DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND
LIE GROUPS

arXiv:1603.03800v3 [math.NT] 2 Dec 2017

MENNY AKA, EMMANUEL BREUILLARD, LIOR ROSENZWEIG,
NICOLAS DE SAXCÉ
Abstract. We study the general problem of extremality for metric diophantine approximation on submanifolds of matrices. We formulate a
criterion for extremality in terms of a certain family of algebraic obstructions and show that it is sharp. In general the almost sure diophantine
exponent of a submanifold is shown to depend only on its Zariski closure, and when the latter is defined over Q, we prove that the exponent
is rational and give a method to effectively compute it. This method is
applied to a number of cases of interest. In particular we prove that the
diophantine exponent of rational nilpotent Lie groups exists and is a rational number, which we determine explicitly in terms of representation
theoretic data.

Contents
1. Introduction
2. A zero-one law
3. Critical exponent for the Heisenberg group
4. Quasi-norms, Schubert cells, and pencils
5. Diophantine approximation and flows on the space of lattices
6. The submodularity lemma
7. The critical exponent for rational nilpotent Lie groups
8. Explicit values of the critical exponent in some examples
References

1
12
16
20
25
33
39
46
50

1. Introduction
Pick n + m vectors x1 , . . . , xn+m at random in Rm according to a certain
distribution ν. Take integer linear combinations of the vectors and ask how
close they can get to the origin in Rm . One way to measure this is via the
diophantine exponent, defined as:

β(x) = inf{β > 0; k

m+n
X

pi xi k > kpk−β for all but finitely many p ∈ Zm+n },

i=1

(1.1)
where x = (x1 , . . . , xm+n ), p = (p1 , . . . , pm+n ) and where on both sides k · k
is the supremum norm on the coordinates.
Key words and phrases. Metric diophantine approximation, homogeneous dynamics, extremal manifolds, group actions.
1

2

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

In the case where x1 = e1 , . . . , xm = em , where e1 , . . . , em is the canonical
basis of Rm , and (xm+1 , . . . , xm+n ) is chosen on a submanifold of (Rm )n '
Mm,n (R), this question is the topic of Diophantine approximation on submanifolds of matrices, which studies the quality of approximation by integer
vectors of the image of an integer vector under an m × n matrix chosen at
random in some submanifold of Mm,n (R).
When m = 1, this subject has been studied extensively, starting with a
1932 conjecture of Mahler [Mah42], which posited that the Veronese curve
M = {(x, x2 , . . . , xn ), x ∈ R}
is extremal, i.e. that a random point on it has the same diophantine exponent as a random point in Rn chosen with respect to Lebesgue measure. This
conjecture was proved by Sprindžuk [Spr64, Spr69]. We refer the reader to
[Spr64, Spr69, BD99, BRV16] for background on Diophantine approximation
on manifolds.
About twenty years ago, Kleinbock and Margulis [KM98] revolutionized
the subject by introducing methods from the dynamics of homogeneous
flows into this area. In particular they settled a conjecture of Sprindžuk by
establishing that every analytic submanifold of Rn that is not contained in a
proper affine subspace is extremal (see [BB96] for the state of the art before
their work). This method is based on certain quantitative non-divergence
estimates for diagonal flows on the space of lattices and takes its roots
in the early work of Margulis [Mar75] pertaining to the non-divergence of
unipotent flows on homogeneous spaces in connection with Margulis’ first
proof of arithmeticity for non-uniform higher rank lattices. It was later
further developed by Kleinbock in an important series of papers [Kle98b,
Kle03, Kle08b, Kle10a]. We refer the reader to [Kle08a, Kle10b] for a nice
introduction to these techniques.
Our first goal in this article is to answer a question of Beresnevich, Kleinbock and Margulis [BKM15] asking for the right criterion for a submanifold of matrices to be extremal. We were led to this problem after we
observed that a solution would enable us to compute diophantine exponents
for dense subgroups of nilpotent Lie groups, in the spirit of our previous
work [ABRdS15a]. Beyond extremality, our criterion allows us to effectively
compute the exponent of any rationally defined submanifold of matrices.
Further in the paper, we will derive consequences for nilpotent Lie groups.
The results of this paper were announced in [ABRdS15b].
*
**
We view the (n + m)-tuple x as a m × (m + n) matrix. We note in
passing that the exponent β(x) depends only on the kernel ker x. Therefore
diophantine approximation on submanifolds of matrices is best phrased in
terms of diophantine approximation on submanifolds of the grassmannian,
here the grassmannian of n-planes in Rn+m . We will keep this observation as
a guiding principle, but will always phrase everything in terms of matrices.
We now describe a family of obvious obstructions to extremality.

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

3

Definition 1.1 (Pencil). Given a real vector subspace W ≤ Rm+n , and
an integer r ≤ m, we define the pencil PW,r to be the set of matrices x ∈
Mm,m+n (R) such that
dim(xW ) ≤ r.
We say that the pencil is rational if W is rational, i.e. admits a basis
in Qm+n .
Remark. In the m = 1 case, M1,1+n (R) can be identified with the space
of linear forms on R1+n . For W ≤ R1+n , the pencil PW,0 is the subspace
of linear forms vanishing on W . Of course, for r ≥ 1 we have PW,r =
M1,1+n (R). In the general case, pencils are closed algebraic subvarieties of
Mm,m+n (R), but they need not be affine subspaces.
Pencils are obvious obstructions to extremality, because if W is rational,
then the standard Dirichlet or pigeonhole argument shows that for every
x ∈ PW,r
dim W
.
1 + β(x) ≥
r
Indeed there are roughly Rdim W integer points in the ball of radius R in
W , but they get mapped into a ball of radius O(R) in Rr , so, comparing
volumes, ε-balls around each of these points cannot be all disjoint if ε is at
least of order R1−dim W/r . Consequently, we see that if
m+n
dim W
>
(1.2)
r
m
n
then the point x is not extremal, since m
is the diophantine exponent of a
random point of Mm,m+n (R) chosen with respect to Lebesgue measure.
Pencils satisfying (1.2) will be called constraining pencils, because they
constrain the diophantine exponent away from its extremal value. A pencil is
called proper if it is not all of Mm,m+n (R). When viewed in the grassmannian
(i.e. looking at the set of kernels ker x, with x in a pencil), pencils are wellstudied objects: they are a certain kind of Schubert varieties (see e.g. [GH94,
ch 1.5] and Section 4.2 below).
When the Zariski closure of M is defined over Q, it turns out that these
obvious obstructions are the only ones, and the following is our first main
result.
Theorem 1.2 (Exponent for rational manifolds). Let m, n be positive integers and M be a connected analytic submanifold of Mm,m+n (R). Assume
that the Zariski closure of M is defined over Q. Then for Lebesgue almost
every point x ∈ M the diophantine exponent is rational and equals
β(x) = max {
M⊂PW,r

dim W
− 1}.
r

(1.3)

Moreover, the maximum in the right-hand side is achieved for a rational W .
Note that the maximum in (1.3) is always achieved, because the quantity
− 1 takes values in a finite set of rational points; the important point
in the second part of the theorem is that some rational subspace achieves
the maximum.
dim W
r

4

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

The theorem shows in particular that the generic value of β(x) is constant,
and can be effectively computed once the pencils containing M are identified.
We also note that this value is the smallest possible value for the exponent
of an arbitrary point on M, because of the Dirichlet or pigeonhole type
argument explained above.
When speaking of Zariski closure, algebraic subsets and algebraic varieties
in this paper, we will always consider these notions in real algebraic geometry and we refer the reader to the textbook [BCR98] for definitions and basic
properties. By Lebesgue measure on M we mean the top dimensional Hausdorff measure of the subset M of Mm,m+n (R). The real algebraic variety M
is said to be defined over Q if it is the set of zeroes of a family of polynomials
(in the matrix entries) with rational coefficients. We immediately conclude:
Corollary 1.3. Let M be as in Theorem 1.2. Then M is extremal if and
only if it is not contained in any constraining pencil.
Theorem 1.2 and its proof hold verbatim for more general measures (than
Lebesgue measure on an analytic submanifold), which we call locally good
measures (see Definition 5.2.2).
The above theorem answers a question discussed at the end of the original
paper of Kleinbock and Margulis [KM98, §6.2] and also raised in the problem
list [Gor07, §9.1] as well as in [KMW10, p.23] and [BKM15, Problem 1].
The papers [KMW10] and [BKM15] proposed other sufficient criterions for
extremality of an analytic submanifold of Mm,n (R), but they just failed
to be optimal. The weak non-planar condition of [BKM15] is not strong
enough for example to show extremality in the applications to nilpotent
groups described below. This condition is equivalent in our language to not
being contained in any proper pencil, which is a strictly stronger condition
(see Example 6.2.3).
We now no longer assume the Zariski closure to be defined over Q. In
three papers [Kle03], [Kle08b] and [Kle10a] Kleinbock studied this situation.
He showed in particular that the diophantine exponent of a random point
on a connected analytic submanifold of Mm,n (R) achieves the same value
almost everywhere. In the case where m = 1 he showed that this almost sure
value depends only on the affine span of the submanifold in Rn . In other
words a submanifold inherits its exponent from its affine span. Another
remarkable observation he made in [Kle08b] for Rn and in [Kle10a, Theorem
1.4] for matrices, is that the diophantine exponent of a random point is also
the worst diophantine exponent of any point on the submanifold. In the
context of matrices, one needs to find the right replacement for the affine
span. We show the following:
Theorem 1.4 (Inheritance from Plücker closure). Let M be a connected
analytic submanifold of Mm,m+n (R). The generic value of the diophantine
exponent β(x) depends only on the Plücker closure H(M) of M. In particular it depends only on the Zariski closure of M in Mm,m+n (R). Moreover
for Lebesgue almost every point x ∈ M
β(x) = inf β(y)
y∈M

(1.4)

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

5

The existence of a generic value for β(x), which is the same for almost
every point x of M, and the identity (1.4) are due to Kleinbock [Kle10a,
Theorem 1.4.a]. When we say that the generic exponent depends only on
the Plücker or on the Zariski closure of M, this means in particular that the
generic value of the exponent of a random point of H(M) or of the Zariski
closure of M (considered with respect to the Lebesgue measure on these
algebraic varieties) coincides with that of M.
The Plücker closure of a subset S in Mm,m+n (R) is the set of all matrices
x whose full list of minors satisfy the same linear equations as those of S.
It contains the Zariski closure of S and is contained in the Schubert closure
of S, namely the intersection of all pencils containing S. See §5.2.
Theorem 1.4 has been established independently in the recent work of Das,
Fishman, Simmons and Urbanski, see [DFSU15, Theorem 1.9]. In this work
the authors introduce a very general class of measures, which is invariant
under measure automorphisms and encompasses many fractal measures of
dynamical origin, for which Theorem 1.4 is shown to hold, see the discussion
after [DFSU15, Definition 1.2].
Our Theorems 1.2 and 1.5 will be proved in Section 5 for a smaller class
of measures on Hom(V, E) (still more general than Lebesgue measure on
analytic submanifolds), which we call locally good measures and are basically the matrix analogue of the friendly measures introduced by Kleinbock,
Lindenstrauss and Weiss in [KLW04].
We also stress that all of our results will be proved for submanifolds of
Hom(V, E), where V and E are finite-dimensional real vector spaces of arbitrary dimension (we will not assume dim V > dim E as in this introduction).
We further show the following general inequality:
Theorem 1.5 (Bounds for the exponent). Let M be a connected analytic
submanifold of Mm,m+n (R). Then for almost every x ∈ M with respect to
Lebesgue measure:
dim W
dim W
− 1} ≤ β(x) ≤ max {
− 1}.
(1.5)
max
{
M⊂PW,r
M⊂PW,r ;W rational
r
r
The maximum is taken over rational pencils on the left-hand side and
arbitrary pencils on the right-hand side. In particular:
Corollary 1.6. If M is not contained in any constraining pencil, then M
is extremal.
When the Zariski closure is defined over Q, Theorem 1.2 reduces the
determination of the exponent to a purely algebraic question: determining
the maximum in (1.3). This may still be a challenging task, however the
analysis is greatly simplified by the following property of the pencils realizing
the maximum in (1.3).
Proposition 1.7. There is a unique subspace W ≤ Rm+n of maximal dimension such that M ⊂ PW,r and
dim W
dim W
= max
.
M⊂PW,r
r
r
This fact is a consequence of a very general lemma, which we call the
submodularity lemma and runs as follows.

6

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

Lemma 1.8 (Submodularity lemma). Let V be a finite-dimensional vector
space, and suppose that φ : Grass(V ) → N is a non-decreasing (for set
inclusion) and submodular function, i.e. for any two vector subspaces U
and W we have
φ(U + W ) + φ(U ∩ W ) ≤ φ(U ) + φ(W ).
Then the maximum

dim W
W ∈Grass(V )\{0} φ(W )
is attained at a unique subspace of maximal dimension.
max

In particular this applies to the right-hand side in (1.5), because the
function W 7→ maxx∈M dim xW is submodular.
In presence of symmetry, this lemma greatly simplifies the algebraic analysis of determining the right-hand side in (1.5) and hence the exponent.
Indeed if φ is G-invariant for the action of some group G on the grassmannian (preserving dimension), then the submodularity lemma implies that the
subspace realizing the maximum is G-invariant. This observation is used to
derive Theorem 1.2 from Theorem 1.5 by means of the Galois group action
on V . Here is an example illustrating the use of the submodularity lemma
for another group action in combination with Theorem 1.2 :
Example 1.9 (The Veronese manifold in matrices). Let p, s ∈ N. What
is the infimum βb of all β > 0 such that for almost every M ∈ Ms (R), the
inequality
kv0 I + v1 M + · · · + vp M p k ≤ kvk−β
has at most finitely many integer solutions v ∈ Zp+1 ? The Mahler conjecture proved by Sprindžuk mentioned earlier is the case s = 1, and then the
answer is βb = p. When s > 1, this problem fits the diophantine approximation on submanifolds of matrices scheme: set V = Rm+n = Rp [X] the space
of polynomials of degree at most p. Naturally, Zm+n is identified with the
lattice of polynomials with integer coefficients. Set E = Rm = Ms (R), and
M ⊂ Hom(V, E) ' Mm,m+n (R) the set of all linear maps P 7→ P (M ). In
terms of matrices, M is just the Veronese manifold {(I, M, . . . , M p ) ; M ∈
Ms (R)}. Using Theorem 1.2 the exponent βb can be determined once the
pencils containing M are determined. But the group G of affine transformations of the real line acts on V by substitution of the variable and preserves
M. So in order to compute the maximum in (1.2), we only need to consider
G-invariant subspaces. This is easily done, and we find that
p+1
, 1}.
1 + βb = max{
s
In particular the Veronese manifold is extremal if and only if s ≥ p + 1. In
this example the most constraining pencil is given by the Cayley-Hamilton
relation. See Example 6.2.2 for more details. See also [Kle10a, §3.3] and
[DS16], where the Veronese manifold is considered with respect to a different
diophantine approximation scheme, for which it is always extremal.
Of course when the Zariski closure is not defined over Q, it can happen
that the almost sure exponent is not given by either side of (1.5). Then
the question remains to find an appropriate hull S(M) of M whose almost

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

7

sure exponent would be the same as that of M, in the spirit of Kleinbock’s
work [Kle03] [Kle08b] on submanifolds of Rn with irrational affine span.
The natural candidate is what we call the Schubert closure of M, which
is the intersection of the pencils containing M. It is an algebraic variety,
which is in general bigger than the Zariski closure of M. In the classical
setting of submanifolds of Mm,n (R) this is the same space as the space H(M)
considered by Beresnevich, Kleinbock and Margulis in [BKM15, 7.2]. The
Plücker closure considered here and in [DFSU15] is in general smaller than
the Schubert closure.
The results above are a first stone in a more complete study of diophantine
approximation on submanifolds of matrices that we do not undertake here
and would be concerned with badly approximable points (such as in [Bak76,
Kle98a]), improvements of Dirichlet’s theorem (see [KW08]), Khintchinetype theorems (in the spirit of [BKM01, BBKM02]), Jarnik-type theorems,
etc. Let us only mention that the methods introduced in the current paper
also apply to the study of multiplicative diophantine approximation as in
the original work of Kleinbock and Margulis [KM98] ; in particular, one can
derive a satisfying criterion for a manifold to be strongly extremal. This will
be explained in a forthcoming paper of the first and last authors with Das
and Simmons [BDSS].
In order to apply the above results to the computation of diophantine
exponents of random subgroups of nilpotent Lie groups, it is necessary (in
the general case) to extend them to the setting of quasi-norms and consider
weighted diophantine approximation, in which different directions are assigned possibly different weights. We now briefly describe what this means,
but later in the paper we will prove our results in this generalized setting.
As above M = Φ(U ) is a connected analytic submanifold of Hom(V, E),
where V and E are two finite-dimensional real vector spaces, U ⊂ RN is a
connected open set and Φ : U → Hom(V, E) an analytic map. We endow V
and E with quasi-norms, namely
1

|v| = max |vi | αi
1
0

|w|0 = max |wi | αi ,
P
P
for v = i vi ui ∈ V and w = i wi u0i ∈ E, where (u1 , . . . , ud ) is a basis of V
and (u01 , . . . , u0e ) a basis of E, and α1 ≥ . . . ≥ αd > 0 and α10 ≥ . . . ≥ αe0 > 0
are positive numbers. Next we let ∆ be the lattice Zu1 + . . . + Zud and we
consider the following diophantine exponent for x ∈ Hom(V, E)
β(x) := inf{β > 0 | ∃c > 0 : ∀v ∈ ∆ \ {0}, |xv|0 > c|v|−β }.

(1.6)

Given two non-negative numbers a, b, and a subspace W of V , we define
(see Section 4.4) the pencil
PW,a,b = {x ∈ Hom(V, E) | ψ(ker x ∩ W ) ≥ a and φ(xW ) ≤ b},
where ψ (resp. φ) is defined for a subspace W ≤ V (resp. W 0 ≤ E) by
X
X
ψ(W ) =
αi and φ(W 0 ) =
αi0 ,
i∈I(W )

i∈J(W 0 )

8

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

and where
I(W ) = {i ∈ {1, . . . , d} | dim(W ∩ hu1 , . . . , ui i) > dim(W ∩ hu1 , . . . , ui−1 i)}
and
J(W 0 ) = {i ∈ {1, . . . , e} | dim(W 0 ∩hu0i+1 , . . . , u0e i) < dim(W 0 ∩hu0i , . . . , u0e i)}.
The pencil PW,a,b is a certain closed algebraic subset of Hom(V, E) associated
to our choice of quasi-norms on V and E, and coincides with the pencil
defined in Definition 1.1 in the unweighted case. Pencils are indeed closely
related to Schubert subvarieties of the grassmannian Grass(V ) (see Section
4.2).
Theorem 1.10 (Weighted case). Theorems 1.2 and 1.5 hold more generally
in the weighted (quasi-norm) setting. In particular for Lebesgue almost every
x ∈ U,
a
a
max
≤ β(Φ(x)) ≤ max
.
(1.7)
M⊂PW,a,b b
M⊂PW,a,b ;W rational b
with equality when the Zariski closure of M is defined over Q.
We refer the reader to Theorems 5.1 and 5.2 for more complete statements.
The Q-structure on Hom(V, E) used implicitly in the above theorem is the
one induced by the Q-span of the bases of V and E chosen to define the
quasi-norms. The condition that the Zariski closure of M be defined over
Q is satisfied for example when the map Φ itself is a polynomial map with
coefficients in Q (i.e. each matrix entry is such).
The dynamical method adapts well to the weighted case, as had already
been observed by Kleinbock early on, for example in [Kle98b].
*
**
We now pass to the description of our results regarding diophantine
approximation on nilpotent Lie groups. Inspired by the work of Gamburd, Jakobson and Sarnak [GJS99] we introduced in our previous paper
[ABRdS15a] the notion of diophantine Lie group. We refer the reader to
this paper for an introduction and background on the general question of
diophantine approximation on Lie groups. We briefly recall here the basic
definitions. We are given a connected Lie group G and a k-tuple of elements
g := (g1 , . . . , gk ). We consider the subgroup Γg generated by g1 , . . . , gk . Its
elements can be represented by words w(g) in the elements gi . We ask:
How close to the identity can an element γ of Γg be in terms of the minimal
length `(γ) of a word that represents it ? The following definition is natural.
Let d(x, y) be a left-invariant Riemannian distance on G (or more generally
a left-invariant geodesic metric) and let Vg (n) be the number of elements in
Γg that can be represented by a word of length at most n.
Definition 1.11. The k-tuple g = (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ Gk (or the subgroup Γg
they generate) is called diophantine if there exists β > 0 such that
d(γ, 1) > Vg (`(γ))−β
for all but at most finitely many group elements γ ∈ Γg .

(1.8)

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

9

For example in G = (R, +) the pair g = (1, α) is diophantine if and only
if α is a diophantine, i.e. non-Liouville, number. It is easy to check that
this definition depends only on the subgroup Γg and not on the particular
generating set g, nor on the choice of metric. We say that the Lie group
G is diophantine on k-letters if almost every k-tuple in G (chosen independently at random with respect to Haar measure) is diophantine. We say
that it is diophantine if it is diophantine on k-letters for every k ≥ 1. When
G = Rn , then Γg is diophantine if and only if the n×k matrix whose column
vectors are g1 , . . . , gk is diophantine in the sense that its diophantine exponent (defined as in (1.1)) is finite. Hence the connection with diophantine
approximation on matrices.
It is conjectured that semisimple real Lie groups are diophantine. This
conjecture is open already for the smallest Lie groups, such as SO(3, R) (see
[GHS+ 09, §6]). Remez-type inequalities [BG73] combined with the Borel
Cantelli lemma only yield a superexponential lower bound exp(−C`(γ)2 ) for
Lebesgue almost every g in a semisimple Lie group (see the work of Kaloshin
and Rodnianski [KR01] who handled SU(2) but the method is general). It
is also already an open problem to show that the affine group Aff(R) of
the real line and the group of motions of the Euclidean plane O(2) n R2
are diophantine. See the work of Varjú [Var14] for a very interesting recent
result in this direction.
It is fairly easy to see that any nilpotent Lie group with a rational structure (for its Lie algebra) is diophantine, but in [ABRdS15a] we constructed
examples (arising only in nilpotency class 6 and higher) of non-diophantine
nilpotent Lie groups. They exist because of some particular feature of the
representation theory of the general linear group GLk on the free Lie algebra
on k-letters: multiplicity for the s-th homogeneous part, s ≥ 6.
For nilpotent Lie groups the growth function Vg (n) grows polynomially
like nτ with an integer exponent τ given by the Bass-Guivarc’h formula (see
[Bas72, Gui73]), and therefore changing the generating set in Γg does not
result in a change of the exponent β. So it makes sense to ask for the optimal
β for which (1.8) holds. We call this the exponent of the subgroup Γg . This
is the quantity we study here, with the help of Theorem 1.2 and Lemma 1.8.
It turns out that the optimal exponent always exists.
Theorem 1.12 (Existence of the exponent). Let G be a connected and simply connected nilpotent real Lie group endowed with a left-invariant geodesic
metric d. Then for each k ≥ 1, there is βbk ∈ [0, +∞] such that for almost
every k-tuple g ∈ Gk with respect to Haar measure, we have
β(g) = βbk ,
where β(g) is the infimum of all β > 0 such that (1.8) holds.
While the property of being diophantine or not for a k-generated subgroup of G does not depend on the choice of metric near the identity, the
exponent does. By a geodesic metric (a.k.a length metric) we mean a distance that is defined in terms of the length of the shortest path between two
points. It is well known that left-invariant geodesic metrics on connected
Lie groups are all Carnot-Carathéodory-Finsler metrics induced by a norm
on a generating subspace of the Lie algebra (this is Berestowski’s theorem,

10

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

[Ber88]). Riemannian metrics are of course examples of such, but in the context of nilpotent Lie groups non Riemannian, Carnot-Carathéodory metrics
are also very natural.
We will present two proofs of Theorem 1.12. The first is only valid when
k ≥ dim G/[G, G], and is based on a relatively simple general argument
that relies on the ergodicity of the action of the group of automorphisms of
the free Lie algebra on k-tuples of elements in g. The second proof on the
other hand works for all k and necessitates to first translate the diophantine
problem in terms of (weighted) diophantine approximation on submanifolds
of matrices, and then use the techniques of homogeneous dynamics alluded
above.
This translation will allow us to determine βbk for all rational nilpotent
Lie groups endowed with a rational left-invariant geodesic metric (e.g. a
Riemannian metric, see §7.3 for the definition). Our main result is the
following:
Theorem 1.13 (Rationality and stability of the exponent). Let G be a
connected and simply connected rational nilpotent real Lie group endowed
with a rational left-invariant geodesic metric. Then for every k ≥ 1 the
exponent βbk is rational. Furthermore, there exist an integer k1 and a rational
function Fg ∈ Q(X) with rational coefficients such that, for all k ≥ k1 ,
βbk = Fg (k).
P
, where P and Q are both polyThe rational function Fg (X) is a ratio Q
nomials of the same degree with rational coefficients. The degree is equal to
the nilpotency class of G.
The constant k1 will be shown to depend only on dim g. The value of
b
βk for small k may not fit the general pattern Fg (k). The fact that it does
for k large is an instance of the so-called representation stability, as per
the notion investigated by Church, Ellenberg and Farb in a series of recent
papers. Here stability occurs for the action of GLk on the free Lie algebra
on k-letters, see [CF13, Corollary 5.7] for the case of interest to us.
In [ABRdS15a] we showed that a nilpotent Lie group G with Lie algebra
g is diophantine on k-letters if and only if its Lie algebra of laws on kletters Lk,g is a diophantine subspace of the free Lie algebra Fk on k-letters
endowed with its natural Q-structure. A law of g is an element of the free
Lie algebra that vanishes identically when the indeterminates are replaced
with arbitrary elements of g.
The rational function Fg (k) can be computed explicitly in terms of g
and the representation theory of the GLk -action by linear substitutions on
the relatively free Lie algebra Fk /Lk,g . In Sections 7 and 8 we will give
exact formulas in a number of examples. In particular, we compute βbk for
metabelian groups, for the group of unipotent upper-triangular matrices and
for certain free nilpotent groups.
In [ABRdS15a, §5.2] we asked whether βbk has a limit as k tends to infinity.
With the above tools it is possible to answer this question, in the case where
the nilpotent Lie group G is rational.

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

11

Corollary 1.14 (Rational limit). Under the assumptions of the previous
theorem
lim βbk
k→+∞

exists and is a rational number contained in the interval [ s dim1G(s) , 1] (if
d(·, ·) is Riemannian, the lower bound is dim1G(s) ).
Here G(s) is the last step in the descending central series of G.
Although we again make the assumption here that the Lie algebra g is
defined over Q, we believe that the above limit is always rational without
such a rationality assumption, provided of course that G is diophantine:
Conjecture 1.15 (Rationality conjecture). Suppose G is a connected nilpotent real Lie group endowed with a left-invariant geodesic metric. Assume
that G is diophantine. Then the limit
lim βbk

k→+∞

exists and is a rational number.
Recall that G is said to be diophantine if it is diophantine on k-letters for
every positive integer k. In [ABRdS15a] we constructed for each integer k
a connected nilpotent Lie group that is diophantine on k letters, but not on
k + 1 letters.
In order to apply the diophantine results for submanifolds of matrices
expounded at the beginning of this introduction, we will apply Theorem
1.10 with U = gk and V = Fk /Lk,g , E = g and Φ(x) the evaluation map
at x = (X1 , . . . , Xk ) ∈ gk . The quasi-norm on V will be defined in terms
of the descending central series of V and the parameters αi will be integers.
The choice of a left-invariant geodesic metric on G will yield a quasi-norm
on E and Proposition 7.2.2 will show that the diophantine problem (1.8)
translates precisely into (1.6). It turns out that the submodularity lemma
is also of great help for this in the case of nilpotent groups. It will be used
this time for the action of GLk on Fk /Lk,g . This will mean that once the
representation theory of Fk /Lk,g viewed as a GLk -module is understood well
enough, the diophantine exponent can be computed. We will do just that in
Section 8 for a number of concrete examples, for example for free nilpotent
groups and for metabelian nilpotent groups.
Part of the results proved in this paper were announced in [ABRdS15b].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we give the first proof of
Theorem 1.12 on the existence of the exponent via the ergodicity of the
group of rational points of the group of automorphims of the free Lie algebra acting on k-tuples. Section 3 is devoted to an important example,
the Heisenberg group: we prove Theorem 1.13 for this group by an ad hoc
argument using a Remez-type inequality for quadratic forms. The limitation of this method for tackling the more general nilpotent groups shows the
power of the method used later on. Section 5 is devoted to the KleinbockMargulis method and the Dani correspondence, which allows to reformulate
the diophantine approximation problem in terms of orbits in the space of

12

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

lattices. The proof of Theorem 5.1 is given in Section 5, and Theorem 5.2 is
derived in Section 6, after the submodularity lemma. In Section 7 we give a
second proof of Theorem 1.12 and establish the rationality of the exponent
– Theorem 1.13 – in full generality using the diophantine approximation
results for submanifolds of matrices developed in the previous sections. In
Section 8 we compute the exponent explicitly in a number of examples using
representation theory of the free Lie algebra.

Acknowledgements. It is a pleasure to thank V. Beresnevich and D. Kleinbock for interesting discussions in relation to the topics of this paper. We are
also grateful to the referee for his comments. The first author acknowledges
the support of ISEF, Advanced Research Grant 228304 from the ERC, and
SNF Grant 200021-152819. The second author acknowledges support from
ERC Grant no 617129 GeTeMo. The third author was supported by the
Göran Gustafssons Stiftelse för Naturvetenskaplig och Medicinsk Forskning
and Vetenskapsradet (grant no. 621-2011-5498).
2. A zero-one law
We now turn to the problem of diophantine approximation in nilpotent
Lie groups. The purpose of this section is to show the existence of a critical
exponent for any simply connected nilpotent real Lie group (not necessarily
defined over Q). Later, in Sections 3, 7 and 8, we will explain how to
compute this exponent when the group is defined over the rationals.
In this section, G denotes an arbitrary connected simply connected nilpotent Lie group endowed with a left-invariant distance d(·, ·) inducing the
topology. A finitely generated subgroup Γ of G will be called β-diophantine
if there is a symmetric generating set S of Γ and a constant c > 0 such that
for every integer n (recall that S n denotes the set of products of n elements
from S),
min

x∈S n \{1}

d(x, 1) ≥ c · |S n |−β .

(2.1)

By the Bass-Guivarc’h formula [Bas72, Gui73], we know that, within positive
multiplicative constants, |S n | ' nτ for some integer τ depending on Γ only.
It follows that if (2.1) holds for some generating set S, then it will also hold
for any other generating set, possibly with a different constant c, but with
the same β. We can therefore define the diophantine exponent β(Γ) of a
finitely generated subgroup of G by
β(Γ) = inf{β | Γ is β-diophantine}.

(2.2)

Theorem 2.1 (Zero-one law). Let G be a simply connected nilpotent Lie
group, whose abelianization has dimension d. Let k ≥ d be an integer.
Given β ≥ 0 the set of k-tuples g = (g1 , . . . , gk ) generating a group Γg that
is β-diophantine is either null or co-null for the Haar measure on Gk .
In particular, there is a number βbk ∈ [0, +∞] such that
β(Γg ) = βbk

for almost every k-tuple g ∈ Gk .

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

13

This shows that Theorem 2.1 implies Theorem 1.12 from the introduction,
in the case k ≥ d. An alternative proof (including the cases k < d) will be
given in Section 7. We record here the following open problems:
(1) Is the set of k-tuples g such that Γg is βbk -diophantine null or co-null ?
Consistency with the case G = R, where it is known that badly approximable
tuples have zero measure, hints that the answer ought to be null, provided
k > dim G/[G, G].
(2) Is there a Jarnı́k type theorem for k-tuples, i.e. a formula for the Hausdorff dimension of the set of k-tuples g such that β(Γg ) > β for any given
β?
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 2.1, which is
based on an ergodicity argument.
2.1. Ergodic action on gk by rational automorphisms. Let Fk,s be
the free s-step nilpotent Lie algebra on k generators. The group Aut(Fk,s )
of linear automorphisms of Fk,s is an algebraic group defined over Q. If
α ∈ Aut(Fk,s )(R) and x1 , . . . , xk are free generators of Fk,s , then for each
i = 1, . . . , k, we let αi = α(xi ) and note that for every r ∈ Fk,s (R),
α(r) = r(α1 , . . . , αk )
Let g be an s-step nilpotent real Lie algebra. The group Aut(Fk,s )(R) acts
on k-tuples gk as follows:
α · (X1 , . . . , Xk ) = (α1 (X1 , . . . , Xk ), . . . , αk (X1 , . . . , Xk )).
Note that this action is algebraic and preserves the measure class of the
Lebesgue measure λ on gk : For g ∈ Aut(Fk,s ), the pushforward g∗ λ is
absolutely continuous with respect to λ, with density given by the RadonNikodym cocycle c(g, X). Moreover, the Radon-Nikodym cocycle c(g, X) is
continuous in (g, X) ∈ Aut(Fk,s )(R)×gk . In fact Aut(Fk,s )(R) preserves the
commutator ideal [Fk,s , Fk,s ] and thus acts on the quotient Fk,s /[Fk,s , Fk,s ],
which is isomorphic to Rk . This yields a natural epimorphism from the group
Aut(Fk,s )(R) onto GLk (R) with unipotent kernel; the cocycle is independent
of X and given by the determinant of the image of g under this epimorphism.
We are going to show:
Proposition 2.1.1 (Ergodic action by automorphisms). If k ≥ dim g/[g, g],
then the action of Aut(Fk,s )(Q) on gk is ergodic.
To prove this, we first recall:
Lemma 2.1.2. Let G be a real Lie group, H ≤ G a closed subgroup and ν a
quasi-invariant measure on G/H with continuous Radon-Nikodym cocycle.
Then every dense subgroup of G acts ergodically on G/H.
Proof. We need to show that if f ∈ L∞ (G/H) is invariant under a dense
subgroup of G, then it is constant almost everywhere. Let c : G × G/H → R
be the Radon-Nikodym cocycle, i.e. d(gdν∗ ν) (x) = c(g −1 , x). Then for every
continuous and compactly supported function φ on G/H and every sequence
of elements gn ∈ G converging to g ∈ G, the sequence of functions x 7→
φ(gn x)c(gn , x) is uniformly converging to φ(gx)c(g, x) on G/H. It follows

14

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

R
that for every f ∈ L∞ (G/H), hgn f, φi := G/H f (gn−1 x)φ(x)dν(x) converges
to hgf, φi. Therefore, by duality, if f ∈ L∞ (G/H) is invariant under a dense
subgroup of G, then for every g ∈ G we have gf = f almost everywhere.
The measurable set Ω = {(g, x) ∈ G × G/H | f (g −1 x) 6= f (x)} is such that
every vertical fiber Ωg := {x ∈ G/H | f (g −1 x) 6= f (x)} has ν-measure zero.
By Fubini’s theorem, Ω has measure zero, and ν-almost every horizontal
fiber Ωx = {g ∈ G | f (g −1 x) 6= f (x)} has measure zero. Fix x such that Ωx
has zero measure. The set E = {g −1 · x ; g ∈ G \ Ωx } has full measure in
G/H and f is constant on E.

Proof of Proposition 2.1.1. The group Aut(Fk,s ) is an algebraic group defined over Q. Hence the group of Q-points Aut(Fk,s )(Q) is dense in the
group of R-points Aut(Fk,s )(R) (in this case this can be checked directly
on the reductive part, which is GLk , and the unipotent part). Therefore
it suffices to show that Aut(Fk,s )(R) admits a Zariski open orbit on gk ,
when k ≥ d = dim(g/[g, g]). Indeed, its complement will have Lebesgue
measure zero, while the open orbit will be a homogeneous space G/H of
G := Aut(Fk,s )(R) with Lebesgue measure coming from gk as quasi-invariant
measure. Lemma 2.1.2 then implies that Aut(Fk,s )(Q) acts ergodically.
To see that Aut(Fk,s )(R) admits a Zariski open orbit when k ≥ d, observe
that any two k-tuples X, X0 of points in gk with the property that their
reductions modulo [g, g] generate g/[g, g] as a vector space must be in the
same orbit of Aut(Fk,s )(R). Indeed, since k ≥ d = dim(g/[g, g]), we can find
an element of GLk (R) such that gX and X0 have the same reduction modulo
[g, g]. We can thus assume that X0 − X belongs to [g, g]k . Now, the fact
that the tuple X = (X1 , . . . , Xk ) generates g modulo [g, g] implies that every
element of [g, g] can be written as α(X1 , . . . , Xk ) for some α ∈ [Fk,s , Fk,s ].
Therefore X0 − X = (α1 (X), . . . , αk (X)) for some αi ∈ [Fk,s , Fk,s ]. But
every endomorphism of Fk,s of the form xi 7→ xi + αi (x1 , . . . , xk ) with αi ∈
[Fk,s , Fk,s ] is invertible, hence belongs to Aut(Fk,s )(R) as desired.
To finish, simply note that when k ≥ d, the set of k-tuples X of points
in gk such that their reduction modulo [g, g] spans g/[g, g] is a non-empty
Zariski open subset of gk .

2.2. Critical exponent of a nilpotent Lie group. We will prove below
Theorem 2.1. It will be a consequence of Proposition 2.1.1 and Proposition 2.2.1 below. In the statement of this proposition, we identify the
connected and simply connected nilpotent Lie group G with its Lie algebra
g via the exponential map exp : g → G, which is a diffeomorphism. This
allows to view Aut(Fk,s )(R) as acting on Gk rather than gk .
Proposition 2.2.1. Given β ≥ 0, the set of β-diophantine k-tuples in Gk
is Lebesgue measurable and invariant under the action of Aut(Fk,s )(Q).
Recall that two groups Γ and Γ0 are commensurable if their intersection
has finite-index in both Γ and Γ0 . We divide the proof of Proposition 2.2.1
into two lemmas.
Lemma 2.2.2. Let G be a simply connected nilpotent Lie group equipped
with a left-invariant distance d(·, ·), and Γ a finitely generated subgroup of

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

15

G. If Γ is β-diophantine, then any subgroup of G commensurable to Γ is
also β-diophantine.
Proof. Let Γ be β-diophantine and Γ0 commensurable to Γ. Then Γ ∩ Γ0 has
finite-index in Γ0 and therefore, there exists a normal subgroup Γ0 < Γ ∩ Γ0
that has finite-index in Γ0 . In particular, for some integer p, any element
γ ∈ Γ0 has γ p ∈ Γ0 . Moreover, Γ0 is included in Γ, so it is β-diophantine.
Let S and S0 be symmetric generating sets for Γ0 and Γ0 , respectively. Since
Γ0 has finite index in Γ0 , there exists a constant C such that for all integer
n ≥ 1, Γ0 ∩ S n ⊂ S0Cn . Now suppose γ ∈ Γ0 is an element of S n \{1}. Then
γ p is an element of Γ0 ∩ S pn and therefore
γ p ∈ S0Cpn .
Using that |S0n | grows polynomially and the fact that Γ0 is β-diophantine,
this implies
d(γ p , 1)  |S0n |−β ,
where  means ≥ up to a positive multiplicative constant, and in turn,
1
d(γ, 1) ≥ d(γ p , 1)  |S0n |−β  |S n |−β .
p

Our second lemma is as follows.
Lemma 2.2.3. Let X := (X1 , . . . , Xk ) ∈ gk , let α ∈ Aut(Fk,s )(Q) and set
X0 := α(X) ∈ gk . Then the subgroup of G generated by eX1 , . . . , eXk is
0
0
commensurable to the subgroup generated by eX1 , . . . , eXk .
Proof. Recall that if γ1 , . . . , γk generate a nilpotent group, then for every
integer n ≥ 1, the subgroup generated by the powers γ1n , . . . , γkn has finite
index [Rag72, Lemma 4.4.]. By assumption, there is an integer N such that
each N Xi0 belongs to Fk,s (Z)(X1 , . . . , Xk ), that is N Xi0 is an integer linear
combination of commutators in X1 , . . . , Xk . However recall [ABRdS15a,
Lemma 3.5.] that there is an integer M such that eM r(X1 ,...,Xk ) belongs to the
subgroup generated by eX1 , . . . , eXk for any r ∈ Fk,s (Z). It follows that each
0
(eXi )M N belongs to the subgroup generated by eX1 , . . . , eXk . Interchanging
X and X0 , the lemma follows.

Proof of Proposition 2.2.1. It is clear from the definition that the subset of
elements g such that Γg is β-diophantine is a Borel subset. Now suppose
that g = (g1 , . . . , gk ) is such that Γg is β-diophantine and let g0 be in
the Aut(Fk,s )(Q)-orbit of g. This means that log(g) and log(g0 ) are in
the same Aut(Fk,s )(Q)-orbit. So Lemma 2.2.3 implies that Γg and Γg0 are
commensurable. Since Γg is β-diophantine, it follows from Lemma 2.2.2
that Γg0 also is β-diophantine.

Proof of Theorem 2.1. In view of Proposition 2.2.1, the set Dβ of k-tuples
such that Γg is β-diophantine is measurable and invariant under the action of
Aut(Fk,s )(Q). Since this action is ergodic by Proposition 2.1.1, we conclude
ck denotes the infimum of all β ≥ 0
that Dβ is either null or conull. If β
ck and null if
for which Dβ is conull, then Dβ will be conull when β > β
c
β < βk .


16

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

Remark 2.2.4. The property of being diophantine for a k-tuple g does not
depend only on the projection of g on the abelianization of G. It is easy to
construct examples showing that one may have two tuples g and g0 such that
g = g0 modulo [G, G], but Γg is diophantine, while Γg0 is not diophantine in
G and Γπ(g0 ) is not diophantine in G/[G, G] either, where π is the projection
modulo [G, G]. In particular, Aut(Fk,s )(Q) in Proposition 2.2.1 cannot be
replaced by the subgroup GLk (Q).
Remark 2.2.5. In Theorem 2.1, the distance d(·, ·) is only assumed to be
left-invariant, and need not be geodesic. The alternative argument given
in Section 7, which is based on quantitative non-divergence, requires the
distance to be geodesic (and hence a Carnot-Carathéodory-Finsler metric
by [Ber88]).
3. Critical exponent for the Heisenberg group
As a warm-up, we now present an explicit computation of the critical exponent of the 3-dimensional Heisenberg group. The method is elementary,
using the Borel-Cantelli lemma combined with an ad-hoc Remez-type inequality for a certain family of quadratic forms (cf. Lemma 3.6 below). The
relationship between this elementary method and the Kleinbock-Margulis
type approach developed later in this paper will be discussed at the end of
this section.
Here G will always denote the 3-dimensional Heisenberg group, consisting
of 3 × 3 unipotent upper-triangular matrices. It will be convenient for us to
view G as the space R3 , endowed with the group law
(x, y, z) ∗ (x0 , y 0 , z 0 ) = (x + x0 , y + y 0 , z + z 0 + xy 0 ).
Recall the definition of the diophantine exponent of a finitely generated
subgroup of G, made at the beginning of Section 2. We want to prove the
following.
Theorem 3.1 (Critical exponent for the Heisenberg group). Let k ≥ 2.
Then for almost every k-tuple g = (g1 , . . . , gk ) in G,
2
1
β(Γg ) = 1 − − 2 .
k k
The diophantine exponent here is computed with respect to any leftinvariant Riemannian metric on G (equivalently for max{|x|, |y|, |z|}). For
the proof of Theorem 3.1, we will need a few definitions. Recall that if w is
a word on k letters, i.e. an element of the free group Fk over k generators
x1 , . . . , xk , it induces a word map
wG :

Gk
→
G
(g1 , . . . , gk ) 7→ w(g1 , . . . , gk ),

where w(g1 , . . . , gk ) is the element of G obtained by substituting each letter
xi by the element gi . The group Fk,G of word maps in k letters on G is defined
0 = (ww 0 ) .
to be the set of all such maps, with product law given by wG wG
G
The length `(ω) of a word map ω in Fk,G is the minimal length of a word w
such that ω = wG .
In the case of the Heisenberg group, one can describe the group of word
maps very explicitly. For any two elements g and h in G, [g, h] denotes the

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

17

commutator of g and h, defined by [g, h] = ghg −1 h−1 . The subgroup [G, G]
generated by commutators coincides with the center Z of G and is the set
of elements (0, 0, z), for z ∈ R.
Proposition 3.2 (Word maps on the Heisenberg group). Let k ≥ 2. For
each word map ω on k letters on G, there exist integers ni , 1 ≤ i ≤ k and
nij , 1 ≤ i < j ≤ k such that for all g = (g1 , . . . , gk ) in Gk ,
Y
[gi , gj ]nij .
ω(g) = g1n1 . . . gknk
1≤i<j≤k

Moreover, the ni and nij are uniquely determined by ω and there exists a
constant C > 0 depending only on k such that
1
1
`(ω) ≤ max{|nl |, |nij | 2 } ≤ C`(ω).
l,i,j
C
Proof. The existence of the ni and nij is proved by elementary operations
on a word representing ω, using that all commutators lie in the center of G,
because G is 2-step nilpotent. To verify uniqueness, it suffices to show that
no non-trivial family of integers nl , nij yields the trivial word map; this can
be checked directly, by expliciting the word maps in the (x, y, z) coordinates
for G. The statement about the length of ω can also be proved directly,
using the identity in G, [gin , gjm ] = [gi , gj ]nm . We leave the details to the
reader.

We are now ready to prove the following theorem, which will easily imply
Theorem 3.1.
Theorem 3.3. Fix an integer k ≥ 3.
• If α > k 2 − k − 2, then for almost every k-tuple g ∈ Gk , d(ω(g), 1) ≥
`(ω)−α for all but finitely many ω ∈ Fk,G .
• If α < k 2 − k − 2, then for all g ∈ Gk , there are infinitely many
ω ∈ Fk,G for which d(ω(g), 1) < `(ω)−α .
We decompose the proof into two lemmas, studying first the word maps
ω on G that are non-trivial modulo the center of G, i.e. those for which
some ni is non-zero.
Lemma 3.4 (Diophantine property outside the derived subgroup). Let k ≥
2. If α > k2 −1, then for almost every k-tuple g, we have d(ω(g), 1) ≥ `(ω)−α
for all but finitely many word maps ω that are non-trivial modulo the center
of G.
Proof. Suppose g = (g1 , . . . , gk ) is chosen at random in Gk according to the
Haar measure on a compact subset. Then, the projection ḡ = (ḡ1 , . . . , ḡk )
to (G/Z)k is a random k-tuple in (G/Z)k ' (R2 )k , and its law is absolutely
continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. By a standard application
of the Borel-Cantelli lemma, we know that almost surely, if α > k2 − 1, then
kn1 ḡ1 + · · · + nk ḡk k ≥ (max |ni |)−α ,
for all but finitely many (n1 , . . . , nk ) in Zk . This proves the lemma.
We now need to study word maps that are trivial modulo the center.



18

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

Lemma 3.5 (Diophantine property inside the derived subgroup). Let k ≥ 2.
If α > k 2 − k − 2, then for almost every k-tuple g, we have
Q d(ω(g), 1) n≥ij
−α
`(ω) for all but finitely word maps ω of the form ω : g 7→ 1≤i<j≤k [gi , gj ] .
Q
Proof. Let ω : g 7→ 1≤i<j≤k [gi , gj ]nij . In the (x, y, z) coordinates, the map
ω is given by
Gk
→
G
P
.
(xi , yi , zi )1≤i≤k 7→ (0, 0, 1≤i<j≤k nij (xi yj − yi xj ))

ω:

If µ denotes the Lebesgue measure on the ball of radius 1 centered at 0 in
Gk , Lemma 3.6 below implies that
µ({g | d(ω(g), 1) ≤ `(ω)−α }) ≤

√
22k+1
(1+log(`(ω)α 2k max |nij |)).
α
`(ω) max |nij |
1

1

However, by Lemma 3.2, `(ω) ' (max |nij |) 2 = knk 2 , and therefore,
µ({g | d(ω(g), 1) ≤ `(ω)−α }) 

log knk
α .
knk1+ 2

Since every word map trivial modulo the derived group corresponds to a
-tuple (nij ), we find
unique k(k−1)
2
X

X

µ({g | d(ω(g), 1) ≤ `(ω)−α }) 

ω≡0 mod Z

because 1 +
lemma.

(nij )∈Z
α
2

>

k(k−1)
.
2

k(k−1)
2
−{0}

log knk
α < ∞,
knk1+ 2

The lemma then follows from the Borel-Cantelli


We now state and prove the elementary lemma used in the above proof.
Lemma 3.6. Let q be a quadratic form on Rd , and assume that in some
orthogonal basis, q can be expressed without squares as
X
q(x) =
akl xk xl .
k<l

If µ denotes the Lebesgue measure on the ball of radius 1 centered at 0 in
Rd , then for all ε > 0
!!
√
d+1 ε
2
d
max
|a
|
kl
µ({x ∈ Rd | |q(x)| ≤ ε}) ≤
1 + log+
,
max |akl |

where log+ x = max(0, log x).
Proof. Choose k0 and l0 such that |ak0 l0 | = maxk,l |akl |. As we may permute
the indices, we may assume without loss of generality that (k0 , l0 ) = (1, 2).
Then write
X
q(x) = x1 · (
a1l xl ) + y(x2 , . . . , xd ) = x1 hx0 , ai + y(x0 ),
l≥2

where x0 = (x2 , . . . , xd ), a = (a12 , . . . , a1d ), and h, i denotes the usual inner
product in Rd−1 . Let λ denote the Lebesgue measure on the real line. For

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

19

fixed (x2 , . . . , xd ), observe that
λ({x1 ∈ [−1, 1] | |x1 hx0 , ai − y(x0 )| ≤ }) ≤ 2 min(1,


).
|hx0 , ai|

Then write
µ({x ∈ Rd | q(x) ≤ }) ≤

Z

λ({x1 ∈ [−1, 1]; |x1 hx0 , ai − y(x0 )| ≤ }) dx0

BRd−1 (0,1)

Z


) dx0
0 i|
|ha,
x
BRd−1 (0,1)


Z 1

d
min 1,
dt
≤2
kakt
−1


2d+1 
+ kak
=
1 + log
.
kak

√
Since max |akl | ≤ kak ≤ d max |akl |, we find
!
√
2d+1 
d max |akl |
d
+
µ({x ∈ R | q(x) ≤ }) ≤
1 + log
.
max |akl |

≤2

min(1,


We can now conclude the proofs of Theorems 3.3 and 3.1.
Proof of Theorem 3.3. The first assertion follows from combining Lemmas 3.4
and 3.5, noting also that for k ≥ 2, one has k2 − 1 ≤ k 2 − k − 2.
For the second assertion, we note we have k(k − 1)/2 commutators [gi , gj ]
lying in Z ' R. Therefore, given a positive integer n, Dirichlet’s pigeonhole
argument shows that there exist integers nij , 1 ≤ i < j ≤ k such that
|nij | ≤ n2 and
X
2
nij [gi , gj ] ≤ Cn−k +k+2 ,
i<j

whereQC is a constant depending only on g. Thus, for the word map ω :
g 7→ i<j [gi , gj ]nij , we get
d(ω(g), 1) ≤ C`(ω)−k

2 +k+2

.


Proof of Theorem 3.1. By Proposition 3.2, the number of word maps of
length at most n is bounded above and below by a positive constant times
k(k−1)
2
nk+2 2 = nk . However, we know from [ABRdS15a, Lemma 2.5] that,
for almost every k-tuple g, the group Γg is isomorphic to Fk,G , so that, if
Vg (n) denotes the number of elements in the ball of radius n with respect
to the generating set g, there exist positive constants c1 , c2 such that
2

2

c1 nk ≤ Vg (n) ≤ c2 nk .
Together with Theorem 3.3, this shows that for almost every k-tuple g,
β(Γg ) =

1
2
k2 − k − 2
= 1 − − 2.
2
k
k k


20

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

Remark 3.0.1. Let
ϕ:

k(k−1)

Gk
→
R 2
.
(xi , yi , zi ) 7→ (xi yj − yi xj )1≤i<j≤k

Lemma 3.5 is equivalent to saying that the pushforward under ϕ of the Haar
measure on (a ball of) Gk is extremal. So an alternative proof consists in
using the Kleinbock-Margulis theorem [KM98, Theorem A]: all one is left
to check is that the image of ϕ is not contained in a hyperplane.
In the rest of this paper, this will be our approach to compute the critical
exponent of an arbitrary connected simply connected rational nilpotent Lie
group. Clearly there is little hope to use a direct elementary approach in the
spirit of Lemma 3.5 to handle general nilpotent groups. We will reduce the
problem to studying the extremality of certain maps from Gk to G. If the
target space of these maps were one-dimensional, the Kleinbock-Margulis
theory would in general be enough. However this is typically not the case
and one is thus naturally led to develop a suitable matrix analogue of their
theory, which is what we do in the next two sections. The translation to
a problem about (weighted) diophantine approximation on subanifolds of
matrices is expounded in Section 7.
4. Quasi-norms, Schubert cells, and pencils
The main goal of the next three sections is to establish Theorems 1.2
and 1.5 from the introduction, which address a problem raised by Kleinbock
and Margulis in [KM98, 6.2] and studied in [KMW10] and [BKM15]. The
proof will be split into two parts, which correspond to Sections 5 and 6,
respectively. First, the upper bound and the fact that the almost sure
exponent depends only on the Zariski closure will be proved as Theorem 5.3.1
below, which is a consequence of the quantitative non-divergence estimates
on the space of lattices, and the proof will be given in the slightly more
general setup of locally good measures. Second, we shall show that equality
holds when the Zariski closure is defined over Q. This will be Theorem 6.2.1,
and will be obtained as a consequence of the submodularity lemma proved
in Section 6. In the present section, we describe the geometric objects
involved in our diophantine problem, and explain what Dirichlet’s pigeonhole
argument, giving the lower bound on the exponent, becomes in this general
setting.
As before, V and E are two finite-dimensional real vector spaces, and
∆ is a lattice in V . Given a measure ν (say a probability measure) on
Hom(V, E), we want to study the diophantine properties with respect to ∆
of a random point x in Hom(V, E) chosen according to the distribution ν.
For the application to nilpotent groups that we develop in Section 7, we
need to compute the diophantine exponent of an element x in Hom(V, E),
which is defined in terms of certain quasi-norms on V and E.
Definition 4.1. A quasi-norm (resp. local quasi-norm) on V is a map
V → R+ , v 7→ |v|, for which there exist C > 0, a basis u1 , . . . , ud of V and
positive real numbers α1 , . . . , αd such that
1
|v| ≤ max |u∗i (v)|1/αi ≤ C|v|
(4.1)
1≤i≤d
C

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

21

outside a neighborhood of the origin (resp. in a neighborhood of the origin),
where u∗1 , . . . , u∗d is the dual basis.
Given a quasi-norm | · | on V and a local quasi-norm | · |0 on E, we define
the diophantine exponent of x in Hom(V, E) by
β(x) = inf{β > 0 | ∃c > 0 : ∀v ∈ ∆ \ {0}, |x(v)|0 ≥ c|v|−β }.

(4.2)

Remark 4.0.1. At a first reading it is fair to assume that | · | and | · |0 are
chosen to be genuine norms on V and E.
4.1. Quasi-norms and local quasi-norms. For later use, we now record
some elementary properties of quasi-norms and local quasi-norms. We say
that two quasi-norms (resp. local quasi-norms) are comparable (or equivalent) if their ratio is bounded and bounded away from zero outside a neighborhood of the origin (resp. in a neighborhood of the origin). Let V and E
be real vector spaces of respective dimension d and e, and fix |·| a quasi-norm
on V and | · |0 a local quasi-norm on E. As in Definition 4.1, we fix bases
(ui )1≤i≤d and (u0i )1≤i≤e for V and E, together with positive real numbers
α1 , . . . , αd and α10 , . . . , αe0 such that
1
|v| ≤ max |u∗i (v)|1/αi ≤ C|v|
1≤i≤d
C
outside a neighborhood of 0 in V , and
1 0
1/α0i
|v| ≤ max |u0∗
≤ C|v|0
i (v)|
1≤i≤d
C
in a neighborhood of 0 in E.
1. If we reorder the vectors ui so that α1 ≥ . . . ≥ αd > 0 and let Vi =
hu1 , . . . , ui−1 i, we obtain a full flag 0 = V1 < V2 < . . . < Vd < V , and |v| is
comparable to
1

max d(v, Vi ) αi ,

1≤i≤d

(4.3)

where d(v, Vi ) is the distance to Vi in some fixed Euclidean structure on V .
Similarly, if α10 ≥ · · · ≥ αe0 > 0, then |v|0 is comparable to
1
0

max d(v, Vi0 ) αi ,

1≤i≤e

(4.4)

where Vi0 = hu0i+1 , . . . , u0e i. For the rest of the paper, we assume that α1 ≥
· · · ≥ αd and α10 ≥ · · · ≥ αe0 .
2. (subspace) If W ≤ V is a subspace, then the restriction of | · | to W is a
quasi-norm, associated to the flag 0 = V1 ∩ W ≤ . . . ≤ Vd ∩ W ≤ W in the
sense that |w| is comparable to
max d(w, Vi ∩ W )1/αi ,

1≤i≤d

when w ∈ W . This is easily seen, since d(w, W ∩Vi ) is comparable to d(w, Vi )
when w varies in W . Similarly, the restriction of | · |0 to a subspace F in E
is a local quasi-norm, associated to the flag 0 = Ve0 ∩ F ≤ . . . ≤ V10 ∩ F ≤ F .

22

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

3. (quotient) If W ≤ V is a subspace, then | · | induces a quasi-norm on
V /W by setting, for v := v mod W ,
|v| := inf |v + w|.
w∈W

It is easy to see that this indeed defines a quasi-norm V /W . It is associated
to the flag {Vi /(Vi ∩ W )} of V /W , in the sense that it is comparable to
max d(v, Vi /(Vi ∩ W ))1/αi ,

1≤i≤d

where Vi /(Vi ∩ W ) ≤ V /W . To see this, note that W has an adapted
complement, namely a subspace W 0 such that (W ∩ Vi ) ⊕ (W 0 ∩ Vi ) = Vi for
every i = 1, . . . , d, and that |v| is comparable to the restriction of |v| to W 0 .

4. (triangle inequality) There is C > 0 such that
|v + w| ≤ C(|v| + |w|)
for every v, w in V outside a neighborhood of the origin in V , and
|v + w|0 ≤ C(|v|0 + |w|0 )
for every v, w inside a neighborhood of the origin in E.
5. (volume of large balls) From the quasi-norm |·| on V , we define a function
ψ : Grass(V ) → R+ by
X
ψ(W ) =
αi ,
i∈I(W )

where
I(W ) = {i ∈ {1, . . . , d} | dim(Vi+1 ∩ W ) = dim(Vi ∩ W ) + 1},
with the convention that Vd+1 = V and αd+1 = 0. Clearly ψ is nondecreasing because I is. Moreover −ψ is submodular (cf. Lemma 6.1.2).
This is easily seen, since reorganizing the sum yields
ψ(W ) =

d
X
(αi − αi+1 ) dim(Vi+1 ∩ W ),

(4.5)

i=1

and αi ≥ αi+1 . Moreover, ψ determines the volume of the ball of radius Q
restricted to W : for all Q > 1,
vol{w ∈ W | |w| ≤ Q} ' Qψ(W ) .
Here and hereafter, we write x ' y if there exist positive constants c, C > 0
such that cx ≤ y ≤ Cx. The constants c and C are allowed to depend on
W and | · |, but not on Q. Note also that if W 0 is an adapted complement
to W in V , then
I(W 0 ) = {1, . . . , d}\I(W ) = {i ∈ {1, . . . , d} | dim(

Vi
Vi+1
) = dim(
)+1},
Vi+1 ∩ W
Vi ∩ W

and hence ψ(W 0 ) = ψ(V ) − ψ(W ) and
vol{v ∈ V /W | |v| ≤ Q} ' Qψ(V )−ψ(W ) .

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

23

6. (volume of small balls) We also define a function φ : Grass(E) → R+ by
X
αi0 ,
φ(F ) =
i∈J(F )

where
0
J(F ) = {i ∈ {1, . . . , e} | dim(Vi0 ∩ F ) = dim(Vi−1
∩ F ) − 1},

with the convention that V00 = E. Then φ is non-decreasing (because J is)
0 ,
and submodular (cf. Lemma 6.1.2). This is easily seen, since αi0 ≥ αi+1
and reorganizing the sum yields
φ(F ) =

e
X

0
(αi0 − αi+1
)(dim F − dim(Vi0 ∩ F )).

(4.6)

i=1

Moreover, φ determines the volume of the ball of radius ε restricted to
F : within multiplicative constants (depending on F and | · |0 only), for all
ε ∈ (0, 1),
vol{w ∈ F | |w|0 ≤ ε} ' εφ(F ) .
4.2. Schubert varieties. Schubert varieties are certain distinguished closed
algebraic subsets of the Grassmannian. See [GH94] for the complex case and
[BCR98] for the real case. In this subsection we briefly recall their definition,
because the pencils defined in the introduction give rise to Schubert varieties via the map x 7→ ker x and because they will appear in the definition
of locally good measures below.
As before V is a d-dimensional real vector space and 0 = V1 < V2 <
. . . < Vd < Vd+1 = V is a full flag of subspaces. Let n be an integer with
1 ≤ n ≤ d and let σ = (σ1 , . . . , σn ) be a sequence of integers such that
1 ≤ σ1 < σ2 < . . . < σn ≤ d. Let Grassn (V ) be the Grassmannian of
n-dimensional subspaces of V . Recall that Grassn (V ) can be realized as a
closed (affine) algebraic subset of Md,d (R) by assigning to each subspace the
orthogonal projection onto it. The Schubert cell of type σ associated to the
full flag {Vi }i is the subset e(σ) of all subspaces W in Grassn (V ) such that
dim(Vσi +1 ∩ W ) = dim(Vσi ∩ W ) + 1 for each i = 1, . . . , n, or equivalently
in the notation of the previous subsection, such that I(W ) = {σ1 , . . . , σn }.
The cell e(σ) is a subset of Grassn (V ), and it is easy to see that its closure
is a union of other cells, namely:
[
e(σ) =
e(τ ),
τ ≤σ

where we define the partial order τ ≤ σ by requiring that τi ≤ σi for each
i = 1, . . . , n. This closure e(σ) is called the Schubert variety of type σ.
It is worth mentioning that subsets of the form {W ∈ Grassn (V ); dim(W ∩
Vj ) ≥ i} for some indices i, j are Schubert subvarieties and that the Schubert
subvarieties associated to the full flag {Vi }i are precisely the intersections of
subsets of this form.
Note that dim(W ∩ Vj ) ≥ i if and only if the family of vectors obtained by
projecting a fixed basis of Vj onto the orthogonal complement of W has rank
< j − i. In particular this subset of the Grassmannian is a closed algebraic

24

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

subset and hence so are all Schubert subvarieties. Moreover the Schubert
cell e(σ) is Zariski open (and dense) in the Schubert subvariety e(σ).
4.3. Dirichlet’s principle. As before, V and E are real vector spaces of
respective dimensions d and e, and ∆ is a lattice in V . We fix a quasi-norm
| · | on V associated to a full flag 0 = V1 < V2 < . . . < Vd < V and a d-tuple
α1 ≥ · · · ≥ αd > 0 via (4.3), and a local quasi-norm | · |0 on E defined by
(4.4) using a decreasing full flag E > V10 > V20 > . . . Ve0 = 0 and an e-tuple
α10 ≥ · · · ≥ αe0 > 0. To this data are associated the volume exponents
functions ψ : Grass(V ) → R+ and φ : Grass(E) → R+ defined in points 5.
and 6. of the Subsection 4.1.
Recall that the diophantine exponent of a homomorphism x ∈ Hom(V, E)
with respect to these quasi-norms is defined by
β(x) = inf{β > 0 | ∃c > 0 : ∀v ∈ ∆ \ {0}, |xv|0 ≥ c|v|−β }.

(4.7)

A subspace W ≤ V is called ∆-rational if W ∩ ∆ is a lattice in W .
Proposition 4.3.1 (Dirichlet’s principle). For every x ∈ Hom(V, E) and
every ∆-rational subspace W ≤ V ,
ψ(W ∩ ker x)
.
β(x) ≥
φ(xW )
Proof. This is a version of the classical Dirichlet argument using the pigeonhole principle. If Q is a large parameter, the ball of radius Q in W for
the quasi-norm | · | contains roughly (up to multiplicative constants) Qψ(W )
points of ∆, which are mapped to a ball in xW (for the quotient quasinorm on xV ' V / ker x) of volume Qψ(W )−ψ(W ∩ker x) . On the other hand,
the volume of a ball of radius ε for the restriction of | · |0 to xW ≤ E is
comparable to εφ(xW ) . Using the triangle inequality 4. from the previous
subsection, we see that not all ε-balls in xW around the images of Qψ(W )
integer points can be disjoint if εφ(xW ) Qψ(W )  Qψ(W )−ψ(W ∩ker x) . The
proposition follows.

Remark 4.3.2. Anticipating the next sections, we note here that given any
x ∈ Hom(V, E), the maps W 7→ −ψ(W ∩ ker x) and W 7→ φ(xW ) are
both submodular (see §6.1). This is formal from the submodularity of −ψ
and φ. Also they are non-increasing and non-decreasing respectively for set
inclusion. So the hypotheses of the submodularity lemma (Lemma 6.1.2)
are fulfilled.
4.4. Pencils. Given two non-negative numbers a, b, and a subspace W of
V , we define the pencil PW,a,b associated to our choice of quasi-norms on V
and E to be the algebraic subset
PW,a,b = {x ∈ Hom(V, E) | ψ(ker x ∩ W ) ≥ a and φ(xW ) ≤ b},
where ψ (resp. φ) is defined for a subspace W ≤ V (resp. W 0 ≤ E) by
X
X
ψ(W ) =
αi and φ(W 0 ) =
αi0 ,
i∈I(W )

i∈J(W 0 )

where as before
I(W ) = {i ∈ {1, . . . , d} | dim(W ∩ hu1 , . . . , ui i) > dim(W ∩ hu1 , . . . , ui−1 i)}

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

25

and
J(W 0 ) = {i ∈ {1, . . . , e} | dim(W 0 ∩hu0i+1 , . . . , u0e i) < dim(W 0 ∩hu0i , . . . , u0e i)}.
We easily see that pencils are closed algebraic subvarieties of Hom(V, E).
Moreover {ker x ; x ∈ PW,a,b , dim ker x = k} is a Schubert subvariety of
Grassk (V ) (see §4.2).
For an irreducible closed algebraic subset M in Hom(V, E), we define
a
τ (M) = max { ; M ⊂ PW,a,b }
(4.8)
W ≤V b
and
τQ (M) =

a
{ ; M ⊂ PW,a,b }.
W ≤V, ∆-rational b
max

(4.9)

Remark 4.4.1. When all weights αi and αi0 are equal to 1, then ψ and φ are
just the dimension functions. Hence in this case our pencil PW,a,b is just the
pencil PW,r defined in the introduction, with r equal to the integer part of
the minimum of b and dim W − a.
5. Diophantine approximation and flows on the space of
lattices
In this section we prove the results about diophantine approximation
on submanifold of matrices stated in the introduction. We will do so in
the general weighted setting using the quasi-norms defined in the previous
section. More precisely we will show the following results (using the notation
defined in (4.7), (4.8) and (4.9)).
Theorem 5.1 (Exponent for submanifolds of matrices). Let E, V be two
real vectors spaces equipped with quasi-norms and M = Φ(U ) ⊂ Hom(V, E)
a connected analytic submanifold. Then there is βb ∈ [0, +∞] such that for
Lebesgue almost every x ∈ U
b
β(Φ(x)) = β.
Moreover βb depends only on the Zariski closure of M, and
τQ (M) ≤ βb ≤ τ (M).
and
Theorem 5.2 (Rational manifolds). In the setting of the previous theorem,
assume that the Zariski closure of M is defined over Q, then
τQ (M) = βb = τ (M).
In particular βb is a rational number if the αi , αi0 are rational.
The Q-structure on Hom(V, E) used implicitly in the above theorem is
the one induced by the Q-span of the bases of V and E chosen to define the
quasi-norms.
The above statements account for Theorems 1.2, 1.5 and 1.10 from the
introduction. Theorem 1.4 will be proved below as Theorem 5.2.6 (together
with its consequences 5.2.10 and 5.2.11.)

26

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

5.1. The Dani correspondence. We now recall the connection between
diophantine approximation and flows on homogeneous spaces, in particular
the so-called quantitative non-divergence estimate, which originates in the
work of Margulis [Mar75] and Dani [Dan85] and first arose in the groundbreaking work of Kleinbock and Margulis [KM98] on diophantine approximation on manifolds.
A Dani correspondence is a statement which relates a diophantine exponent to the rate of escape of a certain flow on the space of lattices. In this
subsection we present a Dani correspondence for matrices that is valid in the
quasi-norm setting. A similar correspondence was worked out by Kleinbock
and Margulis already in the matrix context in their work on logarithm laws
[KM99, Theorem 8.5].
We keep the notation of the previous subsection and let x ∈ Hom(V, E).
If I(ker x) = {i1 < i2 < · · · < in }, then
0 < Vi1 +1 ∩ ker x < Vi2 +1 ∩ ker x < · · · < Vin +1 ∩ ker x = ker x
is a full flag in ker x. Similarly, if J(xV ) = {i01 < · · · < i0m } ⊂ {1, . . . , e} is
0 ∩ xV ) − 1, then
the set of indices i for which dim(xV ∩ Vi0 ) = dim(Vi−1
ker x < x−1 (xV ∩ Vi00m +1 ) < · · · < x−1 (xV ∩ Vi00 +1 ) < x−1 (xV ∩ Vi00 +1 ) = V
2

1

is a full flag from ker x to V . Concatenating these two flags, we obtain a full
flag in V :
Fx : 0 < Fx(1) < . . . < Fx(d) = V.
(x)

(x)

(i)

(i−1)

We choose an adapted basis {ei }i of V so that ei ∈ Fx \ Fx
, and we
define a d-tuple (a1 , . . . , ad ) of positive numbers by setting
(
(i)
αj if Fx = Vj+1 ∩ ker x for some j ∈ I(ker x)
ai =
(i)
0 ) for some j ∈ J(xV ).
αj0 if Fx = x−1 (xV ∩ Vj+1
(x,β)

Finally given β > 0 we define a one-parameter subgroup {g̃t
}t∈R of
GL(V ) by
(
(x)
e−ai t ei
if i ≤ n,
(x,β) (x)
g̃t
ei =
(x)
βa
t
e i ei
if i > n,
where n = dim ker x. Observe that ai ≥ ai+1 for every i < n and ai ≤ ai+1
for every i > n.
Proposition 5.1.1 (Dani correspondence). For x ∈ Hom(V, E) the diophantine exponent for quasi-norms defined in (4.7) is given by
(x,β)

β(x) = inf{β > 0 | ∃c > 0 : ∀t > 0, ∀v ∈ ∆ \ {0}, kg̃t

vk ≥ c},

where k · k is a fixed Euclidean norm on V .
(x,β)

Proof. We show that given β and x, g̃t
v is uniformly bounded away from
zero when t > 0 and v ∈ ∆\{0} if and only if |xv|0 ·|v|β is uniformly bounded
away from zero for all non-zero v ∈ ∆.
(x)
Note that ker x = hei , i ≤ ni, and that we may restrict attention to
vectors v such that xv is small, for otherwise there is nothing to prove. We
P
P
(x)
(x)
may write v = v 0 + v 00 , where v 0 = i≤n vi ei and v 00 = i>n vi ei and
note, using the triangle inequality 5. of §4.1, that |v| is comparable within

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

27

multiplicative constants to |v 0 | since v 00 can be assumed bounded. So we are
left to check that
max{max |vi e−ai t |, max |vi eβai t |}
i>n

i≤n

is bounded away from zero uniformly in t > 0 and v ∈ ∆ \ {0} if and only if
|xv|0 ·|v|β is bounded away from zero for v in ∆\{0}. This is straightforward
since |xv|0 is comparable to maxi>n |vi |1/ai , while |v| is comparable to |v 0 |
and hence to maxi≤n |vi |1/ai .

For the next subsection, it will be convenient to use a slightly different
(x,β)
(x,β)
flow gt
in place of g̃t
so as to make the dependence on x explicit
while preserving the validity of the Dani correspondence. For this, we fix
(independently of x) bases (ui ) of V and (u0i ) of E that are adapted to the
flags {Vi } and {Vi0 }, so that Vi = hu1 , . . . , ui−1 i and Vi0 = hu0i+1 , . . . , u0e i and
assume x ∈ Hom(V, E) is given as a e × d matrix (xij )i,j in these bases. We
denote by x∗i , 1 ≤ i ≤ e the rows of x, which we view as linear forms on V .
The indices in the set J(xV ) = {i01 < · · · < i0m } are obtained by
i0j = min{i ∈ {1, . . . , e} | rk(x∗1 , . . . , x∗i ) = j}.
By construction, the family of linear forms x∗i0m , . . . , x∗i0 has rank m =
1
dim xV . We obtain the elements i1 < · · · < in of the set I(ker x) in the
following way:
ij = min{i ∈ {1, . . . , d} | rk(u∗1 , . . . , u∗i , x∗i0m , . . . , x∗i0 ) = m + j}.
1

Now, consider the matrix x0 ∈ GLd (R) given in rows by
 ∗ 
ui1
 .. 
 . 
 ∗ 
 uin 
0

x =
x∗i0  .
 m
 .. 
 . 
x∗i0
1

We denote

and define

(β)
by at the diagonal matrix
(β)
at := diag(e−a1 t , . . . , e−an t , eβan+1 t , . . . , eβan+m t ),
(x,β)
gt
by the matrix
(x,β)
(β)
gt
:= at x0 .

(5.1)

(i)

Remark 5.1.2. Note that, with this notation, Fx = x0−1 Vi+1 and our former
(x,β)
(x,β)
(β)
definition g̃t
was simply g̃t
= x0−1 at x0 . The Dani correspondence
(x,β)
(x,β)
(Proposition 5.1.1 above) still holds for g̃t
in place of gt
, because the
(β) 0
(β) 0
0−1
shortest vectors of x at x ∆ and at x ∆ have comparable sizes, up to a
positive multiplicative constant depending on x only and not on t.
(x,β)

With this construction, the map x 7→ gt
is a polynomial map on any
set where I(ker x) and J(xV ) are constant. This last condition is equivalent
to requiring that ker x and xV respectively stay in some a fixed Schubert

28

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

cell of the grassmannians Grass(V ) and Grass(E), defined with respect to
the flags {Vi } and {Vi0 }.
5.2. Quantitative non-divergence. For the remainder of this subsection,
V and E are two filtered real vector spaces endowed with quasi-norms as
introduced in §4.3. In this context, we adapt the strategy introduced by
Kleinbock and Margulis [KM98] to study diophantine approximation on
manifolds. The results presented in this subsection are closely related to
further work of Kleinbock [Kle08b, Kle10a], who proved in particular the
existence of an almost sure exponent and the fact that it is the smallest
exponent.
Let ν be a Borel measure on a metric space X. Given an open set U ⊂ X,
the measure ν is D-doubling (or D-Federer ) on U if every ball B centered
at x ∈ U ∩ Supp(ν) and contained in U satisfies
ν( 13 B) ≥

1
D ν(B),

(5.2)

1
3B

is the ball centered at the center of B whose radius is a third
where
of the radius of B. Given two positive constants C and α, we say that a
real-valued function f on X is (C, α)-good on U with respect to the measure
ν if it satisfies, for any ball B ⊂ U and any ε > 0,

α
ε
ν({x ∈ B ; |f (x)| ≤ ε}) ≤ C
ν(B),
(5.3)
kf kν,B
where kf kν,B = supx∈B∩Supp ν |f (x)|. By convention, we also agree that if f
is identically zero on the support of ν, then it is (C, α)-good with respect to
ν for any values of C and α.
The heart of the Kleinbock-Margulis approach to study diophantine approximation on manifolds is the following key result, which can be seen as a
Remez-type inequality (see [BG73] or [ABRdS15a, Thm 2.7]) for functions
taking values in the space of lattices. It originates in the work of Margulis [Mar71] on non-divergence of unipotent flows, which was later greatly
generalized in work of Dani [Dan85] and Kleinbock-Margulis [KM98]. The
following version is borrowed from [Kle08b] (see also [Kle10b]).
Theorem 5.2.1. [Kle08b, Theorem 2.2] Let X be a Besicovitch metric
space. Let U ⊂ X be an open subset and ν a Radon measure on U which is
D-doubling on U for some D > 0. Let C, α > 0 be positive constants and
h : U → GLd (R) be a continuous map. Let ρ ∈ (0, 1] and let B = B(z, r),
z ∈ Supp(ν), be an open ball such that B(z, 3d r) is contained in U . Assume
that for each v1 , . . . , vk in Zd \ {0}, 1 ≤ k ≤ d,
• the function x 7→ kh(x)wk is (C, α)-good for ν on B(z, 3d r), and
• if w 6= 0, then supy∈B∩Supp(ν) kh(y)wk > ρk ,
where w = v1 ∧ v2 ∧ · · · ∧ vk .
Then for every ε ∈ (0, ρ], we have that
α
ν({x ∈ B; h(x)Zd ∈ Ωε }) ≤ C 0 ρε ν(B),
where C 0 > 0 depends only on D, C, α and the Besicovitch constant of X.
In the above theorem, the letter Ωε denotes the part of the space of
lattices GLd (R)/ GLd (Z) made of lattices in Rd admitting a non-zero vector

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

29

of length at most ε. When one restricts attention to unimodular lattices,
the set Ωε is thought of as “the cusp” of Ω, because as ε → 0 these sets
form a nested sequence of neighborhoods of infinity. This fact is known as
Mahler’s criterion [Rag72, Cor. 10.9].
In fact the theorem is stated only for SLd (R)-valued maps in [Kle08b],
but it is valid as well – with the same proof – for GLd (R)-valued maps. In
older versions of this non-divergence result (such as in [KLW04]) the second
assumption involved a lower bound of the form ρ. Kleinbock’s observation
[Kle08b] that one can relax this assumption to a lower bound ρk is crucial
when one wants to study diophantine exponents of measures that might
not be extremal; it will be essential in the proofs of our formulas for the
exponent.
Recall also that a metric space X is called Besicovitch if there exists
an integer C such that we have the following property: suppose A ⊂ X
and for each a ∈ A we are given a non-empty open ball Ba centered
at a;
S
then there exists a countable subset A0 ⊂ A such that A ⊂ a∈A0 Ba and
any intersection of C distinct balls Ba , a ∈ A0 , is empty. In the definition
(y,β)
below, the flow gt
on GL(V ) is the one constructed at the end of §5.1,
k the set of non-zero pure integral k-vectors, i.e. those
and we denote by W∆
w ∈ ∧k V \ {0} that can be written w = v1 ∧ · · · ∧ vk where each vi is an
element of ∆.
Definition 5.2.2. Let ν be a Radon measure on Hom(V, E) and x ∈
Supp(ν). We will say that the measure ν is locally good at x if there exists
a neighborhood Ux of x and positive constants C, D and α such that
• there exists n ≤ d and a Schubert cell e(σ) ⊂ Grassn (V ) such that
for all y in Ux ∩ Supp ν, ker y belongs to e(σ) (see §4.2).
• there exists m ≤ e and a Schubert cell e(σ 0 ) ⊂ Grassm (E) such that
for all y in Ux ∩ Supp ν, yV belongs to e(σ 0 ) (see §4.2).
• ν is D-doubling on Ux
k , the map y 7→ kg (y,β) wk
• for all t, β > 0, all k ≥ 0 and all w in W∆
t
is (C, α)-good on Ux with respect to ν.
(y,β)

Remark 5.2.3. The first two conditions ensure that the map y 7→ gt
continuous on a neighborhood of x in Supp ν.

is

Remark 5.2.4. The set of points where ν is locally good is an open subset
of Supp(ν).
With the quantitative non-divergence result (Theorem 5.2.1) we can derive the following statement. The argument in the proof is taken from
Kleinbock [Kle10a].
Theorem 5.2.5 (Existence of a local exponent). If a Radon measure ν on
Hom(V, E) is locally good at x, then there is a neighborhood Bx of x such
that for ν-almost every point y ∈ Bx ,
β(y) = inf β(z).
z∈Bx

(5.4)

30

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

If Bx is a neighborhood such that (5.4) holds, we define the local diophantine
exponent of ν at x by
βbν (x) = inf β(z).
z∈Bx

Proof. If Bx is any neighborhood of x, it is trivial that for all y in Bx ,
β(y) ≥ inf z∈Bx β(z). Conversely, assume ν is locally good at x, and let
C, D, α > 0 and Bx = B(x, r) be a ball around x such that the conditions
of Definition 5.2.2 hold on Ux := B(x, 3d r). We claim that for almost every
y in Bx , β(y) ≤ inf z∈Bx β(z). To see this, fix z ∈ Bx and β > β(z), so that,
by Proposition 5.1.1, there exists c > 0 such that
k
,
∀t > 0, ∀k, ∀w ∈ W∆

(z,β)

kgt

wk ≥ c.

Of course, this implies that
(y,β)

k
∀t > 0, ∀k, ∀w ∈ W∆
,

sup kgt

wk ≥ c.

y∈Bx

(y,β)

For η > 0, apply Theorem 5.2.1 with U = Ux , B = Bx , ρ = c, h : y 7→ gt
and ε = e−ηt . For any t > 0 such that e−ηt < c, we find that
(y,β)

ν({y ∈ Bx | gt

∆ ∈ Ωe−ηt }) ≤ C 0

,

e−ηt α
ν(Bx ).
c

Therefore,
X

(y,β)

ν({y ∈ Bx | gt

∆ ∈ Ωe−ηt }) < ∞

t∈N

and, by the Borel-Cantelli lemma and Proposition 5.1.1 again, for almost
every y in Bx , β(y) ≤ β + η. Letting η → 0, β → β(z), and taking the
infimum over z in Bx , we get, for almost every y in Bx ,
β(y) ≤ inf β(z).
z∈Bx


Given a non-negative parameter β, we say that the measure ν satisfies
the condition (Cβ ) at x if the following holds:
k,
∀r > 0, ∃c > 0 : ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , dim V }, ∀t > 0, ∀w ∈ W∆
(y,β)
supy∈B(x,r)∩Supp ν kgt
wk ≥ c.

(Cβ )

It follows from Theorem 5.2.5 and Proposition 5.1.1 that if ν is locally good
at x, then
βbν (x) = inf{β > 0 | ν satisfies (Cβ ) at x}.
(5.5)
We now use this observation to show that the local exponent βbν (x) of a
locally good measure at x is determined by the local Zariski closure at x
of the support of ν. More precisely, fix two bases for V and E, and given
x in Hom(V, E),
consider θ(x) ∈ RN the N -tuple of all minors of x, where


Pe
N = k=1 kd ke = e+d
− 1. For a subset S in Hom(V, E), we define the
d
Plücker closure of S by
H(S) = {x ∈ Hom(V, E) | θ(x) ∈ Span(θ(y) ; y ∈ S)},

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

31

and finally, if ν is a locally good measure at x in Hom(V, E), we let
\
H(B(x, r) ∩ Supp ν)
Hν (x) =

(5.6)

r>0

be the local Plücker closure at x.
Theorem 5.2.6 (Inheritance). Let ν, ν 0 be Radon measures on Hom(V, E),
and assume that ν is locally good at x and ν 0 locally good at x0 . If Hν (x) ⊂
Hν 0 (x0 ), then βbν (x) ≥ βbν 0 (x0 ).
Proof. Let S be a compact subset of Hom(V, E), and assume that for all
x in S, the subspaces ker x and xV belong to some fixed Schubert cells in
Grass(V ) and Grass(E). We will say that S satisfies (Cβ ) if
k,
∃c > 0 : ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , dim V }, ∀t > 0, ∀w ∈ W∆
(y,β)
supy∈S kgt
wk ≥ c.
(y,β)

(Cβ (S))
(y,β)

The expression gt
w is a linear function of the minors of gt
. By (5.1),
it is also a linear function of the minors of y, and therefore, for some constant
C > 0 depending only on S,
(y,β)

sup kgt
y∈S

wk ≤

sup
y∈H(S)∩B

(y,β)

kgt

(y,β)

wk ≤ C · sup kgt

wk,

y∈S

where B is a fixed compact neighborhood of 0 in Hom(V, E) containing S
(note that both expressions on the right-hand side are norms on the finitedimensional space of linear maps between θ(H(S)) and ∧k V ). It follows
that the condition (Cβ (S)) depends only on H(S). To conclude the proof of
the theorem, it suffices to use equality (5.5), and to note that the measure
ν satisfies (Cβ ) at x if and only if (Cβ (B(x, r) ∩ Supp ν)) holds for every
r > 0.

Remark 5.2.7. Note that if S is a subset of Hom(V, E), then H(S) is a
Zariski closed subset containing S, so in particular it contains the Zariski
closure Z(S) of S, i.e. the intersection of all closed real algebraic subsets of
Hom(V, E) containing S. Since by definition H(S) = H(H(S)) we also get
H(S) = H(Z(S)).
Remark 5.2.8 (local Zariski closure). The local Zariski closure of ν at x is
defined to be the intersection of the Zariski closures of B(x, r) ∩ Supp(ν) in
Hom(V, E) for all r > 0. By noetherianity the local Zariski closure (resp. the
local Plücker closure) coincides with the Zariski closure (resp. the Plücker
closure) of B(x, r) ∩ Supp(ν) whenever r is sufficiently small. Observe in
particular that Hν (x) depends only on the local Zariski closure at x.
Hence we obtain the following corollary:
Corollary 5.2.9. Let ν, ν 0 be Radon measures on Hom(V, E), and assume
that ν is locally good at x and ν 0 locally good at x0 . If the local Zariski
closures coincide, then βbν (x) = βbν 0 (x0 ).
As a corollary of this inheritance theorem, we can define the diophantine
exponent of an algebraic subset of Hom(V, E). Here, and throughout the
paper, when speaking of Zariski closure, algebraic subsets and algebraic

32

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

varieties, we will always consider these notions in real algebraic geometry
and we refer the reader to the textbook [BCR98] for definitions and basic
properties. By Lebesgue measure on an algebraic set M we mean the topdimensional Hausdorff measure on the subset M of Hom(V, E).
Corollary 5.2.10 (Exponent of an algebraic subset). Let M be an irreb
ducible algebraic subset in Hom(V, E). There exists β(M)
such that, for
almost every x in M with respect to the Lebesgue measure,
b
β(x) = β(M).
Proof. Let x be a non-singular point on M such that ker x and xV lie in
the interior of the smallest Schubert subvariety (of Grass(V ) and Grass(E)
respectively) containing {ker y ; y ∈ M} and {yV ; y ∈ M}. Since M is
irreducible, by [BCR98, §3.2], this makes a set of full measure in M. Take
an analytic parametrization Φ : U → Hom(V, E) of M in a neighborhood of
x, and let ν be the pushforward under Φ of the Lebesgue measure on U . Note
that ν is equivalent to the Lebesgue measure on M in a neighborhood of x.
Restricting U if necessary, we see using [Kle10a, Proposition 2.1] that there
exist constants (C, α) and a neighborhood Ux of x such that all functions
(y,β)
y 7→ kgt
wk are (C, α)-good on Ux with respect to ν. So ν is locally
good at x, and by Theorem 5.2.5, for ν-almost all y in a neighborhood of
x, β(y) = βbν (x). At a non-singular x as above the local Zariski closure
is M itself ([BCR98, Proposition 3.3.14]). So by Corollary 5.2.9, βbν (x) is
independent of the choice of x. This proves the corollary.

b
b
Remark 5.2.11. We can also conclude that β(M)
= β(H(M)).
Indeed the
local Plücker closure at a random point of M is H(M), and so is the local
Plücker closure at a random point of H(M). We actually believe that more
b
b
is true, namely that β(M)
= β(S(M)),
where S(M) is the Schubert closure
of M, namely the intersection of all pencils containing M.
The pushforward of the Lebesgue measure under an analytic map U →
Hom(V, E), where U is a open domain in RN is locally good at every point,
so we have the following important corollary to Theorem 5.2.5. This result
is due to Kleinbock [Kle10a] in the case where | · | and | · |0 are norms, and
the proof is essentially the same, once the correspondence of §5.1 has been
established.
Corollary 5.2.12 (Exponent of an analytic manifold). Let Φ : U → Hom(V, E)
be an analytic map on a connected open set U ⊂ RN . There exists βb ∈ [0, ∞]
such that, for almost every x in U ,
b
β(Φ(x)) = β.
b
Moreover βb = β(M),
where M is the Zariski closure of {Φ(u) ; u ∈ U }.
Proof. Since Φ is analytic, M is irreducible, and there exists a subset of full
measure U 0 ⊂ U such that, for all x in U 0 , the local Zariski closure at x (i.e.
the intersection of the Zariski closures of all neighborhoods of x) is equal to
M. For such an x the pushforward under Φ of the Lebesgue measure on a
neighborhood of x is locally good at x ([Kle10a, Proposition 2.1]) so that
b
β(Φ(y)) = β(M)
for almost every y in a neighborhood of x.


DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

33

5.3. Pencils and extremality. Given two non-negative numbers a, b and
a subspace W of V , recall that we have defined the pencil PW,a,b associated
to our choice of quasi-norms on V and E to be the set
PW,a,b = {x ∈ Hom(V, E) | ψ(ker x ∩ W ) ≥ a and φ(xW ) ≤ b}.
And the numbers τ (M) and τQ (M) have been defined in (4.8) and (4.9).
Theorem 5.3.1. Let E, V be two real vector spaces equipped with quasinorms and M ≤ Hom(V, E) an irreducible algebraic subset. Then
b
τQ (M) ≤ β(M)
≤ τ (M).
Proof. The left-hand side follows from Dirichlet’s principle proved in Proposition 4.3.1. Let us verify the right-hand side. Let β > τ (M). By Theorem 5.2.5, it suffices to show that β > βbν (x) for every non-singular point
x of M which lies in the interior of the smallest Schubert subvariety containing M. Equivalently, from (5.5), it is enough to check that (Cβ ) holds
(x,β)
(x,β)
at x. Note that we may replace gt
by g̃t
in the definition of (Cβ ),
because x0 remains bounded in a neighborhood of x in M. Clearly then a
(y,β)
sufficient condition for (Cβ ) to hold is that w 7→ supy∈B(x,r)∩M kπ0 (w)k
does not vanish for any r > 0, when w ranges among pure k-vectors of norm
(y,β)
(y,β)
1, and π0
is the projection onto the sum of the eigenspaces of g̃t
with
non-negative eigenvalue with kernel the sum of the other eigenspaces.
Now, if W is the subspace of V associated to the k-vector w, then the
largest eigenvalue occurring in the decomposition of w into eigenvectors of
(y,β)
g̃t
is βφ(yW ) − ψ(ker x ∩ W ). Therefore, if (Cβ ) fails to hold, there exist
r > 0 and a subspace W ≤ V such that B(x, r) ∩ M is entirely contained in
the set
{y ∈ Hom(V, E) | βφ(yW ) − ψ(ker y ∩ W ) < 0},
which is the (finite) union of all pencils PW,a,b such that βb − a < 0. Recall
that neighborhoods of non-singular points are Zariski-dense in M [BCR98,
Proposition 3.3.14]. From the irreducibility of M it follows that M is entirely contained in a single pencil PW,a,b for a pair a, b with βb − a < 0,
which is contrary to our assumption that β > τ (ν).

Proof of Theorem 5.1. Combine Corollary 5.2.12 with Theorem 5.3.1.



6. The submodularity lemma
In view of Theorem 5.3.1, the following question is natural: Under what
condition on the irreducible algebraic subset M ⊂ Hom(V, E) is the maximum defining τ (M) in (4.8) attained on a ∆-rational subspace W ? We will
show here that a sufficient condition is that M be defined over the rationals. This is the content of Theorem 6.2.1. The method will also show that
if M is invariant under some group G of linear automorphisms, then τ (M)
is attained on a G-invariant subspace W . This observation will be essential
for the application to nilpotent Lie groups developed in Section 7.

34

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

6.1. Statement and proof of the submodularity lemma. Let V be a
d-dimensional vector space (over some field). Let φ and ψ be two real-valued
functions on the Grassmannian of V , with the following properties:
(1) φ ≥ 0, φ(0) = 0.
(2) φ and ψ are non-decreasing for set inclusion.
(3) φ and −ψ are submodular, i.e. for any two vector subspaces U and
W we have
φ(U + W ) + φ(U ∩ W ) ≤ φ(U ) + φ(W ),
ψ(U + W ) + ψ(U ∩ W ) ≥ ψ(U ) + ψ(W ).
We let
ψ(x)
φ(x)
with the convention that q(x) = 0 if ψ(x) = 0 and q(x) = sign(ψ(x))∞ if
φ(x) = 0 but ψ(x) 6= 0. We are interested in the supremum S of q on the
entire Grassmannian. Note that S ∈ R ∪ {±∞}.
q(x) =

Lemma 6.1.1 (Submodularity lemma). The supremum
S=

sup

q(x)

x∈Grass(V )

is attained, and there is a unique subspace x0 of maximal dimension such
that
S = q(x0 ).
Proof. We perform a preliminary reduction: we are going to reduce to the
case where φ(x) > 0 when x 6= 0 and S > q(0). For this we make the
following initial observation. Let W be the sum of all subspaces x such that
φ(x) = 0. Then φ(W ) = 0. Indeed, using that φ is non-decreasing and
submodular, if φ(x) = φ(y) = 0, then 0 ≤ φ(x ∩ y) ≤ φ(x) = 0, so that
φ(x ∩ y) = 0, while 0 ≤ φ(x + y) ≤ φ(x) + φ(y) = 0, so φ(x + y) = 0.
It follows that for every x ∈ Grass(V ), φ(x + W ) = φ(x). Indeed φ(x) ≤
φ(x+W ) ≤ φ(x)+φ(W ) = φ(x). Also ψ(x+W ) ≥ ψ(x). So q(x+W ) ≥ q(x).
In particular S = supx⊃W q(x). We may thus restrict φ and ψ to those
subspaces of V that contain W . This gives rise to new functions φ0 and ψ 0
on the quotient space V /W , which clearly satisfy the same properties.
So we have reduced the proof to the case where W = 0, i.e. φ(x) > 0
unless x = 0. If ψ(0) > 0, then q(0) = +∞, while q(x) < +∞ if x 6= 0, so
the conclusion of the lemma holds with x0 = 0. Therefore we may assume
that ψ(0) ≤ 0. This implies that q(0) < S, provided ψ is not identically
zero. Indeed, if ψ(0) < 0, then q(0) = −∞, while q(x) > −∞ if x 6= 0, so
S > q(0). While if ψ(0) = 0, then q(0) = 0, while S > 0 provided ψ is not
identically zero. If ψ is identically zero, the conclusion of the lemma holds
with x0 = V .
So we have proved our initial claim and we thus assume without loss of
generality that ψ is not identically zero, that q(0) < S, and that φ(x) > 0
if x 6= 0. This enables us to assert that S = S1 , where we have denoted, for
k = 1, . . . , d,
Sk = sup{q(x); dim x ≥ k}.

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

35

Let k0 be the maximal k ≥ 1 such that Sk = S. If k0 = d, then S = q(V )
and the conclusion of the lemma holds with x0 = V . If not we have Sk0 +1 <
S.
Pick ε > 0 such that S − Sk0 +1 > 2ε, and pick x0 ∈ Grass(V ) such that
dim(x0 ) ≥ k0 and q(x0 ) > S − ε. Note that dim(x0 ) = k0 , for otherwise
dim(x0 ) ≥ k0 + 1 and thus q(x0 ) ≤ Sk0 +1 < S − 2ε < S − ε, a contradiction
to our choice of x0 .
Now let y0 be another choice of subspace such that dim(y0 ) ≥ k0 and
q(y0 ) > S − ε. For the same reason dim(y0 ) = k0 = dim(x0 ). But
ψ(x0 + y0 ) ≥ ψ(x0 ) + ψ(y0 ) − ψ(x0 ∩ y0 )
≥ (S − ε)(φ(x0 ) + φ(y0 )) − Sφ(x0 ∩ y0 )
≥ S(φ(x0 ) + φ(y0 ) − φ(x0 ∩ y0 )) − ε(φ(x0 ) + φ(y0 ))
≥ Sφ(x0 + y0 ) − ε(φ(x0 ) + φ(y0 ))
≥ Sφ(x0 + y0 ) − 2ε(φ(x0 + y0 )) = (S − 2ε)φ(x0 + y0 )
where we have used submodularity of −ψ in the first line, positivity of φ in
the second line, submodularity of φ in the fourth line and monotonicity of
φ in the last line. Hence:
q(x0 + y0 ) ≥ S − 2ε > Sk0 +1 .
Therefore dim(x0 + y0 ) ≤ k0 . This means that x0 = y0 . Hence we have
proved that q(x) > S − ε and dim(x) ≥ k0 implies that x is unique. In
particular S = q(x0 ), and the lemma follows.

Corollary 6.1.2. Let G be a group acting on the Grassmannian, and assume that the action preserves dimension. If φ and ψ are invariant under
G, then the supremum S is attained on a G-invariant subspace.
Proof. Indeed x0 and gx0 will have the same dimension and will both achieve
the supremum S, so by uniqueness x0 = gx0 , for every g ∈ G.

Remark 6.1.3. The proof works verbatim more generally for functions defined on a graded lattice of finite length, in place of Grass(V ), i.e. a partially
ordered set with a smallest element (0) and a largest element (V) such that
every pair of elements admits unique lower and upper bounds, and which is
equipped with an integer-valued rank function r(x), which is ≥ 0 and takes
only finitely many values and is such that if x < y and there is no z with
x < z < y, then r(y) = r(x) + 1.
6.2. Applications of the submodularity lemma. We go back to the
setting of Section 4. Thus, V and E are finite-dimensional real vector spaces,
endowed with quasi-norms | · | and | · |0 with associated flags {Vi } and {Vi0 }.
The lattice ∆ ≤ V induces a Q-structure on V . Recall that by a Q-structure
we mean a Q-vector subspace which generates the ambient space over R and
whose dimension over Q is the dimension over R of the ambient space. Let
us assume that the flag {Vj } is made of ∆-rational subspaces, and endow E
with a Q-structure for which each Vj0 is rational. This endows Hom(V, E)
with a natural Q-structure.

36

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

Theorem 6.2.1 (Exponent of a rational algebraic subset). Assume that the
irreducible algebraic subset M ≤ Hom(V, E) is defined over Q. Then
a
b
β(M)
= τ (M) = τQ (M) =
max
{ ; M ⊂ PW,a,b }.
W ⊂V, ∆-rational b
Proof. From Theorem 5.3.1, it is enough to show that τ (M) = τQ (M). By
definition
ψM (W )
ψM (W )
τ (M) = max
and τQ (M) =
max
. (6.1)
W ≤V φM (W )
W ≤V,W ∆-rational φM (W )
where
ψM (W ) = min ψ(W ∩ ker x)
x∈M

and φM (W ) = max φ(xW ).
x∈M

(6.2)

These functions are defined a priori on the real grassmannian Grass(V ),
but they also make sense on the grassmannian of the complexified space
V C , where x is now viewed as a linear map from V C to E C , and the flags
{Vj } and {Vi0 } are also complexified. The Galois group Gal(C|Q) acts on
Grass(V C ) and preserves ψM and φM , because M is defined over Q as well as
the flags {Vj } and {Vi0 }. The functions ψM and φM are both non-decreasing
and non-negative functions. Moreover −ψM and φM are submodular. This
follows from the submodularity of W 7→ −ψ(W ∩ ker x) and W 7→ φ(xW )
for a given x proved in Subsection 4.1, from the irreducibility of M and
from the fact that for each W there is a Zariski-open set of x in M such
that ψM (W ) = ψ(W ∩ ker x) (resp. φM (W ) = φ(xW )). We may thus apply
the submodularity lemma (Lemma 6.1.2) and conclude that the maximum
in the definition of τ (M) is attained for a rational W .

This completes the proof of Theorem 5.2. A different application of the
submodularity lemma will be given in Section 7, in the proof of Theorem 1.13
from the introduction.
For now, we just give another simple example where the submodularity
lemma applies, and allows to compute the diophantine exponent of an algebraic subset of matrices. For the example below, and until the end of this
section, we shall only consider diophantine approximation for genuine norms
on V and E.
Example 6.2.2 (The Veronese curve in algebras). Consider the Veronese
curve V in Rn given by the parametrization x 7→ (x, . . . , xn ). The Mahler
conjecture proved by Sprindz̆uk says that the curve V is extremal, or in
other words, that for almost every x ∈ R, for all ε > 0, the inequality
|v0 + v1 x + · · · + vn xn | ≥ kvk−(β+ε)
Zn+1 ,

(6.3)

has only finitely many integer solutions v ∈
where here β = n.
We can consider the analogous problem, where R is replaced by an arbitrary finite-dimensional R-algebra E with unit (e.g. E = Mm (R)). Given
x ∈ E, we may consider integer linear combinations of 1, x, . . . , xn . We may
then ask for the minimal β > 0 such that for almost every x ∈ E and for
every ε > 0, the inequality (6.3) (with a norm in place of the absolute value
on the left-hand side) has at most finitely many integer solutions v ∈ Zn+1 .
To fit this problem into our setting, we let V = Rn [X] the space of
polynomials of degree at most n and ∆ the lattice of polynomials with integer

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

37

coefficients. Consider the submanifold M of Hom(V, E) that consists of the
evaluations maps P 7→ P (x) for x ∈ E. It is defined over Q, so, by Theorem
6.2.1, its exponent, which is exactly the β we are looking for, is equal to


ψ(W )
τ (M) = max
;W ≤V ,
φ(W )
where
φ(W ) = max dim W (x)
x∈E

and ψ(W ) = min dim W − dim W (x).
x∈E

Here W (x) ≤ E denotes the image of W under the evaluation map P 7→
P (x). Now, let G be the group of affine transformations of the real line
and let it act on V by substitution of the variable. The maps φ and −ψ
are submodular and G-invariant, so by Lemma 6.1.2, τ achieves its value on
one of the G-invariant subspaces, which are exactly the subspaces Vi ≤ V ,
i = 0, . . . , n of polynomials of degree at most i. Let m be the maximal
dimension of one-generator subalgebras R[x] ≤ E, for x ∈ E. Evaluating
Vi at an x with minimal polynomial of degree m, we see that, for i < m,
φ(Vi ) = i + 1 and ψ(Vi ) = 0. On the other hand, we always have φ(W ) ≤ m
and ψ(W ) ≥ dim W − m, so we find

ψ(Vi )
0
if i < m
=
i+1−m
if i ≥ m.
φ(Vi )
m
This shows that the desired diophantine exponent β is equal to max{0, n+1−m
}.
m
Example 6.2.3 (Weak non-planarity and extremality). Consider the unweighted case (i.e. αi = αi0 = 1). A submanifold M ⊂ Hom(V, E) is
called weakly non-planar if it is not contained in any proper pencil PW,r (
Hom(V, E). This notion was introduced, using slightly different words, by
Beresnevich, Kleinbock and Margulis [BKM15] who showed that every locally good weakly non-planar measure on Hom(V, E) is extremal. The converse however does not hold, and we now provide an example.
Let k ≥ 4 be an integer and X = (R3 )k . Consider the finite-dimensional
space V of polynomial maps f from X to E = R3 given by
X
f (u1 , . . . , uk ) =
aij ui ∧ uj
1≤i<j≤k

where ∧ is the usual wedge product in R3 and aij ∈ R. Let M be the Zariski
closure in Hom(V, E) of the image of X by the map Φ : x 7→ (f 7→ f (x)).
Let W be the subspace of V generated by the u1 ∧ uj , j = 2, . . . , k.
For any x = (u1 , . . . , uk ) with u1 6= 0, the space W (x) is included in the
orthogonal of u1 and hence has dimension at most 2. Therefore, M ⊂ PW,2
is not weakly non-planar.
However, it is easy to see that GLk (R) acts irreducibly on V by substitution of the variables. By the submodularity lemma we conclude that V
is the unique subspace realizing the maximum in τ (M). Therefore M is
not contained in any constraining pencil and thus M must be extremal by
Corollary 1.6.
Example 6.2.4 (A criterion of Kleinbock-Margulis-Wang). Here we recover
by means of Corollary 1.6 a criterion due to Kleinbock, Margulis and Wang

38

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

[KMW10, Theorem 7.1(b)] for the extremality of measures on two-by-two
matrices. Following their terminology, we say that an algebraic subset M ⊂
M2,2 (R) is row-nonplanar if for all non-zero v ∈ R2 , the map M 7→ M v is
not constant on M.
Theorem 6.2.5. [KMW10, Theorem 7.1 (b)] Let M be an algebraic subset
in M2,2 (R) and assume that both M and its image t M under the transpose
map are row-nonplanar. Then the submanifold
f = {(I2 |M ) ; M ∈ M} ⊂ M2,4 (R)
M
is extremal.
Proof. Corollary 1.6, all we have to do is to check that for all non-zero
f such that dim x(W ) ≥
subspace W < V = R4 , there exists a point x ∈ M
dim W
2 . We study all possible values for dim W . Suppose first dim W = 1, 2.
f such that x(W ) is nonSince M is row-nonplanar, there exists x ∈ M
dim W
zero, which implies dim x(W ) ≥ 1 ≥ 2 . Now if dim W = 3, denote by
v1 , . . . , v4 the coordinates in V , and suppose first that W is given by an
equation v1 = λ2 v2 + λ3 v3 + λ4 v4 . The matrix of the restriction of (I2 |M )
to W is given in some basis by


λ2 a + λ3 b + λ4
,
1
c
d


a b
where M =
. We have to show that all three columns are not always
c d
proportional. The minors corresponding to the pairs of columns (1, 2) and
(1, 3) are d12 = cλ2 − a − λ3 and d13 = dλ2 − b − λ4 , i.e.
  
   
d12
a c
−1
λ3
=
−
.
d13
b d
λ2
λ4
Since the image of M under the transposition is row-nonplanar, d12 and
f with
d13 cannot both vanish identically on M, so that there exists x ∈ M
dim x(W ) = 2. The remaining cases, where W is defined by v2 = λ3 v3 +λ4 v4 ,
v3 = λ4 v4 or v4 = 0 are treated similarly.

Example 6.2.6 (Every submanifold is extremal for a random lattice). The
upper bound in Theorem 1.5 can be strict. Of course, if the maximum
in τ (M) is attained on a ∆-rational subspace, then this upper bound is
b
the true value of β(M),
but otherwise it may not be, and we give here a
family of examples illustrating this fact. Note that the definition of τ (M)
is independent of the lattice ∆, whereas it is likely that varying the lattice
b
will change the value of β(M).
We prove:
Proposition 6.2.7 (Random lattice). Let M be an irreducible algebraic
set in Hom(V, E), and denote by m the maximal rank of an element of M.
Suppose we pick the lattice ∆ < V at random according to Haar measure
V −m
b
with
on the space of (say unimodular) lattices in V . Then β(M)
= dim m
respect to almost every lattice ∆.
Proof. Let β∆ (x) be the number defined in (4.7). Fix a lattice ∆0 in V
once and for all. By Fubini’s theorem, it is enough to prove that for almost

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

39

V −m
every x ∈ M, βg∆0 (x) = dim m
for almost every g ∈ SL(V ). Indeed, the
V −m
set of pairs (x, g) ∈ M × SL(V ), for which βg∆0 (x) = dim m
is a Borel
set and Fubini’s theorem applied to the product measure ν ⊗ dg, where dg
is a Haar measure on SL(V ) then implies that for almost every ∆ we have
V −m
β∆ (x) = dim m
for almost every x ∈ M.
Fix x ∈ M such that rk x = m (this happens for x in a Zariski dense open
subset of M and hence for almost every x in M.) Consider the map from
SL(V ) to Hom(V, E) given by φx : g 7→ xg −1 . The pushforward νx of the
Haar measure on a neighborhood U of some g0 by the map φx is locally good.
Let Mx be the Zariski closure of the support of νx . It contains all points of
the form xg −1 , g ∈ SL(V ). Now suppose W is a subspace of V . Since rk x =
m, we may choose g ∈ SL(V ) such that dim(xg −1 )(W ) = min{m, dim W }.
V
This shows that τ (Mx ) = dim
m . Moreover, equality is attained for W = V ,
which is ∆0 -rational, so Theorem 5.2 shows that for almost every y in Mx ,
V −m
β∆0 (y) = dim m
. In particular, for almost every g in U ,

βg∆0 (x) = β∆0 (xg −1 ) =

dim V − m
.
m


Remark 6.2.8. The above proposition implies that for almost every W in
the Grassmannian of k-planes in V , the pencil PW,r is extremal, even if
V
dim W
> dim
r
dim E , provided it contains a matrix of maximal rank (i.e. provided
dim W − r ≤ dim V − dim E). Indeed, βbg∆0 (PW,r ) = βb∆0 (PgW,r ).
7. The critical exponent for rational nilpotent Lie groups
In this section we shall prove Theorems 1.12 and 1.13. Our method is
based on the results of the previous sections regarding diophantine approximation on submanifolds of matrices.
Let G denote an arbitrary simply connected nilpotent real Lie group,
with Lie algebra g of nilpotency class s. We endow G with a left-invariant
geodesic metric d(·, ·). It is well known [Ber88] that these are exactly the
left-invariant Carnot-Carathéodory-Finsler metrics on G. These metrics are
obtained by the same construction as the left-invariant Riemannian metrics
on G, except that instead of a Euclidean norm on g, we start with an
arbitrary norm on a generating subspace V 1 of g. Denoting inductively,
for i ≥ 1, V i+1 = V i + [V 1 , V i ], every Carnot-Carathéodory-Finsler metric
on G associated to V 1 is comparable near the identity (up to multiplicative
constants) to
1

d(exp(X), 1) ' |X|0 := max dist(X, V i−1 ) i ,
i=1,...,s

(7.1)

where V 0 = 0 by convention, dist is some fixed Euclidean distance on the
Lie algebra, s is the nilpotency class of g and X ∈ g lies in a neighborhood
of the origin. Hence the function X 7→ d(exp(X), 1) is a local quasi-norm
(see Definition 4.1).
7.1. Growth of a generic subgroup and group of words maps. Let
k ≥ 1 and a k-tuple g = (g1 , . . . , gk ) of elements of G. Recall that the

40

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

subgroup Γg generated by g is β-diophantine if there exists c > 0 such that,
for every integer n,
min d(x, 1) ≥ c · |S n |−β ,
x∈S n \{1}
{1, g1±1 , . . . , gk± } and

where S =
S n is the set of elements that can be obtained as a word of length n in the elements of S. This definition involves
the volume Vg (n) = |S n | of the ball of radius n in the subgroup generated
by S = {1, g1±1 , . . . , gk±1 }.
It turns out [ABRdS15a, Lemma 2.5] that for a generic k-tuple g (generic
with respect to Haar measure on Gk ) the isomorphism class of the subgroup
Γg = hSi is always the same. It is isomorphic to the group of word maps on
k letters Fk,G of G, introduced in [ABRdS15a]. We briefly recall this notion.
Any element w in the free group Fk on k letters x1 , . . . , xk determines a word
map wG : Gk → G given by replacing each letter xi by an element of G. The
group Fk,G is defined to be the set of all such word maps, with composition
0 = (ww 0 ) , where ww 0 denotes the product of w and w 0
law given by wG wG
G
in Fk . It can also be viewed as the relatively free group in the variety of
k-generated subgroups of G.
Since Fk,G is a fixed nilpotent group, the Bass-Guivarc’h formula [Bas72,
Gui73] tells us that, up to multiplicative constants, for a generic k-tuple g
in G,
Vg (n) ' nηG (k)
(7.2)
where ηG (k) is a positive integer that can be expressed in terms of the ranks
of the successive quotients of the central descending series of Fk,G , see (7.7)
below.
Now, given a k-tuple g of elements of G, we can define another diophantine
exponent, denoted α(g), as follows. It is the infimum of all α > 0 such that
for all but finitely many ω ∈ Fk,G we have:
d(ω(g), 1) ≥ `(ω)−α ,

(7.3)

where `(ω) is the length of an element ω ∈ Fk,G , i.e. the minimal length of
a word w such that wG = ω. Recall that the diophantine exponent of the
subgroup Γg was defined in Section 2 by
β(Γg ) = inf{β > 0 | Γg is β-diophantine}.
It follows from the above observations about Vg (n) that, for almost every
k-tuple g in G,
α(g) = ηG (k)β(Γg ).
(7.4)
7.2. From words to Lie brackets. In this subsection, we describe the
correspondence between words on G and laws on its Lie algebra g.
We first define the Lie algebra Fk,g of bracket maps on k letters on g. Let
Fk be the free Lie algebra on k generators. Each element r in Fk yields a
map
r:
gk
→
g
(X1 , . . . , Xk ) 7→ r(X1 , . . . , Xk )
where r(X1 , . . . , Xk ) is the evaluation of the formal bracket r at the point
(X1 , . . . , Xk ) in gk . By definition, the Lie algebra Fk,g consists of all maps
from gk to g obtained in the above manner. It is naturally isomorphic to

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

41

the quotient Lie algebra Fk /Lk,g where Lk,g is the ideal of laws on k letters
on the Lie algebra g. Recall that a law on k letters is an element r ∈ Fk
such that r(X1 , . . . , Xk ) = 0 for all X1 , . . . , Xk in g.
Note that the free Lie algebra Fk has a natural Q-structure induced by
the subring Fk (Z) of integer linear combinations of brackets monomials. We
can thus consider the ideal of rational laws Lk,g,Q , which is the real span
of the intersection of Lk,g with Fk (Z). It thus inherits a rational structure,
which induces a rational structure on the quotient space Fk,g,Q = Fk /Lk,g,Q .
We will say that r is an element of Fk,g,Q (Z) if it is the projection on Fk,g,Q
of an element of Fk (Z).
Remark 7.2.1. Certainly if g itself is defined over the rationals, then so is
Lk,g , but the converse does not hold. For example, it followed from the
analysis made in [ABRdS15a, Appendix A] that the ideal of laws is always
defined over Q if g is a nilpotent Lie algebra of step at most 5, or if g is both
nilpotent and metabelian.
The Lie algebra Fk,g Q has a graded structure
Fk,g,Q =

s
M

[i]

Fk,g,Q ,

i=1
[i]

where Fk,g,Q is the homogeneous part of Fk,g,Q consisting of brackets of
P
[i]
degree i. For r = ri with ri ∈ Fk,g,Q , we let
1

|r| = max kri k i ,
i=1,...,s

(7.5)

where k · k is a fixed norm on Fk,g,Q .
Lemma 7.2.2. Let g be a real nilpotent Lie algebra and G the simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra g. There are positive integers C, D such
that
• If ω ∈ Fk,G , then there exists r ∈ Fk,g,Q (Z) with |r| ≤ D`(ω) such
1
that for all X1 , . . . , Xk in g, ω(eX1 , . . . , eXk ) = e C r(X1 ,...,Xk ) .
• If r ∈ Fk,g,Q (Z), then there exists ω ∈ Fk,G with `(ω) ≤ D|r| and for
all X1 , . . . , Xk in g, eCr(X1 ,...,Xk ) = ω(eX1 , . . . , eXk ).
Proof. This was proved in [ABRdS15a, Lemma 3.5] for the free Lie algebra
Fk and the free group Fk . The relative version stated here follows without
[i]
[i]
difficulty, using that Fk,g,Q = Fk /Lk,g,Q = ⊕i Fk /Lk,g,Q .

Recall that |X|0 denotes the local quasi-norm on g defined in (7.1). The
above lemma has the following immediate consequence.
Proposition 7.2.3. Let G be a simply connected nilpotent Lie group, with
Lie algebra g. Let g = (eX1 , . . . , eXk ) be a k-tuple in G. The exponent α(g)
defined in (7.3) is also the infimum of all α > 0 such that
|r(X1 , . . . , Xk )|0 ≥ |r|−α
holds for all but finitely many r ∈ Fk,g,Q (Z).

(7.6)

42

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

It also follows from Lemma 7.2.2 that the group of word maps Fk,G is included as a lattice in the simply connected rational nilpotent Lie group whose
Lie algebra is Fk,g,Q [ABRdS15a, Proposition 3.9]. The Bass-Guivarc’h formula for the growth exponent of Fk,G from (7.2) now reads:
ηG (k) =

s
X

[i]

i dim Fk,g,Q .

(7.7)

i=1
[i]

Each Fk,g,Q is a module for the action of GLk under linear substitution. We
[i]

will see below that, as a consequence, dim Fk,g,Q is a degree i polynomial in
k with rational coefficients, when k is large enough. It follows that, for k
large, ηG (k) is given by a degree s polynomial in k. Therefore, in view of
(7.4), we now focus on computing α(g) for a random tuple g.
7.3. Existence of the exponent. We now use the results of Section 5 to
study the diophantine problem described by (7.6), and prove Theorem 1.12
from the introduction, which we recall here:
Theorem 7.3.1 (Existence of the exponent). Let G be a connected and simply connected nilpotent real Lie group endowed with a left-invariant geodesic
metric d. For each k ≥ 1, there is βbk ∈ [0, +∞] such that for almost every
k-tuple g ∈ Gk with respect to Haar measure, we have
β(Γg ) = βbk .
Proof. We set E = g, V = Fk,g,Q , ∆ = Fk,g,Q (Z) and we define the local
quasi-norm |X|0 on E = g by (7.1) and the quasi-norm |r| on V by (7.5).
We let U = gk and
Φ :U → Hom(V, E)
g 7→ (Φ(g) : r 7→ r(g)).
Now we are in the setting of Corollary 5.2.12 from Section 5 and hence α(g)
is almost everywhere constant. In view of (7.4) this shows that β(g) is also
well-defined and constant almost everywhere.

We denote by α
bk the almost sure value of α(g) for g ∈ gk . Hence (7.4)
becomes:
α
bk = ηG (k)βbk .
(7.8)
If we assume moreover that G and the geodesic metric are rational, we may
even conclude that αk is rational. We define a rational nilpotent Lie group
as a nilpotent Lie group G with Lie algebra g endowed with a rational
structure induced by a basis B with rational structure constants. A leftinvariant geodesic metric on a rational nilpotent Lie group G is said to be
rational if the associated subspaces V i – defined at the beginning of this
section – are rational. For this, it is enough to require that V 1 is rational.
Theorem 7.3.2 (Rationality of the exponent). Let G be a connected and
simply connected rational nilpotent real Lie group, and d(·, ·) a rational leftinvariant geodesic metric on G. Then, for all k ≥ 1,
βbk ∈ Q.

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

43

Proof. We use the notation of the previous proof. If g is rational, then the
Zariski closure M of Φ(U ) is defined over Q. Indeed, complexifying E, V
and Φ we see that σ(Φ(g)) = Φ(σ(g)), for all σ ∈ Gal(C|Q). Therefore,
Theorem 6.2.1 applies and we get that α
bk = τQ (M). Now note that the
exponents αi and αi0 defining our quasi-norms are integers. As a result, the
functions ψ and φ are integer-valued, and thus α
bk ∈ Q.

7.4. The relatively free Lie algebra as a GLk -module. In order to
prove the second part of Theorem 1.13, we need some understanding of the
GLk -submodules of Fk,g,Q . The action of the linear group GLk on the free
Lie algebra Fk on k letters is by substitution of the variables. It turns out
[i]
that the decomposition of each homogeneous component Fk into simple
GLk -modules is representation stable in the sense of Church, Ellenberg and
Farb, see [CF13, Corollary 5.7]. This can be made more precise as follows.
We set
Fk≤s

=

s
M

[i]

Fk

1

the subspace of the free Lie algebra on k letters spanned by brackets of order
at most s.
Proposition 7.4.1. Let k ≥ s. The forgetful map
Fs : Fk≤s → Fs≤s
r(x1 , . . . , xk ) 7→ r(x1 , . . . , xs , 0, . . . , 0)
establishes a bijective correspondence between GLk -submodules of Fk≤s and
GLs -submodules of Fs≤s . Moreover, if W ≤ Fk≤s is a GLk -submodule with
the following decomposition into irreducible submodules
M
W =
E λ (k)nλ ,
(7.9)
λ

then Fs (W ) decomposes, with the same multiplicities, as
M
Fs (W ) =
E λ (s)nλ ,
λ

where E λ (k) is the irreducible representation of GLk with Young diagram λ.
Remark 7.4.2. The Young diagrams appearing in either decomposition have
at most s boxes. Furthermore Fs sends Lk,g to Ls,g and Lk,g,Q to Ls,g,Q , if g
is any Lie algebra of nilpotency class s. In particular, as k grows, Fk,g,Q has
only boundedly many irreducible GLk -submodules counting multiplicity in
its decomposition, all obtained by the above process from the decomposition
of Fs,g,Q into irreducible GLs -submodules.
Proof. Note that elements of Fk≤s are linear combinations of brackets having at most s letters, and that Fk≤s decomposes into weight spaces for the
diagonal action
(t1 , . . . , tk ) · c(x1 , . . . , xk ) = c(t1 x1 , . . . , tk xk ).

44

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ
(s)

If W ≤ Fk is an irreducible GLk -module, then it is generated by a highest
weight vector, whose weight λ is of the form (n1 , . . . , nk ) with ni = 0 if
i > s. The corresponding GLs -submodule Fs (W ) is generated by the same
highest weight vector. It is therefore an irreducible GLs -module with the
same Young diagram. The result follows.

Given a Young diagram λ, by the Weyl dimension formula, the dimension
dλ (k) of the irreducible GLk -module associated to λ is:
Y λi − λj + j − i
dλ (k) =
.
j−i
1≤i<j≤k

In particular, if i is the total number of boxes of λ, then dλ (k) is a degree
i polynomial in k with rational coefficients. The number of boxes of E λ ≤
Fk≤s is the number of letters appearing in the brackets of the associated
submodule of Fk≤s . In particular, we obtain:
[i]

Corollary 7.4.3. For i = 1, . . . , s, the map k 7→ dim Fk,g,Q is a polynomial
in k of degree i with rational coefficients, provided k ≥ s. From (7.7) the
same holds for the growth exponent ηG (k). More generally, there is a finite
family F of rational polynomials of degree at most s such that for k ≥ s, if
W is any GLk -submodule in Fk,g,Q then dim W = P (k) for some P ∈ F .
7.5. Stability of the exponent. We now prove the second part of Theorem 1.13 from the introduction, which we recall here, for convenience.
Theorem 7.5.1 (Stability of the exponent). Let G be a connected and
simply connected rational nilpotent real Lie group, and d(·, ·) a rational leftinvariant geodesic metric on G. There exists a rational function Fg ∈ Q(X)
with rational coefficients such that, for k large enough,
βbk = Fg (k).
Proof. We already know from Corollary 7.4.3 that, for k ≥ s, ηG (k) is given
by a degree s polynomial in k with rational coefficients. So in view of (7.8),
we need only prove that α
bk is given by a rational function, for large k. We
saw in §7.3 that α
bk = τQ (M), where τQ (M) is given by (4.9) and takes the
form (6.1) of the ratio of submodular functions, −ψM and φM defined on
the grassmannian Grass(V ), where V = Fk,g,Q .
The group GLk acts by linear substitution on V and it preserves the flag
of subspaces
[j]

Vi = ⊕j≥i Fk,g,Q

(7.10)

defining the quasi-norm |r| in (7.5), so the function ψ is GLk -invariant.
Noting that gW ∩ ker Φ(u) = g(W ∩ ker Φ(g −1 u)) for any g ∈ GLk , u ∈ gk
and W ≤ V , we conclude that ψM is GLk -invariant. Similarly φM is GLk invariant. We can therefore apply the submodularity Lemma 6.1.2, and
conclude that there is a GLk -invariant ∆-rational subspace W ≤ V such
that
ψM (W )
α
bk =
.
(7.11)
φM (W )

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

45

Combining (7.5) with (4.5) and (7.1) with (4.6) we obtain ψM and φM
explicitly in the form:
X

ψM (W ) =
dim(W ∩ Vi ) − dim((W ∩ Vi )(x))
(7.12)
i=1,...,s

φM (W ) =

X

dim πi (W (x))

(7.13)

i=0,...,s−1

for all x ∈ gk in a Zariski open subset, where πi : g → g/V i . Recall that
Vi ≤ V = Fk,g,Q is defined in (7.10) above, and V i ≤ g at the beginning of
this section; also note that this notation is not perfectly coherent with the
notation in Section 5, where {Vi } and {Vi0 } are full flags.
According to Proposition 7.4.1 and Corollary 7.4.3 the dimension of GLk invariant subspaces of V = Fk,g,Q can achieve only boundedly many values,
each given by a polynomial in k with rational coefficients and degree at
most s. It then follows from the special form (4.5) taken by ψ that ψM can
only take boundedly many values, each of which is one of boundedly many
polynomials in k of degree at most s and with rational coefficients. We
conclude that the same holds for α
bk , since φ is integer valued and bounded
in terms of dim g only. When k is large enough (larger than a constant
depending only on the size of the coefficients of these polynomials, hence
only on dim g), this maximum will be achieved by a single polynomial with
rational coefficients and of degree at most s. In fact the degree will be
exactly s, because of the Dirichlet lower bound and the fact that already
[s]
M (W )
with W = Fk,g,Q , the function k 7→ ψφM
(W ) is a degree s polynomial. This
completes the proof.

Now that we have finished proving Theorem 1.13, we briefly explain how
to derive Corollary 1.14.
Proof of Corollary 1.14. The existence of the limit follows immediately from
the theorem. To prove the upper bound, note that φ takes integer values, while ψ is bounded above by s dim Fk,g,Q , as follows from (4.5). However, according to the Bass-Guivarc’h formula (7.7), ηG (k) is asymptotic to
s dim Fk,g,Q . This shows the upper bound. For the lower bound, note that
[s]
τQ (M) is a maximum over the subspaces W ; evaluating at W = Fk,g,Q , we
[s]

get ψM (W ) = s(dim Fk,g,Q − dim g[s] ) and φM (W ) ≤ s dim g[s] .
When d(·, ·) is Riemannian, all αi0 are 1 and then φ(W ) ≤ dim g[s] . This
ends the proof. We will see explicit examples in the next section, where both
upper and lower bounds are attained for limk βbk , see also Remark 8.4.3. 
Remark 7.5.2 (Irrational g). If Lk,g is not rational, then there is a non-trivial
subspace W ≤ Fk,g,Q for which φM (W ) = 0, and in particular τ (M) = +∞,
so we cannot conclude anything in this case. However if Lk,g is rational and
even if g is not, we can assert that the conclusion of Theorem 1.13 holds in
certain cases. For example it holds whenever Fk,g is multiplicity-free as a
GLk -module. Indeed in this case every GLk -invariant subspace is rational
(because GLk is Q-split). Since we know that the maximum in τ (M) is
attained at a GLk -invariant subspace, we obtain again τ (M) = τQ (M) in

46

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

this case. We will make use of this observation in some of the examples
below.
Remark 7.5.3 (The exponent is attained in the last step). Let
L = {r ∈ Fk,g,Q | r(gk ) ⊂ g(s) }.
When k is large enough, the GLk -invariant rational subspace W realizing the
maximum of ψM /φM in (7.11) can be chosen to belong to L. This can be
seen easily by writing W = W0 ⊕ W00 with W0 = W ∩ L for a GLk -invariant
W00 (which exists by complete reducibility of the GLk action). Then from
(7.12) it follows that ψM (W ) − ψM (W0 ) is a polynomial of degree at most
s − 1 in k, while φM (W ) > φM (W0 ) unless W = W0 . From these two
inequalities we see that, for large enough k,
ψM (W )
ψM (W0 )
≤
.
φM (W )
φM (W0 )
8. Explicit values of the critical exponent in some examples
In this final section, we illustrate Theorems 1.13 and 1.14 and work out an
explicit value for the critical exponent βbk in several examples. For definiteness we always assume in this section that the metric on G is Riemannian.
8.1. Nilpotent Lie groups of step 2. In this paragraph, G is a connected
simply connected non-abelian nilpotent Lie group of step 2. We denote by
di , i = 1, 2 the dimension of g[i] . Here g[1] = g/[g, g] and g[2] = [g, g].
It is easy to check that d2 ≤ d1 (d21 −1) . Moreover, by [ABRdS15a, Appen[1]

[2]

dix A], Fk,g and Fk,g are both irreducible GLk -modules of dimension k and
k(k − 1)/2 respectively. In particular Remark 7.5.2 applies and this implies
that α
bk = k(k−1)
− 2. Since ηG (k) = k + k(k − 1) = k 2 according to (7.7),
d2
we get:
Theorem 8.1.1 (Step 2 nilpotent Lie groups). Let G be a connected simply
connected non-abelian nilpotent Lie group of step 2. Set d1 = dim G/[G, G]
and d2 = dim[G, G] and let k ≥ d1 be an integer. The critical exponent for
k-tuples in G is
1
2
1
−
− .
βbk =
d2 d2 k k 2
In the special case of the 3-dimensional Heisenberg group, d2 = 1 and we
thus recover the computation made in Section 3.
8.2. Metabelian nilpotent Lie groups. Suppose now, more generally,
that G is a simply connected metabelian nilpotent Lie group, that is we
assume that [G, G] is abelian. This does not constrain the nilpotency class.
No assumption of rationality on G is made. It is shown in [ABRdS15a,
[i]
§A.3] that Fk,g is irreducible as a GLk -module for each i and isomorphic
to E (i−1,1) (k). Hence Remark 7.5.2 applies. In particular, for k large we
obtain:
dim E (s−1,1) (k)
α
bk = s
− s.
dim G(s)

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

47

On the other hand, the Bass-Guivarc’h formula reads:
ηG (k) = k +

s
X

i dim E (i−1,1) (k).

i=2

Using Weyl’s
dimension formula, we may compute dim E (i−1,1) (k) = (i −

i+k−2
1) i
a polynomial of degree i in k.
Theorem 8.2.1 (Metabelian nilpotent groups). When k is large enough
the critical exponent is given by βbk = α
bk /ηG (k) with the above polynomial
expressions for α
bk and ηG (k). In particular,
lim βbk =

k→∞

1
.
dim G(s)

8.3. Unipotent upper triangular matrices. We now deal with the case
of the group Us of upper triangular unipotent (s + 1) × (s + 1) matrices. Its
Lie algebra is the Lie algebra g = us of upper triangular matrices with zero
diagonal, and our first task will be to determine, for any positive integer k,
the Lie algebra Fk,g of bracket maps on g on k letters. The result is the
following.
Proposition 8.3.1. Let k be a positive integer, and let g = us be the Lie
algebra of upper triangular (s+1)×(s+1) matrices with zero diagonal terms.
The Lie algebra Fk,g of bracket maps on g on k letters is isomorphic to the
free s-step nilpotent Lie algebra Fk,s .
An alternative formulation of Proposition 8.3.1 is in terms of the nilpotent
group of unipotent upper triangular matrices:
Corollary 8.3.2. Let Us be the group of upper triangular unipotent (s+1)×
(s + 1) matrices, and let k be any positive integer. Then Us contains the free
nilpotent group of step s on k generators as a finitely generated subgroup.
Proof of Proposition 8.3.1. Let k ≥ s be a positive integer and let Fk denote
the free Lie algebra on the k generators x1 , x2 , . . . , xk . We have to check that
g = us has no non-trivial relation of degree less than or equal to s in Fk .
First, by the proof of [Bah87, Theorem 3, page 99] we note that if g satisfies
a non-trivial relation, then it also satisfies a non-trivial multilinear relation
whose degree is not larger. Now, if r is such a multilinear relation in g, then
so is each of its homogeneous components, so we may assume r has degree
one in each xi , 1 ≤ i ≤ t. In fact, we may also assume t = s, otherwise, we
replace r by [[r, xt+1 ], . . . , xs ]. So we just have to see that g has no multilinear
relation in s variables.
Let Hs be the vector space of all elements of Fk of degree s that are
multilinear in (x1 , x2 , . . . , xs ). We want to check that the canonical map
θ : Hs → Fk,g is injective. By Witt’s Formula [Hal76, Theorem 11.2.2],
dim Hs = (s − 1)!
For σ a permutation of {1, 2, . . . , s} fixing 1, we denote
mσ = [. . . [[x1 , xσ(2) ], xσ(3) ], . . . , xσ(s) ].

(8.1)

48

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

This gives us a family (mσ ) of (s − 1)! elements in Hs . We will show that its
image (θ(mσ )) under θ is linearly independent in Fk,g ; together with (8.1),
this will prove the theorem.
For 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s + 1 we denote by Ei,j the matrix whose only non-zero
entry is 1, in position (i, j). For 1 ≤ i ≤ s, we also let ei = Ei,i+1 . Using the
relations [Ei,j , Ek,l ] = δjk Eil , one can compute the values of the θ(mσ ) on
permutations of the s-tuple (ei ), and get, for any two permutations σ and
τ of {1, 2, . . . , s}, both fixing 1:

Es+1,s+1 if σ = τ −1
θ(mσ )(e1 , eτ (2) , . . . , eτ (s) ) =
0
otherwise.
This implies in particular that the family (θ(mσ )) is linearly independent,
so we are done.

From Proposition 8.3.1, it is not difficult to compute the critical exponent
for the group G = Us of unipotent upper triangular matrices. Indeed, if r ∈
Fk is a law of g/g(s) , then [xk+1 , r] is a law of g, hence has all its homogeneous
components of degree at least s+1 according to Proposition 8.3.1. Hence r ∈
[s]
Fk . Therefore Remark 7.5.3 applies and in computing the maximum τ (M)
[s]
we may restrict attention to subspaces W in Fk . For such W , ψM (W ) =
s(dim W − dim W (gk )) and φM (W ) ≤ 1, so we get
X
[s]
α
bk = s(dim Fk − 1) =
µ(d)k s/d − s
d|s

where we used Witt’s formula [Hal76, Theorem 11.2.2] in the last equality.
From the Bass-Guivarc’h formula (7.7) and Witt’s formula again, we also
compute
ηG (k) =

s
X
1

where M (x) =

P

[i]

i dim Fk =

n≤x µ(n)

s X
X
1

d|i

µ(d)k i/d =

X
i≤s

s
M ( )k i ,
i

(8.2)

is the Mertens function, and thus obtain:

Theorem 8.3.3 (Critical exponent for Us ). Let Us be the nilpotent group
of unipotent upper triangular (s + 1) × (s + 1) matrices. Then for k large,
the critical exponent for k-tuples in Us is
P
s/d − s
d|s µ(d)k
b
βk = P
s i
i≤s M ( i )k
P
with M (x) = n≤x µ(n) the Mertens function. In particular, limk βbk = 1.
Note that the limit also follows directly from Theorem 1.14 since for
G = Us , we have dim G(s) = 1.
8.4. Free nilpotent Lie algebras. In this paragraph g will denote the
free nilpotent Lie algebra Fd,s of step s on d generators. We will assume
throughout that d ≥ s.
Note that g has a natural structure of GLd -module. Given a Young diagram λ, we denote by dλ (d) the dimension of the irreducible GLd -representation
E λ (d) associated to λ.

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

49

Theorem 8.4.1 (Critical exponent for free nilpotent groups). Let G be the
connected simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra g = Fd,s . Assume
that d ≥ s. Then, if k is large enough, the critical exponent for k-tuples in
G is


d+1
k+1
−
s
s
s
βbk = d+1 · P
s i
i≤s M ( i )k
s
P
where M (x) = n≤x µ(n) is the Mertens function.
Passing to the limit, we get:
Corollary 8.4.2 (Limiting value). For d ≥ s, we have the following limit
for the critical exponent for g = Fd,s :
lim βbk =

k→+∞

1
(s − 1)!

.

d+1
s

Remark 8.4.3. This shows that the strict inequality
can happen.

1
dim g(s)

< limk βbk < 1

We now pass to the proof of Theorem 8.4.1. Our Lie algebra g has the
following special property: for each k ≥ s the laws of g/g(s) are either laws of
[s]
[s]
g or are contained in Fk,g (i.e. if r ∈ Fk,g and r(gk ) ≤ g(s) , then r ∈ Fk,g ). So
it follows from Remark 7.5.3 that the maximum value of τQ (M) is attained
[s]
at a rational GLk -invariant subspace W that is contained in Fk,g . For such
a subspace ψM (W ) = s(dim W − φM (W )) and φM (W ) = dim W (x), where
W (x) is the image of W in g under evaluation at a generic x in gk . Note
that if k ≥ s, then, for x in a dense Zariski open set in gk , the space
W (x) is independent of x, equal to the span Wg of all r(x1 , . . . , xk ), r ∈ W ,
x1 , . . . , xk ∈ g. Thus,
dim W
1
[s]
α
bk = max{
− 1 ; W ≤ Fk,g rational GLk -module}.
s
dim Wg
Recall Proposition 7.4.1, which describes precisely the GLk -submodules of
An immediate consequence of this proposition is the following simpler
expression:


dλ (k)
1
α
bk = max
− 1,
(8.3)
λ
s
dλ (d)
where the maximum is taken over all Young diagrams λ that appear in the
decomposition of g(s) as a GLd -module. The following theorem of Klyachko
describes this set of diagrams:
[s]
Fk,g .

Theorem 8.4.4 (Klyachko [Klj74, Reu93]). Let g = Fd,s . Then, except for
(s) and (1, 1, . . . , 1), with the further exceptions of λ = (2, 2), when s = 4,
and λ = (2, 2, 2) when s = 6, all Young tableaux with s boxes and at most d
rows appear in the decomposition of g[s] into irreducible GLd -modules.
We thus need to maximize ddλλ (k)
(d) over all diagrams with s boxes, at most
d rows, and different from the above exceptions. For this we prove the
following lemma:

50

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

Lemma 8.4.5. Let µ and λ be two Young diagrams with at most d rows and
having the same number of boxes. If µ can be obtained from λ by moving
some boxes downwards, then for any k ≥ d,
dµ (k)
dλ (k)
≥
.
dµ (d)
dλ (d)
Proof. Without loss of generality we may assume that µ is obtained from λ
by moving only one box downwards, i.e. µi = λi , except for µr = λr − 1 and
µs = λs + 1 for some indices r < s. Using Weyl’s dimension formula:
Y λi − λj + j − i
,
dλ (k) =
j−i
1≤i<j≤k

we get
Y λr + j − r λs + j − r − 1
dλ (k) dµ (d)
=
.
dµ (k) dλ (d)
λr + j − s λs + j − r
d<j≤k

But λs ≤ λr , and hence each factor in the above product is at most 1.



Combined with Klyachko’s theorem, this lemma allows us to compute α
bk .
The Young diagram λ present in g(s) and achieving the maximal value in
(8.3) is the diagram with s boxes of the form λ0 := (2, 1, . . . , 1), because we
have assumed s ≤ d. Using Weyl’s dimension formula, it is easy to compute


k+1
dλ0 (k) = (s − 1)
.
s
When k ≥ d ≥ s, the relatively free Lie algebra Fk,g coincides with the
free Lie algebra Fk,s of step s. In particular, the growth exponent ηG (k)
is given by (8.2). Given that βbk = α
bk /ηG (k), this concludes the proof of
Theorem 8.4.1.
References
[ABRdS15a] M. Aka, E. Breuillard, L. Rosenzweig, and N. de Saxcé. Diophantine properties of nilpotent Lie groups. Compos. Math., 151(6):1157–1188, 2015.
[ABRdS15b] M. Aka, E. Breuillard, L. Rosenzweig, and N. de Saxcé. On metric Diophantine approximation in matrices and Lie groups. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci.
Paris, 353(3):185–189, 2015.
[Bah87]
Yu. Bahturin. Identical Relations in Lie Algebras. VNU Science Press, 1987.
[Bak76]
R. C. Baker. Metric Diophantine approximation on manifolds. J. London
Math. Soc. (2), 14(1):43–48, 1976.
[Bas72]
H. Bass. The degree of polynomial growth of finitely generated nilpotent
groups. Proc. London Math. Soc., 25:603–614, 1972.
[BB96]
V. Beresnevich and V. Bernik. On a metrical theorem of W. Schmidt. Acta
Arith., 75(3):219–233, 1996.
[BBKM02] V. Beresnevich, V. Bernik, D. Kleinbock, and G. Margulis. Metric Diophantine approximation: the Khintchine-Groshev theorem for nondegenerate manifolds. Mosc. Math. J., 2(2):203–225, 2002. Dedicated to Yuri I.
Manin on the occasion of his 65th birthday.
[BCR98]
J. Bochnak, M. Coste, and M.-F. Roy. Real algebraic geometry. Springer,
1998.
[BD99]
V. I. Bernik and M. M. Dodson. Metric Diophantine approximation on manifolds, volume 137 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.

DIOPHANTINE APPROXIMATION ON MATRICES AND LIE GROUPS

[BDSS]
[Ber88]
[BG73]
[BKM01]

[BKM15]

[BRV16]
[CF13]
[Dan85]
[DFSU15]

[DS16]
[GH94]

[GHS+ 09]

[GJS99]
[Gor07]
[Gui73]
[Hal76]
[Kle98a]

[Kle98b]
[Kle03]
[Kle08a]

[Kle08b]

[Kle10a]
[Kle10b]

[Klj74]

51

Emmanuel Breuillard, Tushar Das, Nicolas de Saxcé, and David Simmons.
Strongly extremal manifolds. in preparation.
V.N. Berestowskiĭ. Homogeneous manifolds with an intrinsic metric. i.
Sibirsk. Math. Zh., 29(6):17–29, 1988.
Ju. A. Brudnyı̆ and M. I. Ganzburg. A certain extremal problem for polynomials in n variables. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 37:344–355, 1973.
V. Bernik, D. Kleinbock, and G. A. Margulis. Khintchine-type theorems on
manifolds: the convergence case for standard and multiplicative versions.
Internat. Math. Res. Notices, 9:453–486, 2001.
V. Beresnevich, D. Kleinbock, and G. Margulis. Non-planarity and metric
Diophantine approximation for systems of linear forms. J. Théor. Nombres
Bordeaux, 27(1):1–31, 2015.
V. Beresnevich, F. Ramirez, and S. Velani. Metric diophantine approximation: aspects of recent work. preprint arXiv:1601.01948, 2016.
T. Church and B. Farb. Representation theory and homological stability.
Adv. Math., 245:250–314, 2013.
S. G. Dani. Divergent trajectories of flows on homogeneous spaces and Diophantine approximation. J. Reine Angew. Math., 359:55–89, 1985.
T. Das, L. Fishman, D. Simmons, and M. Urbański. Extremality and dynamically defined measures, part i: Diophantine properties of quasi-decaying
measures. preprint arXiv:1504.04778, 2015.
T. Das and D. Simmons. A proof of the matrix version of baker’s conjecture
in diophantine approximation. preprint arXiv:1510.09195, 2016.
Ph. Griffiths and J. Harris. Principles of algebraic geometry. Wiley Classics
Library. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1994. Reprint of the 1978
original.
A. Gamburd, S. Hoory, M. Shahshahani, A. Shalev, and B. Virag. On the
girth of random Cayley graphs. Random Structures Algorithms, 35(1):100–
117, 2009.
A. Gamburd, D. Jacobson, and P. Sarnak. Spectra of elements in the group
ring of SU(2). J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 1(1):51–85, 1999.
Alexander Gorodnik. Open problems in dynamics and related fields. J. Mod.
Dyn., 1(1):1–35, 2007.
Y. Guivarc’h. Croissance polynomiale et périodes des fonctions harmoniques.
Bull. Sc. Math. France, 101:353–379, 1973.
Marshall Hall, Jr. The theory of groups. Chelsea Publishing Co., New York,
1976. Reprinting of the 1968 edition.
D. Kleinbock. Bounded orbits conjecture and Diophantine approximation. In
Lie groups and ergodic theory (Mumbai, 1996), volume 14 of Tata Inst. Fund.
Res. Stud. Math., pages 119–130. Tata Inst. Fund. Res., Bombay, 1998.
D. Kleinbock. Flows on homogeneous spaces and Diophantine properties of
matrices. Duke Math. J., 95(1):107–124, 1998.
D. Kleinbock. Extremal subspaces and their submanifolds. Geom. Funct.
Anal., 13(2):437–466, 2003.
D. Kleinbock. Diophantine properties of measures and homogeneous dynamics. Pure Appl. Math. Q., 4(1, Special Issue: In honor of Grigory Margulis.
Part 2):81–97, 2008.
D. Kleinbock. An extension of quantitative nondivergence and applications
to Diophantine exponents. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 360(12):6497–6523,
2008.
D. Kleinbock. An ‘almost all versus no’ dichotomy in homogeneous dynamics
and Diophantine approximation. Geom. Dedicata, 149:205–218, 2010.
D. Kleinbock. Quantitative nondivergence and its Diophantine applications.
In Homogeneous flows, moduli spaces and arithmetic, volume 10 of Clay
Math. Proc., pages 131–153. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2010.
A. A. Kljačko. Lie elements in a tensor algebra. Sibirsk. Mat. Ž., 15:1296–
1304, 1430, 1974.

52

M. AKA, E. BREUILLARD, L. ROSENZWEIG, N. DE SAXCÉ

[KLW04]
[KM98]

[KM99]
[KMW10]

[KR01]
[KW08]
[Mah42]
[Mar71]
[Mar75]

[Rag72]
[Reu93]
[Spr64]
[Spr69]

[Var14]

D. Kleinbock, E. Lindenstrauss, and B. Weiss. On fractal measures and
Diophantine approximation. Selecta Math., 10(4):479–523, 2004.
D. Y. Kleinbock and G. A. Margulis. Flows on homogeneous spaces and
Diophantine approximation on manifolds. Ann. of Math. (2), 148(1):339–
360, 1998.
D. Kleinbock and G. Margulis. Logarithm laws for flows on homogeneous
spaces. Invent. Math., 138:431–494, 1999.
D. Kleinbock, G. Margulis, and J. Wang. Metric Diophantine approximation
for systems of linear forms via dynamics. Int. J. Number Theory, 6(5):1139–
1168, 2010.
V. Kaloshin and I. Rodnianski. Diophantine properties of elements of SO(3).
Geom. Funct. Anal., 11(5):953–970, 2001.
D. Kleinbock and B. Weiss. Dirichlet’s theorem on Diophantine approximation and homogeneous flows. J. Mod. Dyn., 2(1):43–62, 2008.
K. Mahler. Über das Mass der Menge aller S-Zahlen. Math.Ann., 106:131–
139, 1942.
G. A. Margulis. The action of unipotent groups in a lattice space. Mat. Sb.
(N.S.), 86(128):552–556, 1971.
G. A. Margulis. On the action of unipotent groups in the space of lattices. In
Lie groups and their representations (Proc. Summer School, Bolyai, János
Math. Soc., Budapest, 1971), pages 365–370. Halsted, New York, 1975.
M. S. Raghunathan. Discrete subgroups of Lie groups. Springer-Verlag, 1972.
C. Reutenauer. Free Lie Algebras. Oxford University Press, 1993.
V. G. Sprindžuk. More on Mahler’s conjecture. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR,
155:54–56, 1964.
V. G. Sprindžuk. Mahler’s problem in metric number theory. Translated from
the Russian by B. Volkmann. Translations of Mathematical Monographs,
Vol. 25. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1969.
P. P. Varjú. Diophantine property in the group of affine transformations of
the line. Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged), 80(3-4):447–458, 2014.

M.A. Departement Mathematik, ETH Zürich, Rämistrasse 101, 8092 Zurich,
Switzerland
E-mail address: menashe-hai.akka@math.ethz.ch
Mathematisches Institut, 62 Einsteinstrasse, Universität Münster, Münster,
Germany
E-mail address: emmanuel.breuillard@uni-muenster.de
Department of mathematics, ORT Braude College, P.O.Box 78, Karmiel
21982, Israel
E-mail address: liorr@braude.ac.il
CNRS – Université Paris-Nord, LAGA, 93430 Villetaneuse, France
E-mail address: desaxce@math.univ-paris13.fr

