = edi kwki ∀w ∈ Wi }/ ∼
This is clearly a convex ρ(∆) invariant subset of the building isometric to a Euclidean space of dimension l − 1. Since ρ(∆) fixes l points on the boundary of this
Euclidean space it must fix the whole boundary. Hence it acts on R by translations.
This give a homomorphism ρ(∆) → Rl−1 which must be trivial as ρ(∆) is locally
finite. Thus ρ(∆) fixes R pointwise and in particular it fixes many points in X in
contradiction to our definition of the measure µH .
This last argument is illustrated in figure 1, inside one apartment, of the simplicial building associated with PGL4 (k) over a local field. The basis corresponding to this apartment {e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 } was chosen to respect the splitting W1 =
he1 , e2 i, W2 = he3 , e4 i as well as the individual fixed norms, which are here just
the standard norms on these two subspaces. As is customary in the simplicial setting the homothety classes of norms are represented by homothety classes of unit
balls with respect to these norms. The vertices thus correspond to lattices over the
integer rings.
he1 , e2 , e3 i
W1 = he1 , e2 i

he2 , e3 , e4 i

(pe1 , e2 , e3 , e4 )
(e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 )
X

he1 i

∂X

R
(pe1 , pe2 , pe3 , e4 )
(pe1 , pe2 , e3 , e4 )
he4 i

W2 = he3 , e4 i

Figure 1. An example of a ρ(∆) fixed subspace R within an
apartment in the building of PGL4 (Qp ).

We will now aim at a contradiction, to the existence of µH , by showing that
µH almost every subgroup is totally reducible. As in Proposition 4.7, the locally
essential lemma 2.3 combined with Poincaré recurrence show that µH almost every
subgroup is locally essential recurrent .
It is a well known fact from ring theory that the a module is totally reducible if
and only if it is generated by its irreducible components (see for example [Weh73,

28

YAIR GLASNER

Theorem 1.4]). Thus the subspace W = W (∆) < V generated by all the irreducible
submodules of ρ(∆) is a maximal ρ(∆)-totally reducible submodule. Assume toward
contradiction that W 6= V is not the whole space. We start by finding a finitely
generated subgroup with the same maximal totally reducible subspace
Lemma 5.4. There is a finitely generated subgroup Σ < ∆ such that W is also a
maximal totally reducible ρ(Σ)-module.
Proof. Let W = ⊕i Wi be the decomposition of Wi into irreducible representations.
Let Σ1 < Σ2 < . . . be finitely generated subgroups ascending to ∆. Within each Wi
we can find some Wi,j < Wi which is irreducible as a ρ(Σj )-module. Furthermore
we can clearly arrange that Wi,j ≤ Wi,j+1 , ∀i, j. By dimension considerations
this process must stabilize. And it must stabilize with Wi,j = Wi , ∀j ≥ J since
a module that is invariant under every Σj must be ∆-invariant too. Thus the
maximal totally reducible subspace of ΣJ contains W .
Now let U = W ⊕ U1 ⊕ . . . ⊕ Ul be the maximal totally reducible subspace for
ρ(ΣJ ). For each Ui we can find some δi ∈ ∆ such that ρ(δ)Ui ∩ W 6= h0i. Thus
none of the spaces Ui can be contained in the maximal totally reducible subspace
for Σ := hΣJ , δ1 , δ2 , . . . , δs i and the maximal totally reducible subspace for this last
group must be W itself.

ρ(Γ) contains a very proximal element g. Since ρ(Γ) is strongly irreducible we
can assume, after possibly replacing g by a conjugate, that W 6< H g and v g 6∈ W .
This immediately implies that
lim d(ρ(g n )W, v g ) = 0.

n→∞

In particular there exists some N ∈ N such that for every n > N we have W 
hW, ρ(g n )W i. Now consider the measure preserving dynamics on Sub(Γ). Let
Σ < ∆ is the finitely generated subgroup provided by Lemma 5.4. Since ∆ was
chosen to be locally essential we know that µ(Env(Σ)) > 0. Now by the recurrence
assumption the set of return times N (∆, Env(Σ), g) = {n ∈ N | g n ∆g −n ∈ Env(Σ)}
is infinite. And for every such such return time n we have
σρ(g n )W = ρ(g n )ρ(g −n σg n )W = ρ(g n )W

∀σ ∈ Σ.

Moreover since conjugation by g induces an isomorphism between W and ρ(g n )W
as Σ-modules the latter is again totally reducible. Thus if we choose n > N which is
also in N (∆, Env(Σ), g) we have a subspace W 0 = hW, ρ(g)W i that is Σ-invariant,
totally reducible as a ρ(Σ) module and strictly larger than W ; in contradiction to
our construction of Σ. This contradiction finishes the proof.
Z

5.4. A nearly Zariski dense essential cover. Let H = ρ(Γ) (K) be the K
points of the Zariski closure of ρ(Γ) and H (0) the connected component of the
identity in H. Our goal in this section is to find an essential cover by finitely
Z
generated subgroups Σ such that ρ(Σ) contains H (0) . For this fix µ ∈ IRSχ . As
Z

a first step we claim that ρ(∆) > H (0) almost surely (compare [ABB+ , Theorem
2.6]).
Let h = Lie(H)(K) be the Lie algebra and Gr(h) the Grassmannian over h. By
taking the Lie algebra of the random subgroup we obtain a random point in this

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

29

Grassmannian
Ψ : Sub(Γ)
∆

→ Gr(h)
h

i
Z
7→ Lie ρ(∆)

The push forward of the IRS gives rise to a ρ(Γ)-invariant measure on Gr(h). Since
ρ(Γ) is Zariski dense and H0 is simple, it follows from Furstenberg’s lemma [Fur76,
Lemma 2] that such a measure can be supported only on the Γ(0) -invariant points
{h, {0}}. By the previous subsection we already know that ρ(∆) is almost surely
Z

infinite so that in fact ψ(∆) = h almost surely. This means dim(ρ(∆) ) = dim(H).
Z

Hence ρ(∆) itself has to be a subgroup of maximal dimension and it contains H (0)
- even in positive characteristic.
By the results of Sections 5.1, 5.3 ρ(∆) is not locally finite almost surely. Since
ρ(∆) has a simple Zariski closure this immediately implies that in fact it is not
even amenable. Thus by Lemma 4.3 µ-almost every ∆ ∈ Sub(Γ) contains a finitely
 Z (0)
generated non-amenable subgroup Σ < ∆ with Σ
> H (0) . As in the proof of
Lemma 2.3 we can ignore these subgroups Σ which are not µ-essential and obtain
the desired essential cover.
5.5. Abundance of very proximal elements. The goal of this section is to refine the essential cover we already have, to obtain a cover by groups which satisfy
some desirable dynamical properties in their action on P(K n ). We focus on two
properties: strong irreducibility of ρ(Σ) on P(K n ) and the existence of an element
aΣ ∈ Σ with ρ(aΣ ) very proximal. Where Σ ranges over the essential group participating in the cover. The first property is automatic from what we have said so far
as strong irreducibility of ρ : Σ → PGLn (K) is equivalent to the irreducibility of


Z (0)
. We will refine the essential cover so
the Zariski connected component ρ(Σ)
that each of the covering subgroups will contain a very proximal element.
So far we have a cover by all finitely generated essential subgroups Σ that satisfy
Z
the following conditions (i) non-amenable and (ii) satisfy Σ > H (0) (iii) ρ(Σ) is
strongly irreducible. Since both these conditions are monotone Lemma 3.4 implies
that it is enough to find, for every such essential subgroup Σ, a larger essential
subgroup Σ < Θ containing such a very proximal element.
By Lemma 3.11, in order to establish the existence of a very proximal element, it
is enough to find an element with a small enough Lipschitz constant on an arbitrarily
small open set. Let (0 , r0 , c0 ) = ((Σ), r(Σ), c(Σ)) be the constants, governing
the connection between the proximality and Lipschitz constants, provided by that
Lemma. Recall also that we have fixed an (r, )-very proximal element g ∈ Π
together with our linear representation. Since Σ is strongly irreducible, there exists
an element x ∈ Σ such that x moves the attracting point v g−1 of g −1 outside the
repelling hyperplane H g of g. Set d = d(xv g−1 , H g ) to be the projective distance
between the two. Now consider the element
y = g m xg −m ,
We claim that if m > m0 for some m0 then y is 0 -Lipschitz on a small neighborhood
of v g−1 . It follows from Lemma 3.6 that for a large enough m the element ρ(g −m ) is
η-very proximal with the same attracting point and repelling hyperplane as ρ(g −1 );

30

YAIR GLASNER

where η > 0 can be chosen arbitrarily small. By Lemma 3.8 ρ(g −m ) is C1 η 2 Lipschitz on some small open neighborhood O, away from H g−1 , for some constant
C1 depending only on ρ(g).
 If we take O to be small enough and m large enough
then d ρ(xg −m )(O), H g > d/2. By Lemma 3.8 again, the element ρ(g mj ) is
C2 2 -Lipschitz on ρ(xg −m )(O). Now since ρ(x) is bi-Lipschitz with some constant
C3 depending on ρ(x), it follows that ρ(y) = ρ(g m xg −m ) is C4 4 -Lipschitz on O,
−1/3
where C4 depends only on ρ(g) and ρ(x). If we require also 0 ≤ C4
then ρ(y)
is 0 -Lipschitz on O as we claimed. The dynamics of the action of the element
ρ(g m xg −m ) on P(K n ) is depicted on the left side of Figure 2.
P(K n )
v g−

1

Sub(Γ)

−1 )
A(g
gm

Env(Σ)
O

g

Env(Θ)
g

H g−1

x
Hg

g

−m

A(g)

g
g

vg

Figure 2. The dynamics of ρ(g m xg −m ) on the P(K n ) and Sub(Γ).
Now we analyze the action of the same element g m xg −m on Sub(Γ). Poincaré
recurrence yields infinitely many values of m for which


µ Env(Σ) ∩ Env(g m Σg −m ) = µ Env(hΣ, g m Σg −m i) > 0.
We choose m ∈ N for which this is true and at the same time the reasoning of
the previous paragraph applies so that y = g m xg −m is 0 -Lipschitz contained in
the essential subgroup Θ := hΣ, g m Σg −m i. Since by assumption ρ (Σ) is strongly
−1
irreducible
f2 ∈ Θ
1y
√ Lemma 3.11 provides elements f1 , f2 ∈ Σ such that aΘ := yf
±
0 0
0
is (r , c  )-very proximal. Which completes the proof. Let A(aΘ ), R(a±
Θ ) be
attracting and repelling neighborhoods for the elements we have just constructed.
By our construction all the groups Θ are again finitely generated, as they are
generated by two finitely generated subgroups. Hence if


ρ(Θ) is strongly irreducible






Z (0)
F := Θ ∈ E ∃a ∈ Θ with ρ(a) very proximal and ρ(a) ∈ ρ(Θ)




Θ is finitely generated
We have just shown that F covers IRSχ (Γ).
5.6. Putting the very proximal elements {aΣ } in general position. In the
construction of the very proximal elements {aΣ | Σ ∈ F} in Subsection 5.5 no
connection was established between these different elements. As a first step towards
arranging them we would like, each one of them separately, to form a ping-pong
pair with our fixed very proximal element g ∈ Γ. Moreover we would like this to
be realized with repelling and attracting neighborhoods:
±1
R(g ±1 ), A(g ±1 ), R(a±1
Σ ), A(aΣ ),

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

31

such that R(g ±1 ), A(g ±1 ) are independent of Σ. This will be done, at the expense
of refining the cover again G <IRSχ (Γ) F.
Let h ∈ Π be any very proximal element satisfying the ping-pong lemma conditions with g. Assume that R(g ±1 ), A(g ±1 ), R(h±1 ), A(h±1 ) are the corresponding
attracting and repelling neighborhoods. For the sake of this proof only we will call
an element h0 good if it is very proximal with attracting and repelling neighborhoods contained in these of h as follows: A(h0±1 ) ⊂ A(h), R(h0±1 ) ⊂ R(h−1 ). Such
a good element is indeed good for us: the pair {h0 , g} satisfies the conditions of the
ping-pong lemma, with the given attracting and repelling neighborhood.
Let G ⊂ F be the collection of essential subgroups in F that contain a good
element. Since F is monotone Lemma 3.4 implies that it is enough to show that
any given Σ ∈ F is contained in a larger subgroup Θ ∈ G. So fix Σ ∈ F and
let a = aΣ be the associated very proximal element with attracting and repelling
±1
neighborhoods A(a±1
Σ ), R(aΣ ). We can always assume that a, h are in general
position with respect to each other, that is to say that some high enough powers
of them play ping-pong. Indeed conjugation just moves the attracting points and
repelling hyperplanes around v σa± σ−1 = ρ(σ)v a± , H σa± σ−1 = ρ(σ)H a± , and since
by assumption Σ is strongly irreducible we can choose σ ∈ Σ that will bring a to a
general position with respect to h.
Now as a, h are in general position we claim that hl ah−l is good for any sufficiently large l. This is statement is clear upon observation that
A(hl a± h−l )

=

ρ(hl )A(a± )

R(hl a± h−l )

=

ρ(hl )R(a± )

Consider for example the second equation.
Since a and h are in general position

we know that d v h−1 , R(a) ∪ R(a−1 ) > 0. Since h satisfies the conditions of
−l
−1
Lemma 3.6 we can choose
 l large enough so that A(h ) ⊂ (v h )d/2 and hence
−l
−1
A(h ) ∩ R(a) ∪ R(a ) = ∅. Now the equation above implies that

R(hl a± h−l ) = ρ(hl )R(a± ) ⊂ ρ(hl ) P(k n ) \ A(h−l ) ⊂ R(hl ) ⊂ R(h).

Where the inclusion before last follows from the fact that ρ(h−l ) P(k n ) \ R(hl ) ⊂
A(h−l ). The second case follow in a similar fashion.
On the space Sub(Γ) we repeat the argument from the previous section. By
Poincaré recurrence the group Θ := hΣ, hl Σh−l i is again essential for infinitely
many values of l. We choose one such value to make Θ essential and at the same
time large enough so that aΘ := hl ah−l is good. This completes the proof that G
covers IRSχ (Γ), where G is the set


ρ(Θ) is strongly irreducible






Z (0)
Θ ∈ F ∃a ∈ Θ with ρ(a) good, very proximal and ρ(a) ∈ ρ(Θ)
.




Θ is finitely generated
The following proposition gives a good idea of the possible use we can make of such
a cover in the construction of free groups:
Proposition 5.5. Assume that g and {aΘ | Θ ∈ G} are very proximal elements
as constructed above. Namely they admit attracting and repelling neighborhoods
±
A(g ± ), R(g ± ), A(a±
Θ ), R(aΘ ) such that for every Θ ∈ G the elements {aΘ , g} satisfy
the conditions of the ping-pong lemma 3.7 with respect to the given neighborhoods.

32

YAIR GLASNER

Then for every map ψ : Z → G the elements
 i
g aψ(i) g −i | i ∈ N ,
satisfy the conditions of the ping-pong lemma and are therefore independent.
Proof. Consider the closed sets

D̂ := P(k n )\ A(g) ∪ A(g −1 ) ,


D := P(k n )\ A(g) ∪ A(g −1 ) ∪ R(g) ∪ R(g −1 ) ,

These satisfy the following properties:
±
(1) A(a±
Θ ) ∪ R(aΘ ) ⊂ D̂ ∀Θ ∈ G.
±
(2) A(aΘ ) ⊂ D ∀Θ ∈ G.
(3) ρ(g i )(D̂) ∩ ρ(g j )(D) = ∅, ∀i 6= j ∈ Z
Indeed the first two properties follow directly from our ping-pong assumption on
the pairs {g, aΘ }. As for the third property, after applying an appropriate power of
ρ(g) and possibly changing i and j, we may assume without loss of generality that
i = 0 and that j > 0; but ρ(g j )(D) ⊂ A(g) and D̂ ∩ A(g) = ∅.
Now these three properties together imply the statement. Indeed given i 6= j ∈ Z
we have to show that
h
i
−i
j ±
−j
−j
A(g i a±
) ∪ R(g j a±
) =∅
ψ(i) g ) ∩ A(g aψ(j) g
ψ(j) g


±
−i
i
But A(g i a±
⊂ ρ(g i )(D) while for a similar reason we
ψ(i) g ) = ρ(g ) A(aψ(i) )


±
±
−j
j ±
−j
j
have A(g j a±
g
)
∪
R(g
a
g
)
=
ρ(g
)
A(a
)
∪
R(a
)
⊂ ρ(g j )(D̂)
ψ(j)
ψ(j)
ψ(j)
ψ(j)
which concludes the proof by Property (3) above. A case that is particularly easy
to visualize is the rank one situation where the very proximal elements exhibit a
north-south type dynamics on the projective plane. The situation in this specific
case is depicted in figure 3 below.

g 3 aψ(3) g −3

aΘ2
g

g 2 aψ(2) g −2

aΘ3

aΘ1

gaψ(1) g −1

P n−1 (K)

Figure 3. Arranging very-proximal elements into a ping-pong setting
5.7. Poincaré recurrence estimates for multiple measures. Before proceeding to the proof of Theorem 4.5. We will need the following quantitative version of
Poincaré recurrence.
Lemma 5.6. (Poincaré recurrence) Let (X, B, µ, T ) be a probability measure preserving action of Z = hT i, A ∈ B a set of positive measure and  > 0. Then there
exists a number n = n(A, µ, ) ∈ N, such that for every N ∈ N we have
!!
N +n−1
[
µ A\
T iA
< .
i=N

33

Tail(6)

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6
Figure 4. A Kakutani-Rokhlin tower

Proof. Let Vm = x ∈ A | T m x ∈ A, but T l x 6∈ A ∀1 ≤ l < m . Clearly these
sets are measurable and disjoint. Poincaré recurrence implies that their union
covers all of A up to µ-nullsets. This enables us to cover the forward hT i-orbit of
Env(Σ) by a so called Kakutani-Rokhlin tower (see figure 5.7):
∪n∈N T n A =
t
t

[V1 ]


V2 t T 1 V2


V3 t T 1 V3 t T 2 V3 t . . .

Where all the sets are disjoint and equality is up to nullsets. Denoting the tail of
this tower by


Tail(m) = [Vm+1 t . . . t T m Vm+1 ] t Vm+2 t . . . t T m+1 Vm+2 t . . . ,
we choose n = n(T, µ, ) to be the minimal number such that µ(Tail(n)) < . The
lemma now follows from the obvious inclusion
!
N +n−1
[
i
A\
T A ⊂ T −N (Tail(n)).
i=N


5.8. An independent set. We proceed to our last refinement: a collection H ⊂ G
of finitely generated essential subgroups together together with a set of associated
very proximal elements B := {bΘ ∈ Θ | Θ ∈ H} which satisfy the following two
conditions:
Ind: B = {bΘ | Θ ∈ H} forms an independent set.
Cov: H covers IRSχ .
To achieve this, we can no longer appeal to Lemma 3.4 as our new requirement Ind
can no longer be verified one group at a time. To obtain an independent set we
apply Proposition 5.5 with a function ψ : Z → G satisfying the following property:
Rpt: For every (n, Σ) ∈ N × G there is some index N = N (n, Σ) such that
ψ(i) = ψ(i + 1) = ψ(i + 2) = . . . = ψ(i + n − 1) = Σ.
to obtain a sequence of subgroups Θj = hΣ, g j Σg −j i and an associated sequence of
elements

bΘj = g j aψ(j) g −j ∈ Θj
j∈N .
Proposition 5.5 guarantees that the elements {bΘj | j ∈ N} form a ping-pong tuple
and are hence independent. It is not necessarily true that every Θj is essential but

34

YAIR GLASNER

to construct H and B we take only the indexes j for which this is the case:
H

=

{Θj | j ∈ Z, Θj is µ − essential for some µ ∈ IRSχ }

B

=

{bΘ | Θ ∈ H}.

Clearly H ⊂ G. Indeed each Θ ∈ H is finitely generated as it is generated by two
finitely generated subgroups; it is strongly irreducible as it contains a strongly irreducible subgroup and it contains the very proximal element bΘ . The independence
condition (Ind) for the elements of B follows directly from Proposition 5.5.
As for the covering condition (Cov), this is where our uniform estimates on
Poincareé recurrence come into play. Fix Σ ∈ G,  > 0 and let µ ∈ IRSχ (Γ) be
a measure according to which Σ is µ-essential. Usually there will be uncountably
many such measures since H is merely countable while IRSχ (Γ) is not! Still we
can apply Lemma 5.6 to the dynamical system (X = Sub(Γ), B, µ, g) and to the
positive measure set A = Env(Σ). Let n = n(A, µ, ) = n(Σ, µ, ) be the constant
given by that lemma so that for every N ∈ Z we have


N +n−1


[
µ Env(Σ) \
Env(hΣ, g j Σg −j i) < .


j=N

By our construction of the function ψ there exists an index N = N (n, Σ) such that
Θj = hΣ, g j Σg −j i ∈ H for every N (n, Σ) ≤ j ≤ N (n, Σ) + n − 1. Or at least for
every such j such that Θj is essential. Since anyhow these that are non essential
have envelopes of measure zero we have


(
)
N +n−1


[
[
µ Env(Σ) \
Env(Θ) ≤ µ Env(Σ) \
Env(Θj ) < .


j=N

Θ∈H

Since µ, , Σ are arbitrary we deduce that H covers IRSχ as promised.
5.9. Conclusion. Here we complete the proof of Theorem 4.5 thereby completing
the proof of the main theorem. Let H = {Θ1 , Θ2 , . . .}, B = {b1 , b2 , . . .} be the
groups and very proximal elements constructed in the previous section - with a
new enumeration making the indices consecutive. No further refinement of H the
collection of essential subgroups will be needed; what we do want is a much richer
free subgroup containing representatives of all double cosets of the form Θq γΘp .
For this fix a bijection
N

→

N2 × Γ

k

7→

(p(k), q(k), γ(k))

We proceed to prove Theorem 4.5 by induction on k. Assume that after k steps
of induction we have constructed group elements {fi ∈ Γ | 1 ≤ i ≤ k} and a
sequence of numbers {np (k) ∈ N | p ∈ N} with the following properties:
• ρ(fi ) is very proximal for each 1 ≤ i ≤ k.
• np (k) ≥ np (k − 1), ∀p ∈ N.
• fi ∈ Θq(i) γ(i)Θp(i) , ∀1 ≤ i ≤ k.
• The elements
n (k)

B(k) := {f1 , f2 . . . , fk , b1 1

n (k)

, b2 2

, . . .},

form an (infinite) ping-pong tuple - satisfying the conditions of Lemma 3.7.

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

35

For the basis of the induction we take k = 0, np (0) = 1 and B(0) = B. Now
assume that we already have all of the above for k − 1 and let us show how to carry
out the induction. Set p = p(k), q = q(k), γ = γ(k). Since Θp , Θq ∈ H ⊂ G ⊂ F
both these groups act strongly irreducibly on the projective space. So there exist
elements x = x(k) ∈ Θp , y = y(k) ∈ Θq such that:
6∈

H bq

v b−1
q

6∈

H b−1
p

ρ(yγx)−1 v bq

6∈

H bp

ρ(yγx)v bp
ρ(yγx)

−1

(5.1)

ρ(yγx)v b−1
6∈ H b−1
p
q


(0)
Indeed the set of elements in Θp ∩ G
× Θq ∩ G(0) that satisfy each one of the
above conditions is Zariski open and non-trivial by the strong irreducibility. Hence
their intersection is non-empty.
We define
fk := blq2 yγxblp1 ,
Denote by (·) an -neighborhood in P(k n ). We claim that for a small given  > 0
if l1 , l2 are large enough then there exists some 0 < 0 <  such that

 



⊂ v bq 0 \ v bq 0
ρ(fk ) Pn−1 (k) \ H bp  \ H bp 0
 
 i

 


h
−1
−1
\ H b−1
⊂
v
\
v
. (5.2)
ρ(fk−1 ) Pn−1 (k) \ H b−1
b
b
q
q
q
q
0
0








Indeed we can write
ρ(fk ) Pn−1 (k) \ H bp





 
⊂ ρ(blq2 yγx) v bp 
1

 
l2
⊂ ρ(bq ) ρ(yγx)v bp 
2

 
n−1
l2
\ H bq 
⊂ ρ(bq ) P
2


⊂ v bq  \ v bq 0

Where, since bp is very proximal, the first inclusion holds for arbitrarily small values
of 1 , whenever l1 is large enough. Consequently 2 can be set arbitrarily small by
continuity of ρ(yγx) on the projective plane. In view of the first line in Equation
(5.1) we can choose 2 < 12 d ρ(yγx)v bp , H bq which accounts the third line. Now
by choosing l2 to be large enough, blq2 becomes very proximal with attracting and
repelling neighborhoods arbitrarily close to v bq and H bq respectively. In particular
we can arrange for the image to be contained in (v bp ) as indicated. The fact that
we can exclude from the image a ball of some positive radius 0 > 0 comes from the
fact that v bq is a fixed point for the homeomorphism ρ(blq2 ) and that, by the above
observations, we may assume that 2 < 21 d(H bq , v bq ).
And on the other hand

 
 
⊂ ρ(blq2 yγx) H bp 1
ρ(fk ) H bp 0

 
⊂ ρ(blq2 ) ρ(yγx)H bp 2

 
⊂ ρ(blq2 ) Pn−1 \ v bq 2


⊂ v bq  \ v bq 0

36

YAIR GLASNER

Figure 5. Final refinement
Where the first equation can be satisfied, for arbitrarily small values of 1 , if we
assume that 0 is small enough; by the fact that Hbp invariant under the continuous
map blp1 and that the latter map admits some global Lipschitz constant on the whole
of P(k n ). The second inclusion follows, for arbitrarily small values of 2 , using the
Lipschitz nature of ρ(yγx) combined with the ability to bound 1 . Now using the
third line in Equation 5.1 we can choose 2 < d(v bq , ρ(yγx)H bp ). Finally the last
line follows from the previous one and from the fact that v bq is ρ(bq )-invariant.
These last two calculations combine to yield the first Equation in 5.2. The second
equation there follows in a completely symmetric fashion.
Equations 5.2, applied to a small enough value of , imply the existence of 0 > 0
and l1 , l2 ∈ N such that ρ(fk ) becomes a very proximal element with attracting
and repelling neighborhoods as follows:

R(fk ) ⊂ R(bp ) \ H bp 0

A(fk ) ⊂ A(bq ) \ v bq 0


R(fk−1 ) ⊂ R(b−1
q ) \ H b−1
q
0

 
−1
−1
.
A(fk ) ⊂ A(bp ) \ v b−1
p
0

Since the elements bp , bq are very proximal, and in addition satisfy the conditions
of Lemma 3.6, powers of them will have the same attracting points and repelling
hyperplanes, and we can arrange for the attracting and repelling neighborhoods
to be in arbitrarily small neighborhoods of these points and planes 
respectively.

±n (k)
Thus choose np (k) > np (k − 1), nq (k) > nq (k − 1) that give rise to R br r
⊂



 

±nr (k)
H b±
, A br
⊂ v b±
, for every r ∈ {p, q}. For every other r ∈ N\{p, q}
r
r
0

0

we just set nr (k) = nr (k − 1).
We leave it to the reader to verify that the induction holds. The only thing that
really requires verification is the ping-pong conditions for:
n (k)

{f1 , f2 . . . , fk , b1 1

n (k)

, b2 2

, . . . , bnp p (k) , . . . , bnp p (k) , . . . , },

which follows quite directly based only on the induction hypothesis and the specific
±n (k) ±n (k)
repelling and attracting neighborhoods we have found for fk±1 , bp p , bq q .

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

37

Appendix A. A relative version of Borel density theorem - By
Tsachik Gelander and Yair Glasner
In this appendix we prove a relative version of the Borel Density Theorem for
Invariant Random Subgroups in countable linear groups.
Theorem A.1. (Relative version of the Borel density theorem) Let Γ < GLn (F )
be a countable linear group with a simple, center free, Zariski closure. Then every
non-trivial invariant random subgroup ∆ 2 Γ is Zariski dense almost surely.
Proof. We first claim that ∆ is either trivial or infinite almost surely. Assume that
∆ is finite with positive probability, in this case we may further assume that ∆ is
finite almost surely by conditioning on the event Fin := {∆ | |∆| < ∞} ⊂ Sub(Γ).
Since the invariant measure is supported on the countable set Fin, every ergodic
component is a finite conjugacy class. Thus the IRS is supported on finite subgroups
with finite index normalizers. Passing to the Zariski closure we conclude that [G :
NG (∆)] < ∞ and since the normalizer of a finite group is algebraic NG (∆) > G(0)
almost surely. Since G(0) is center free ∆ = hei.
We apply Theorem 4.4 to the group Γ; obtaining a local field F < k, a faithful,
unbounded, strongly irreducible projective representation ρ : G(k) → PGLn (k)
defined over k. Let g = Lie(G) be the Lie algebra and Gr(g) the Grassmannian
over g. By taking the Lie subalgebra corresponding to the Zariski closure of the
random subgroup we obtain a random point in this Grassmannian
Ψ : Sub(Γ)
∆

→ Gr(g)(k)
 Z
7→ Lie ∆

The push forward of the IRS gives rise to a ρ(Γ)-invariant measure on Gr(g). Since
ρ(Γ) is unbounded, it follows from Furstenberg’s lemma [Fur76, Lemma 2], applied
in each dimension separately, that such a measure is supported on a disjoint union
of linear projective subspaces. However Γ itself is Zariski dense and G is simple,
so the only (ergodic) possibilities are the Dirac δ measures supported on the trivial
Z
and the whole Lie algebra: {g, {0}}. In the first case ∆ is open and unbounded
Z
and hence equal to G (c.f. [Sha99]). In the second case ∆ is finite and hence
trivial by the previous paragraph.

As a consequence we obtain an alternative direct proof of Corollary 1.10, which
bypasses the main theorem of the paper, which we restate for the convenience of
the readers.
Corollary A.2. Let Γ < GLn (F ) be a countable linear group. If ∆ 2 Γ is an IRS
in Γ that is almost surely amenable, then ∆ < A(Γ) almost surely.
Proof. (of Corollary A.2) Let Γ be a linear group and ∆ 2 Γ an IRS that is almost
surely amenable. We wish to show that ∆ < A(Γ) is contained in the amenable
radical almost surely. At first we assume that Γ is finitely generated.
Z
If Γ < GLn (Ω) is linear over an algebraically closed field, let G = Γ be its

Q
L
Zariski closure, H = G/ Rad G(0) the semisimple quotient and H(0) = `=1 H`
the decomposition of H(0) as a product of simple factors. Set h` = Lie(H` ) and

38

YAIR GLASNER

consider the combined map:
Ad

G(0) −→ G(0) / Rad(G(0) ) −→

L
Y

GL(h` )

`=1

Applying this map to Γ(0) := Γ ∩ G(0) we obtain L different representations with
simple center free Zariski closures. Let ∆(0) 2 Γ(0) be the restriction of the IRS to
the Zariski connected component. For every 1 ≤ ` ≤ L we know by the previous
paragraph that χ` (∆(0) )2χ` (Γ(0) ) is either trivial or Zariski dense. Assume by way
of contradiction that the latter holds. This means that χ` (∆(0) ) does not admit
any normal solvable subgroup, as its Zariski closure is simple. Since χ` (∆(0) ) is
amenable, the Tits alternative [Tit72, Theorem 2] says that χ` (∆(0) ) is locally finite.
Now we use for the first time our assumption that χ` (Γ(0) ) is finitely generated: By
[Weh73, Corollary 4.8] it follows that the locally finite subgroup χ` (∆(0) ) contains a
further finite index subgroup consisting only of unipotent elements - contradicting
the assumption that χ` (∆(0) ) has a simple Zariski closure. Thus we have concluded
that χ` (∆(0) ) = hei almost surely for every 1 ≤ ` ≤ L.
Let A` = ker(χ` ∩ Γ(0) ). We have just proved that ∆(0) < S := ∩L
`=1 A` . Thus
if Φ : G → H = G/ Rad(G(0) ) is the map to the semisimple quotient then
Φ(∆) 2 (Φ(Γ)) is an invariant random subgroup supported on finite subgroups.
The same argument used earlier shows that Φ(∆(0) ) is centralized by H(0) . Thus
∆ is almost surely contained in the normal amenable subgroup Γ ∩ Φ−1 (ZH (H(0) ))
which completes the proof in the finitely generated case.
Assume now that Γ < GLn (F ) is not finitely generated and let Γ1 < Γ2 < . . . be
a sequence of finitely generated subgroups ascending to the whole group. Applying
restriction we obtain ∆i := ∆ ∩ Γi 2 Γi an IRS in Γi which is again, almost surely
amenable. Since the group Γi is finitely generated we may deduce from the above
paragraphs that ∆i is almost surely contained in A(Γi ). Since an essential element
element in Γi is contained in ∆i with positive probability this means that every
essential element in Γi is contained in A(Γi ). Now essential elements in Γ are
eventually essential in Γi so, denoting by E the collection of essential elements in Γ
we have
[\
E ⊂ lim inf A(Γi ) :=
A(Γi )
n

n i≥n

lim inf A(Γi ) is amenable as an ascending union of amenable groups. It is also
normal since if γ ∈ Γm then for every o ≥ max{m, n} we have ∩i≥n A(Γi ) ⊂ A(Γo )
so that γ (∩i≥n A(Γi )) γ −1 ⊂ γA(Γo )γ −1 = A(Γo ) and consequently


\
\
γ
A(Γi ) γ −1 ⊂
A(Γi ).
i≥n

i≥max{m,n}

Being an amenable normal subgroup lim inf n A(Γn ) is contained in the amenable
radical A(Γ) which implies that every essential element is contained in A(Γ). Lemma
2.3, applied only to cyclic groups, shows that ∆ almost surely contains only essential
elements, thus with probability one ∆ < A(Γ) and the Corollary is proved.

Acknowledgments. I am grateful for significant input from Miklós Abért, Peter Abramenko, Uri Bader, Tsachik Gelander, Eli Glasner, Dennis Osin, Robin

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

39

Tucker-Drob, Bálint Virág and Kevin Wortman. I thank the referee for many helpful comments. I thank Shalvia for going over the English. This work was written
while I was on sabbatical at the University of Utah. I am very grateful to hospitality of the math department there and to the NSF grants that enabled this visit.
The author acknowledges support from U.S. National Science Foundation grants
DMS 1107452, 1107263, 1107367 “RNMS: Geometric structures And Representation varieties” (the GEAR Network). The author was partially supported by the
Israel Science Foundation grant ISF 441/11.

References
[ABB+ ]

Miklos Abert, Nicolas Bergeron, Ian Biringer, Tsachik Gelander, Nikolay Nikolov, Jean
Raimbault, and Iddo Samet. On the growth of l2 -invariants for sequences of lattices in
Lie groups. Preprint.
[ABB+ 11] Miklos Abert, Nicolas Bergeron, Ian Biringer, Tsachik Gelander, Nikolay Nikolov, Jean
Raimbault, and Iddo Samet. On the growth of Betti numbers of locally symmetric
spaces. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 349(15-16):831–835, 2011.
[AGV13] Miklós Abért, Yair Glasner, and Bálint Virág. The measurable Kesten theorem. To
appear in Annals of Probability. arXiv:1111.2080, 2013.
[AGV14] Miklós Abért, Yair Glasner, and Bálint Virág. Kesten’s theorem for invariant random
subgroups. Duke Math. J., 163(3):465–488, 2014.
[AL07]
David Aldous and Russell Lyons. Processes on unimodular random networks. Electron.
J. Probab., 12:no. 54, 1454–1508, 2007.
[BDL]
Uri Bader, Bruno Duchesne, and Jean Lécureux. Amenable invariant random subgroups. To appear in Israel Journal of Mathematics, arXiv:1409.4745.
[Bek07]
Bachir Bekka. Operator-algebraic superridigity for SLn (Z), n ≥ 3. Invent. Math.,
169(2):401–425, 2007.
[BG03]
E. Breuillard and T. Gelander. On dense free subgroups of Lie groups. J. Algebra,
261(2):448–467, 2003.
[BG04]
N. Bergeron and D. Gaboriau. Asymptotique des nombres de Betti, invariants l2 et
laminations. Comment. Math. Helv., 79(2):362–395, 2004.
[BG07]
E. Breuillard and T. Gelander. A topological Tits alternative. Ann. of Math. (2),
166(2):427–474, 2007.
[BGKa]
Lewis Bowen, Rostislav Grigorchuk, and Rostyslav Kravchenko. Characteristic random
subgroups of geometric groups and free abelian groups of infinite rank. to appear in
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., arXiv:1402.3705.
[BGKb]
Lewis Bowen, Rostislav Grigorchuk, and Rostyslav Kravchenko. Invariant random subgroups of lamplighter groups. arXiv:1206.6780.
[BH99]
Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, volume 319 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles
of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[Bou60]
N. Bourbaki. Éléments de mathématique. Première partie. (Fascicule III.) Livre III;
Topologie générale. Chap. 3: Groupes topologiques. Chap. 4: Nombres réels. Troisième
édition revue et augmentée. Actualités Sci. Indust., No. 1143. Hermann, Paris, 1960.
[Bow]
Lewis Bowen. Invariant random subgroups of the free group. To appear in Groups
Geometry and Dynamics, arXiv:1204.5939.
[Bow14]
Lewis Bowen. Random walks on random coset spaces with applications to Furstenberg
entropy. Invent. Math., 196(2):485–510, 2014.
[BT72]
F. Bruhat and J. Tits. Groupes réductifs sur un corps local. Inst. Hautes Études Sci.
Publ. Math., 41:5–251, 1972.
[BT84]
F. Bruhat and J. Tits. Groupes réductifs sur un corps local. II. Schémas en groupes.
Existence d’une donnée radicielle valuée. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., 60:197–
376, 1984.
[Can]
Jan Cannizzo. On invariant schreier structures. arXiv:1309.5163.
[CM09]
Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace and Nicolas Monod. Isometry groups of non-positively
curved spaces: structure theory. J. Topol., 2(4):661–700, 2009.

40

[CPa]
[CPb]
[Cre]
[Fur76]
[GG08]
[GM14]
[GW15]

[HT]
[Kec95]
[KN13]
[Lan02]
[LP15]
[MS79]
[MS81]
[Par00]

[PT]

[Rai]
[RTW14]
[Sha99]
[SZ94]
[TD]
[Tit72]
[TTD]
[Ver10]

[Ver12]
[Weh73]

[Wei95]

YAIR GLASNER

Darren Creutz and Jesse Peterson. Character rigidity for lattices and commensurators.
arXiv:1311.4513.
Darren Creutz and Jesse Peterson. Stabilizers of ergodic actions of lattices and commensurators. arXiv:1303.3949.
Darren Creutz. Stabilizers of actions of lattices in products of groups. arXiv:1305.3648.
Harry Furstenberg. A note on borel’s density theorem. Proceedings of the American
Mathematical Society, 55(1):209–212, 1976.
Tsachik Gelander and Yair Glasner. Countable primitive groups. Geom. Funct. Anal.,
17(5):1479–1523, 2008.
R. I. Grigorchuk and K. S. Medinets. On the algebraic properties of topological full
groups. Mat. Sb., 205(6):87–108, 2014.
Eli Glasner and Benjamin Weiss. Uniformly recurrent subgroups. In Recent trends in
ergodic theory and dynamical systems, volume 631 of Contemp. Math., pages 63–75.
Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2015.
Yair Hartman and Omer Tamuz. Stabilizer rigidity in irreducible group actions.
Preprint.
Alexander S. Kechris. Classical descriptive set theory, volume 156 of Graduate Texts
in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.
Ilya Kapovich and Tatiana Nagnibeda. Subset currents on free groups. Geom. Dedicata,
166:307–348, 2013.
Serge Lang. Algebra, volume 211 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag,
New York, third edition, 2002.
Russell Lyons and Yuval Peres. Cycle density in infinite Ramanujan graphs. Ann.
Probab., 43(6):3337–3358, 2015.
G. A. Margulis and G. A. Soı̆fer. Nonfree maximal subgroups of infinite index of the
group SLn (Z). Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 34(4(208)):203–204, 1979.
G. A. Margulis and G. A. Soı̆fer. Maximal subgroups of infinite index in finitely generated linear groups. J. Algebra, 69(1):1–23, 1981.
Anne Parreau. Dégénérescences de sous-groupes discrets de groupes de Lie semisimples et actions de groupes sur des immeubles affines,. PhD thesis, University Paris
11, Orsay,, 2000.
Jesse Peterson and Andreas Thom. Character rigidity for special linear groups. To
appear in Journal Für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik (Crelle’s Journal),
arXiv:1402.5028.
Jean Raimbault. On the convergence of arithmetic orbifolds. arXiv:1311.5375.
Bertrand Rémy, Amaury Thuillier, and Annette Werner. Bruhat-tits buildings and
analytic geometry. arXiv:1110.1362, 2014.
Yehuda Shalom. Invariant measures for algebraic actions, Zariski dense subgroups and
Kazhdan’s property (T). Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 351(8):3387–3412, 1999.
Garrett Stuck and Robert J. Zimmer. Stabilizers for ergodic actions of higher rank
semisimple groups. Ann. of Math. (2), 139(3):723–747, 1994.
Robin Tucker-Drob. Shift-minimal groups, fixed price 1, and the unique trace property.
arXiv:1211.6395.
J. Tits. Free subgroups in linear groups. J. Algebra, 20:250–270, 1972.
Simon Thomas and Robin Tucker-Drob. Invariant random subgroups of strictly diagonal limits of finite symmetric groups. arXiv:1402.4837.
A. M. Vershik. Nonfree actions of countable groups and their characters. Zap. Nauchn.
Sem. S.-Peterburg. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (POMI), 378(Teoriya Predstavlenii, Dinamicheskie Sistemy, Kombinatornye Metody. XVIII):5–16, 228, 2010.
A. M. Vershik. Totally nonfree actions and the infinite symmetric group. Mosc. Math.
J., 12(1):193–212, 216, 2012.
B. A. F. Wehrfritz. Infinite linear groups. An account of the group-theoretic properties of infinite groups of matrices. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1973. Ergebnisse der
Matematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 76.
André Weil. Basic number theory. Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1995. Reprint of the second (1973) edition.

INVARIANT RANDOM SUBGROUPS OF LINEAR GROUPS

41

Yair Glasner. Department of Mathematics. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
P.O.B. 653, Be’er Sheva 84105, Israel. yairgl@math.bgu.ac.il
Tsachik Gelander Department of Mathematics. Weizmann Institute of Science.
Rehovot 76100, Israel. tsachik.gelander@weizmann.ac.il

