Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Matrix entries, unipotents, and linearity of amalgams

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Doubling SL_n(Z) along SL_m(Z) breaks linearity

desk verdict Strong paper: new matrix-entry criterion plus new residually finite non-linear groups; the ending of Theorem 1.1 has a small but real slip that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.23969 v2 pith:PMNHBQVE submitted 2026-03-25 math.GR math.GT

Sami Douba , Konstantinos Tsouvalas This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GRmath.GT MSC 20E0620G3522E40
keywords amalgamsdoublesofgroupslinearrepresentationsresiduallyfinitesuperrigiditylatticesunipotentelementsmatrixentries
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies when the double of a linear group along a subgroup—the amalgamated product Γ *_Λ Γ formed by gluing two copies of Γ along Λ—is again linear, i.e., admits an injective homomorphism into a matrix group. Its main result is a negative one: for an irreducible lattice Γ in a semisimple real algebraic group with no compact factors, outside the real and complex hyperbolic isometry groups O(n,1) and U(n,1), doubling along any infinite-index subgroup Λ that is not cocompact in its Zariski closure always produces a non-linear group. The concrete flagship case is SL_n(Z) doubled along a block-diagonal copy of SL_m(Z), which remains residually finite but admits no faithful finite-dimensional representation for any 2 ≤ m ≤ n−1. The paper also proves several positive linearity theorems: doubles along intersections with compact algebraic subgroups are linear, as are doubles of many hyperbolic groups along quasiconvex subgroups, and doubles along cocompact stabilizers of reflective subspaces of symmetric spaces. The proofs rest on a new mechanism that detects membership in the amalgamating subgroup from the top-left matrix entry of a polynomial-parameter family of representations.

What carries the argument

The pivotal device is Theorem 2.1, a 'top-left entry detection lemma.' It says that if two subgroups Γ1, Γ2 of GL_n(R) share a subgroup Λ contained in {1}×GL_{n−1}(R), and membership in Λ is exactly 'the top-left entry equals 1,' then the amalgam Γ1 *_Λ Γ2 embeds faithfully into GL_{n+1}(R[t]): conjugate Γ1 by a unipotent matrix u_t = I + tE_{12} (an upper-triangular matrix with all eigenvalues 1) and Γ2 by τ u_t τ, where τ is the permutation matrix swapping the first two coordinates. Any reduced word in elements outside Λ then has a top-left entry that is a degree-2 polynomial in t with nonzero leading coefficient (γ1_11−1)(γ2_11−1), so it is never the identity; the 'sufficiently transcende

What would settle it

For a concrete test, take n=3, m=2, G=SL_3(R), Γ=SL_3(Z), Λ=SL_2(Z) embedded as the top-left block, and attempt to construct a faithful representation of SL_3(Z) *_Λ SL_3(Z) into GL_d(C) for some d; the theorem asserts none exists. A more local falsifier: for the Q-split torus element g used in the proof, compute the intersection of the associated unipotent subgroup U(g) with SL_3(Z) and determine whether it contains an element whose powers avoid the block subgroup SL_2(Z); if no such element exists, the proof's contradiction step fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central mathematical claim is Theorem 1.1. Let G be a semisimple real algebraic group with no compact factors, not locally isomorphic to O(n,1) or U(n,1) for any n, and let Γ be an irreducible lattice. If Λ is an infinite-index subgroup of Γ that is not cocompact in its Zariski closure in G, then the double Γ *_Λ Γ is not linear. In particular, the double SL_n(Z) *_SL_m(Z) SL_n(Z) is residually finite but non-linear for every 2 ≤ m ≤ n−1, with SL_m(Z) embedded block-diagonally. The proof proceeds by contradiction: a faithful representation over R would, by Margulis–Corlette–Gromov–Schoen superrigidity, agree on finite-index subgroups with algebraic representations of the ambient Lie grou

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the negative theorem requires, for a rational horospherical subgroup U(g), that the arithmetic lattice Γ1 intersect U(g) in a lattice and that some unipotent u in that intersection have powers avoiding the amalgamating subgroup H; if every such unipotent were trapped in H, or U(g) failed to be rational, the final contradiction would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The double SL_n(Z) *_SL_m(Z) SL_n(Z) is residually finite but non-linear for every 2 ≤ m ≤ n−1, giving new examples of finitely generated residually finite groups that are not linear.
  • For every non-cocompact irreducible lattice Γ in a semisimple real algebraic group outside the families O(n,1) and U(n,1), there exists a subgroup Λ such that Γ *_Λ Γ is residually finite but non-linear (Corollary 5.3).
  • On the positive side, if Λ = SL_n(K) ∩ C for a compact subgroup C defined by polynomial equations, the double SL_n(K) *_Λ SL_n(K) is linear over a two-variable polynomial ring; this covers stabilizers of vectors in orthogonal groups and similar algebraic intersections.
  • Doubles of virtually compact special Gromov-hyperbolic groups along quasiconvex subgroups are linear over R (Theorem 1.4), with no malnormality assumption on the subgroup.
  • Doubles along cocompact stabilizers of reflective submanifolds of Riemannian symmetric spaces are linear in a dimension depending only on the ambient symmetric space (Theorem 1.7).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The top-left-entry detection lemma acts as a transfer principle: any pair of representations in which the amalgamating subgroup is detected by matrix entries yields linearity of the double. This may extend to subgroups defined by inequalities or arithmetic conditions beyond algebraic subgroups, as long as the detection condition holds.
  • The non-linearity mechanism is intrinsically about unipotents: the contradiction only needs one unipotent whose powers avoid the amalgamating subgroup. Similar obstructions might hold for linearity over larger rings or for embeddings into other topological groups, not just matrix groups over fields.
  • The theorem leaves open the rank-one cases O(n,1) and U(n,1); since superrigidity for rank-one lattices is less rigid, any non-linear residually finite double there would require a different mechanism.
  • Theorem 1.4 suggests that doubles of hyperbolic groups along quasiconvex subgroups are abundantly linear; a testable extension is whether such doubles are virtually special, which would give a geometric proof of linearity with finite-dimensional control.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies linearity of amalgams Γ ∗_Λ Γ for subgroups Λ of algebraic groups. The main positive mechanism is Theorem 2.1, which gives faithful representations of such doubles when membership in Λ is detected by the top-left block of the matrix. This is used to prove linearity of many doubles of arithmetic and geometric origin (Theorems 1.2, 1.4–1.7). The main negative result, Theorem 1.1, claims that if G is a semisimple real algebraic group with no compact factors and not locally isomorphic to O(n,1) or U(n,1), and Γ is an irreducible lattice, then the double of Γ along an infinite-index subgroup Λ that is not cocompact in its Zariski closure is not linear. This yields new finitely generated residually finite non-linear groups, e.g., SL_n(Z) ∗_{SL_m(Z)} SL_n(Z) for 2 ≤ m ≤ n−1. The proof of the negative theorem combines arithmeticity, superrigidity, and a unipotent-subgroup contradiction.

Significance. If the results are correct, Theorem 1.1 is a significant new source of finitely generated residually finite non-linear groups, and the positive theorems provide a clean algebraic mechanism — top-left-entry detection — with wide applications. Theorem 2.1 is an elegant and useful construction, and Theorem 1.7 extends linearity to many cocompact stabilizer doubles without arithmeticity assumptions. The paper is also transparent about its use of deep superrigidity results and [69]. However, two load-bearing points currently fail as written: the final step of the proof of Theorem 1.1 is vacuous, and the proof of Theorem 3.2 does not establish its stated hypothesis for the vector stabilizer. Both appear to be repairable, but they are not merely cosmetic.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5, final paragraph] The element u is chosen so that ⟨u⟩∩H(R)={1}, while Λ_1⊂H(R) by construction. Thus no positive power u^m lies in Λ_1, and the condition 'm>0 such that u^m∈Λ_1∩Γ_1∩Γ_2' is empty. The asserted free product ⟨ρ_1(u^m),ρ_2(u^m)⟩ inside the nilpotent group U(g) is therefore vacuous, so the contradiction proving Theorem 1.1 is logically invalid as written. The intended hypothesis is clearly u^m∈Γ_1∩Γ_2, which is satisfiable because Γ_1∩Γ_2 has finite index in Γ_1. With that correction, the argument goes through, since then ρ_i(u^m) lies in the horospherical subgroup of ρ_i(g) and ⟨u^m⟩∩Λ_1={1}. Please fix.
  2. [§3, Theorem 3.2] The proof concludes that (ρ_n(g))11=(ρ'_n(g))11=1 forces g∈C, where C is the stabilizer of the vector e1. The premises give only tr(gg^t)=n (so g∈O(n)) and (g11)^2=1. For example, g=diag(-1,-1,1)∈SL_3(R) satisfies both but sends e1 to −e1 and is not in the stated C. Thus the constructed pair ρ_n,ρ'_n does not satisfy the top-left-entry criterion of Lemma 3.1 for the stated Λ: the element diag(-1,-1,1) has top-left entry 1 in both representations while lying outside Λ. The proof therefore does not produce a faithful representation of SL_n(R)∗_Λ SL_n(R) for the vector stabilizer. A repair is to add a representation whose top-left entry is g11 itself (e.g., the standard representation g↦diag(g,1) on R^{n+1}), or, if the intended subgroup in applications is the line stabilizer, to state Theorem 3.2 for the stabilizer of the line Re1. This affects Theorem 1.2 and its corollaries.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5] The final paragraph contains a typo: 'u^m∈Λ_1∩Γ_1∩Γ_2' should be 'u^m∈Γ_1∩Γ_2'. Also, the notation Γ_1 is overloaded: after the reduction it denotes a finite-index subgroup of G(Z), and then later Γ_1,Γ_2 denote finite-index subgroups of that group. Please rename to avoid confusion.
  2. [§2, Theorem 2.1(2)] In the definition of g_s, the term E_{1j}(k^2) is written with dimension k^2, but g_s is an element of GL(Mat_n(R[s])) ≅ GL_{n^2}(R[s]). The intended matrix size appears to be n^2 (or the notation should be explained in terms of the basis of W).
  3. [§5, proof of Theorem 1.1] The assertion that Γ_1 is not linear over any field of positive characteristic is load-bearing (it forces F=R) but is stated without citation or proof. Please provide a reference or a brief justification from Margulis/Corlette/Gromov–Schoen superrigidity.
  4. [§5, Theorem 1.5(2)] The step 'since Γ is cocompact in G, we have that Λ is of infinite covolume in Λ^Zar' is not immediate from the preceding text. It uses the standard fact that a lattice in a closed subgroup H that is contained in a cocompact lattice Γ must itself be cocompact in H (because a cocompact lattice has no unipotent elements, and a noncocompact lattice contains unipotents). Please state or cite this.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the positive theory is built from an explicit in-paper matrix construction, and the negative theorem's new lattice case is proved from external superrigidity. The one use of the authors' prior work is a published, complementary result; the final step of §5 has a non-circular logical gap.

full rationale

The engine of the paper, Theorem 2.1, is proved directly: the authors explicitly construct the representation ρ_t into GL_{n+1}(R[t]) and prove faithfulness by a leading-coefficient/degree argument for the top-left entry, with no fitted parameter and no appeal to the desired conclusion. The subsequent positive chain (Lemma 3.1, Theorem 3.2, Theorem 1.2, Corollary 1.3, Corollary 3.7, Theorem 3.8, Theorem 4.5) reduces algebraically to Theorem 2.1, with standard external inputs (Chevalley's proposition, Agol's embedding of virtually special groups, Borel–Harish-Chandra, Brooks, Canary, etc.). The negative theorem is not derived from itself: the lattice case in §5 uses Margulis/Corlette/Gromov–Schoen superrigidity plus standard facts about Q-split tori and horospherical subgroups. The only place an author's own prior work is invoked as a black box is the infinite-covolume case, handled by [69, Cor. 5.3]; that is a published IMRN result, it covers a complementary case, and the paper's new lattice-case argument does not depend on it. That is a minor self-citation, not a circular reduction. Separately, and not as a circularity, the final paragraph of the proof of Theorem 1.1 appears to contain a logical gap: the text requires m>0 with u^m in Λ_1∩Γ_1∩Γ_2, but u was chosen with <u>∩H(R)={1} while Λ_1⊂H(R), so no such m exists. This is a correctness issue in the proof as written, not an equivalence between the theorem and its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The paper's positive machinery (Theorem 2.1) is self-contained linear algebra over polynomial rings; the applications assume standard heavy facts about arithmetic groups, superrigidity, special cube complexes, and Kleinian groups. The assumptions are domain hypotheses, not ad hoc inventions, and each is cited to prior literature.

assumptions (10)
  • standard math Britton's lemma / normal form for amalgamated free products
    Used in Theorem 2.1(1) proof to assert every element not conjugate into a factor is of the form (1) or its inverse; cited as [67, §1.2, Thm. 1].
  • domain assumption Superrigidity theorems of Margulis, Corlette, Gromov–Schoen
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1.1 (Section 5) to extend the hypothetical representation of Γ_1 to continuous representations of G(R) agreeing on Λ; also used in Theorem 1.5(2). Applies because G has no compact factors and is not locally O(n,1)/U(n,1).
  • standard math Borel density / Zariski-density of lattices in semisimple real algebraic groups
    Implicit in Section 5: from agreement of ρ_1, ρ_2 on a lattice Λ_1∩Γ_1∩Γ_2 < H(R), the paper concludes agreement on all of H(R); requires the lattice to be Zariski-dense.
  • domain assumption U(g) is defined over Q and Γ_1∩U(g) is a lattice in U(g)
    Stated in Section 5, proof of Theorem 1.1 ('Since U(g) is defined over Q, we have that Γ_1∩U(g) is a lattice in U(g)'). Load-bearing for producing u with <u>∩H(R)={1}.
  • standard math G(R)^+ is generated by the horospherical subgroups U(g) and U(g^{-1}) ([51, Thm. I.2.3.1])
    Used in Section 5 to infer that H(R)∩U(g^ε) is of positive codimension in U(g^ε) for some ε∈{±1}; if false, the choice of the unipotent u could fail.
  • standard math Chevalley's theorem (Prop. 3.3): stability of a subspace detects an algebraic subgroup in a polynomial representation
    Foundational for Theorem 1.2's reduction to the line-stabilizer case.
  • domain assumption Virtually special groups embed in compact Lie groups (Agol [4])
    Used in Theorem 3.8/1.4 proofs to obtain a faithful representation with precompact Λ; [4] is a 2018 preprint and the paper gives no independent proof.
  • domain assumption Relatively quasiconvex subgroups of (compact) special groups hyperbolic relative to abelian subgroups are virtual retracts ([37, Thm. 7.3], [23, Thm. 1.3])
    Used in Theorem 3.8 proof to verify the hypothesis of Corollary 3.7.
  • domain assumption Reflective submanifold involutions invert geodesic lines orthogonal to the mirror (used in Theorem 4.5)
    In the proof of Theorem 4.5, the claim that σ_k inverts every geodesic line orthogonal to Y_k, and that γ^{-1}σ_kγσ_k translates along the common perpendicular by ≥ δ, is essential; this is part of the definition/classification of reflective submanifolds.
  • domain assumption 3-manifold results: density conjecture, tameness, Canary covering theorem, Agol–Wise specialness for Kleinian lattices
    Used in the proof of Corollary 3.10 to reduce to the virtually compact special and relative quasiconvex cases; external deep results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Matrix entries, unipotents, and linearity of amalgams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PMNHBQVE

@misc{pith2026260323969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Matrix entries, unipotents, and linearity of amalgams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PMNHBQVE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.23969}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate linearity of amalgams of subgroups of algebraic groups along intersections with algebraic subgroups. In the process, we establish linearity of certain "doubles" of linear groups, and obtain new examples of finitely generated residually finite groups that fail to be linear.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [69]

    Tholozan and K

    N. Tholozan and K. Tsouvalas , Linearity and indiscreteness of amalgamated products of hyperbolic groups , Int. Math. Res. Not., 2023 (2023), pp. 21290--21319

    2023

  2. [4]

    height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, Hyperbolic 3 -manifold groups that embed in compact Lie groups , 2018

    2018

  3. [1]

    Agol , Tameness of hyperbolic 3-manifolds

    I. Agol , Tameness of hyperbolic 3-manifolds . Preprint, arXiv :math/0405568 [math. GT ] (2004), 2004

    arXiv 2004

  4. [2]

    Preprint, arXiv :math/0612290 [math

    height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, Systoles of hyperbolic 4-manifolds . Preprint, arXiv :math/0612290 [math. GT ] (2006), 2006

    arXiv 2006

  5. [3]

    Math., 18 (2013), pp

    height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, The virtual H aken conjecture , Doc. Math., 18 (2013), pp. 1045--1087. With an appendix by Agol, Daniel Groves, and Jason Manning

    2013

  6. [5]

    Baker and D

    M. Baker and D. Cooper , A combination theorem for convex hyperbolic manifolds, with applications to surfaces in 3-manifolds , J. Topol., 1 (2008), pp. 603--642

    2008

  7. [6]

    Baumslag , On the residual finiteness of generalized free products of nilpotent groups , Trans

    G. Baumslag , On the residual finiteness of generalized free products of nilpotent groups , Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 106 (1963), pp. 193--209

    1963

  8. [7]

    Belolipetsky, N

    M. Belolipetsky, N. Bogachev, A. Kolpakov, and L. Slavich , Subspace stabilisers in hyperbolic lattices . Preprint, arXiv :2105.06897 [math. GT ] (2025), 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    M. V. Belolipetsky and S. A. Thomson , Systoles of hyperbolic manifolds , Algebr. Geom. Topol., 11 (2011), pp. 1455--1469

    2011

  2. [9]

    Benoist , Five lectures on lattices in semisimple L ie groups , in G\'eom\'etries \`a courbure n\'egative ou nulle, groupes discrets et rigidit\'es, vol

    Y. Benoist , Five lectures on lattices in semisimple L ie groups , in G\'eom\'etries \`a courbure n\'egative ou nulle, groupes discrets et rigidit\'es, vol. 18 of S\'emin. Congr., Soc. Math. France, Paris, 2009, pp. 117--176

    2009

  3. [10]

    Berger , Les espaces sym \'e triques non compacts , Ann

    M. Berger , Les espaces sym \'e triques non compacts , Ann. Sci. \'E c. Norm. Sup \'e r. (3), 74 (1957), pp. 85--177

    1957

  4. [11]

    Bergeron , Premier nombre de B etti et spectre du laplacien de certaines vari\'et\'es hyperboliques , Enseign

    N. Bergeron , Premier nombre de B etti et spectre du laplacien de certaines vari\'et\'es hyperboliques , Enseign. Math. (2), 46 (2000), pp. 109--137

    2000

  5. [12]

    Bergeron, F

    N. Bergeron, F. Haglund, and D. T. Wise , Hyperplane sections in arithmetic hyperbolic manifolds , J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2), 83 (2011), pp. 431--448

    2011

  6. [13]

    Bestvina and M

    M. Bestvina and M. Feighn , A combination theorem for negatively curved groups , Journal of Differential Geometry, 35 (1992), pp. 85--101

    1992

  7. [14]

    Bochi, R

    J. Bochi, R. Potrie, and A. Sambarino , Anosov representations and dominated splittings , J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 21 (2019), pp. 3343--3414

    2019

  8. [15]

    Borel and Harish-Chandra , Arithmetic subgroups of algebraic groups , Ann

    A. Borel and Harish-Chandra , Arithmetic subgroups of algebraic groups , Ann. of Math. (2), 75 (1962), pp. 485--535

    1962

  9. [16]

    Bourbaki , \'El\'ements de math\'ematique

    N. Bourbaki , \'El\'ements de math\'ematique. F asc. XXXIV . G roupes et alg\`ebres de L ie. C hapitre IV : G roupes de C oxeter et syst\`emes de T its. C hapitre V : G roupes engendr\'es par des r\'eflexions. C hapitre VI : syst\`emes de racines , vol. No. 1337 of Actualit\'e...

    1968

  10. [17]

    J. F. Brock and K. W. Bromberg , On the density of geometrically finite K leinian groups , Acta Math., 192 (2004), pp. 33--93

    2004

  11. [18]

    J. F. Brock, R. D. Canary, and Y. N. Minsky , The classification of K leinian surface groups, II : T he ending lamination conjecture , Ann. of Math. (2), 176 (2012), pp. 1--149

    2012

  12. [19]

    Brooks , Circle packings and co-compact extensions of K leinian groups , Invent

    R. Brooks , Circle packings and co-compact extensions of K leinian groups , Invent. Math., 86 (1986), pp. 461--469

    1986

  13. [20]

    Calegari and D

    D. Calegari and D. Gabai , Shrinkwrapping and the taming of hyperbolic 3-manifolds , J. Amer. Math. Soc., 19 (2006), pp. 385--446

    2006

  14. [21]

    R. D. Canary , A covering theorem for hyperbolic 3 -manifolds and its applications , Topology, 35 (1996), pp. 751--778

    1996

  15. [22]

    Preprint, arXiv :2510.21334 [math

    height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, Kleinian viewpoints on higher rank worlds . Preprint, arXiv :2510.21334 [math. GT ] (2025), 2025

    2025

  16. [23]

    Chesebro, J

    E. Chesebro, J. DeBlois, and H. Wilton , Some virtually special hyperbolic 3-manifold groups , Comment. Math. Helv., 87 (2012), pp. 727--787

    2012

  17. [24]

    Chevalley , Deux th\'eor\`emes d'arithm\'etique , J

    C. Chevalley , Deux th\'eor\`emes d'arithm\'etique , J. Math. Soc. Japan, 3 (1951), pp. 36--44

    1951

  18. [25]

    Chinburg and M

    T. Chinburg and M. Stover , Geodesic curves on S himura surfaces , Topology Proc., 52 (2018), pp. 113--121

    2018

  19. [26]

    H. K. Chong and D. T. Wise , An uncountable family of finitely generated residually finite groups , J. Group Theory, 25 (2022), pp. 207--216

    2022

  20. [27]

    height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, Continuously many quasi-isometry classes of residually finite groups , Glasg. Math. J., 65 (2023), pp. 569--572

    2023

  21. [28]

    Corlette , Archimedean superrigidity and hyperbolic geometry , Ann

    K. Corlette , Archimedean superrigidity and hyperbolic geometry , Ann. Math. (2), 135 (1992), pp. 165--182

    1992

  22. [29]

    Danciger, F

    J. Danciger, F. Gu \'e ritaud, and F. Kassel , Combination theorems in convex projective geometry , arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09439, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Dey and K

    S. Dey and K. Tsouvalas , Anosov representations of amalgams . Preprint, arXiv :2504.21802 [math. GR ] (2025), 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Drutu and M

    C. Drutu and M. Sapir , Non-linear residually finite groups , J. Algebra, 284 (2005), pp. 174--178

    2005

  25. [32]

    Emery and I

    V. Emery and I. Kim , Quaternionic hyperbolic lattices of minimal covolume , Forum Math. Sigma, 10 (2022), pp. Paper No. e68, 19

    2022

  26. [33]

    Erschler , Not residually finite groups of intermediate growth, commensurability and non-geometricity , J

    A. Erschler , Not residually finite groups of intermediate growth, commensurability and non-geometricity , J. Algebra, 272 (2004), pp. 154--172

    2004

  27. [34]

    R. I. Grigorchuk , Degrees of growth of finitely generated groups and the theory of invariant means , Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 48 (1984), pp. 939--985

    1984

  28. [35]

    Gromov and R

    M. Gromov and R. Schoen , Harmonic maps into singular spaces and \(p\) -adic superrigidity for lattices in groups of rank one , Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes \'E tud. Sci., 76 (1992), pp. 165--246

    1992

  29. [36]

    Guichard and A

    O. Guichard and A. Wienhard , Anosov representations: domains of discontinuity and applications , Invent. Math., 190 (2012), pp. 357--438

    2012

  30. [37]

    Haglund and D

    F. Haglund and D. T. Wise , Special cube complexes , Geom. Funct. Anal., 17 (2008), pp. 1551--1620

    2008

  31. [38]

    height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, A combination theorem for special cube complexes , Ann. of Math. (2), 176 (2012), pp. 1427--1482

    2012

  32. [39]

    G. C. Hruska , Relative hyperbolicity and relative quasiconvexity for countable groups , Algebr. Geom. Topol., 10 (2010), pp. 1807--1856

    2010

  33. [40]

    J. E. Humphreys , Linear algebraic groups , vol. 21, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  34. [41]

    Jacobson , Lie algebras , Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1979

    N. Jacobson , Lie algebras , Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1979. Republication of the 1962 original

    1979

  35. [42]

    Kharlampovich and A

    O. Kharlampovich and A. Vdovina , Quantifying separability in RAAGs via representations , arXiv e-prints, (2024), p. arXiv:2403.17964

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Kneser , Normalteiler ganzzahliger S pingruppen , J

    M. Kneser , Normalteiler ganzzahliger S pingruppen , J. Reine Angew. Math., 311/312 (1979), pp. 191--214

    1979

  37. [44]

    F. c. Labourie , Anosov flows, surface groups and curves in projective space , Invent. Math., 165 (2006), pp. 51--114

    2006

  38. [45]

    D. S. P. Leung , On the classification of reflective submanifolds of R iemannian symmetric spaces , Indiana Univ. Math. J., 24 (1974/75), pp. 327--339

    1974

  39. [46]

    D. S. P. Leung , Reflective submanifolds. III . C ongruency of isometric reflective submanifolds and corrigenda to the classification of reflective submanifolds , J. Differential Geometry, 14 (1979), pp. 167--177

    1979

  40. [47]

    D. D. Long , Immersions and embeddings of totally geodesic surfaces , Bull. London Math. Soc., 19 (1987), pp. 481--484

    1987

  41. [48]

    Louder, D

    L. Louder, D. B. McReynolds, and P. Patel , Zariski closures and subgroup separability , Selecta Math. (N.S.), 23 (2017), pp. 2019--2027

    2017

  42. [49]

    A. I. Mal'cev , On homomorphisms onto finite groups , Uchen. Zap. Ivanov Gos. Ped. Inst., 18 (1956), pp. 49--60

    1956

  43. [50]

    J. F. Manning and E. Mart\'inez-Pedroza , Separation of relatively quasiconvex subgroups , Pacific J. Math., 244 (2010), pp. 309--334

    2010

  44. [51]

    G. A. Margulis , Discrete subgroups of semisimple Lie groups , vol. 17, Springer Science & Business Media, 1991

    1991

  45. [52]

    D. B. McReynolds , Peripheral separability and cusps of arithmetic hyperbolic orbifolds , Algebr. Geom. Topol., 4 (2004), pp. 721--755

    2004

  46. [53]

    J. J. Millson , On the first B etti number of a constant negatively curved manifold , Ann. of Math. (2), 104 (1976), pp. 235--247

    1976

  47. [54]

    Minasyan , Virtual retraction properties in groups , Int

    A. Minasyan , Virtual retraction properties in groups , Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (2021), pp. 13434--13477

    2021

  48. [55]

    D. W. Morris , Introduction to arithmetic groups , Deductive Press, [place of publication not identified], 2015

    2015

  49. [56]

    G. D. Mostow and T. Tamagawa , On the compactness of arithmetically defined homogeneous spaces , Ann. of Math. (2), 76 (1962), pp. 446--463

    1962

  50. [57]

    Namazi and J

    H. Namazi and J. Souto , Non-realizability and ending laminations: proof of the density conjecture , Acta Math., 209 (2012), pp. 323--395

    2012

  51. [58]

    Nisnevich , On groups isomorphically representable by matrices over a commutative field , Mat

    V. Nisnevich , On groups isomorphically representable by matrices over a commutative field , Mat. Sb, 8 (1940), pp. 395--403

    1940

  52. [59]

    Ohshika , Realising end invariants by limits of minimally parabolic, geometrically finite groups , Geom

    K. Ohshika , Realising end invariants by limits of minimally parabolic, geometrically finite groups , Geom. Topol., 15 (2011), pp. 827--890

    2011

  53. [60]

    Onishchik and E

    A. Onishchik and E. Vinberg , Lie groups and algebraic groups , Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  54. [61]

    Parkkonen and F

    J. Parkkonen and F. Paulin , A classification of C - F uchsian subgroups of P icard modular groups , Math. Scand., 121 (2017), pp. 57--74

    2017

  55. [62]

    J. C. Parnami, M. K. Agrawal, and A. R. Rajwade , On the stufe of quartic fields , J. Number Theory, 38 (1991), pp. 106--109

    1991

  56. [63]

    Potyagailo and E

    L. Potyagailo and E. Vinberg , On right-angled reflection groups in hyperbolic spaces , Comment. Math. Helv., 80 (2005), pp. 63--73

    2005

  57. [64]

    Prasad and M

    G. Prasad and M. S. Raghunathan , Cartan subgroups and lattices in semi-simple groups , Ann. of Math. (2), 96 (1972), pp. 296--317

    1972

  58. [65]

    Prasad and A

    G. Prasad and A. S. Rapinchuk , Existence of irreducible R -regular elements in Z ariski-dense subgroups , Math. Res. Lett., 10 (2003), pp. 21--32

    2003

  59. [66]

    height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, Weakly commensurable arithmetic groups and isospectral locally symmetric spaces , Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci., (2009), pp. 113--184

    2009

  60. [67]

    Serre , Trees , Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1980

    J.-P. Serre , Trees , Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1980. Translated from the French by John Stillwell

    1980

  61. [68]

    P. B. Shalen , Linear representations of certain amalgamated products , J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 15 (1979), pp. 187--197

    1979

  62. [70]

    height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, Residually finite non-linear hyperbolic groups , Comment. Math. Helv., 100 (2025), pp. 1--9

    2025

  63. [71]

    Tits , Free subgroups in linear groups , J

    J. Tits , Free subgroups in linear groups , J. Algebra, 20 (1972), pp. 250--270

    1972

  64. [72]

    E. B. Vinberg , Discrete linear groups that are generated by reflections , Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 35 (1971), pp. 1072--1112

    1971

  65. [73]

    B. A. F. Wehrfritz , Generalized free products of linear groups , Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3), 27 (1973), pp. 402--424

    1973

  66. [74]

    D. T. Wise , The structure of groups with a quasiconvex hierarchy , vol. 209 of Annals of Mathematics Studies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, [2021] 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.