Proper affine actions in non-swinging
representations
arXiv:1605.03833v1 [math.GR] 12 May 2016

Ilia Smilga
May 13, 2016

For a semisimple real Lie group G with an irreducible representation ρ on
a finite-dimensional real vector space V , we give a sufficient criterion on ρ for
existence of a group of affine transformations of V whose linear part is Zariskidense in ρ(G) and that is free, nonabelian and acts properly discontinuously
on V .

1 Introduction
1.1 Background and motivation
The present paper is part of a larger effort to understand discrete groups Γ of affine
transformations (subgroups of the affine group GLn (R) ⋉ Rn ) acting properly discontinuously on the affine space Rn . The case where Γ consists of isometries (in other words,
Γ ⊂ On (R) ⋉ Rn ) is well-understood: a classical theorem by Bieberbach says that such
a group always has an abelian subgroup of finite index.
We say that a group G acts properly discontinuously on a topological space X if for
every compact K ⊂ X, the set {g ∈ G | gK ∩ K 6= ∅} is finite. We define a crystallographic group to be a discrete group Γ ⊂ GLn (R) ⋉ Rn acting properly discontinuously
and such that the quotient space Rn /Γ is compact. In [Aus64], Auslander conjectured
that any crystallographic group is virtually solvable, that is, contains a solvable subgroup
of finite index. Later, Milnor [Mil77] asked whether this statement is actually true for
any affine group acting properly discontinuously. The answer turned out to be negative:
Margulis [Mar83, Mar87] gave a nonabelian free group of affine transformations with linear part Zariski-dense in SO(2, 1), acting properly discontinuously on R3 . On the other
hand, Fried and Goldman [FG83] proved the Auslander conjecture in dimension 3 (the
cases n = 1 and 2 are easy). Recently, Abels, Margulis and Soifer [AMS13] proved it in
dimension n ≤ 6. See [Abe01] for a survey of already known results.
Margulis’s breakthrough was soon followed by the construction of other counterexamples to Milnor’s conjecture. The first advance was made by Abels et al. [AMS02]: they

1

generalized Margulis’s construction to subgroups of the affine group
SO(2n + 2, 2n + 1) ⋉ R4n+3 ,
for all values of n. The author further generalized this in his previous paper [Smi16], by
finding such subgroups in the affine group G ⋉ g, where G is any noncompact semisimple
real Lie group, acting on its Lie algebra g by the adjoint representation. Recently Danciger et al. [DGK] found examples of affine groups acting properly discontinuously that
were neither virtually solvable nor virtually free.
Proliferation of these counterexamples leads to the following question. Consider a
semisimple real Lie group G; for every representation ρ of G on a finite-dimensional
real vector space V , we may consider the affine group G ⋉ V . Which of those affine
groups contain a nonabelian free subgroup with linear part Zariski-dense in G and acting
properly discontinuously on V ?
In this paper, we give a fairly general sufficient condition on the representation ρ for
existence of such subgroups. Before stating this condition, we need to introduce a few
classical notations.

1.2 Basic notations
For the remainder of the paper, we fix a semisimple real Lie group G; let g be its Lie
algebra. Let us introduce a few classical objects related to g and G (defined for instance
in Knapp’s book [Kna96], though our terminology and notation differ slightly from his).
We choose in g:
• a Cartan involution θ. Then we have the corresponding Cartan decomposition
g = k ⊕ q, where we call k the space of fixed points of θ and q the space of fixed
points of −θ. We call K the maximal compact subgroup with Lie algebra k.
• a Cartan subspace a compatible with θ (that is, a maximal abelian subalgebra of g
among those contained in q). We set A := exp a.
• a system Σ+ of positive restricted roots in a∗ . Recall that a restricted root is a
nonzero element α ∈ a∗ such that the restricted root space
gα := {Y ∈ g | ∀X ∈ a, [X, Y ] = α(X)Y }
is nontrivial. They form a root system Σ; a system of positive roots Σ+ is a subset
of Σ contained in a half-space and such that Σ = Σ+ ⊔ −Σ+ .
We call Π be the set of simple restricted roots in Σ+ . We call

a++ := X ∈ a ∀α ∈ Σ+ , α(X) > 0

the (open) dominant Weyl chamber of a corresponding to Σ+ , and

a+ := X ∈ a ∀α ∈ Σ+ , α(X) ≥ 0 = a++
the closed dominant Weyl chamber.

2

Then we call:
• M the centralizer of a in K, m its Lie algebra.
• L the centralizer of a in G, l its Lie algebra. It is clear that l = a ⊕ m, and well
known (see e.g. [Kna96], Proposition 7.82a) that L = M A.
• n+ (resp. n− ) the sum of the restricted root spaces of Σ+ (resp. of −Σ+ ), and
N + := exp(n+ ) and N − := exp(n− ) the corresponding Lie groups.
• p+ := l ⊕ n+ and p− := l ⊕ n− the corresponding minimal parabolic subalgebras,
P + := LN + and P − := LN − the corresponding minimal parabolic subgroups.
• W := NG (A)/ZG (A) the restricted Weyl group.
• w0 the longest element of the Weyl group, that is, the unique element such that
w0 (Σ+ ) = Σ− .
See Examples 2.3 and 2.4 in the author’s previous paper [Smi16] for working through
those definitions in the cases G = PSLn (R) and G = PSO+ (n, 1).
Finally, if ρ is a representation of G on a finite-dimensional real vector space V , we
call:
• the restricted weight space in V corresponding to a form λ ∈ a∗ the space
V λ := {v ∈ V | ∀X ∈ a, X · v = λ(X)v} ;
• a restricted weight of the representation ρ any form λ ∈ a∗ such that the corresponding weight space is nonzero.
Remark 1.1. The reader who is unfamiliar with the theory of noncompact semisimple
real Lie groups may focus on the case where G is split, i.e. its Cartan subspace a is
actually a Cartan subalgebra (just a maximal abelian subalgebra, without any additional
hypotheses). In that case the restricted roots are just roots, the restricted weights are just
weights, and the restricted Weyl group is just the usual Weyl group. Also the algebra m
vanishes and M is a discrete group.
However, the case where G is split does not actually require the full strength of this
paper, in particular because quasi-translations (see Section 4.5) then reduce to ordinary
translations.

1.3 Statement of main result
Let ρ be an irreducible representation of G on a finite-dimensional real vector space V .
Without loss of generality, we may assume that G is connected and acts faithfully. We
may then identify the abstract group G with the linear group ρ(G) ⊂ GL(V ). Let VAff be
the affine space corresponding to V . The group of affine transformations of VAff whose
linear part lies in G may then be written G ⋉ V (where V stands for the group of
translations). Here is the main result of this paper.

3

Main Theorem. Suppose that ρ satisfies the following conditions:
(i) there exists a vector v ∈ V such that:
(a) ∀l ∈ L, l(v) = v, and
(b) w̃0 (v) 6= v, where w̃0 is any representative in G of w0 ∈ NG (A)/ZG (A);
(ii) there exists an element X0 ∈ a such that −w0 (X0 ) = X0 and for every λ nonzero
restricted weight of ρ, we have λ(X0 ) 6= 0.
Then there exists a subgroup Γ in the affine group G ⋉ V whose linear part is Zariskidense in G and that is free, nonabelian and acts properly discontinuously on the affine
space corresponding to V .
(Note that the choice of the representative w̃0 in (i)(b) does not matter, precisely
because by (i)(a) the vector v is fixed by L = ZG (A).)
A few words about the significance of these hypotheses. We call representations satisfying condition (ii) "non-swinging" representations (see Section 3.3 to understand why).
This seems to be merely a technical assumption: the author conjectures that condition (i)
alone is sufficient, and in fact necessary and sufficient.
We shall start working with an arbitrary representation ρ, and gradually make stronger
and stronger hypotheses on it (except for the "no swinging" assumption which is logically
independent), introducing each one when we need it to make the construction work (so
that it is at least partially motivated). Here is the complete list of places where new
assumptions on ρ are introduced:
• Assumption 3.2, which is a necessary condition for (i)(a);
• Assumption 3.8, which is (ii) (the "no swinging" assumption);
• Assumption 4.23, which is (i)(a);
• Assumption 10.1, which is (i).
For each of these, we postpone the discussion of which groups do and which groups do
not satisfy it until the spot where it is introduced in the text. For the moment, let us
just say that the previously-known examples do fall under the scope of this theorem:
Example 1.2.
1. For G = SO+ (2n + 2, 2n + 1), the standard representation (acting on V = R4n+3 )
satisfies these conditions (see Remark 3.9 and Examples 4.22.1.b and 10.2.1 for
details). So Theorem A from [AMS02] is a particular case of this theorem.
2. If the real semisimple Lie group G is noncompact, the adjoint representation satisfies these conditions (see Remark 3.9 and Examples 4.22.3 and 10.2.2 for details).
So the main theorem of [Smi16] is a particular case of this theorem.

4

Remark 1.3. When G is compact, no representation can satisfy these conditions: indeed
in that case L is the whole group G and condition (i)(a) fails. So for us, only noncompact
groups are interesting. This is not surprising: indeed, any compact group acting on a
vector space preserves a positive-definite quadratic form, and so falls under the scope of
Bieberbach’s theorem.

1.4 Strategy of the proof
The proof has a lot in common with the author’s previous paper [Smi16]. The main idea
(which comes back to Margulis’s seminal paper [Mar83]) is to introduce, for some affine
maps g, an invariant that measures the translation part of g along a particular affine
subspace of V . The key part of the argument (just as in [Mar83] and in [Smi16]) is then
to show that, under some conditions, the invariant of the product of two maps is roughly
equal to the sum of their invariants (Proposition 8.1). Here are the two main difficulties
that were not present in [Smi16].
• The first one is that [Smi16] crucially relies on the following fact: if two maps are
R-regular (i.e. the dimension of their centralizer is the lowest possible), in general
position with respect to each other and strongly contracting (when acting on g),
their product is still R-regular. The natural generalization of the notion of an Rregular map that is adapted to an arbitrary representation is that of a "generic"
map, i.e. a map that has as few eigenvalues of modulus 1 (counted with multiplicity)
as possible. Unfortunately, the corresponding statement is then no longer true in
an arbitrary representation. If the representation is "too large", i.e. if it contains
restricted weights that are not multiples of restricted roots (see Example 3.5.2),
there are several different "types" of generic maps, depending on the region where
their Jordan projection (see Definition 2.3) falls.
In order to ensure that the product of two generic maps g and h (that are in general
position and strongly contracting) is still generic, we need to control the Jordan
projection Jd(gh) of the product based on the Jordan projections Jd(g), Jd(h) of
the factors. To do this, we use ideas developed by Benoist in [Ben96, Ben97]: when
g and h are in general position and sufficiently contracting, he show that Jd(gh) is
approximately equal to Jd(g) + Jd(h). So if we restrict all maps to have the same
"type", our argument works.
• Here is where the second difficulty comes: the argument of [Ben96] only works for
maps that are actually R-regular in addition of being generic. In most representations this is automatically true: if every restricted root occurs as a restricted
weight, then every generic map is in particular R-regular. But when the representation is "too small", this is not the case. (A surprising fact is that a handful
of representations are actually "too large" and "too small" at the same time: see
Example 3.5.4!)
As an example, consider the subgroup G of GL5 (R) consisting of transformations

5

preserving the quadratic form
x1 x3 + x2 x4 + x25 .
This is a form of signature (3, 2), so G ≃ SO(3, 2). Now take any real number
λ > 1 and any x ∈ R; then the element


λ λx
0
0 0
0 λ
0
0 0


−1
λ
0 0
g=
0 0
∈G
 0 0 −λ−1 x λ−1 0
0 0
0
0 1
is generic in the standard representation ("pseudohyperbolic" in the terminology
of [AMS02] and [Smi14]), but not R-regular (when x 6= 0 it is not even semisimple!).

Just as there are two different notions of being "generic" (the notion of R-regularity,
which is adapted to the adjoint representation, and the notion of being generic in ρ),
there are also two different notions of being "in general position", two different
notions of being "strongly contracting" and so on. The results of [Ben96] crucially
rely on the stronger version of every property.
If we had used them as such, our Proposition 6.14 about products of maps "of given
type" (and the subsequent propositions that rely on it) would no longer include, as a
particular case, the corresponding result for G = SO+ (n+1, n) (namely Lemma 5.6,
point (1) in [AMS02]). Instead, we would need to duplicate all definitions, and to
always require that the maps we deal with satisfy both versions of the constraints.
(In particular, we would probably lose the benefit of the unified treatment of the
linear part and translation part, as outlined in Remark 5.3).
This weaker version is in theory sufficient for us, because it is known that "almost
all" elements are R-regular. So it is actually possible to construct the group Γ in
such a way that its elements all have this additional property, and thus provide a
working proof of the Main Theorem. But we felt that the simpler, stronger version
of Proposition 6.14 was interesting in its own right.
To prove it, we needed a generalization of the results of [Ben96]. Benoist’s subsequent paper [Ben97] does seem to provide such a generalization, by proving similar theorems with the hypothesis of R-regularity replaced by what he calls "θproximality", for θ some subset of Π. This is quite close to what we are looking
for; but unfortunately, the results of [Ben97] rely on the assumption that the Jordan projections of the maps lie in a vector subspace of a (see Remark 6.13 for
details), which is unacceptably restrictive for us. So in Section 6 of this paper, we
redeveloped this theory from scratch, in a suitably general way.

1.5 Plan of the paper
In Section 2, we give some background from representation theory.

6

In Section 3, we study the dynamics of elements of A. We choose one particular
element X0 ∈ a with some nice properties, with the goal of eventually "modelling", in
some sense, generators of the group Γ on exp(X0 ).
In Section 4, we study the dynamics of elements g of the affine group G ⋉ V that are of
type X0 (see Definition 4.14). This section culminates in the definition of the Margulis
invariant of g, which measures the translation part of g along its "axis".
In Section 5, we study some quantitative properties of such elements g. In particular we
define a quantitative measure of being "in general position", and a quantitative measure
of being "strongly contracting"; both of these notions are tailored to the choice of ρ
and of X0 . We also define analogous notions for proximal maps, and prove a theorem
(Proposition 5.12) about products of proximal maps.
Section 6 is where most of the new ideas of this paper are exploited. Here we apply the
theory of products of proximal maps to a selection of "fundamental representations" ρi
(defined in Proposition 2.12). The goal is to show that the product of two strongly
contracting maps of type X0 in general position is still of type X0 .
In Section 7, we now apply the theory of products of proximal maps to suitable exterior
powers of the maps g, in order to study the quantitative properties of products of elements
of type X0 . This section follows Section 3.2 of [Smi16] very closely.
Section 8 contains the key part of the proof. We prove that if we take two strongly
contracting maps of type X0 in general position, the Margulis invariant of their product
is close to the sum of their Margulis invariants. This section follows Section 4 of [Smi16]
very closely.
The very short Section 9 uses induction to extend the results of the two previous
sections to products of an arbitrary number of elements. We omit the proof, as it is a
straightforward generalization of Section 5 in [Smi16].
Section 10 contains the proof of the Main Theorem. It follows Section 6 of [Smi16]
quite closely, but there are a couple of additions.

1.6 Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to my Ph.D. advisor, Yves Benoist, whose help while I was working
on this paper has been invaluable to me.
I would also like to thank Bruno Le Floch for some interesting discussions, which in
particular helped me gain some insight about weights of representations.

2 Algebraic preliminaries
In this section, we give some background about real finite-dimensional representations of
semisimple real Lie groups.
In Subsection 2.1, for any element g ∈ G, we relate the eigenvalues and singular values
of ρ(g) (where ρ is some representation) to some "absolute" properties of g.
In Subsection 2.2, we enumerate some properties of restricted weights of a real finitedimensional representation of a real semisimple Lie group.

7

2.1 Eigenvalues in different representations
The goal of this subsection is to prove Proposition 2.6, which expresses the eigenvalues
and singular values of a given element g ∈ G acting in a given representation ρ, exclusively in terms of the structure of g in the abstract group G (respectively its Jordan
decomposition and its Cartan decomposition).
Proposition 2.1 (Jordan decomposition). Let g ∈ G. There exists a unique decomposition of g as a product g = gh ge gu , where:
• gh is conjugate in G to an element of A ( hyperbolic);
• ge is conjugate in G to an element of K ( elliptic);
• gu is conjugate in G to an element of N + ( unipotent);
• these three maps commute with each other.
Proof. This is well-known, and given for example in [Ebe96], Theorem 2.19.24. Note
however that the latter theorem uses representation-dependent definitions of a hyperbolic,
elliptic or unipotent element (applied to the case of the adjoint representation). To state
the theorem with the representation-agnostic definitions that we used, we need to apply
Theorems 2.19.18 and 2.19.16 from the same book.
Proposition 2.2 (Cartan decomposition). Let g ∈ G. Then there exists a decomposition
of g as a product g = k1 ak2 , with k1 , k2 ∈ K and a = exp(X) with X ∈ a+ . Moreover,
the element X is uniquely determined by g.
Proof. This is a classical result; see e.g. Theorem 7.39 in [Kna96].
Definition 2.3. For every element g ∈ G, we define:
• the Jordan projection of g, written Jd(g), to be the unique element of the closed
dominant Weyl chamber a+ such that the hyperbolic part gh (from the Jordan
decomposition g = gh ge gu given above) is conjugate to exp(Jd(g));
• the Cartan projection of g, written Ct(g), to be the element X from the Cartan
decomposition given above.
To talk about singular values, we need to introduce a Euclidean structure. We are
going to use a special one.
Lemma 2.4. Let ρ∗ be some real representation of G on some space V∗ . There exists a
K-invariant positive-definite quadratic form B∗ on V∗ such that all the restricted weight
spaces are pairwise B∗ -orthogonal.
We want to reserve the plain notation ρ for the "default" representation, to be fixed
once and for all at the beginning of Section 3. We use the notation ρ∗ so as to encompass
both this representation ρ and the representations ρi defined in Proposition 2.12.
Such quadratic forms have been considered previously: see for example Lemma 5.33.a)
in [BQ].

8

Example 2.5. If ρ∗ = Ad is the adjoint representation, then B∗ is the form Bθ given by
∀X, Y ∈ g,

Bθ (X, Y ) = −B(X, θY ),

where B is the Killing form and θ is the Cartan involution (see (6.13) in [Kna96]).
Proof. First note that there is a unique representation ρC
∗ (the complexified representation) such that the diagram
g

ρ∗

gl(V∗ )
(2.1)

gC

ρC
∗

gl(V∗C )

commutes (where the vertical arrows represent the canonical inclusions). Let u = k ⊕ iq
be the compact real form of gC . Then the subgroup of GL(V∗C ) with Lie algebra ρC
∗ (u)
C
is compact; by averaging over this subgroup, we may find on V∗ a u-invariant positivedefinite Hermitian form B∗C . By construction, we then have:
(
C
∀X ∈ k, ρC
∗ (X) is B∗ -anti-self-adjoint;
C
∀X ∈ q, ρC
∗ (iX) is B∗ -anti-self-adjoint.
Now we define on V∗ a bilinear form B∗ by
∀x, y ∈ V∗ ,



B∗ (x, y) := Re B∗C (x ⊗ 1, y ⊗ 1) .

(2.2)

It is straightforward to check that B∗ is still positive definite, and that we have:
(
∀X ∈ k, ρ∗ (X) is B∗ -anti-self-adjoint;
∀X ∈ q, ρ∗ (X) is B∗ -self-adjoint.
The first property implies that B∗ is k-invariant, hence (since K is connected) Kinvariant. The second property implies that any element of q has pairwise B∗ -orthogonal
eigenspaces in V∗ . Applying this to any X ∈ a ⊂ q such that all restricted weights of ρ∗
take pairwise distinct values on X, we conclude that all the restricted weight spaces of ρ∗
are pairwise B∗ -orthogonal.
Recall that the singular values of a map g in a Euclidean space are defined as the square
roots of the eigenvalues of g∗ g, where g∗ is the adjoint map. The largest and smallest
singular values of g then give respectively the operator norm of g and the reciprocal of
the operator norm of g−1 .
Proposition 2.6. Let ρ∗ : G → GL(V∗ ) be any representation of G on some vector
space V∗ ; let λ1∗ , . . . , λd∗∗ be the list of all the restricted weights of ρ∗ , repeated according
to their multiplicities. Let g ∈ G; then:

9

(i) The list of the moduli of the eigenvalues of ρ∗ (g) is given by

 i
eλ∗ (Jd(g))
.
1≤i≤d∗

(ii) The list of the singular values of ρ∗ (g), with respect to a K-invariant Euclidean
norm B∗ on V∗ that makes the restricted weight spaces of V∗ pairwise orthogonal
(such a norm exists by Lemma 2.4), is given by

 i
eλ∗ (Ct(g))
.
1≤i≤d∗

Proof.
(i) Let g = gh ge gu be the Jordan decomposition of g.
We begin with the remark that:
• ρ∗ (ge ) is conjugate to a map that is orthogonal with respect to the norm B∗
constructed in Lemma 2.4;
• for any X ∈ n+ , the linear map ρ∗ (X) is nilpotent (this essentially follows from
the identity ρ∗ (gα ) · V∗λ ⊂ V∗α+λ for any restricted root α and any restricted
root λ of ρ∗ ); hence by exponentiating, for any n ∈ N + , the linear map ρ∗ (n)
is unipotent; hence also ρ∗ (gu ) is unipotent.
If follows that ρ∗ (ge ) and ρ∗ (gu ) both have eigenvalues of modulus 1. Since gh , ge
and gu all commute with each other, we deduce that the eigenvalues of ρ∗ (g) are
equal, in modulus, to those of ρ∗ (gh ).
On the other hand, gh is by definition conjugate to exp(Jd(g)), so ρ∗ (gh ) has the
same eigenvalues as ρ∗ (exp(Jd(g)).
Finally, since exp(Jd(g)) is in A (the group corresponding to the Cartan subspace),
the list of the eigenvalues of ρ∗ (exp(Jd(g))) is by definition given by

 i
eλ∗ (Jd(g))
.
1≤i≤d∗

(ii) Let g = k1 exp(Ct(g))k2 be the Cartan decomposition of g. Since ρ∗ (k1 ) and ρ∗ (k2 )
are B∗ -orthogonal maps, the B∗ -singular values of ρ∗ (g) coincide with those of the
map exp(Ct(g)); since exp(Ct(g)), being an element of A, is self-adjoint, its singular
values coincide with its eigenvalues. We conclude as in the previous point.

2.2 Properties of restricted weights
In this subsection, we introduce a few properties of restricted weights of real finitedimensional representations. (Proposition 2.7 is actually a general result about Coxeter
groups.) The corresponding theory for ordinary weights is well-known: see for example
Chapter V in [Kna96].

10

Let α1 , . . . , αr be an enumeration of the set Π of simple restricted roots generating Σ+ .
For every i, we set
(
2αi if 2αi is a restricted root
′
αi :=
(2.3)
αi
otherwise.
For every index i such that 1 ≤ i ≤ r, we define the i-th fundamental restricted weight ̟i
by the relationship
h̟i , α′j i
2
= δij
(2.4)
kα′j k2
for every j such that 1 ≤ j ≤ r.
By abuse of notation, we will often allow ourselves to write things such as "for all i in
some subset Π′ ⊂ Π, ̟i satisfies..." (tacitly identifying the set Π′ with the set of indices
of the simple restricted roots that are inside).
In the following proposition, for any subset Π′ ⊂ Π, we denote:
• by WΠ′ the Weyl subgroup of type Π′ :
WΠ′ := hsα iα∈Π′ ;
• by a+
Π′ the fundamental domain for the action of WΠ′ on a:

′
a+
Π′ := X ∈ a ∀α ∈ Π , α(X) ≥ 0 ,

(2.5)

(2.6)

which is a kind of prism whose base is the dominant Weyl chamber of WΠ′ .

Proposition 2.7. Take any Π′ ⊂ Π, and let us fix X ∈ a+
Π′ . Let Y ∈ a. Then the
following two conditions are equivalent:
(i) the vector Y is in a+
Π′ and satisfies the system of linear inequalities
(
∀i ∈ Π′ ,
̟i (Y ) ≤ ̟i (X),
′
∀i ∈ Π \ Π , ̟i (Y ) = ̟i (X);
(ii) the vector Y is in a+
Π′ and also in the convex hull of the orbit of X by WΠ′ .
Proof. For Π′ = Π, this is well known: see e.g. [Hal15], Proposition 8.44.
Now let Π′ be an arbitrary subset of Π. We may translate everything by the vector
X
̟i (X)Hi
i∈Π\Π′

(where (Hi )i∈Π is a basis of a dual to the basis (̟i )i∈Π of a∗ ), which is obviously fixed
by WΠ′ . Thus we reduce the problem to the case where
∀i ∈ Π \ Π′ ,

̟i (X) = 0.

(2.7)

Now let Σ′ be the intersection of Σ with the vector space aΠ′ determined by this system
of equations, which is also the linear span of (αi )i∈Π′ . Then Σ′ is a root system that has:

11

• Π′ as a simple root system;
• WΠ′ as the Weyl group;
• a+
Π′ ∩ aΠ′ as the dominant Weyl chamber.
This reduces the problem to the case Π′ = Π.
Proposition 2.8. Every restricted weight of every representation of g is a linear combination of fundamental restricted weights with integer coefficients.
Proof. This is a particular case of Proposition 5.8 in [BT65]. For a correction concerning
the proof, see also Remark 5.2 in [BT72].
Proposition 2.9. If ρ∗ is an irreducible representation of g, there is a unique restricted
weight λ∗ of ρ∗ , called its highest restricted weight, such that no element of the form
λ∗ + αi with 1 ≤ i ≤ r is a restricted weight of ρ∗ .
Remark 2.10. In contrast to the situation with non-restricted weights, the highest restricted weight is not always of multiplicity 1; nor is a representation uniquely determined
by its highest restricted weight.
Proof. Let h be a Cartan subalgebra of g containing a (i.e. h is just a maximal abelian
subalgebra of g, without the requirement of being contained in q). Let ∆ be the set
of (non restricted) roots in h∗ ; then restricted roots are just restrictions of roots to a.
(Similarly, restricted weights are just restrictions of weights.) Let ∆+ be the subset of ∆
formed by roots whose restrictions are positive restricted roots (i.e. elements of Σ+ ); then
∆+ forms a system of positive roots.
It is well known (see e.g. [Kna96], Theorem 5.5 (d)) that ρ∗ has a unique (non restricted) weight with respect to h that is the highest with respect to ∆+ . Let λ∗ be
its restriction to a; then the required property for the highest restricted weight follows
from the corresponding property for the highest non restricted weight, and the fact that
restrictions of positive roots are positive restricted roots.
Proposition 2.11. Let ρ∗ be an irreducible representation of g; let λ∗ be its highest
restricted weight. Let Λλ∗ be the restricted root lattice shifted by λ∗ :
Λλ∗ := {λ∗ + c1 α1 + · · · + cr αr | c1 , . . . , cr ∈ Z} .
Then the set of restricted weights of ρ∗ is exactly the intersection of the lattice Λλ∗ with
the convex hull of the orbit {w(λ∗ ) | w ∈ W } of λ∗ by the restricted Weyl group.
Proof. Once again, this follows from the corresponding result for non restricted weights
(see e.g. [Hal15], Theorem 10.1) by passing to the restriction. In the case of restricted
weights, one of the inclusions is stated in [Hel08], Proposition 4.22.
Proposition 2.12. For every index i such that 1 ≤ i ≤ r, there exists an irreducible
representation ρi of G on a space Vi whose highest restricted weight is equal to ni ̟i (for
some positive integer ni ) and has multiplicity 1.

12

Proof. This follows from the general Theorem 7.2 in [Tit71].
Lemma 2.13. Fix an index i such that 1 ≤ i ≤ r. Then all restricted weights of ρi other
than ni ̟i have the form
r
X
cj αj ,
ni ̟i − αi −
j=1

with cj ≥ 0 for every j.

Proof. Let λ be some restricted weight of ρi . By Proposition 2.11 taken together with
Proposition 2.7, we already know that it can be written as
λ = ni ̟i −

r
X

c′j αj ,

j=1

where all coefficients c′j are nonnegative integers. It remains to show that if λ 6= ni ̟i ,
then necessarily c′i > 0.
Assume that c′i = 0. By Proposition 8.42 in [Hal15], we lose no generality in assuming
that λ is dominant. Let Πi := Π \ {i}; by Proposition 2.7, it follows that λ is then in the
convex hull of the orbit of ni ̟i by WΠi . But clearly WΠi fixes ̟i , hence also ni ̟i . The
conclusion follows.

3 Choice of a reference Jordan projection
For the remainder of the paper, we fix ρ an irreducible representation of G on a finitedimensional real vector space V . For the moment, ρ may be any representation; but in
the course of the paper, we shall gradually introduce several assumptions on ρ (namely
Assumptions 3.2, 3.8, 4.23 and 10.1) that will ensure that ρ satisfies the hypotheses of
the Main Theorem.
<
We call Ω the set of restricted weights of ρ. For any X ∈ a, we call Ω>
X (resp. ΩX ,
≥
≤
=
ΩX , ΩX , ΩX ) the set of all restricted weights of ρ that take a positive (resp. negative,
zero, nonnegative, nonpositive) value on X:
Ω≥
X := {λ ∈ Ω | λ(X) ≥ 0}

Ω>
X := {λ ∈ Ω | λ(X) > 0}

Ω≤
X := {λ ∈ Ω | λ(X) ≤ 0}

Ω<
X := {λ ∈ Ω | λ(X) < 0}

Ω=
X := {λ ∈ Ω | λ(X) = 0} .
The goal of this section is to study these sets, and to choose a vector X0 ∈ a+ for
which the corresponding sets have some nice properties. The motivation for their study
is that they parametrize the dynamical spaces (defined in Subsection 4.3) of exp(X0 )
(obviously), and actually of any element g ∈ G whose Jordan projection "has the same
type" as X0 (see Proposition 4.16).
In Subsection 3.1, we introduce the notion of a generic vector X ∈ a, and impose a
first constraint on ρ: that 0 be a restricted weight.

13

In Subsection 3.2, we introduce an equivalence relation on the set of generic vectors
that identifies elements with the same dynamics, and give several examples.
In Subsection 3.3, we introduce the notion of a symmetric vector X ∈ a, and ensure
that ρ does not exclude generic vectors from being symmetric.
In Subsection 3.4, we define parabolic subgroups and subalgebras of type X; we also
associate to every X ∈ a+ a set ΠX of simple restricted roots and a subgroup WX of the
restricted Weyl group.
In Subsection 3.5, we prove Proposition 3.17, which shows that every equivalence
class of generic vectors has a representative that has "as much symmetry" as the whole
equivalence class, called an "extreme" representative.
At the end of this section, we shall fix once and for all an extreme, symmetric, generic
vector X0 ∈ a+ , which will serve as a reference Jordan projection (see the definition at
the beginning of Subsection 4.4).

3.1 Generic elements
We say that an element X ∈ a is generic if
Ω=
X ⊂ {0}.
Remark 3.1. This is indeed the generic case: it happens as soon as X avoids a finite
collection of hyperplanes, namely the kernels of all nonzero restricted weights of ρ.
Assumption 3.2. From now on, we assume that 0 is a restricted weight of ρ:
0 ∈ Ω,

or equivalently

dim V 0 > 0.

Remark 3.3. By Proposition 2.11, this is the case if and only if the highest restricted
weight of ρ is a Z-linear combination of restricted roots.
We lose no generality in assuming this, because this assumption is necessary for condition (i)(a) of the Main Theorem (which is also Assumption 4.23, see below) to hold.
Indeed, any nonzero vector fixed by L is in particular fixed by A ⊂ L, which means that
it belongs to the zero restricted weight space.
In that case, for generic X we actually have
Ω=
X = {0}.

3.2 Types of elements of a
For two vectors X, Y ∈ a, we say that Y has the same type as X if
(
>
Ω>
Y = ΩX ;
<
Ω<
Y = ΩX ,

(3.1)

i.e. if every restricted weight takes the same sign on both of them. For generic X and Y ,
this implies that all five spaces Ω≥ , Ω≤ , Ω= , Ω> and Ω< coincide for X and Y , hence
that exp(X) and exp(Y ) have the same dynamical spaces (see Subsection 4.3).

14

This is an equivalence relation, which partitions the set of generic vectors into finitely
many equivalence classes. Some generic X ∈ a being fixed, we call
(
)
(
∀λ ∈ Ω>
,
λ(Y
)
>
0;
X
(3.2)
aρ,X := Y ∈ a
∀λ ∈ Ω<
X , λ(Y ) < 0
its equivalence class in a. If X is dominant, we additionally call
+
a+
ρ,X := aρ,X ∩ a

(3.3)

its equivalence class in the closed dominant Weyl chamber a+ .
Remark 3.4. Every such equivalence class is obviously a convex cone. Also, these equivalence classes actually coincide with connected components of the set of generic vectors.
Example 3.5.
1. If G is any noncompact semisimple real Lie group and ρ = Ad is its adjoint representation (so that V = g):
• A vector X ∈ a is generic if and only if it lies in one of the open Weyl chambers.
In particular a vector X in a+ is generic if and only if it lies in a++ .
• All elements of a++ have the same type; so there is only one generic equivalence
++ .
class in a+ . For any X ∈ a++ , we have aAd,X = a+
Ad,X = a
2. Take G = SO+ (3, 2). The root system is then B2 :
−e1 + e2

e2

e1 + e2
e1

−e1
−e1 − e2

−e2

e1 − e2

As this group is split, the roots are also the restricted roots. Let ρ be the representation with highest weight 2e1 + e2 (in the notations of [Kna96], Appendix C).
This is a representation of dimension 35, whose weights (also restricted weights)
are as follows:

15

(a) ρ of highest weight 2e1 + e2

(b) ρ of highest weight e1

Figure 1: Equivalence classes and Weyl chambers for two different representations of G =
SO+ (3, 2). Dashed lines represent walls of Weyl chambers. Thick gray lines
represent kernels of nonzero weights, which separate the different equivalence
classes. The dominant Weyl chamber a+ is hatched. All equivalence classes
in a that intersect a+ are shaded, with different shades if there are more than
one.
(the number of dots at each node represents multiplicity.) Then every equivalence
class in a is contained in some Weyl chamber: see Figure 1a. The dominant Weyl
chamber a+ is split into two equivalence classes by the line of slope 12 , kernel of the
weight −e1 + 2e2 .
3. Take G = SO+ (3, 2) and ρ the standard representation on V = R5 . Using once
again the notations of [Kna96], Appendix C, its highest weight is e1 and its weights
are ±e1 , ±e2 and 0 (of course all with multiplicity 1). Then (see Figure 1b):
• A vector X ∈ a+ is generic if and only if it avoids the "horizontal" wall of the
dominant Weyl chamber (the one normal to e2 ).
• All such vectors have the same type. So for a generic X ∈ a+ , the equivalence
class a+
ρ,X is the half-open dominant Weyl chamber, with the diagonal wall
included and the horizontal wall excluded.
• The whole equivalence class aρ,X is then an open quadrant of the plane a,
consisting of two half-open Weyl chambers glued back-to-back along their
shared diagonal wall.
4. Suppose that G and ρ are such that the set of its restricted weights of ρ neither
contains nor is contained in the set of multiples of the restricted roots of G. Then

16

both phenomena occur at the same time: equivalence classes in a neither contain
nor are contained in the Weyl chambers.
Examples are not immediate to come up with: the author even mistakenly believed
for some time that no such representations existed. However, here is one such
example:
• Take G = PSp4 (R) (which is a split form). In the notations of [Kna96],
Appendix C, its roots are all the possible expressions of the form ±ej ± ei
or ±2ei .
• Take ρ to be the representation with highest weight e1 + e2 + e3 + e4 . It has:
– the 16 weights of the form ±e1 ± e2 ± e3 ± e4 , with multiplicity 1;
– the 24 weights of the form ±ei ± ej , with multiplicity 1;
– the zero weight with multiplicity 2,
for a total dimension of 42.
The reader may check that there are then three different "types" of generic vectors
in the dominant Weyl chamber a+ , and two of the equivalence classes contain a
slice of the wall normal to 2e4 .

3.3 Swinging
We start this subsection with the following observation: if the Jordan projection of g
is X, then the Jordan projection of g−1 is −w0 (X), where w0 is the "longest element" of
the Weyl group that interchanges positive and negative restricted roots (see Section 1.2).
We would like to ensure that for every element g of the group Γ we are trying to
construct, the element g itself and its inverse g−1 have similar dynamics. To do that, we
would like X and −w0 (X) to be of the same type. Replacing if necessary X and −w0 (X)
by their midpoint, we lose no generality in assuming they are actually equal.
Definition 3.6. We say that an element X ∈ a is symmetric if it is invariant by −w0 :
−w0 (X) = X.
Unfortunately, it is not always possible to find a vector X that is both symmetric and
generic, as shown by the following example:
Example 3.7. Take G = SL3 (R). It is a split form, so its restricted root system is the

17

same as its root system, namely A2 :
e1 − e3
e2 − e3

e1 − e2

e2 − e1

e3 − e2
e3 − e1

For this group, −w0 is the map that exchanges the two simple positive roots e1 − e2
and e2 − e3 (we use the notations of [Kna96], Appendix C); in the picture above, it
corresponds to the reflection about the vertical axis. So a vector X ∈ a+ is symmetric if
and only if it lies on that vertical axis (which bisects the dominant Weyl chamber a+ ).
Now consider the representation ρ of G with highest weight 2e1 − e2 − e3 . Note that
this is three times the first fundamental weight, so ρ is actually the third symmetric
product S 3 R3 of the standard representation. Here are its weights:
e1 − e3
e2 − e3

2e1 − e2 − e3

e1 − e2

−e1 + 2e2 − e3

0
−e2 + e3

−e1 + e2
−e1 + e3

−e1 − e2 + 2e3
We see that any symmetric vector necessarily annihilates the weight −e1 +2e2 −e3 , hence
it cannot be generic.
We call this phenomenon "swinging". Here is the picture to have in mind: when we
apply the involution −w0 to some generic X, the annihilator of X (i.e. the hyperplane
of a∗ consisting of linear forms that vanish on X) "swings" past the weight −e1 +2e2 −e3 ,
thus switching it from the set Ω> to the set Ω< .
From now on, we assume that this issue does not arise:
Assumption 3.8 ("No swinging"). From now on, we assume that ρ is such that there
exists a symmetric generic element of a.
This is precisely condition (ii) from the Main Theorem.

18

Remark 3.9.
• It is well-known that when the restricted root system of G has any type other than
An (with n ≥ 2), D2n+1 or E6 , we actually have w0 = − Id. For those groups, every
vector X ∈ a is symmetric, and so every representation satisfies this condition.
• For the remaining groups, a straightforward linear algebra manipulation shows that
this condition is equivalent to the following: no nonzero restricted weight of ρ must
fall into the linear subspace
{λ ∈ a∗ | w0 λ = λ}

(3.4)

(the "axis of symmetry" of w0 in a∗ ). For example, this is always true for the
adjoint representation (any restricted root fixed by w0 would need to be positive
and negative at the same time). Heuristically, this seems to hold when the highest
restricted weight is "small", but to quickly fail when it gets "large enough".

3.4 Parabolic subgroups and subalgebras
A parabolic subgroup (or subalgebra) is usually defined in terms of a subset Π′ of the set Π
of simple restricted roots. We find it more convenient however to use a slightly different
language. To every to every such subset corresponds a facet of the Weyl chamber, given
by intersecting the walls corresponding to elements of Π′ . We may exemplify this facet
by picking some element X in it that does not belong to any subfacet. Conversely, for
every X ∈ a+ , we define the corresponding subset
ΠX := {α ∈ Π | α(X) = 0} .

(3.5)

The parabolic subalgebras and subgroups of type ΠX can then be very conveniently
rewritten in terms of X, as follows.
Remark 3.10. The set ΠX actually encodes the "type" of X with the respect to the
adjoint representation.
Definition 3.11. For every X ∈ a+ , we define:
−
• p+
X and pX the parabolic subalgebras of type X, and lX their intersection:

p+
X := l ⊕

M

gα ;

M

gα ;

α(X)≥0

p−
X := l ⊕

α(X)≤0

lX := l ⊕

M

α(X)=0

19

gα .

• PX+ and PX− the corresponding parabolic subgroups, and LX their intersection:
PX+ := NG (p+
X );
PX− := NG (p−
X );
LX := PX+ ∩ PX− .
An object closely related to these parabolic subgroups (see formula (4.4), the Bruhat
decomposition for parabolic subgroups) is the stabilizer of X in the Weyl group:
Definition 3.12. For any X ∈ a+ , we set
WX := {w ∈ W | wX = X} .
Remark 3.13. The group WX is also closely related to the set ΠX . Indeed, it follows
immediately that a simple restricted root α belongs to ΠX if and only if the corresponding
reflection sα belongs to WX . Conversely, it is well-known (Chevalley’s lemma, see e.g.
[Kna96], Proposition 2.72) that these reflections actually generate the group WX .
Thus WX is actually the same thing as WΠ′ (as defined before Proposition 2.7) where
we substitute Π′ = ΠX .
Example 3.14. To help understand the conventions we are taking, here are the extreme
cases:
1. If X lies in the open Weyl chamber a++ , then:
• PX+ = P + is the minimal parabolic subgroup; PX− = P − ; LX = L;
• ΠX = ∅;
• WX = {Id}.
2. If X = 0, then:
• PX+ = PX− = LX = G;
• ΠX = Π;
• WX = W .

3.5 Extreme vectors
Besides WX , we are also interested in the group
Wρ,X := {w ∈ W | wX has the same type as X} ,

(3.6)

which is the stabilizer of X "up to type". It obviously contains WX . The goal of this
subsection is to show that in every equivalence class, we can actually choose X in such
a way that both groups coincide.

20

Example 3.15. In Example 3.5.3 (G = SO+ (3, 2) acting on V = R5 ), the group Wρ,X
corresponding to any generic X is a two-element group. If we take X to be generic not
only with respect to ρ but also with respect to the adjoint representation (in other terms
if X is in an open Weyl chamber), then the group WX is trivial. If however we take as X
any element of the diagonal wall of the Weyl chamber, we have indeed WX = Wρ,X .
Definition 3.16. We call an element X ∈ a+ extreme if WX = Wρ,X , i.e. if it satisfies
the following property:
∀w ∈ W,

wX has the same type as X ⇐⇒ wX = X.

Proposition 3.17. For every generic X ∈ a+ , there exists a generic X ′ ∈ a+ that has
the same type as X and that is extreme.
If moreover X is symmetric, then X ′ is still symmetric.
Remark 3.18. The following statement will never be used in the paper (so we leave it
without proof), but might help to understand what is going on: for every generic X, we
have
+
aρ,X = Wρ,X a+
ρ,X = WX ′ aρ,X .
Also, it can be shown that a representative X ′ of a given equivalence class a+
ρ,X is extreme
+
if and only if it lies in every wall of the Weyl chamber that "touches" aρ,X (or, equivalently,
passes through aρ,X ), hence the term "extreme".
Proof. To construct an element that has the same type as X but has the whole group Wρ,X
as stabilizer, we simply average over the action of this group: we set
X
X′ =
wX.
(3.7)
w∈Wρ,X

(As multiplication by positive scalars does not change anything, we have written it as a
sum rather than an average for ease of manipulation.) Then obviously:
• By definition every wX for w ∈ Wρ,X has the same type as X; since the equivalence
class aρ,X is a convex cone, their sum X ′ also has the same type as X.
• In particular X ′ is generic.
• By construction whenever wX has the same type as X, we have wX ′ = X ′ ; conversely if w fixes X ′ , then wX has the same type as wX ′ = X ′ which has the same
type as X. So X ′ is extreme.
Let us now show that X ′ ∈ a+ , i.e. that for every α ∈ Π, we have α(X ′ ) ≥ 0:
• If sα X ′ = X ′ , then obviously α(X ′ ) = 0.

21

• Otherwise, since X ′ is extreme, it follows that sα X ′ does not even have the same
type as X ′ . Since X ′ is generic, this means that there exists a restricted weight λ
of ρ such that
(
λ(X ′ ) > 0,
(3.8)
sα (λ)(X ′ ) < 0.
By definition, the same inequalities then hold for any Y with the same type as X ′
(or as X):
(
λ(Y ) > 0,
sα (λ)(Y ) < 0.
In particular the form λ − sα (λ), which is a multiple of α, takes a positive value on
every such Y ; hence α never vanishes on the equivalence class aρ,X . By hypothesis X ∈ a+ , so α(X) ≥ 0. Since aρ,X is connected, we conclude that α(X ′ ) > 0.
Finally, assume that X0 is symmetric, i.e. −w0 (X) = X. Then since w0 belongs to the
Weyl group, it induces a permutation on Ω, hence we have:
>
>
<
w0 Ω>
X = Ωw0 X = Ω−X = ΩX ,

(3.9)

<
so that w0 swaps the sets Ω>
X and ΩX . Now by definition we have
<
Wρ,X = StabW (Ω>
X ) ∩ StabW (ΩX ),

(3.10)

hence w0 normalizes Wρ,X . Obviously the map X 7→ −X commutes with everything, so
−w0 also normalizes Wρ,X . We conclude that
X
−w0 (X ′ ) =
−w0 (w(X))
w∈Wρ,X

=

X

w′ (−w0 (X))

w ′ ∈Wρ,X

= X ′,

(3.11)

so that X ′ is still symmetric.
Remark 3.19. In practice, it can be shown that if G is simple, the set ΠX for extreme,
symmetric, generic X can actually only be one of the following:
(a) empty;
(b) the set of long simple restricted roots;
(c) the whole set Π.
Case (a) accounts for the vast majority of representations. Case (b) obviously only
occurs when the restricted root system has a non-simply-laced Dynkin diagram (G2 , F4 ,
Bn , Cn or BCn ), and then only occurs in finitely many representations of each group.
Case (c) only occurs in trivial situations, namely when either dim a = 0 (i.e. the group G
is compact) or the representation is trivial.
The proof of this fact mostly relies on the following two observations:

22

• As soon as Ω is large enough to include some simple restricted root α, no set ΠX ′
may contain α. Indeed in that case, α(X ′ ) never vanishes for generic X ′ .
• The Weyl group acts transitively on the set of restricted roots of the same length;
so as soon as Ω contains one restricted root of a given length, it contains all of
them.
For the remainder of the paper, we fix some symmetric generic vector X0 in the closed
dominant Weyl chamber a+ that is extreme.

4 Dynamics of elements of type X0
Now we take an element g in the affine group ρ(G) ⋉ V such that the Jordan projection
of its linear part has the same type as X0 . The goal of this section is to understand the
dynamics of g acting on the affine space corresponding to V , in particular its "dynamical
spaces" defined in Subsection 4.3. There is a lot of parallelism between this section and
Section 2 in [Smi16].
In Subsection 4.1, we introduce the dynamical subspaces of X0 . We also show that the
stabilizers in G of those subspaces (except for the neutral one) are precisely the parabolic
subgroups introduced in Subsection 3.4.
In Subsection 4.2, we introduce some formalism that reduces the study of the affine
space VAff corresponding to V to the study of a vector space called A. We also introduce
affine equivalents of linear notions defined previously.
In Subsection 4.3, we define the linear and affine dynamical subspaces associated to
an element of the affine group ρ(G) ⋉ V . This is very similar to Section 2.1 in [Smi16].
In Subsection 4.4, we describe the dynamical subspaces of an element g ∈ ρ(G) ⋉ V
whose Jordan projection has the same type as X0 .
In Subsection 4.5, we show that the action of any such element on its affine neutral
space is a "quasi-translation", and explain what that means. This is a generalization of
Section 2.4 in [Smi16].
In Subsection 4.6, we introduce a family of canonical identifications between different affine neutral spaces, and use them to define the "Margulis invariant" for any such
element, which is a vector measuring its translation part along a subspace of its affine
neutral space. This is a generalization of Section 2.5 in [Smi16].

4.1 Reference dynamical spaces
Recall that X0 is some generic, symmetric, extreme vector in the closed dominant Weyl
chamber a+ , chosen once and for all.
Definition 4.1. We define the following subspaces of V :
L
• V0> := λ(X0 )>0 V λ , the reference expanding space;
• V0< :=

L

λ(X0 )<0 V

λ,

the reference contracting space;

23

• V0= :=
• V0≥ :=
• V0≤ :=

L

λ(X0 )=0 V

L

λ(X0 )≥0 V

L

λ(X0 )≤0 V

λ,

the reference neutral space;

λ,

the reference noncontracting space;

λ,

the reference nonexpanding space.

In other terms, V0≥ is the direct sum of all restricted weight spaces corresponding to
weights in Ω≥
X0 , and similarly for the other spaces.
Clearly these are precisely the dynamical spaces (see Subsection 4.3) associated to the
map exp(X0 ) (acting on V by ρ).
Remark 4.2. Note that since X0 is generic, V0= is actually just the zero restricted weight
space:
V0= = V 0 ;
moreover by Assumption 3.2, zero is a restricted weight, so this space is nontrivial.
Example 4.3.
1. For G = SO+ (p, q) acting on V = Rp+q (where p ≥ q), there is only one generic
type. The spaces V0> and V0< are some maximal totally isotropic subspaces (transverse to each other), V0≥ and V0≤ are their respective orthogonal supplements,
and V0= is the (p − q)-dimensional space orthogonal to both V0> and V0< .
2. If G is any semisimple real Lie group acting on V = g (its Lie algebra) by the
adjoint representation, then the reference noncontracting space g≥
0 is obviously
equal to p+
.
There
is
once
again
only
one
generic
type,
given
by
any
X0 ∈ a++ ;
X0
+ is actually the (reference) minimal
we then have ΠX0 = ∅, so that p+
X0 = p
parabolic subalgebra. We have similar identities for the other dynamical spaces,
namely:
+
g≥
0 =p ;

+
g>
0 =n ;

−
g≤
0 =p ;

−
g<
0 =n ;

g=
0 = l.
Let us now understand what happens when we apply an element of G to one of those
subspaces. The motivation for this, as well as the explanation of the term "reference
subspace", comes from Corollary 4.17.
Proposition 4.4. We have:
(i) StabW (V0≥ ) = StabW (V0> ) = StabW (V0≤ ) = StabW (V0< ) = WX0 .
(ii) StabG (V0≥ ) = StabG (V0> ) = PX+0 .
(iii) StabG (V0≤ ) = StabG (V0< ) = PX−0 .

24

Remark 4.5. Note that every restricted weight space is invariant by ZG (A) = L, and that
NG (A) permutes these spaces; so if we have a direct sum of several restricted weights, it
makes sense to talk about its image by an element of W . Moreover, we have the obvious
identity
∀w ∈ W, ∀λ ∈ a∗ , wV λ = V wλ .
(4.1)
Proof of Proposition 4.4.
(i) First note that since X0 is generic, the only restricted weight that vanishes on X0
is the zero weight, so we have indeed
StabW (V0≥ ) = StabW (V0> ) = StabW (V0≤ ) = StabW (V0< ).
Moreover, this group is obviously included in the group Wρ,X0 = StabW (aρ,X0 ),
which is equal to WX0 since X0 is extreme. Conversely, let w ∈ WX0 ; then X0 is
fixed by w, and so is (say) the set Ω≥
X0 of restricted weights nonnegative on X0 . It
follows that StabW (V0≥ ) contains WX0 .
(ii) We first show that both StabG V0> and StabG V0≥ contain the group P + . Indeed:
• The group L stabilizes every restricted weight space V λ . Indeed, take some
λ ∈ a∗ , v ∈ V λ , l ∈ L, X ∈ a; then we have:
X · l(v) = l(Ad(l−1 )(X) · v) = l(X · v) = λ(X)l(v).

(4.2)

• Let α be a positive restricted root and λ a restricted weight such that the
value λ(X0 ) is positive (resp. nonnegative). Then clearly we have
gα · V λ ⊂ V λ+α ,
and (λ + α)(X0 ) is still positive (resp. nonnegative). Hence n+ stabilizes V0>
and V0≥ .
• The statement follows as P + = L exp(n+ ).
Now take any element g ∈ G. Let us apply the Bruhat decomposition: we may
write
g = p1 wp2 ,
with p1 , p2 some elements of the minimal parabolic subgroup P + and w some element of the restricted Weyl group W (see e.g. [Kna96], Theorem 7.40). (Technically
we need to replace w ∈ W = NG (A)/ZG (A) by some representative w̃ ∈ NG (A);
but by the remark preceding this proof, we may ignore this distinction.) From the
statement that we just proved it immediately follows that
StabG (V0≥ ) = StabG (V0> ) = P + StabW (V0≥ )P + = P + WX0 P + .

(4.3)

On the other hand, we have the Bruhat decomposition for parabolic subgroups:
+
+
PX+0 := StabG (p+
X0 ) = P W X0 P .

25

(4.4)

This can be shown by applying a similar reasoning to the adjoint representation:
indeed in that case the space V0≥ corresponding to the same X0 is just p+
X0 . (There
is just a small difficulty due to the fact that X0 is not, in general, generic with
respect to the adjoint representation.)
The conclusion follows.
(iii) Replacing P + and PX+0 respectively by P − and PX−0 , the same reasoning applies.

4.2 Extended affine space
Let VAff be an affine space whose underlying vector space is V .
Definition 4.6 (Extended affine space). We choose once and for all a point of VAff which
we take as an origin; we call R0 the one-dimensional vector space formally generated by
this point, and we set A := V ⊕ R0 the extended affine space corresponding to V . (We
hope that A, the extended affine space, and A, the group corresponding to the Cartan
space, occur in sufficiently different contexts that the reader will not confuse them.)
Then VAff is the affine hyperplane "at height 1" of this space, and V is the corresponding
vector hyperplane:
V = V × {0} ⊂ V × R0 ;

VAff = V × {1} ⊂ V × R0 .

Definition 4.7 (Linear and affine group). Any affine map g with linear part ℓ(g) and
translation vector v, defined on VAff by
g : x 7→ ℓ(g)(x) + v,
can be extended in a unique way to a linear map defined on A, given by the matrix


ℓ(g) v
.
0
1
From now on, we identify the abstract group G with the group ρ(G) ⊂ GL(V ), and
the corresponding affine group G ⋉ V with a subgroup of GL(A).
Definition 4.8 (Affine subspaces). We define an extended affine subspace of A to be a
vector subspace of A not contained in V . There is a one-to-one correspondence between
extended affine subspaces of A and affine subspaces of VAff of dimension one less. For
any extended affine subspace of A denoted by A1 (or A2 , A′ and so on), we denote by V1
(or V2 , V ′ and so on) the space A ∩ V (which is the linear part of the corresponding affine
space A ∩ VAff ).
Definition 4.9 (Translations). By abuse of terminology, elements of the normal subgroup V ⊳ G ⋉ V will still be called translations, even though we shall see them mostly
as endomorphisms of A (so that they are formally transvections). For any vector v ∈ V ,
we denote by τv the corresponding translation.

26

Definition 4.10 (Reference affine dynamical spaces). We now give a name for (the
vector extensions of) the affine subspaces of VAff parallel respectively to V0≥ , V0≤ and V0=
and passing through the origin: we set
≥
A≥
0 := V0 ⊕ R0 ,

the reference affine noncontracting space;

A0 := V0 ⊕ R0 ,

the reference affine nonexpanding space;

A0 := V0 ⊕ R0 ,

the reference affine neutral space.

≤
=

≤

=

These are obviously the affine dynamical spaces (see next subsection) corresponding to
the map exp(X0 ), seen as an element of G ⋉ V by identifying G with the stabilizer of R0
in G ⋉ V .
Definition 4.11 (Affine Jordan projection). Finally, we extend the notion of Jordan
projection to the whole group G ⋉ V , by setting
∀g ∈ G ⋉ V,

Jd(g) := Jd(ℓ(g)).

Remark 4.12.
1. It is tempting to try to define an "affine Jordan decomposition": to wit, any affine
map g ∈ G ⋉ V may be written as g = τv gh ge gu with gh (resp. ge , gu ) conjugate
in G ⋉ V to an element of A (resp. of K, of N + ) and v some element of V .
Unfortunately, we can neither require that τv commute with the other three factors,
nor (as erroneously claimed in the author’s previous paper [Smi16]) determine v in
a unique fashion. The trouble comes from unipotent elements; to understand the
problem, examine the affine transformation
 

   
x
1 1
x
0
g:
7→
+
.
y
0 1
y
1
So we must be a little more careful; see the proof of Proposition 4.16 for a more
detailed study of conjugacy classes in G ⋉ V .
2. We do not extend similarly the Cartan projection to G⋉V , for the following reason.
While eigenvalues of an element of G ⋉ V depend only on the eigenvalues of its
linear part, the same statement does not hold for its singular values.

4.3 Definition of dynamical spaces
For every g ∈ G ⋉ V , we define its linear dynamical spaces as follows:
• Vg> , the expanding space associated to g:
the largest vector subspace of V stable by g such that all eigenvalues λ of the
restriction of g to that subspace satisfy |λ| > 1;
• Vg< , the contracting space associated to g:
the same thing with |λ| < 1;

27

• Vg= , the neutral space associated to g:
the same thing with |λ| = 1;
• Vg≥ , the noncontracting space associated to g:
the same thing with |λ| ≥ 1;
• Vg≤ , the nonexpanding space associated to g:
the same thing with |λ| ≤ 1.
Equivalently, Vg> is the direct sum of all the generalized eigenspaces E λ of g associated to
eigenvalues λ of modulus larger than 1 (defined as E λ = ker(g −λ Id)n where n = dim V ),
and similarly for the four other spaces. We then obviously have
Vg≥
z }| {
V = Vg> ⊕ Vg= ⊕ Vg< .
| {z }
Vg≤

(4.5)

Also note that the restriction of g from A to V is just its linear part, so that the linear
dynamic subspaces of g only depend on ℓ(g).
For every g ∈ G ⋉ V , we define its affine dynamical subspaces:
• A≥
g , the affine noncontracting space associated to g,
• A≤
g , the affine nonexpanding space associated to g,
• and A=
g , the affine neutral space associated to g,
in the same way as the linear dynamical subspaces, but with V replaced everywhere
by A.
Remark 4.13.
<
• Note that if we defined in the same way A>
g (resp. Ag ), it would actually be
contained in V and so just be equal to Vg> (resp. Vg< ). Indeed an element of G ⋉ V
can never act on a vector in A\V (i.e. an element of A with a nonzero R0 component)
with an eigenvalue other than 1.

• Hence the decomposition (4.5) now becomes:
A≥
g
z }| {
>
<
A = Vg ⊕ A=
g ⊕ Vg
| {z }
A≤
g

(pay attention to the distribution of A’s and V ’s).

28

(4.6)

≥
≤
• From this identity, it immediately follows that neither A=
g , Ag nor Ag are contained
in V .

• Finally, it is obvious that the intersections of these three spaces with V are respectively Vg= , Vg≥ and Vg≤ . Thus this notation is consistent with the convention
outlined above.
In purely affine terms, these spaces may be understood as follows:
=
• A=
g ∩ VAff is the unique g-invariant affine space parallel to Vg (the "axis" of g);
=
≥
• A≥
g ∩ VAff is the unique affine space parallel to Vg and containing Ag ∩ VAff , and
≤
similarly for Ag ∩ VAff .

4.4 Description of dynamical spaces
We shall now characterize the dynamical subspaces of those elements of G ⋉ V that
satisfy the following property.
Definition 4.14. We say that an element g ∈ G ⋉ V is of type X0 if Jd(g) has the same
type as X0 , i.e. if
Jd(g) ∈ aρ,X0 .
Example 4.15.
1. For G = SO+ (p, q) acting on V = Rp+q (where p ≥ q), there is only one generic
type. For every g ∈ G, we have
dim Vg> = dim Vg< ≤ q.

(4.7)

An element g ∈ G is of generic type if and only if equality is attained. Such elements
have been called pseudohyperbolic in the previous literature ([AMS02, Smi14]).
2. If G is any semisimple real Lie group acting on V = g (its Lie algebra) by the
adjoint representation, there is only one generic type and an element g ∈ G is
of that type if and only if Jd(g) ∈ a++ . Such elements are called R-regular or
(particularly in [BQ]) loxodromic.
Here is a partial description of the dynamical spaces of an element of type X0 .
Proposition 4.16. Let g ∈ G ⋉ V be a map of type X0 . In that case:
(i) There exists a map φ ∈ G ⋉ V , called a canonizing map for g, such that
(
≥
φ(A≥
g ) = A0 ;
≤
φ(A≤
g ) = A0 .
<
(ii) The space Vg> is uniquely determined by A≥
g . The space Vg is uniquely determined
≤
by Ag .

29

(Compare this with Claim 2.5 in [Smi16].)
Proof.
(i)

• We start with the obvious decomposition
g = τv ℓ(g),

(4.8)

where ℓ(g) ∈ G is the linear part of g (seen as an element of G ⋉ V by
identifying G with the stabilizer of the origin R0 ) and v ∈ V is its translation
part. We then observe that we may rewrite this as
g = τv′ τw−1 ℓ(g)τw

(4.9)

for some w ∈ V , where v ′ is now actually an element of Vg= . Indeed, for any
translation vector v ∈ V and linear map f ∈ G, we have
f τv = τf (v) f.

(4.10)

The statement then follows from the fact that the map induced by ℓ(g) − Id
on Vg> ⊕ Vg< does not have 0 as an eigenvalue, hence is surjective. (In fact, this
argument shows that we could even require v ′ to lie in the actual characteristic
space corresponding to the eigenvalue 1.)
• Now let ℓ(g) =: gh ge gu be the Jordan decomposition of ℓ(g), so that
τw gτw−1 = τv′ gh ge gu ;

(4.11)

let φℓ ∈ G be any map that realizes the conjugacy φℓ gh φ−1
ℓ = exp(Jd(g)); and
let φ := φℓ τw .
Calling g′ := φgφ−1 and τv′′ , ge′ , gu′ the respective conjugates of τv′ , ge , gu
by φℓ (so that v ′′ = φℓ (v ′ )), we then have
g′ = τv′′ exp(Jd(g))ge′ gu′ ,

(4.12)

where ge′ ∈ G is elliptic, gu′ ∈ G is unipotent, both commute with exp(Jd(g)),
and v ′′ ∈ Vg=′ .
As already seen in the proof of Proposition 2.6, ge′ and gu′ have all eigenvalues
of modulus 1 and commute with exp(Jd(g)). Hence the linear dynamical
spaces of g′ coincide with those of exp(Jd(g)).
=
Now since exp(Jd(g)) ∈ G fixes R0 , the space A=
exp(Jd(g)) is just Vexp(Jd(g)) ⊕R0 ;
and since v ′′ ∈ Vg=′ , that space is still invariant by g ′ . It follows that we have
=
=
A=
g ′ = Aexp(Jd(g)) = Vexp(Jd(g)) ⊕ R0 .

(4.13)

By taking the direct sum with V > and with V < , we deduce that all the affine
dynamical spaces of g′ coincide with those of exp(Jd(g)).

30

Now since g is of type X0 , by definition, Jd(g) is a vector in a that has the
same type as X0 . Hence the affine dynamical subspaces of exp(Jd(g)) coincide
with those of exp(X0 ), which are the reference subspaces. We conclude that
(
≥
A≥
g ′ = A0 ;
≤
A≤
g ′ = A0 .

≥
≤
Since obviously A≥
g ′ = φ(Ag ) and similarly for A , the conclusion follows.
≥
>
>
(ii) Suppose that g is a map of type X0 such that A≥
g = A0 ; let us show that Vg = V0 .
≥
′
−1
Define g = φgφ as in the previous point; then φ stabilizes A0 . On the other
hand, we have Vg> = φ−1 (Vg>′ ); but from the previous point, it follows also that
Vg>′ = V0> .

Clearly the linear part of φ stabilizes V0≥ . It follows from Proposition 4.4 that it
also stabilizes V0> . Since the latter space is contained in V , the translation part
of φ acts trivially on it. We conclude that Vg> = V0> as required.
≥
Now if we have two maps g and g ′ of type X0 such that A≥
g = Ag ′ , by conjugating,
it follows that we also have Vg> = Vg>′ . The same proof works for A≤ and V < .

This immediately allows us to describe the remaining dynamical spaces of g:
Corollary 4.17. Let g ∈ G ⋉ V be a map of type X0 . Then if φ ∈ G ⋉ V is any
canonizing map of g, we have:
≥
φ(A≥
g ) = A0

φ(Vg≥ ) = V0≥

φ(Vg> ) = V0>

≤
φ(A≤
g ) = A0

φ(Vg≤ ) = V0≤

φ(Vg< ) = V0<

=
φ(A=
g ) = A0

φ(Vg= ) = V0= .

In other terms, if φ is a canonizing map of g then all eight dynamical spaces of the
conjugate φgφ−1 coincide with the reference dynamical spaces. This explains why we
called them "reference" spaces.
Proof. The equalities for A≥ and A≤ hold by definition of a canonizing map. The equality
for A= follows by taking the intersection. The equalities for V ≥ , V ≤ and V = follow by
taking the linear part. The equalities for V > and V < follow from Proposition 4.16 (ii).

4.5 Quasi-translations
Let us now investigate the action of a map g ∈ G ⋉ V of type X0 on its affine neutral
space A=
g . The goal of this subsection is to prove that it is "almost" a translation
(Proposition 4.20).
We fix on V a Euclidean form B satisfying the conditions of Lemma 2.4 for the representation ρ.
Definition 4.18. We call quasi-translation any affine automorphism of A=
0 induced by
an element of L ⋉ V0= .

31

Let us explain and justify this terminology. First note that the action of L on V0=
preserves B: indeed, the action of M does so because M ⊂ K, and the action of A on
this space is just trivial. The following statement is then immediate:
Proposition 4.19. Let V0t be the set of fixed points of L in V0= :
V0t := {v ∈ V0= | ∀l ∈ L, lv = v} .
(Note that this is also the set of fixed points of M ). Let V0r be the B-orthogonal complement of V0t in V0= , and let O(V0r ) denote the set of B-preserving automorphisms of V0r .
Then any quasi-translation is an element of


O(V0r ) ⋉ V0r × V0t .
In other words, quasi-translations are affine isometries of V0= that preserve the directions of V0r and V0t and act only by translation on the V0t component. You may think of a
quasi-translation as a kind of "screw displacement"; the superscripts t and r respectively
stand for "translation" and "rotation".
We now claim that any map of type X0 acts on its affine neutral space by quasitranslations:

Proposition 4.20. Let g ∈ G ⋉ V be a map of type X0 , and let φ ∈ G ⋉ V be any
canonizing map for g. Then the restriction of the conjugate φgφ−1 to A=
0 is a quasitranslation.
Let us actually formulate an even more general result, which will have another application in the next subsection:
≤
=
Lemma 4.21. Any map f ∈ G ⋉ V stabilizing both A≥
0 and A0 acts on A0 by quasitranslation.

Proof.
−
=
• We begin by showing that any element of lX0 = p+
X0 ∩ pX0 acts on V0 in the same
way as some element of l. Recall that by definition
M
lX0 = l ⊕
gα ;
α(X0 )=0

hence it is sufficient to show that for every restricted root α such that α(X0 ) = 0,
we have gα · V0= = 0. Indeed, since V0= = V 0 (because X0 is generic), we have
gα · V0= ⊂ V α .
On the other hand, we know by Proposition 4.4 that for such α, the action of gα
stabilizes both V0≥ and V0≤ ; it follows that the image gα · V0= lies in both of these
spaces, hence in their intersection V0= , which is also V 0 . Since α is nonzero, we
have V 0 ∩ V α = 0, which yields the desired equality.

32

• Let PX+0 ,e and PX−0 ,e denote the identity components of PX+0 and PX−0 respectively;
by integrating the previous statement, it follows that any element of PX+0 ,e ∩ PX−0 ,e
acts on V0= in the same way as some element of L.
• Now it follows from [Kna96] Proposition 7.82 (d) (using 7.83 (e)) that
LX0 = PX+0 ∩ PX−0 ⊂ M (PX+0 ,e ∩ PX−0 ,e ).

(4.14)

(Here we are using the assumption that G is connected.) We deduce that any
element of LX0 acts on V0= in the same way as some element of L.
≤
• Finally, any f ∈ G ⋉ V stabilizing both A≥
0 and A0 has linear part stabilizing both
≥
≤
V0 and V0 (hence lying in LX0 , by Proposition 4.4), and translation part contained
both in V0≥ and in V0≤ (in other words, in V0= ). The conclusion follows.

Proof of Proposition 4.20. The Proposition follows immediately by taking f = φgφ−1 .
≤
Indeed, by definition the "canonized" map φgφ−1 has A≥
0 and A0 as dynamical spaces;
in particular it stabilizes them.
Example 4.22.
1. For G = SO+ (p, q) acting on V = Rp+q (with p ≥ q), we have:
• M ≃ SOp−q (R),
• V0= = V 0 ≃ Rp−q ,
and the action of M on V0= is the obvious one. We may then distinguish two cases:
a. If p − q ≥ 2, then the action of M is transitive. The space V0t is trivial
and V0r = V0= . Any affine isometry of V0= may be a quasi-translation.
b. If p − q = 1, then the group M is trivial. We have on the contrary V0t = V0=
and V0r is trivial. A quasi-translation is just a translation.
(We exclude the case p = q because in that case V 0 = 0, which violates Assumption 3.2.)
2. More generally if G is split, then we have m = 0. The group M is in general a
nontrivial finite group; however, it can be shown that we still always have V0t = V0= ,
and a quasi-translation is still just a translation.
3. If G is any semisimple real Lie group acting on V = g (its Lie algebra) by the
adjoint representation, then:
0
• g=
0 = g = l;

• gt0 is the direct sum of a and of the center of m;
• gr0 is the semisimple part of m (in other terms, its derived subalgebra).
The example of G = SO+ (4, 1) (acting on so(4, 1), not on R5 ) shows that V0t and V0r
can both be nontrivial at the same time.

33

We would like to treat quasi-translations a bit like translations; for this, we need to
have at least a nontrivial space V0t . So from now on, we exclude cases like 1.a. above:
Assumption 4.23. The representation ρ is such that
dim V0t > 0.
This is precisely condition (i)(a) from the Main Theorem.

4.6 Canonical identifications and the Margulis invariant
The main goal of this subsection is to associate to every map g ∈ G ⋉ V of type X0 a
vector in V0t , called its "Margulis invariant" (see Definition 4.30). The two Propositions
and the Lemma that lead up to this definition are important as well, and will be often
used subsequently.
Corollary 4.17 has shown us that the "geometry" of any map g of type X0 (namely
the position of its dynamical spaces) is entirely determined by the pair of spaces
≥
≤
≤
(A≥
g , Ag ) = φ(A0 , A0 ).

In fact, such pairs of spaces play a crucial role. Let us begin with a definition; its
connection with the observation we just made will become clear after Proposition 4.26.
Definition 4.24.
• We define a parabolic space to be any subspace of V that is the image of either V0≥
or V0≤ (no matter which one, since X is symmetric) by some element of G.
• We define an affine parabolic space to be any subspace of A that is the image of A≥
0
by some element of G ⋉ V . Equivalently, a subspace A≥ ⊂ A is an affine parabolic
space iff it is not contained in V and its linear part V ≥ = A≥ ∩ V is a parabolic
space.
• We say that two parabolic spaces (or two affine parabolic spaces) are transverse if
their intersection has the lowest possible dimension.
Example 4.25.
1. For G = SO+ (p, q) acting on V = Rp+q (where p ≥ q), a subspace F ⊂ Rp+q
is a parabolic space if and only if F ⊥ is a maximal totally isotropic subspace.
Equivalently, F is a parabolic space if and only if F contains F ⊥ and is minimal
for that property (namely p-dimensional). Pairs of transverse parabolic spaces were
called frames in [Smi14].
2. If G is any semisimple real Lie group acting on V = g (its Lie algebra) by the
adjoint representation, a parabolic space is just an arbitrary minimal parabolic
subalgebra of g (hence the name "parabolic space").

34

Proposition 4.26. A pair of parabolic spaces (resp. of affine parabolic spaces) is trans≤
verse if and only if it may be sent to (V0≥ , V0≤ ) (resp. to (A≥
0 , A0 )) by some element of G
(resp. of G ⋉ V ).
In particular, it follows from Proposition 4.16 that for any map g ∈ G ⋉ V of type X0 ,
≤
the pair (A≥
0 , A0 ) is a transverse pair of affine parabolic spaces.
This Proposition, as well as its proof, is very similar to Claim 2.8 in [Smi16].
Proof. Let us prove the linear version; the affine version follows immediately. Let (V1 , V2 )
be any pair of parabolic spaces. By definition, for i = 1, 2, we may write Vi = φi (V0≥ ) for
some φi ∈ G. Let us apply the Bruhat decomposition to the map φ−1
1 φ2 : we may write
φ−1
1 φ2 = p1 wp2 ,

(4.15)

where p1 , p2 belong to the minimal parabolic subgroup P + , and w is an element of the
restricted Weyl group W (or, technically, some representative thereof). Let φ := φ1 p1 =
−1
+ stabilizes V ≥ , we have
φ2 p−1
2 w ; since P
0
V1 = φ(V0≥ ) and V2 = φ(wV0≥ ).

(4.16)

Thus V1 and V2 are transverse if and only if wV0≥ is transverse to V0≥ , which happens if
and only the sum of the multiplicities of restricted weights contained in the intersection
≥
Ω≥
X0 ∩ wΩX0

is the smallest possible.
Clearly, this intersection always contains {0}. Since by assumption X0 is generic and
≤
symmetric, we deduce that if we have wΩ≥
X0 = ΩX0 , and only in that case, it is equal
to {0}. Since X0 is symmetric, that case is realized when w = w0 . Then we have
V1 = φ(V0≥ ) and V2 = φ(V0≤ ) as required.
Remark 4.27.
• It follows from Proposition 4.4 that the set of all parabolic spaces can be identified
with the flag variety G/PX+0 , by identifying every parabolic space φ(V0≥ ) with the
coset φPX+0 .
• Using the Bruhat decomposition of PX0 (see (4.4)), we may show that two parabolic
spaces V1 = φ1 (V0≥ ) and V2 = φ2 (V0≥ ) = φ2 ◦ w0 (V0≤ ) are transverse if and only if
the corresponding pair of cosets
(φ1 PX+0 , φ2 w0 PX−0 )
is in the open G-orbit of G/PX+0 × G/PX−0 .
Consider a transverse pair of affine parabolic spaces. Their intersection may be seen as
a sort of "abstract affine neutral space". We now introduce a family of "canonical identifications" between those spaces. Unfortunately, these identifications have an inherent
ambiguity: they are only defined up to quasi-translation.

35

Proposition 4.28. Let (A1 , A2 ) be a pair of transverse affine parabolic spaces. Then any
≤
map φ ∈ G ⋉ V such that φ(A1 , A2 ) = (A≥
0 , A0 ) gives, by restriction, an identification of
the intersection A1 ∩ A2 with A=
0 , which is unique up to quasi-translation.
Here by φ(A1 , A2 ) we mean the pair (φ(A1 ), φ(A2 )). Note that if A1 ∩A2 is obtained in
another way as an intersection of two affine parabolic spaces, the identification with A=
0
will, in general, no longer be the same, not even up to quasi-translation: there could also
be an element of the Weyl group involved.
Compare this with Corollary 2.14 in [Smi16].
Proof. The existence of such a map φ follows from Proposition 4.26. Now let φ and φ′
be two such maps, and let f be the map such that
φ′ = f ◦ φ

(4.17)

≤
(i.e. f := φ′ ◦ φ−1 ). Then by construction f stabilizes both A≥
0 and A0 . It follows from
=
Lemma 4.21 that the restriction of f to A0 is a quasi-translation.

Let us now explain why we call these identifications "canonical". The following lemma,
while seemingly technical, is actually crucial: it tells us that the identifications defined in
Proposition 4.28 commute (up to quasi-translation) with the projections that naturally
arise if we change one of the parabolic subspaces in the pair while fixing the other.
Lemma 4.29. Take any affine parabolic space A1 .
Let A2 and A′2 be any two affine parabolic spaces both transverse to A1 .
Let φ (resp. φ′ ) be an element of G ⋉ V that sends the pair (A1 , A2 ) (resp. (A1 , A′2 ))
≤
to (A≥
0 , A0 ); these two maps exist by Proposition 4.26.
Let W1 be image of V0> by any map φ such that A1 = φ(A≥
0 ) (which is unique by
Proposition 4.4).
Let
ψ : A1 −−−−→ A1 ∩ A′2
be the projection parallel to W1 .
Then the map ψ defined by the commutative diagram
A=
0

ψ

φ′

φ

A1 ∩ A2

A=
0

ψ

A1 ∩ A′2

is a quasi-translation.
The space W1 is, in a sense, the "abstract linear expanding space" corresponding to
the "abstract affine noncontracting space" A1 : more precisely, for any map g ∈ G ⋉ V
>
of type X0 such that A≥
g = A1 , we have Vg = W1 (by Proposition 4.16 (ii)).

36

≥
≤
>
>
=
The projection ψ is well-defined because A≥
0 = V0 ⊕ V0 = V0 ⊕ (A0 ∩ A0 ), and so
≥
A1 = φ′−1 (A0 ) = W1 ⊕ (A1 ∩ A′2 ).
This statement generalizes Lemma 2.18 in [Smi16]. The proof is similar, but care must
be taken to replace minimal parabolics by parabolics of type X0 .

Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume that φ = Id (otherwise we simply
replace the three affine parabolic spaces by their images under φ−1 .) Then we have
≤
′−1 (A≤ ), where φ′ can be any map stabilizing the
′
A1 = A≥
0
0 , A2 = A0 and A2 = φ
≥
space A0 . We want to show that the map φ′ ◦ ψ is a quasi-translation.
We know that φ′ lies in the stabilizer StabG⋉V (A≥
0 ); by Proposition 4.4, the latter is
equal to PX+0 ⋉ V0≥ . We now introduce the algebra
n+
X0 :=

M

gα

(4.18)

α(X0 )>0
+
:= exp n+
and the group NX
X0 . We then have the Langlands decomposition
0
+
PX+0 = LX0 NX
0

(4.19)

(see e.g. [Kna96], Proposition 7.83). Since LX0 stabilizes V0> , this generalizes to the
"affine Langlands decomposition"
+
⋉ V0> ).
PX+0 ⋉ V0≥ = (LX0 ⋉ V0= )(NX
0

(4.20)

+
⋉ V0> .
Thus we may write φ′ = l ◦ n with l ∈ LX0 ⋉ V0= and n ∈ NX
0
+
⋉ V0> stabilizes the
We shall use the following fact: every element n of the group NX
0
≥
>
>
space V0 and induces the identity map on the quotient space A0 /V0 . Indeed, when the
+
+
element n lies in the "linear" group NX
, since NX
is connected, this follows from the
0
0
≥
+
>
+
fact that nX0 · V0 ⊂ V0 (which, in turn, is true because n+
X0 ⊂ n ). When n is a pure
translation by a vector of V0> , this is obvious.
>
By definition, ψ also stabilizes V0> and induces the identity on A≥
0 /V0 ; hence so does
the map n ◦ ψ. But we also know that n ◦ ψ is defined on A1 ∩ A2 = A=
0 , and sends it
onto
=
n ◦ ψ(A1 ∩ A2 ) = n(A1 ∩ A′2 ) = l−1 (A=
0 ) = A0 .
′
Hence the map n ◦ ψ is the identity on A=
0 . It follows that ψ = φ ◦ ψ = l ◦ n ◦ ψ = l (in
restriction to A=
0 ); by Lemma 4.21, ψ is a quasi-translation as required.

Now let g be a map of type X0 . We already know that it acts on its neutral affine space
by quasi-translation; now the canonical identifications we have just introduced allow us
to compare the actions of different elements on their respective neutral affine spaces, as
if they were both acting on the same space A=
0 . However there is a catch: since the
identifications are only canonical up to quasi-translation, we lose information about the
rotation part; only the translation part along V0t remains.
Formally, we make the following definition. Let πt denote the projection from V0=
onto V0t parallel to V0r .

37

Definition 4.30. Let g ∈ G ⋉ V be a map of type X0 . Take any point x in the affine
≥
≤
≥
≤
space A=
g ∩ VAff and any map φ ∈ G such that φ(Vg , Vg ) = (V0 , V0 ). Then we define
the Margulis invariant of g to be the vector
M (g) := πt (φ(g(x) − x)) ∈ V0t .
We call it the Margulis invariant of g.
This vector does not depend on the choice of x or φ: indeed, composing φ with a
quasi-translation does not change the V0t -component of the image. See Proposition 2.16
in [Smi16] for a detailed proof of this claim (for V = g).

5 Quantitative properties
In this section, we define and study two important quantitative properties of maps of
type X0 :
• C-non-degeneracy, which means that the geometry of the map is not too close to
a degenerate case;
• and contraction strength, which measures the extent to which the map g is "much
more contracting" on its contracting space than on its affine nonexpanding space.
In Subsection 5.1, we define these and several other quantitative properties. Several
definitions coincide with those from Section 2.6 in [Smi16] or generalize them.
In the very short Subsection 5.2 (which is a straightforward generalization of Section 2.7
from [Smi16]), we compare these properties for an affine map and its linear part.
In Subsection 5.3, we define analogous quantitative properties for proximal maps, and
relate properties of a product of a (sufficiently contracting and nondegenerate) pair of
proximal maps to the properties of the factors. This is almost the same thing as Section 3.1 in [Smi16], but with one additional result.

5.1 Definitions
We endow the extended affine space A with a Euclidean norm (written simply k • k)
whose restriction to V coincides with the norm B defined in Lemma 2.4 and that makes
R0 orthogonal to V . Then the subspaces V0> , V0< , V0r , V0t and R0 are pairwise orthogonal,
and the restriction of this norm to V0r is invariant by quasi-translations. For any linear
map g acting on A, we write kgk := supx6=0 kg(x)k
kxk its operator norm.
Consider a Euclidean space E (for the moment, the reader may suppose that E = A;
later we will also need the case E = Λp A for some integer p). We introduce on the
projective space P(E) a metric by setting, for every x, y ∈ P(E),
α(x, y) := arccos

|hx, yi|
∈ [0, π2 ],
kxkkyk

38

(5.1)

where x and y are any vectors representing respectively x and y (obviously, the value
does not depend on the choice of x and y). This measures the angle between the lines x
and y. For shortness’ sake, we will usually simply write α(x, y) with x and y some actual
vectors in E \ {0}.
For any vector subspace F ⊂ E and any radius ε > 0, we shall denote the εneighborhood of F in P(E) by:
BP (F, ε) := {x ∈ P(E) | α(x, P(F )) < ε} .

(5.2)

(You may think of it as a kind of "conical neighborhood".)
Consider a metric space (M, δ); let X and Y be two subsets of M. We shall denote
the ordinary, minimum distance between X and Y by
(5.3)

δ(X, Y ) := inf inf δ(x, y),
x∈X y∈Y

as opposed to the Hausdorff distance, which we shall denote by
δHaus (X, Y ) := max



sup δ {x}, Y , sup δ {y}, X
x∈X

y∈Y



!

.

(5.4)

Finally, we introduce the following notation. Let X and Y be two positive quantities,
and p1 , . . . , pk some parameters. Whenever we write
X .p1 ,...,pk Y,
we mean that there is a constant K, depending on nothing but p1 , . . . , pk , such that
X ≤ KY . (If we do not write any subscripts, this means of course that K is an "absolute"
constant — or at least, that it does not depend on any "local" parameters; we consider
the "global" parameters such as the choice of G and of the Euclidean norms to be fixed
once and for all.) Whenever we write
X ≍p1 ,...,pk Y,
we mean that X .p1 ,...,pk Y and Y .p1 ,...,pk X at the same time.
Definition 5.1. Take a pair of affine parabolic spaces (A1 , A2 ). An optimal canonizing
map for this pair is a map φ ∈ G ⋉ V satisfying
≤
φ(A1 , A2 ) = (A≥
0 , A0 )

and minimizing the quantity max kφk, kφ−1 k . By Proposition 4.26 and a compactness
argument, such a map exists iff A1 and A2 are transverse.
We define an optimal canonizing map for a map g ∈ G ⋉ V of type X0 to be an optimal
≤
canonizing map for the pair (A≥
g , Ag ).
Let C ≥ 1. We say that a pair of affine parabolic spaces (A1 , A2 ) (resp. a map g of
type X0 ) is C-non-degenerate if it has an optimal canonizing map φ such that

kφk ≤ C

and

φ−1 ≤ C.

Now take g1 , g2 two maps of type X0 in G ⋉ V . We say that the pair (g1 , g2 ) is
≤
C-non-degenerate if every one of the four possible pairs (A≥
gi , Agj ) is C-non-degenerate.

39

The point of this definition is that there are a lot of calculations in which, when we
treat a C-non-degenerate pair of spaces as if they were perpendicular, we err by no more
than a (multiplicative) constant depending on C. The following result will often be
useful:
Lemma 5.2. Let C ≥ 1. Then any map φ ∈ GL(E) such that kφ±1 k ≤ C induces a
C 2 -Lipschitz continuous map on P(E).
This is exactly Lemma 2.20 from [Smi16].
Remark 5.3. The set of transverse pairs of extended affine spaces is characterized by two
open conditions: there is of course transversality of the spaces, but also the requirement
that each space not be contained in V . What we mean here by "degeneracy" is failure of
one of these two conditions. Thus the property of a pair (A1 , A2 ) being C-non-degenerate
actually encompasses two properties.
First, it implies that the spaces A1 and A2 are transversal in a quantitative way. More
precisely, this means that some continuous function that would vanish if the spaces were
not transversal is bounded below. An example of such a function is the smallest non
identically vanishing of the "principal angles" defined in the proof of Lemma 7.2 (iv).
Second, it implies that both A1 and A2 are "not too close" to the space V (in the same
sense). In purely affine terms, this means that the affine spaces A1 ∩ VAff and A2 ∩ VAff
contain points that are not too far from the origin.
Both conditions are necessary, and appeared in the previous literature (such as [Mar87]
and [AMS02]). However, they were initially treated separately. The idea of encompassing
both in the same concept of "C-non-degeneracy" seems to have been first introduced in
the author’s previous paper [Smi16].
Definition 5.4. Let g ∈ GL(E), let n = dim E, and let p be an integer such that
1 ≤ p < n. Let λ1 , . . . , λn be the eigenvalues of g ordered by nondecreasing modulus.
Then we define the p-th spectral gap of g to be the quotient
κp (g) :=

|λp+1 |
.
|λp |

(5.5)

Note that we chose the convention where the gap is a number smaller or equal than 1.
When E = A, we will most often use the p-th spectral gap for p = dim A≥
0 . In this
case we will omit the index:
κ(g) := κdimA≥  (g).
(5.6)
0

Also, we denote the spectral radius of g, i.e. the largest modulus of any eigenvalue, by:
r(g) := |λ1 |.

(5.7)

(The usual notation, ρ(g), is already taken to mean "g in the representation ρ".)
Definition 5.5. Let s > 0. For a map g ∈ G⋉V of type X0 , we say that g is s-contracting
if we have:
kg(y)k
kg(x)k
≤s
.
(5.8)
∀(x, y) ∈ Vg< × A≥
g,
kxk
kyk

40

(Note that by Corollary 4.17 the spaces Vg< and A≥
g always have the same dimensions as
≥
<
V0 and A0 respectively, hence they are nonzero.)
We define the strength of contraction of g to be the smallest number s(g) such that g
is s(g)-contracting. In other words, we have
s(g) = g|Vg<

g−1

A≥
g

.

(5.9)

Remark 5.6. This strength of contraction s(g) is defined as a kind of "mixed gap": it
measures the gap between singular values of the restrictions of g to some sums of its
eigenspaces. It turns out that this definition is the most convenient for our purposes.
However, if the map g from the above definition is C-non-degenerate, then we may
pretend that s(g) is a "purely singular" gap, as long as we do not care about multiplicative
constants. Indeed, let g′ = φgφ−1 , where φ is an optimal canonizing map for g; then it
is easy to see that we have
s(g) ≍C s(g′ ).
(5.10)
≥
On the other hand, since Vg<′ = V0< and A≥
g ′ = A0 are orthogonal (by convention), every
′
singular value of g is either a singular value of g′ |V < or of g′ |A≥ . It follows that s(g′ ) is
0
0
the quotient between two actual singular values of g ′ , and two consecutive singular values
if s(g) is small enough. See the proof of Lemma 5.1 (iii) for a more detailed discussion.

Remark 5.7. The spectral gap and contraction strength are somewhat related. Take
some affine map g ∈ G ⋉ V of type X0 ; then since the norm of any linear map is at least
equal to its spectral radius, we obviously have
s(g) ≥ κ(g).

(5.11)

On the other hand, for any map g ∈ G ⋉ V , we have
log s(gN ) = N log κ(g) + O (log N ).
N →∞

(5.12)

If g is of type X0 , then κ(g) < 1, so that
s(gN ) → 0.
N →∞

(5.13)

5.2 Affine and linear case
For any map f ∈ G ⋉ V , we denote by ℓ(f ) the linear part of f , seen as an element
of G ⋉ V by identifying G with the stabilizer of the "origin" R0 . In other words, for
every vector (x, t) ∈ V ⊕ R0 = A, we set
ℓ(f )(x, t) = f (x, 0) + (0, t).

(5.14)

(Seeing G as a subgroup of G ⋉ V allows us to avoid introducing new definitions of
C-non-degeneracy and contraction strength for elements of G.)

41

Lemma 5.8. Let C ≥ 1, and take any C-non-degenerate map g (or pair of maps (g, h))
of type X0 in G ⋉ V . Then:
(i) The map ℓ(g) (resp. the pair (ℓ(g), ℓ(h))) is still C-non-degenerate;
(ii) We have s(ℓ(g)) ≤ s(g);
.
(iii) Suppose that s(g−1 ) ≤ 1. Then we actually have s(g) ≍C s(ℓ(g)) g|A=
g
Proof. The proof is exactly the same as the proof of Lemma 2.25 in [Smi16], mutatis
mutandis.

5.3 Proximal maps
Let E be a Euclidean space. The goal of this section is to show Proposition 5.12. We
begin with a few definitions.
Definition 5.9. Let γ ∈ GL(E); let λ1 , . . . , λn be its eigenvalues repeated according to
multiplicity and ordered by nonincreasing modulus. We define the proximal spectral gap
of γ as its first spectral gap:
|λ2 |
κ̃(γ) := κ1 (γ) =
.
|λ1 |
We say that γ is proximal if κ̃(γ) < 1. We may then decompose E into a direct sum of a
line Eγs , called its attracting space, and a hyperplane Eγu , called its repelling space, both
stable by γ and such that:
(
γ|Eγs = λ1 Id;
for every eigenvalue λ of γ|Eγu , |λ| < |λ1 |.

Definition 5.10. Consider a line E s and a hyperplane E u of E, transverse to each other.
An optimal canonizing map for the pair (E s , E u ) is a map φ ∈ GL(E) satisfying
φ(E s ) ⊥ φ(E u )

and minimizing the quantity max kφk, kφ−1 k .
We define an optimal canonizing map for a proximal map γ ∈ GL(E) to be an optimal
canonizing map for the pair (Eγs , Eγu ).
Let C ≥ 1. We say that the pair formed by a line and a hyperplane (E s , E u ) (resp.
that a proximal map γ) is C-non-degenerate if it has an optimal canonizing map φ such
that φ±1 ≤ C.
Now take γ1 , γ2 two proximal maps in GL(E). We say that the pair (γ1 , γ2 ) is C-nondegenerate if every one of the four possible pairs (Eγsi , Eγuj ) is C-non-degenerate.
Definition 5.11. Let γ ∈ GL(E) be a proximal map. We define the proximal strength
of contraction of γ by
γ|Eγu
γ|Eγu
=
s̃(γ) :=
r(γ)
γ|Eγs

42

(where r(γ) is the spectral radius of γ, equal to |λ1 | in the notations of the previous
definition). We say that γ is s̃-contracting if s̃(γ) ≤ s̃.
Note that these definitions are different from the ones we used in the context of maps
of type X0 (hence the new notations s̃ and κ̃).
Proposition 5.12. For every C ≥ 1, there is a positive constant s̃5.12 (C) with the
following property. Take a C-non-degenerate pair of proximal maps γ1 , γ2 in GL(E), and
suppose that both γ1 and γ2 are s̃5.12 (C)-contracting. Then γ1 γ2 is proximal, and we
have:

(i) α Eγs1 γ2 , Eγs1 .C s̃(γ1 );
(ii) s̃(γ1 γ2 ) .C s̃(γ1 )s̃(γ2 ).

(iii) r(γ1 γ2 ) ≍C kγ1 kkγ2 k.
(The constant s̃5.12 (C) is indexed by the number of the proposition, a scheme that
we will stick to throughout the paper.)
Similar results have appeared in the literature for a long time, see e.g. Lemma 5.7
in [AMS02] or Proposition 6.4 in [Ben96].
Proof. The first two points have already been proved in the author’s previous paper:
see Proposition 3.4 in [Smi16]. To prove (iii), we start with the following observation.
Let η = 2Cπ 2 ; then by Lemma 5.2 we have:
α(Eγs1 , Eγu2 ) ≥ η.
On the other hand, we have already seen in the proof of Proposition 3.4 in [Smi16] that
we have
Eγs1 γ2 ∈ B(Eγs1 , η3 ).
The triangular inequality immediately gives us
 2η
α Eγs1 γ2 , Eγu2 ≥
.
3

(5.15)

Take any nonzero x ∈ Eγs1 γ2 . We are going to show the estimates
kγ2 (x)k
≍C kγ2 k;
kxk

(5.16a)

kγ1 (γ2 (x))k
≍C kγ1 k.
kγ2 (x)k

(5.16b)

Since by definition, we have γ1 (γ2 (x)) = λx for some λ ∈ C having modulus r(γ1 γ2 ), the
estimate (iii) follows by multiplying (5.16a) and (5.16b) together.

43

Let us first show (5.16a). Let φ be an optimal canonizing map for γ2 ; since γ2 is Cnon-degenerate, we lose no generality by replacing γ2 and x respectively by γ2′ := φγ2 φ−1
and x′ := φ(x). Obviously we have:
kγ2′ (x′ )k ≤ kγ2′ kkx′ k.

(5.17)

To show the other inequality, let us decompose
x′ =: x′s + x′u .
|{z} |{z}

(5.18)

kγ2′ (x′ )k ≥ kγ2′ (x′s )k − kγ2′ (x′u )k.

(5.19)

∈E s′

γ2

Then we have

∈E u′

γ2

For the first term, we have:
kγ2′ (x′s )k = r(γ2′ ) · kx′s k


= kγ2′ k · sin α φ(Eγs1 γ2 ), Eγu′ · kx′ k
2

s
u
α
E
,
E
γ1 γ2
γ2
≥ kγ2′ k · sin
· kx′ k
C2
1 2η
≥ kγ2′ k · sin 2
· kx′ k
C 3

by Lemma 5.2
by (5.15).

(5.20)

For the second term, we have:
kγ2′ (x′u )k ≤ γ2′

E u′

≤ γ2′

E u′

γ
2

kx′u k
kx′ k

γ
2

= kγ2′ k s̃(γ2′ ) kx′ k
≤ kγ2′ k C 2 s̃(γ2 ) kx′ k.
Plugging those two estimates into (5.19), we obtain


2η
2
′
′
′
− C s̃(γ2 ) kx′ k.
kγ2 (x )k ≥ kγ2 k sin
3C 2
We may assume that s̃(γ2 ) ≤
we conclude that

1 1
2 C2

(5.21)

(5.22)

2η
sin 3C
2 . Since by construction η depends only on C,

kγ2′ (x′ )k &C kγ2′ kkx′ k.

(5.23)

Putting together (5.17) and (5.23), we get (5.16a) as required.
Now to show (5.16b), simply notice that
γ2 (Eγs1 γ2 ) = Eγs2 γ1

(5.24)

(since γ2 γ1 is the conjugate of γ1 γ2 by γ2 ), so that γ2 (x) ∈ Eγs2 γ1 . Hence we may follow
the same reasoning as for (5.16a), simply exchanging the roles of γ1 and γ2 .

44

6 Additivity of Jordan projections
The goal of this section is to prove Proposition 6.14, which says that the product of two
sufficiently contracting maps of type X0 in general position is still of type X0 . As it is
a purely linear property, we forget about translation parts and work exclusively in the
linear group G for the duration of this section. We proceed in four stages.
We start with Proposition 6.1, which shows that if an element of G is of type X0
and strongly contracting in the default representation ρ, it is proximal and strongly
contracting in some of the fundamental representations ρi defined in Proposition 2.12.
We continue with Proposition 6.6, which relates C-non-degeneracy in V and C ′ -nondegeneracy in the spaces Vi .
We then prove Proposition 6.10 (and a reformulated version, Corollary 6.12), which
constrains the Jordan projection of gh in terms of the Cartan projections of g and h.
Finally, we use Corollary 6.12 to prove Proposition 6.14.
Proposition 6.1. For every C ≥ 1, there is a constant s6.1 (C) with the following
property. Let g ∈ G be a C-non-degenerate map of type X0 such that s(g) ≤ s6.1 (C).
Then for every i ∈ Π \ ΠX0 , the map ρi (g) is proximal and we have
s̃(ρi (g)) .C s(g).
Remark 6.2.
• Note that since all Euclidean norms on a finite-dimensional vector space are equivalent, this estimate makes sense even though we did not specify any norm on Vi .
In the course of the proof, we shall choose one that is convenient for us.
• Recall that "i ∈ Π \ ΠX0 " is a notation shortcut for "i such that αi ∈ Π \ ΠX0 ".
Remark 6.3. Note that we have excluded the indices i that lie in ΠX0 . The latter should
be thought of as a kind of "exceptional set"; indeed, recall (Remark 3.19) that it is often
empty.
To pave the way for proving the Proposition, let us prove a couple of lemmas that
relate the contraction strength of an element of G to its Cartan projection.
Lemma 6.4. Let g ∈ LX0 . Then the Cartan decomposition
g = k1 exp(Ct(g))k2
may be done in such a way that both k1 and k2 are in K ∩ LX0 .
Proof. By Proposition 7.82 (a) in [Kna96], LX0 is the centralizer of the intersection of
the kernels of simple roots in ΠX0 :


(6.1)
LX0 = ZG {X ∈ a | ∀α ∈ ΠX0 , α(X) = 0} .
By Proposition 7.25 in [Kna96], it follows:

45

• that LX0 is reductive;
• that K ∩ LX0 is a maximal compact subgroup in LX0 .
Obviously a ⊂ lX0 is a Cartan subspace of lX0 . Thus if we do a Cartan decomposition in
the group LX0 (see Theorem 7.39 in [Kna96]), it will also be a valid Cartan decomposition
in G.
Lemma 6.5. For every C ≥ 1, there is a constant ε6.5 (C) with the following property.
Let g ∈ G be a C-non-degenerate map of type X0 . Then we have
min λ(Ct(g)) − max
λ(Ct(g)) ≥ − log s(g) − ε6.5 (C).
<

λ∈Ω≥
X

λ∈ΩX

0

0

(Recall that Ω≥
X0 is the set of restricted weights that take nonnegative values on X0 ,
and Ω<
is
its
complement in Ω.)
X0
Note that the first term on the left-hand side is certainly nonpositive, as 0 ∈ Ω≥
X0 .
Proof. First of all let φ be an optimal canonizing map for g, and let g′ = φgφ−1 . Then
it is easy to see that we have
s(g′ ) ≍C s(g)
(we already mentioned this in Remark 5.6), and the difference Ct(g′ ) − Ct(g) is bounded
by a constant that depends only on C. Hence it is enough to show the corresponding
inequality for g′ instead of g and without the ε6.5 (C) error term. In fact, let us prove
that equality holds:
min λ(Ct(g′ )) − max
λ(Ct(g′ )) = − log s(g′ ).
<

λ∈Ω≥
X

λ∈ΩX

0

(6.2)

0

By construction we have Vg≥′ = V0≥ and Vg<′ = V0< . Obviously g ′ stabilizes these two
vector spaces, hence (using Proposition 4.4) we have
g ′ ∈ PX+0 ∩ PX−0 = LX0 .

(6.3)

By Lemma 6.4, we may then write
g′ = k1 exp(Ct(g′ ))k2

(6.4)

with k1 , k2 ∈ K ∩ LX0 . In particular both k1 and k2 stabilize both V0≥ and V0< . Hence
so does the Cartan projection Ct(g′ ), and we have


 g′ |V ≥ = exp(Ct(g′ ))|V ≥ ;
0
0
(6.5)

 (g′ )−1 < = exp(Ct(g′ ))−1 < .
V
V
0

0

46

Now we know that exp(Ct(g′ )) (seen in the default representation ρ) is self-adjoint (by
choice of the Euclidean structure B), hence its singular values coincide with its eigenvalues. (Moreover V0≥ and V0< are orthogonal.) As exp(Ct(g′ )) ∈ A, obviously it acts on
every restricted weight space V λ with the eigenvalue
exp(λ(Ct(g′ ))).
This implies (6.2) as desired.
Proof of Proposition 6.1. Let s6.1 (C) be a constant small enough to satisfy all the
constraints that will appear in the course of the proof. Let us fix i ∈ Π \ ΠX0 , and let
g ∈ G be a map satisfying the hypotheses. Let us prove the two estimates
κ̃(ρi (g)) = exp(αi (Jd(g)))−1 ≤ κ(g),

(6.6)

which will show that ρi (g) is proximal; and then the two estimates
s̃(ρi (g)) ≍C exp(αi (Ct(g)))−1 .C s(g),

(6.7)

whose combination completes the proof.
• Let us start with the right part of (6.6). Since i ∈ Π \ ΠX0 and since X0 is extreme,
sαi (X0 ) does not have the same type as X0 . Since X0 is generic, we may then find
a restricted weight λ of ρ such that
λ(X0 ) > 0

and

sαi (λ)(X0 ) < 0

(6.8)

(we already made this observation in (3.8)). Since λ is a restricted weight, by
Proposition 2.8, the number
hλ, αi i
(6.9)
nλ :=
2hαi , αi i
is an integer. We have, on the one hand:
nλ αi (X0 ) = (λ − sαi (λ)) (X0 ) > 0;
on the other hand, αi (X0 ) ≥ 0 (because X0 ∈ a+ ); hence nλ is positive.
By Proposition 2.11, every element of the sequence
λ, λ − αi , . . . , λ − nλ αi
is a restricted weight of ρ. There must then exist an integer iλ such that:
(
(λ − iλ αi ) (X0 ) ≥ 0;
(λ − (iλ + 1)αi ) (X0 ) < 0.

47

(6.10)

Now since g is of type X0 , by definition, any restricted weight of ρ has the same
sign when evaluated at Jd(g) or at X0 . Thus we also have
(
(λ − iλ αi ) (Jd(g)) ≥ 0;
(λ − (iλ + 1)αi ) (Jd(g)) < 0.
From Proposition 2.6, it then follows that
κ(g) ≥ exp(αi (Jd(g)))−1
as desired.
• Similarly we may establish the right part of (6.7). By considering once again a
restricted weight λ and an integer iλ satisfying (6.10), it follows from Lemma 6.5
that
αi (Ct(g)) ≥ − log s(g) − ε6.5 (C).
By taking the opposite on both sides and exponentiating, the desired estimate
follows immediately.
• Let us now prove the left part of (6.6). By Proposition 2.6 (i), the list of the moduli
of the eigenvalues of ρi (g) is precisely

 j
eλi (Jd(g))
,
1≤j≤di

where di is the dimension of Vi and (λji )1≤j≤di is the list of restricted weights of ρi
listed with multiplicity.
Up to reordering that list, we may suppose that λ1i = ni ̟i is the highest restricted
weight of ρi . We may also suppose that λ2i = ni ̟i − αi . Indeed we have
sαi (ni ̟i ) = sα′i (ni ̟i )
= ni ̟i − 2ni

h̟i , α′i i ′
α
hα′i , α′i i i

= ni ̟i − 2ni α′i

(6.11)

(recall that α′i is equal to 2αi if 2αi is a restricted root and to αi otherwise). But
by Proposition 2.11, sαi (ni ̟i ) is a restricted weight of ρi (because it is the image
of a restricted weight of ρi by an element of the Weyl group) and then ni ̟i − αi
is also a restricted weight of ρi (as a convex combination of two restricted weights
of ρi , that belongs to the restricted root lattice shifted by ni ̟i ).
Take any j > 2. Since by hypothesis, the restricted weight ni ̟i has multiplicity 1,
we have λji 6= λ1i . By Lemma 2.13, it follows that this restricted weight has the
form

48

λji = ni ̟i − αi −

r
X

ci′ αi′ ,

i′ =1

with ci′ ≥ 0 for every index i′ .

Finally, since by definition Jd(g) ∈ a+ , for every index i′ we have αi′ (Jd(g)) ≥ 0.
It follows that for every j > 2, we have
λ1i (Jd(g)) ≥ λ2i (Jd(g)) ≥ λji (Jd(g)).

(6.12)

In other words, among the moduli of the eigenvalues of ρi (g), the largest is
exp(λ1i (Jd(g))) = exp(ni ̟i (Jd(g))),
and the second largest is
exp(λ2i (Jd(g))) = exp(ni ̟i (Jd(g)) − αi (Jd(g))).
It follows that
κ̃(ρi (g)) = exp(αi (Jd(g)))−1
as desired.
• Let us finish with the left part of (6.7). We start with the following observation:
for every C ≥ 1, the set

φ ∈ G kφk ≤ C, kφ−1 k ≤ C
(6.13)
is compact. It follows that the continuous map


φ 7→ max ρi (φ) , ρi (φ−1 )

(6.14)

is bounded on that set, by some constant Ci′ that depends only on C (and on the
choice of a norm on Vi , to be made soon). Let φ be the optimal canonizing map
of g, and let g ′ = φgφ−1 ; then we get
s̃(ρi (g)) ≍C s̃(ρi (g′ )).

(6.15)

Now let us choose, on the space Vi where the representation ρi acts, a K-invariant
Euclidean form Bi such that all the restricted weight spaces for ρi are pairwise
Bi -orthogonal (this is possible by Lemma 2.4 applied to ρi ). Then s̃(ρi (g′ )) is simply
the quotient of the two largest singular values of ρi (g ′ ). By Proposition 2.6 (ii)
(giving the singular values of an element of G in a given representation) and by a
calculation analogous to the previous point, we have
s̃(ρi (g′ )) = exp(αi (Ct(g)))−1 .
The desired estimate follows by combining (6.15) with (6.16).

49

(6.16)

Proposition 6.6. Let (g1 , g2 ) be a C-non-degenerate pair of elements of G of type X0 .
Then for every i ∈ Π \ ΠX0 , the pair (ρi (g1 ), ρi (g2 )) is a Ci′ -non-degenerate pair of
proximal maps in GL(Vi ), where Ci′ is some constant that depends only on C and i.
For the duration of the proof of this Proposition, let us fix some i ∈ Π \ ΠX0 . Before
going on, we need a couple of lemmas.
Lemma 6.7.
(i) The restricted weight space Vini ̟i is stable by ρi (PX+0 ).
(ii) The direct sum of all restricted weight spaces Viλ with λ 6= ni ̟i is stable by ρi (PX−0 ).
Proof.
(i) Let us first prove that this space is stable by p+
X0 . By definition, we have:
p+
X0 = l ⊕

M

gβ ;

β(X0 )≥0

Since l centralizes a, it preserves the restricted weight space decomposition; so
clearly l stabilizes Vini ̟i .
Now let β be a root such that β(X0 ) > 0; let us write
X
β=
cα α.
α∈Π

By definition of the set ΠX0 , we then have
cα ≥ 0 for α ∈ Π \ ΠX0 .
Now we know that

(6.17)

gβ · Vini ̟i ⊂ Vini ̟i +β .

The latter space is actually zero. Indeed, otherwise, ni ̟i + β would have to be a
restricted root. But from Lemma 2.13, we know that this would imply
cαi ≤ −1,
which contradicts the inequality above, since i (or, technically, αi ) is in Π \ ΠX0 .
It follows that for every β such that β(X0 ) ≥ 0, the space Vini ̟i is stable by gβ ;
we conclude that it is stable by p+
X0 .
By integration, we deduce that this space is also stable by PX+0 ,e . Now we know (it
follows from [Kna96], Proposition 7.82 (d)) that PX+0 = M PX+0 ,e . Since M centralizes a, it preserves the restricted weight space decomposition, so it stabilizes Vini ̟i .
We conclude that PX+0 stabilizes Vini ̟i .
(ii) The proof is completely analogous.

50

In the following lemma, we denote by PS the set of all parabolic spaces of V ; we also
identify the projective space P(Vi ) with the set of vector lines in Vi and the projective
space P(Vi∗ ) with the set of vector hyperplanes of Vi .
Remark 6.8. Recall (Remark 4.27) that by Proposition 4.4, the manifold PS is diffeomorphic to G/PX+0 .
Lemma 6.9. There exist two continuous maps
Φsi : PS → P(Vi )

and

Φui : PS → P(Vi∗ )

with the following properties:
(i) for every map g ∈ G of type X0 , we have
(
Eρsi (g) = Φsi (Vg≥ );

Eρui (g) = Φui (Vg≤ ).

(ii) if V1 , V2 ∈ PS are transverse, then Φsi (V1 ) 6∈ Φui (V2 ).
Proof. We define the maps Φsi and Φui in the following way. For every φ ∈ G, we set
( s
ni ̟ i
Φi (φ(V0≥ )) = ρi (φ) (V
);
i
L

≤
u
λ .
Φi (φ(V0 )) = ρi (φ)
V
λ6=ni ̟i i

(6.18)

Let us first check that these maps are well-defined. Clearly it is enough to check that
whenever some φ ∈L
G stabilizes the space V0≥ (resp. V0≤ ), it also stabilizes the line Vini ̟i
λ
(resp. hyperplane
λ6=ni ̟i Vi ). Since i ∈ Π \ ΠX0 , this follows from Lemma 6.7 and
Proposition 4.4.
The fact that these maps are continuous is then obvious. To show property (i), we
essentially use:
• the identities

(
Eρsi (exp(Jd(g))) = Vini ̟i ;
L
Eρui (exp(Jd(g))) = λ6=ni ̟i Viλ ,

(6.19)

which follow from the inequality (6.12) ranking the values of different restricted
weights of ρi evaluated at Jd(g);
• and the simple observation that any eigenspace of φgφ−1 is the image by φ of the
eigenspace of g with the same eigenvalue.
Property (ii) essentially follows from Proposition 4.26, which says that G acts transitively
on the set of transverse pairs of parabolic spaces.

51

Proof of Proposition 6.6. Let C ≥ 1. Then the set of C-non-degenerate pairs of parabolic
spaces is compact. On the other hand, the function
(V1 , V2 ) 7→ α(Φsi (V1 ), Φui (V2 ))
is continuous, and (by Lemma 6.9 (ii)) takes positive values on that set. Hence it is
bounded below. So there is a constant Ci′ ≥ 1, depending only on C, such that whenever
a pair (V1 , V2 ) of parabolic spaces is C-non-degenerate, the pair (Φsi (V1 ), Φui (V2 )) is Ci′ non-degenerate.
The conclusion then follows by Lemma 6.9 (i).
Proposition 6.10. For every C ≥ 1, there are positive constants s6.10 (C) and ε6.10 (C)
with the following property. Take any C-non-degenerate pair (g, h) of elements of G of
type X0 such that s(g) ≤ s6.10 (C) and s(h) ≤ s6.10 (C). Then we have:
(i) ∀i ∈ Π,

̟i (Jd(gh) − Ct(g) − Ct(h)) ≤ 0;

(ii) ∀i ∈ Π \ ΠX0 ,

̟i (Jd(gh) − Ct(g) − Ct(h)) ≥ −ε6.10 (C).

See Figure 2 for a picture explaining both this proposition and the corollary below.
Remark 6.11. Though we shall not use it, a very important particular case is g = h.
We then obviously have Jd(gh) = 2 Jd(g) and Ct(g) + Ct(h) = 2 Ct(g), so that the
inequalities (i) and (ii) give a relationship between the Cartan and Jordan projections of
a C-non-degenerate, sufficiently contracting map of type X0 .
Before proving the Proposition, let us give a more palatable (though slightly weaker)
reformulation.
Corollary 6.12. For every C ≥ 1, there exists a positive constant ε6.12 (C) with the
following property. For any pair (g, h) satisfying the hypotheses of the Proposition, we
have


Jd(gh) ∈ Conv WX0 · Ct′ (g, h) ,
(6.20)
where Conv denotes the convex hull and Ct′ (g, h) is some vector in a satisfying
k Ct′ (gh) − Ct(g) − Ct(h)k ≤ ε6.12 (C).

(6.21)

Note that the vector Ct′ (g, h) might not lie in the closed dominant Weyl chamber a+
(even though it is very close to the vector Ct(g) + Ct(h) which does).
Proof. We define Ct′ (g, h) by the linear system
(
∀i ∈ Π \ ΠX0 , ̟i (Ct′ (g, h)) = ̟i (Jd(gh));
∀i ∈ ΠX0 ,
̟i (Ct′ (g, h)) = ̟i (Ct(g) + Ct(h)),

(6.22)

which is possible because (̟i )i∈Π is a basis of a. The estimate (6.21) then immediately
follows from the inequalities of Proposition 6.10. But we may now rewrite Proposition 6.10 without the epsilons: we now have
(
∀i ∈ Π,
̟i (Jd(gh) − Ct′ (g, h)) ≤ 0;
(6.23)
∀i ∈ Π \ ΠX0 , ̟i (Jd(gh) − Ct′ (g, h)) = 0.

52

WX0 = {Id, sα1 }
ε6.10 (C)
X0
sα1 · Ct′ (g, h)

α2
̟2

Jd(gh)
Ct(g) + Ct(h)
̟1
Ct′ (g, h)
α1

Figure 2: This picture represents the situation of Example 3.5.3, namely G = SO+ (3, 2)
acting on R5 . We have chosen a generic, symmetric, extreme vector X0 . The
set ΠX0 is then {α1 } (or {1} with the usual abuse of notations), and the
group WX0 is generated by the single reflection sα1 . Proposition 6.10 states
that Jd(gh) lies in the shaded trapezoid. Corollary 6.12 states that it lies on
the thick line segment. In any case it lies by definition in the dominant open
Weyl chamber (the shaded sector).

53

Let us now show the inequalities
∀i ∈ ΠX0 ,

αi (Ct′ (g, h)) ≥ 0.

(6.24)

Let (Hi )i∈Π be the basis of a dual to (̟i )i∈Π , i.e. the unique basis such that the
identity


X
̟i 
cj Hj  = ci
(6.25)
j∈Π

holds for any i ∈ Π and any tuple (ci ) ∈ RΠ . By definition of the fundamental restricted
weights ̟i , it then follows that we also have the identity
∀i ∈ Π, ∀λ ∈ a∗ ,

λ(Hi ) =

2hλ, α′i i
.
kα′i k2

(6.26)

By decomposing the vector Ct(g)+Ct(h)−Ct′ (g, h) in the basis (Hi )i∈Π and by plugging
the formula (6.25) into the second line of the defining system (6.22), we find that we may
write
X
Ct′ (g, h) = Ct(g) + Ct(h) −
cj Hj ;
(6.27)
j∈Π\ΠX0

by combining the first line of the defining system (6.22) with Proposition 6.10 (i), we
also obtain that cj ≥ 0 for every j ∈ Π \ ΠX0 .
Finally, take any index i ∈ ΠX0 . Then we have


X
X
αi 
cj Hj  =
cj αi (Hj )
j∈Π\ΠX0

j∈Π\ΠX0

=

X

j∈Π\ΠX0

cj

2hαi , α′j i
kα′j k2

≤0:

(6.28)

indeed since j varies in Π \ ΠX0 and i ∈ ΠX0 , we have i 6= j hence hαi , αj i ≤ 0; and α′j is
by construction a positive multiple of αj . We conclude that
αi (Ct′ (g, h)) ≥ αi (Ct(g)) + αi (Ct(h)) ≥ 0
(since Ct(g), Ct(h) ∈ a+ ), which gives us (6.24).
Now the system of inequalities (6.24) is equivalent to saying that
Ct′ (g, h) ∈ a+
X0 ,

(6.29)

where a+
X0 is a fundamental domain for the action of Weyl subgroup WX0 on a, more
specifically the one that contains the dominant Weyl chamber a+ . The statement (6.20)
then follows from this and from (6.23), by applying Proposition 2.7 which characterizes
convex hulls of orbits of WX0 .

54

Proof of Proposition 6.10. Let i ∈ Π. We know (see (6.12) above) that for any X ∈ a+ ,
the number ni ̟i (X) is the largest eigenvalue of ρi (X). From Proposition 2.6, it then
follows that:
(
ni ̟i (Ct(g)) = log kρi (g)k;
(6.30)
ni ̟i (Jd(g)) = log r(ρi (g))
(recall that r denotes the spectral radius).
(i) is straightforward from here: indeed,


ni ̟i Jd(gh) = log r(ρi (gh))
≤ log kρi (gh)k

≤ log kρi (g)kkρi (h)k


= ni ̟i Ct(g) + Ct(h) .

(6.31)

(ii) Assume that i ∈ Π \ ΠX0 . By Proposition 6.1, we know that the maps ρi (g)
and ρi (h) are proximal. By Proposition 6.6, they form a C ′ -non-degenerate pair,
for some Ci′ that depends only on C. By Proposition 6.1, if we take s6.10 (C) small
enough, we may then assume that both ρi (g) and ρi (h) are s̃5.12 (Ci′ )-contracting.
We may then apply Proposition 5.12 (iii) to these two maps: we get
r(ρi (g)ρi (h)) ≍C kρi (g)kkρi (h)k.
Now from Proposition 2.6, it follows that we have:


r(ρi (gh)) = exp(ni ̟i (Jd(gh)));
kρi (g)k = exp(ni ̟i (Ct(g)));


kρi (h)k = exp(ni ̟i (Ct(h))).

Taking the logarithm, we deduce that there exists a constant εi (C) such that for
sufficiently contracting g and h, we have


(6.32)
ni ̟i Jd(gh) − Ct(g) − Ct(h) ∈ [−εi (C), εi (C)].

Taking

ε6.10 (C) := max
i∈Π\Π

X0

1
εi (C),
ni

(6.33)

the conclusion follows.
Remark 6.13. Corollary 6.12 generalizes a result given by Benoist in [Ben97]. More
specifically, by taking together Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.5.1 from that paper, we obtain
that under suitable conditions, the vector
Jd(gh) − Ct(g) − Ct(h)
(which is λ(gh) − µ(g) − µ(h) in Benoist’s notations) is bounded. This seems to be
stronger than our result; but in fact, it also relies on stronger assumptions. There are
two possible ways to interpret it:

55

• Either we may take his set θ to be our Π \ ΠX0 . In that case, [Ben97] uses the
additional assumption that g and h are "of type θ", which means that their Jordan
projections must be WX0 -invariant. If we make this assumption on g and h, then
the estimate can also be deduced from our Corollary 6.12.
• Or we may take θ to be the whole set Π. But in that case, [Ben97] needs the
assumption that g and h are proximal (and in general position) in all representations ρi , which is stronger than the hypotheses we have made.
Proposition 6.14. For every C ≥ 1, there is a positive constant s6.14 (C) ≤ 1 with the
following property. Take any C-non-degenerate pair (g, h) of maps of type X0 in G such
that s(g±1 ) ≤ s6.14 (C) and s(h±1 ) ≤ s6.14 (C). Then gh is still of type X0 .
Proof. Let C ≥ 1, and let (g, h) be a C-non-degenerate pair of maps in G⋉ V of type X0 ,
such that
s(g±1 ) ≤ s6.14 (C) and s(h±1 ) ≤ s6.14 (C)
for some constant s6.14 (C) to be specified later.
Lemma 6.5 then gives us
max λ(Ct(g)) ≤ log s(g) + ε6.5 (C) + min λ(Ct(g))

λ∈Ω<
X

λ∈Ω≥
X

0

0

≤ log s(g) + ε6.5 (C).

(6.34)

(Indeed by Assumption 3.2, λ = 0 is a restricted weight that is certainly contained
in Ω≥
X0 , so the minimum above is nonpositive.)
Taking s6.14 (C) small enough, we may assume that


1
<
max kλk ε6.12 (C).
(6.35)
∀λ ∈ ΩX0 , λ(Ct(g)) < −
2 λ∈Ω
Of course a similar estimate holds for h:
<

∀λ ∈ ΩX0 ,

1
λ(Ct(h)) < −
2




max kλk ε6.12 (C).
λ∈Ω

(6.36)

Now let λ be any restricted weight that does not vanish on X0 . We distinguish two
cases:
• Suppose that λ(X0 ) < 0. Let Ct′ (g, h) be the vector defined in Corollary 6.12.
Then on the one hand, we deduce from (6.21) that:
|λ(Ct′ (g, h)) − λ(Ct(g)) − λ(Ct(h))| ≤ kλkk Ct′ (g, h) − Ct(g) − Ct(h)k


≤ max kλk ε6.12 (C).
(6.37)
λ∈Ω

Adding together the three estimates (6.35), (6.36) and (6.37), we get

56

λ(Ct′ (g, h)) < 0;

(6.38)

and this is true for any λ ∈ Ω<
X0 .
On the other hand, we have (6.20) which says that
Jd(gh) ∈ Conv(WX0 · Ct′ (g, h)).
Now take any w ∈ WX0 . Since X0 is extreme, λ is still negative on wX0 , so that
the restricted weight w−1 (λ) still satisfies
w−1 (λ)(X0 ) < 0.
Since (6.38) holds for any such restricted weight, we also have
λ(w(Ct′ (g, h))) = w−1 (λ)(Ct′ (g, h)) < 0.
Thus λ takes negative values on every point of the orbit WX0 · Ct′ (g, h); hence it
also takes negative values on every point of its convex hull. In particular, we have
λ(Jd(gh)) < 0.

(6.39)

• Suppose that λ(X0 ) > 0. Since the set of restricted weights Ω is invariant by W ,
the form w0 (λ) is still a restricted weight; since by hypothesis X0 is symmetric (i.e.
−w0 (X0 ) = X0 ), we then have
w0 (λ)(X0 ) < 0.
We may thus apply the previous point to the weight w0 (λ) and to the map (gh)−1 =
h−1 g−1 (since g−1 and h−1 verify the same hypotheses as g and h); this gives us
w0 (λ)(Jd((gh)−1 )) < 0.
Since Jd((gh)−1 ) = −w0 (Jd(gh)), we conclude that
λ(Jd(gh)) > 0.

(6.40)

We conclude that gh is indeed of type X0 .
Remark 6.15. If we assume that both g and g−1 are sufficiently contracting, then clearly
Lemma 6.5 implies that Ct′ (g, g) and then Ct(g) also has the same type as X0 . Conversely, we may show (by a version of Lemma 6.5 with the inequality going both ways)
that if Ct(g) has the same type as X0 and is "far enough" from the borders of aρ,X0 ,
then g and g −1 are strongly contracting.

57

7 Products of maps of type X0
The goal of this section is to prove Proposition 7.4, which not only says that a product of
a C-non-degenerate, sufficiently contracting pair of maps of type X0 is itself of type X0 ,
but allows us to control the geometry and contraction strength of the product. To do
this, we proceed almost exactly as in Section 3.2 in [Smi16]: we reduce the problem to
Proposition 5.12, by considering the action of G ⋉ V on a suitable exterior power Λp A
(rather than on the spaces Vi as in the previous section).
There is however one crucial difference from [Smi16]: while it is still true that when
g is of type X0 , its exterior power Λp g is proximal, the converse no longer holds. Filling
that gap is what the whole previous section was about.
Remark 7.1. The reader might wonder why we did not (developing upon the final remark
from the previous section) prove an additivity theorem for Cartan projections similar to
Proposition 6.10, and use it to estimate s(gh) in terms of s(g±1 ) and s(h±1 ). Since we
need to study the action on the spaces Vi anyway, this would seemingly allow us to forgo
the additional introduction of Λp A.
The reason is that this approach only works for linear maps g and h: for g ∈ G⋉V , the
Cartan projection is only defined for ℓ(g) and only gives information about the singular
values of ℓ(g), not those of g. So while possible, this approach would force us, on the
other hand, to abandon the unified treatment of quantitative properties of affine maps
(as outlined in Remark 5.3).
We introduce the integers:
≥
p := dim A≥
0 = dim V0 + 1;

q := dim V0< ;

(7.1)

d := dim A = dim V + 1 = q + p.
For every g ∈ G ⋉ V , we may define its exterior power Λp g : Λp A → Λp A. The Euclidean
structure of A induces in a canonical way a Euclidean structure on Λp A.
Lemma 7.2.
(i) Let g ∈ G ⋉ V be a map of type X0 . Then Λp g is proximal, and the attracting (resp.
<
repelling) space of Λp g depends on nothing but A≥
g (resp. Vg ):
(
EΛs p g = Λp A≥
 g p
u
EΛp g = x ∈ Λ A x ∧ Λq Vg< = 0 .

(ii) For every C ≥ 1, whenever (g1 , g2 ) is a C-non-degenerate pair of maps of type X0 ,
(Λp g1 , Λp g2 ) is a C p -non-degenerate pair of proximal maps.
(iii) For every C ≥ 1, for every C-non-degenerate map g ∈ G ⋉ V of type X0 , we have
s(g) .C s̃(Λp g).

58

(7.2)

If in addition s(g) ≤ 1, we have
s(g) ≍C s̃(Λp g).

(7.3)

(Recall the Definitions 5.5 and 5.11 of the "contraction strengths" s(g) and s̃(γ),
respectively.)
(iv) For any two p-dimensional subspaces A1 and A2 of A, we have
αHaus (A1 , A2 ) ≍ α (Λp A1 , Λp A2 ) .
This is similar to Lemma 3.8 in [Smi16], except for point (i) which here is weaker than
there.
Proof. For (i), let g ∈ G ⋉ V be a map of type X0 . Let λ1 , . . . , λd be the eigenvalues of
g (acting on A) counted with multiplicity and ordered by nondecreasing modulus; then
|λq+1 | = 1 and |λq | < 1. On the other hand, we know that the eigenvalues of Λp g counted
with multiplicity are exactly the products of the form λi1 · · · λip , where 1 ≤ i1 < · · · <
ip ≤ d. As the two largest of them (by modulus) are λq+1 · · · λd and λq λq+2 · · · λd , it
follows that Λp g is proximal.
As for the expression of E s and E u , it follows immediately by considering a basis that
trigonalizes g.
For (ii), (iii) and (iv), the proof is exactly the same as for the corresponding points in
Lemma 3.8 in [Smi16], mutatis mutandis.
We also need the following technical lemma, which generalizes Lemma 3.9 in [Smi16]:
Lemma 7.3. There is a constant ε > 0 with the following property. Let A1 , A2 be any
two affine parabolic spaces such that
(
αHaus (A1 , A≥
0) ≤ ε
≤
Haus
α
(A2 , A0 ) ≤ ε.
Then they form a 2-non-degenerate pair.
(Of course the constant 2 is arbitrary; we could replace it by any number larger than 1.)
Proof. The proof is exactly the same as the proof of Lemma 3.9 in [Smi16], mutatis
mutandis.
Proposition 7.4. For every C ≥ 1, there is a positive constant s7.4 (C) ≤ 1 with the
following property. Take any C-non-degenerate pair (g, h) of maps of type X0 in G ⋉ V ;
suppose that we have s(g±1 ) ≤ s7.4 (C) and s(h±1 ) ≤ s7.4 (C). Then gh is of type X0 ,
2C-non-degenerate, and we have:

59




≥
αHaus A≥
.C s(g)
,
A
g
gh


(i)
αHaus A≤ , A≤ . s(h−1 )
C
gh
h

;

(ii) s(gh) .C s(g)s(h).

(This generalizes Proposition 3.6 in [Smi16].)
Before giving the proof, let us first formulate a particular case:
Corollary 7.5. Under the same hypotheses, we have



≥
αHaus Vgh
, Vg≥ .C s(ℓ(g))


αHaus V ≤ , V ≤ . s(ℓ(h)−1 ).
C
gh
h

Proof. This follows from Lemma 5.8. The proof is the same as for Corollary 3.7 in [Smi16].

Proof of Proposition 7.4. Let us fix some constant s7.4 (C), small enough to satisfy all
the constraints that will appear in the course of the proof. Let (g, h) be a pair of maps
satisfying the hypotheses.
First note that by Lemma 5.8, we have
s(ℓ(g)±1 ) ≤ s(g±1 ) ≤ s7.4 (C)

(7.4)

and similarly for h. If we take s7.4 (C) ≤ s6.14 (C), then Proposition 6.14 tells us
that ℓ(gh), hence gh (indeed the Jordan projection depends only on the linear part), is
of type X0 .
The remainder of the proof works exactly like the proof of Proposition 3.6 in [Smi16],
namely by applying Proposition 5.12 to the maps γ1 = Λp g and γ2 = Λp h. Taking into
account the central position occupied in the paper by the Proposition we are currently
proving, let us reproduce these details nevertheless. Let us check that γ1 and γ2 satisfy
the required hypotheses:
• By Lemma 7.2 (i), γ1 and γ2 are proximal.
• By Lemma 7.2 (ii), the pair (γ1 , γ2 ) is C p -non-degenerate.
• Since we have supposed s7.4 (C) ≤ 1, it follows by Lemma 7.2 (iii) that s̃(γ1 ) .C
s(g) and s̃(γ2 ) .C s(h). If we choose s7.4 (C) sufficiently small, then γ1 and γ2 are
s̃5.12 (C p )-contracting, i.e. sufficiently contracting to apply Proposition 5.12.
Thus we may apply Proposition 5.12. It remains to deduce from its conclusions the
conclusions of Proposition 7.4.
• We already know that gh is of type X0 .

60

• From Proposition 5.12 (i), using Lemma 7.2 (i), (iii) and (iv), we get


≥
,
A
αHaus A≥
g .C s(g),
gh
which shows the first line of Proposition 7.4 (i).

• By applying Proposition 5.12 to γ2−1 γ1−1 instead of γ1 γ2 , we get in the same way
the second line of Proposition 7.4 (i).
≤
• Let φ be an optimal canonizing map for the pair (A≥
g , Ah ). By hypothesis, we have
φ±1 ≤ C. But if we take s7.4 (C) sufficiently small, the two inequalities that we
have just shown, together with Lemma 7.3, allow us to find a map φ′ with kφ′ k ≤ 2,
kφ′ −1 k ≤ 2 and
≤
≥
≤
φ′ ◦ φ(A≥
gh , Agh ) = (A0 , A0 ).

It follows that the composition map gh is 2C-non-degenerate.
• The last inequality, namely Proposition 7.4 (ii), now is deduced from Proposition 5.12 (ii) by using Lemma 7.2 (iii).

8 Additivity of Margulis invariant
Proposition 8.1 below is the key ingredient of the proof. It explains how the Margulis
invariant behaves under group operations (inverse and composition).
The first point is easy to prove, but still important. It is a generalization of Proposition 4.1 (i) in [Smi16]; as the general case is slightly harder, we have now given more
details.
The proof of the second point occupies the remainder of this section. We prove it by
reducing it successively to Lemma 8.6 (which is proved using the technical lemma 8.7),
then to Lemma 8.9. The proof follows very closely that of Proposition 4.2 (ii) in [Smi16],
and we have actually omitted the proofs of Lemmas 8.7 and 8.9. We did repeat the proof
of the Proposition itself (to help the reader figure out precisely what is to be changed),
as well as the proof of Lemma 8.6 (to clear up a small confusion in the original proof:
see Remark 8.8).
Proposition 8.1.
(i) For every map g ∈ G ⋉ V of type X0 , we have
M (g−1 ) = −w0 (M (g)).
(ii) For every C ≥ 1, there are positive constants s8.1 (C) ≤ 1 and ε8.1 (C) with the
following property. Let g, h ∈ G⋉V be a C-non-degenerate pair of maps of type X0 ,
with g ±1 and h±1 all s8.1 (C)-contracting. Then gh is of type X0 , and we have:
kM (gh) − M (g) − M (h)k ≤ ε8.1 (C).

61

Remark 8.2. Note that M (g) is (by definition) an element of the space V0t , which (again
by definition) is the set of fixed points of L = ZG (A). From this, it is straightforward
to deduce that V0t is invariant by NG (A). Hence w0 induces a linear involution on V0t ,
which does not depend on the choice of a representative of w0 in G.
Let C ≥ 1. We choose some constant s8.1 (C) ≤ 1, small enough to satisfy all the
constraints that will appear in the course of the proof. For the remainder of this section,
we fix g, h ∈ G ⋉ V a C-non-degenerate pair of maps of type X0 such that g±1 and h±1
are s8.1 (C)-contracting.
The following remark will be used throughout this section.
≤
≥
≤
≤
≥
Remark 8.3. We may suppose that the pairs (A≥
gh , Agh ), (Ahg , Ahg ), (Ag , Agh ) and
≤
(A≥
hg , Ag ) are all 2C-non-degenerate. Indeed, recall that (by Proposition 7.4), we have




≥
αHaus A≥
,
A
g .C s(g)
gh


αHaus A≤ , A≤ . s(h−1 )
C
gh
h

and similar inequalities with g and h interchanged. On the other hand, by hypothe≤
sis, (A≥
g , Ah ) is C-non-degenerate. If we choose s8.1 (C) sufficiently small, these four
statements then follow from Lemma 7.3.
Proof of Proposition 8.1.
(i) Let φ be a canonizing map for g. Since Vg≥−1 = Vg≤ and vice-versa (obviously) and
since V0≤ = w0 V0≥ and vice-versa (because X0 is symmetric), it follows that w0 φ is
a canonizing map for g −1 .
It remains to show that w0 commutes with πt . Indeed, it is well-known that the
group W , that we defined as the quotient NG (A)/ZG (A), is also equal to the
quotient NK (A)/ZK (A) (see [Kna96], formulas (7.84a) and (7.84b)); hence
NG (A) = W ZG (A) = W ZK (A)A = NK (A)A ⊂ KA.

(8.1)

Let w̃0 be any representative of w0 in NG (A). We already know (Remark 8.2)
that both V0= = V 0 and V0t are invariant by w̃0 . Now by definition the group A
acts trivially on V 0 , and by construction K acts on V 0 by orthogonal transformations (indeed the Euclidean structure was chosen in accordance with Lemma 2.4);
hence V0r , which is the orthogonal complement of V0t in V 0 , is also invariant by w̃0 .
The desired formula now immediately follows from the definition of the Margulis
invariant.
(ii) The proof of this point is a straightforward generalization of the proof of Proposition 4.1 (ii) in [Smi16].
If we take s8.1 (C) ≤ s7.4 (C), then Proposition 7.4 ensures that gh is of type X0 .
=
To estimate M (gh), we decompose gh : A=
gh → Agh into a product of several maps.

62

• We begin by decomposing the product gh into its factors. We have the commutative diagram
gh

A=
gh

A=
hg

g

A=
gh

h

(8.2)

Indeed, since hg is the conjugate of gh by h and vice-versa, we have h(A=
gh ) =
=
=
A=
and
g(A
)
=
A
.
hg
hg
gh
=
=
=
• Next we factor the map g : A=
hg → Agh through the map g : Ag → Ag , which
is better known to us. We have the commutative diagram

A=
gh

A=
hg

g

πg

πg

A=
g

g

(8.3)

A=
g

<
>
where πg is the projection onto A=
g parallel to Vg ⊕ Vg . (It commutes with g
=
>
<
because Ag , Vg and Vg are all invariant by g.)

• Finally, we decompose again every diagonal arrow from the last diagram into
two factors. For any two maps u and v of type X0 , we introduce the notation
≥
≤
A=
u,v := Au ∩ Av .
=
We call P1 (resp. P2 ) the projection onto A=
g,gh (resp. Ahg,g ), still parallel
<
>
to Vg ⊕ Vg . To justify this definition, we must check that A=
g,gh (and sim=
>
<
ilarly Ahg,g ) is supplementary to Vg ⊕ Vg . Indeed, by Remark 8.3, A≤
gh is
>
;
,
hence
(by
Proposition
4.16
(ii))
supplementary
to
V
transverse to A≥
g thus
g
=
>
<
≥
<
=
>
.
Then
we
have
the
⊕
A
⊕
V
=
V
⊕
A
and
A
=
V
⊕
A
=
V
A≥
g
g
g
g
g
g
g,gh
g,gh
commutative diagrams

A=
gh

P1

A=
g,gh

πg

A=
g

(8.4a)

A=
g

(8.4b)

πg

and
A=
hg

P2

A=
hg,g

πg

πg

The second and third step can be repeated with h instead of g. The way to adapt
=
the second step is straightforward; for the third step, we factor πh : A=
hg → Ah
=
=
=
=
through Ah,hg and πh : Agh → Ah through Agh,h .

63

A=
0

A=
0

ggh

P1

A=
0

P2

A=
0

A=
0

gg,gh

ψ1

ψ2

A=
0
φgh

hgh

φg,gh

φg

A=
gh

A=
0

g=

φhg,g

φg

φhg

A=
hg

g
P1

φgh

h

A=
gh

P2

A=
g,gh

A=
hg,g
πg

πg

A=
g

A=
g

g

Diagram 3
Combining these three decompositions, we get the lower half of Diagram 3. (We
left out the expansion of h; we leave drawing the full diagram for especially brave
readers.) Let us now interpret all these maps as endomorphisms of A=
0 . To do this,
we choose some optimal canonizing maps
φg , φgh , φhg , φg,gh , φhg,g
≤
≥
≤
respectively of g, of gh, of hg, of the pair (A≥
g , Agh ) and of the pair (Ahg , Ag ). This
allows us to define ggh , hgh , gg,gh , g= , P1 , P2 , ψ1 , ψ2 to be the maps that make the
whole Diagram 3 commutative.

Now let us define

(
Mgh (g) := πt (ggh (x) − x)
Mgh (h) := πt (hgh (x) − x)

(8.5)

=
=
=
:= A=
, where VAff,0
for any x ∈ VAff,0
0 ∩ VAff is the affine space parallel to V0 and

64

passing through the origin. Since gh is the conjugate of hg by g and vice-versa,
the elements of G ⋉ V (defined in an obvious way) whose restrictions to A=
0 are
≤
ggh and hgh stabilize the spaces A≥
g
and
h
and
A
.
By
Lemma
4.21,
gh
gh are
0
0
thus quasi-translations. It follows that these values Mgh (g) and Mgh (h) do not
depend on the choice of x. Compare this to the definition of a Margulis invariant
=
(Definition 4.30): we have M (gh) = πt (ggh ◦ hgh (x) − x) for any x ∈ VAff,0
. It
immediately follows that
M (gh) = Mgh (g) + Mgh (h).

(8.6)

Thus it is enough to show that kMgh (g)−M (g)k .C 1 and kMgh (h)−M (h)k .C 1.
This is an immediate consequence of Lemma 8.6 below. (Note that while the vectors
Mgh (g) and Mgh (h) are elements of V0t , the maps ggh and hgh are extended affine
isometries acting on the whole subspace A=
0 .)
Remark 8.4. In contrast to actual Margulis invariants, the values Mgh (g) and Mgh (h) do
depend on our choice of canonizing maps. Choosing other canonizing maps would force
us to subtract some constant from the former and add it to the latter.
Definition 8.5. We shall say that a linear bijection f between two subspaces of the
extended affine space A is K(C)-bounded if it is bounded by a constant depending only
on C, that is, kf k .C 1 and kf −1 k .C 1. We say that two automorphisms f1 , f2 of A=
0
(depending somehow on g and h) are K(C)-almost equivalent, and we write f1 ≈C f2 , if
they satisfy the condition
kf1 − ξ ◦ f2 ◦ ξ ′ k .C 1
for some K(C)-bounded quasi-translations ξ, ξ ′ . This is indeed an equivalence relation.
Lemma 8.6. The maps ggh and hgh are K(C)-almost equivalent to g= and h= , respectively.
To show this, we use the following property:
Lemma 8.7. All the non-horizontal arrows in Diagram 3 represent K(C)-bounded, bijective maps.
Note that Lemma 8.7 alone does not imply Lemma 8.6: indeed, while the maps ψ 1
and ψ 2 are quasi-translations by Lemma 4.29, the maps P 1 and P 2 need not be. This
issue will be addressed in Lemma 8.9.
Proof of Lemma 8.7. The proof is exactly the same as the proof of Lemma 4.6 in [Smi16],
mutatis mutandis.
Proof of Lemma 8.6. We shall concentrate on the estimate ggh ≈C g= ; the proof of the
estimate hgh ≈C h= is analogous.
We now use Lemma 4.29 which shows that canonical identifications commute up to
quasi-translation with suitable projections; it implies that the maps ψ1 and ψ2 are quasitranslations. Hence gg,gh is also a quasi-translation.

65

A=
0

A=
0

′
ggh

ℓ(ggh )

A=
0

P2′
P1

P2

A=
0

A=
0

′
gg,gh

ψ2′

ψ1

A=
0
φgh

ℓ(gg,gh )

φg,gh

ψ2

A=
0

g=

φg

A=
gh

A=
0

φ′hg,g φhg,g φ′hg

φg

φhg

A=
hg

g
P1

P2

A=
hg,g

A=
g,gh
πg

πg

A=
g

A=
g

g

Diagram 4
We would like to pretend that ggh and gg,gh are actually translations. To do that, we
modify slightly the upper right-hand corner of Diagram 3. We set
(
φ′hg := ℓ(ggh ) ◦ φhg
(8.7)
φ′hg,g := ℓ(gg,gh ) ◦ φhg,g ,
where ℓ stands for the linear part as defined in Section 5.2, and we define P2′ , ψ2′ ,
′ , g′
ggh
g,gh so as to make the new diagram commutative (see Diagram 4). The factors
ℓ(ggh ) and ℓ(gg,gh ) we introduced (the short horizontal arrows in Diagram 4) have norm 1:
indeed, being quasi-translations of A=
0 fixing R0 , they are orthogonal linear transformations (by Lemma 4.21). Thus Lemma 8.7 still holds for Diagram 4; but now, the modified
′ and g ′
maps ggh
g,gh are translations by construction.
We may write:
−1
′ = (P −1 ◦ g ′
ggh
◦ P2′ ).
(8.8)
1
g,gh ◦ P1 ) ◦ (P1
′ and g ′
Then, since ggh
g,gh are translations, P1

−1

66

◦ P2′ is also a translation. By Lemma 8.7

(applied to Diagram 4), it is the composition of two K(C)-bounded maps, hence K(C)bounded. Thus we have
′ ≈ P −1 ◦ g ′
ggh
(8.9)
C 1
g,gh ◦ P1 .
Since ℓ(ggh ), ℓ(gg,gh ), ψ1 and ψ2 are K(C)-bounded quasi-translations, ggh is K(C)′ and g is K(C)-almost equivalent to g ′
almost equivalent to ggh
=
g,gh . It remains to check
′
that the map gg,gh
is K(C)-almost equivalent to its conjugate P1

−1

′
◦ gg,gh
◦ P1 .

This follows from Lemma 8.9 below. Indeed, let P1′′ be the quasi-translation con′
structed in Lemma 8.9. Let v ∈ V0= be the translation vector of gg,gh
, so that
′
gg,gh
=: τv .

(8.10)

Keep in mind that while we call the map
 τv a "translation", it is formally a transvection:
v . Then we have
its matrix in a suitable basis is Id
0 1
P1

−1

′
◦ gg,gh
◦ P1 − P1′′

−1

′
◦ P1′′ = τP
◦ gg,gh

−1
1

= P1

−1

≤ (P1

(v)

− τP ′′ −1 (v)

(v) −

−1

1

−1
P1′′ (v)

− P1′′

−1

)

V0=

kvk

(8.11)

(as v ∈ V0= ).
Remark 8.8. While the corresponding calculation in [Smi16] does not technically contain
any explicit falsehoods (the inequality just happens to be slightly weaker than what it
should be), it implicitly relies on the false "identity" τu − τv = τu−v . Here we have
corrected this confusion.
Now by Lemma 4.21, we know that the quasi-translation P1′′ restricted to V0= is a
linear map preserving the Euclidean norm. We also know that the map ρ 7→ ρ−1 (defined
on GL(V0= )) is Lipschitz-continuous on a neighborhood of the orthogonal group (which
is compact). Finally, by Lemma 5.8, s(ℓ(g)) does not exceed s(g) which is by hypothesis
smaller than or equal to s8.1 (C). Taking s8.1 (C) small enough, we may deduce from
Lemma 8.9 that
(P1

−1

− P1′′

−1

)

V0=

.C s(ℓ(g)).

(8.12)

′
′
, since gg,gh
On the other hand, we have kvk ≤ kτv k = gg,gh
.C g|A=
is the compog
with several K(C)-bounded maps. It follows that
sition of g|A=
g

P1

−1

′
◦ gg,gh
◦ P1 − P1′′

−1

′
.
◦ P1′′ .C s(ℓ(g)) g|A=
◦ gg,gh
g

(8.13)

.C s(g); and we know that s(g) ≤ 1. Finally
By Lemma 5.8 (iii), we have s(ℓ(g)) g|A=
g
we get
−1
−1
′
′
P1 ◦ gg,gh
◦ P1 − P1′′ ◦ gg,gh
◦ P1′′ .C 1.
(8.14)

67

To complete the proof of Lemma 8.6, and hence also the proof of Proposition 8.1, it
remains only to prove Lemma 8.9.
Lemma 8.9. The linear part of the map P1 is "almost" a quasi-translation. More precisely, there is a quasi-translation P1′′ such that
(P1 − P1′′ )

V0=

.C s(ℓ(g)).

Recall that ℓ(g) is the map with the same linear part as g, but with no translation
part: see subsection 5.2. We use the double prime because the relationship between P1′′
and P1 is not the same as the relationship between P2′ and P2 .
Proof. The proof is exactly the same as the proof of Lemma 4.7 in [Smi16], mutatis
mutandis.

9 Margulis invariants of words
We have already studied how contraction strengths (Proposition 7.4) and Margulis invariants (Proposition 8.1) behave when we take the product of two C-non-degenerate,
sufficiently contracting maps of type X0 . The goal of this section is to generalize these
results to words of arbitrary length on a given set of generators. It is a straightforward
generalization of Section 5 in [Smi16] (we slightly changed the notations).
Definition 9.1. Take k generators g1 , . . . , gk . Consider a word g = giσ11 · · · giσll with
length l ≥ 1 on these generators and their inverses (for every m we have 1 ≤ im ≤ k
and σm = ±1). We say that g is reduced if for every m such that 1 ≤ m ≤ l − 1, we have
(im+1 , σm+1 ) 6= (im , −σm ). We say that g is cyclically reduced if it is reduced and also
satisfies (i1 , σ1 ) 6= (il , −σl ).
Proposition 9.2. For every C ≥ 1, there is a positive constant s9.2 (C) ≤ 1 with the
following property. Take any family of maps g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G ⋉ V satisfying the following
hypotheses:
(H1) Every gi is of type X0 .
(H2) Any pair taken among the maps {g1 , . . . , gk , g1−1 , . . . , gk−1 } is C-non-degenerate, except of course if it has the form (gi , gi−1 ) for some i.
(H3) For every i, we have s(gi ) ≤ s9.2 (C) and s(gi−1 ) ≤ s9.2 (C).
Take any nonempty cyclically reduced word g = giσ11 · · · giσll (with 1 ≤ im ≤ k, σm = ±1
for every m). Then g is of type X0 , 2C-non-degenerate, and we have
M (g) −

l
X

M (giσmm ) ≤ lε8.1 (2C)

m=1

(where ε8.1 (2C) is the constant introduced in Proposition 8.1).

68

The proof proceeds by induction, with Proposition 7.4 and Proposition 8.1 providing
the induction step.
Proof. The proof is exactly the same as proof of Proposition 5.2 in [Smi16], mutatis
mutandis.

10 Construction of the group
Here we prove the Main Theorem. We closely follow Section 6 from [Smi16], with only
two substantial differences:
• While in the case of the adjoint representation, existence of a −w0 -invariant vector
in V0t was automatic, here we must postulate it explicitly (Assumption 10.1).
• Where we originally relied on Lemma 7.2 in [Ben96], we now need the more general
Lemma 4.3.a in [Ben97].
In the next-to-last paragraph of the proof, we have also made more explicit the relationship between sMain (C) and s9.2 (C).
Let us recall the outline of the proof. We begin by showing (Lemma 10.3) that if we
take a group generated by a family of C-non-degenerate, sufficiently contracting maps of
type X0 with suitable Margulis invariants, it satisfies all of the conclusions of the Main
Theorem, except Zariski-density. We then exhibit such a group that is also Zariski-dense
(and thus prove the Main Theorem).
The idea is to ensure that the Margulis invariants of all elements of the group lie
almost on the same half-line. Obviously if −w0 maps every element of V0t to its opposite,
Proposition 8.1 (i) makes this impossible. So we now exclude this case:
Assumption 10.1. The representation ρ is such that the action of w0 on V0t is not
trivial.
This is precisely condition (i) from the Main Theorem. More precisely, V0t is the set of
all vectors that satisfy (i)(a), and what we say here is that some of them also satisfy (i)(b).
Example 10.2.
1. Consider G = SO+ (p, q) acting on Rp+q (with p ≥ q), we have already seen that
the only case when V0t 6= 0 is when p − q = 1 (see Example 4.22.1) So let p = n + 1,
q = n; then we may show that
w0 |V t = (−1)n Id
0

(10.1)

(this is essentially the content of Lemma 3.1 in [AMS02] or of Proposition 2.7
in [Smi14]). So G = SO+ (n + 1, n) satisfies this assumption if and only if n is odd.
2. If G is any semisimple real Lie group acting on V = g (its Lie algebra) by the adjoint
representation, then gt0 contains the Cartan subspace a (see Example 4.22.2), on
which w0 obviously acts nontrivially unless a is itself trivial. So this assumption is
satisfied whenever G is noncompact.

69

Thanks to Assumption 10.1, we choose once and for all some nonzero vector v ∈ V0t
that is a fixed point of −w0 (which is possible since w0 is an involution). We also choose
a vector M0 collinear to v and such that kM0 k = 2ε8.1 (2C).
Lemma 10.3. Take any family g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G ⋉ V satisfying the hypotheses (H1), (H2)
and (H3) from Proposition 9.2, and also the additional condition
(H4) For every i, M (gi ) = M0 .
Then these maps generate a free group acting properly discontinuously on the affine
space VAff .
Proof. The proof is exactly the same as the proof of Lemma 6.1 in [Smi16], mutatis
mutandis. The (orthogonal) projection
π̂z : ĝ → z ⊕ R0

parallel to d ⊕ n+ ⊕ n−

now becomes the (orthogonal) projection
π̂t : A → V0t ⊕ R0

parallel to V0r ⊕ V0> ⊕ V0< .

Proof of Main Theorem. First note that the assumptions we have made on ρ in the course
of the paper ensure that it satisfies the hypotheses of the Main Theorem: Assumptions 10.1 and 3.8 give the conditions (i) and (ii) respectively.
(The two other assumptions were "for free": Assumption 4.23 is just the weaker condition (i)(a), and Assumption 3.2 is an even weaker condition that follows from (i)(a).)
Once again, we use the same strategy as in the proof of the Main Theorem of [Smi16].
We find a positive constant C ≥ 1 and a family of maps g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G ⋉ V (with
k ≥ 2) that satisfy the conditions (H1) through (H4) and whose linear parts generate a
Zariski-dense subgroup of G, then we apply Lemma 10.3. We proceed in several stages.
• We begin by using a result of Benoist: we apply Lemma 4.3.a in [Ben97] to
– Γ = G;
– t = k + 1;
– Ωi = aρ,X0 ∩ a++ for every i.
This gives us, for any k ≥ 2, a family of maps γ1 , . . . , γk ∈ G (which we shall see
as elements of G ⋉ V , by identifying G with the stabiliser of R0 ), such that:
(i) Every γi is of type X0 (this is (H1)).
(ii) For any two indices i, i′ and signs σ, σ ′ such that (i′ , σ ′ ) 6= (i, −σ), the spaces
Vγ≥σ and V ≤σ′ are transverse.
i

γi′

(iii) Any single γi generates a Zariski-connected group.
(iv) All of the γi generate together a Zariski-dense subgroup of G.

70

Since in our case t is finite, Benoist’s item (v) is not relevant to us.
A comment about item (i): we actually get not only that every γi is of type X0 ,
but also that every γi is R-regular.
A comment about item (ii): since we have taken Benoist’s Γ to be the whole
group G, we have θ = Π, so that YΓ is the complete flag variety G/P + . Benoist’s
conclusion can then be restated by saying that the pair of cosets
(φg P + , φh P − )
(where φg and φh are respective canonizing maps of g and h as defined by us in
Proposition 4.16) is in the open G-orbit of G/P + ×G/P − . Once again it is actually
stronger than our conclusion, which is equivalent to saying that the pair of cosets
(φg PX+0 , φh PX−0 )
is in the open G-orbit of G/PX+0 × G/PX−0 .
• Clearly, every pair of transverse spaces is C-non-degenerate for some finite C; and
here we have a finite number of such pairs. Hence if we choose some suitable value
of C (which we fix for the rest of this proof), the hypothesis (H2) becomes a direct
consequence of the condition (ii) above.
• From condition (iii) (Zariski-connectedness), it follows that any algebraic group
containing some power γiN of some generator must actually contain the generator γi
itself. This allows us to replace every γi by some power γiN without sacrificing condition (iv) (Zariski-density). Clearly, conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) are then preserved
as well. If we choose N large enough, we may suppose that the numbers s(γi±1 ) are
as small as we wish: this gives us (H3). In fact, we shall suppose that for every i,
we have s(γi±1 ) ≤ sMain (C) for an even smaller constant sMain (C), to be specified
soon.
• To satisfy (H4), we replace the maps γi by the maps
gi := τφ−1 (M0 ) ◦ γi
i

(10.2)

(for 1 ≤ i ≤ k), where φi is a canonizing map for γi .
We need to check that this does not break the first three conditions. Indeed, for
every i, we have γi = ℓ(gi ); even better, since the translation vector φ−1
i (M0 )
=
lies in the subspace Vγi stable by γi , obviously the translation commutes with γi ,
≥
≥
hence gi has the same geometry as γi (meaning that A≥
gi = Aγi = Vγi ⊕ R0 and
≤
≤
≤
Agi = Aγi = Vγi ⊕ R0 ). Hence the gi still satisfy the hypotheses (H1) and (H2),
but now we have M (gi ) = M0 (this is (H4)). As for contraction strength, we have,
by Lemma 5.8:
s(gi ) .C s(γi )kτM0 k
≤ sMain (C)kτM0 k,

71

(10.3)

and similarly for gi−1 . Recall that kM0 k = 2ε8.1 (2C), hence kτM0 k depends only
on C: in fact it is equal to the norm of the 2-by-2 matrix 01 kM10 k . It follows that
if we choose
−1
1 2ε8.1 (2C)
,
(10.4)
sMain (C) ≤ s9.2 (C)
0
1
then the hypothesis (H3) is satisfied.
We conclude that the group generated by the elements g1 , . . . , gk acts properly
discontinuously (by Lemma 10.3), is free (by the same result), nonabelian (since
k ≥ 2), and has linear part Zariski-dense in G.

References
[Abe01] H. Abels. Properly discontinuous groups of affine transformations, a survey.
Geom. Dedicata, 87:309–333, 2001.
[AMS02] H. Abels, G.A. Margulis, and G.A. Soifer. On the Zariski closure of the linear
part of a properly discontinuous group of affine transformations. J. Differential
Geometry, 60:315–344, 2002.
[AMS13] H. Abels, G.A. Margulis, and G.A. Soifer. The Auslander conjecture for dimension less than 7. Preprint, arXiv:1211.2525, 2013.
[Aus64]

L. Auslander. The structure of compact locally affine manifolds. Topology,
3:131–139, 1964.

[Ben96]

Y. Benoist. Actions propres sur les espaces homogènes réductifs. Annals of
Mathematics, 144:315–347, 1996.

[Ben97]

Y. Benoist. Propriétés asymptotiques des groupes linéaires. Geom. and funct.
anal., 7:1–47, 1997.

[BQ]

Y.
Benoist
and
J.-F.
Quint.
Random
walks
on
ductive groups.
Ergebnisse.
To appear;
available
http://www.math.u-psud.fr/~benoist/prepubli/15walk.pdf.

[BT65]

A. Borel and J. Tits. Groupes réductifs. Publications Mathématiques de l’IHÉS,
27:55–151, 1965.

[BT72]

A. Borel and J. Tits. Compléments à l’article “ Groupes réductifs ”. Publications
Mathématiques de l’IHÉS, 41:253–276, 1972.

[DGK]

J. Danciger, F. Guéritaud, and F. Kassel. Proper affine action of right-angled
Coxeter groups. In preparation.

[Ebe96]

P.B. Eberlein. Geometry of Nonpositively Curved Manifolds. University of
Chicago Press, 1996.

72

reat

[FG83]

D. Fried and W.M. Goldman. Three-dimensional affine crystallographic groups.
Adv. in Math., 47:1–49, 1983.

[Hal15]

B.C. Hall. Lie Groups, Lie Algebras and Representations: An Elementary
Introduction. Springer International Publishing, second edition, 2015.

[Hel08]

S. Helgason. Geometric Analysis on Symmetric Spaces. Amer. Math. Soc.,
second edition, 2008.

[Kna96] A.W. Knapp. Lie Groups Beyond an Introduction. Birkhaüser, 1996.
[Mar83] G.A. Margulis. Free properly discontinuous groups of affine transformations.
Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 272:937–940, 1983.
[Mar87] G.A. Margulis. Complete affine locally flat manifolds with a free fundamental
group. J. Soviet Math., 134:129–134, 1987.
[Mil77]

J. Milnor. On fundamental groups of complete affinely flat manifolds. Adv. in
Math., 25:178–187, 1977.

[Smi14]

I. Smilga. Fundamental domains for properly discontinuous affine groups.
Geom. Dedicata, 171:203–229, 2014.

[Smi16]

I. Smilga. Proper affine actions on semisimple Lie algebras. Annales de l’Institut
Fourier, 66(2):785–831, 2016.

[Tit71]

J. Tits. Représentations linéaires irréductibles d’un groupe réductif sur un
corps quelconque. Journ. Reine Angw. Math., 247:196–220, 1971.

73

