4

Consider the fundamental group $\pi_1(M)$ of a closed orientable hyperbolic $3$-manifold $M$. Certain identifications $\tilde{M} \approx \mathbb{H}^3 \approx \mathrm{PSL}(2, \mathbb{C}) / \mathrm{Stab}(p_0)$, for some $p_0 \in \mathbb{H}^3$, result in an injective group homomorphism $\rho : \pi_1(M) \to \mathrm{PSL}(2, \mathbb{C})$ which has discrete and co-compact image. Is it always possible to instead realize $\pi_1(M)$ as a non-discrete subgroup $\Gamma'$ of $\mathrm{PSL}(2, \mathbb{C})$?

  • 1
    I think it holds even in greater generality of all finitely generated Zariski dense discrete subgroups, although the lattice case is most interesting. – Moishe Kohan Nov 23 '23 at 01:56
  • @MoisheKohan Can your second example be adapted to give a non-discrete embedding of a uniform lattice $\Gamma \subset PSL(2, \mathbb{C})$? I'm imagining there could exist $\Gamma$ with a Dirichlet domain (as in Ratcliffe) $D$ and another polyhedron $D'$ (perhaps by homothetically shrinking the vertices of $D$ and taking their convex hull) which plays the role of the smaller equilateral triangle of your example. It seems unlikely that $D'$ can be obtained by shrinking so that the edge angles of $D$ divide the corresponding ones of $D'$ though. – Geoffrey Sangston Nov 28 '23 at 14:13
  • 1
    No, I will add an answer to your question in a few hours (I forgot about it). – Moishe Kohan Nov 28 '23 at 14:25

1 Answers1

2

Here is a construction, but at this moment I do not have a proof of nondiscreteness (in general).

Let $\Gamma< SL(2, {\mathbb C})$ be a cocompact discrete subgroup (a uniform lattice): The fundamental group of an orientable hyperbolic 3-manifold always lifts from $PSL(2, {\mathbb C})$ to $SL(2, {\mathbb C})$. Let $\gamma_1,...,\gamma_n$ denote generators of $\Gamma$. The matrix coefficients of $\gamma_1,...,\gamma_n$ generate a finitely generated subfield $F\subset {\mathbb C}$. It was observed by Selberg that (local) rigidity of lattices implies that $F$ is a number field, i.e. a finite algebraic extension of ${\mathbb Q}$. At the same time, $F$ cannot be contained in ${\mathbb R}$ since $\Gamma$ is not contained in $SL(2, {\mathbb R})$. Thus, we have a nontrivial Galois group $Gal(F/{\mathbb Q})$. For each $\sigma\in Gal(F/{\mathbb Q})$, we obtain a faithful representation $$ \rho_\sigma: \Gamma\to SL(2, {\mathbb C}) $$ sending each $\gamma\in \Gamma$ to $\gamma^\sigma$ (you act on matrix coefficients of $\gamma$ by the field automorphism $\sigma$). I think that with few exceptions, $\rho_\sigma(\Gamma)$ is a nondiscrete subgroup of $SL(2, {\mathbb C})$. The exceptions that I know are (non-uniform) arithmetic lattices commensurable to Bianchi groups $SL(2, {\mathcal O}_d)$. In this case, $F={\mathbb Q}(\sqrt{-d})$ and the only nontrivial element of $Gal(F/{\mathbb Q})$ is the complex conjugation. I think (but I am not sure) that these are the only exceptions and these are ruled out by the cocompactness assumption. The reason for my belief in nondiscreteness is the Mostow Rigidity Theorem which states that if $\Gamma^\sigma:=\rho_\sigma(\Gamma)$ is discrete then the group isomorphism $$ \rho_\sigma: \Gamma\to \Gamma^\sigma $$ is induced by an automorphism of $SL(2, {\mathbb C})$ (and such automorphisms are either inner automorphisms or compositions of inner automorphisms with the complex conjugation).

Moishe Kohan
  • 111,854
  • Thank you for your edifying post. I think implicit in the last statement (since it is an assumption for Mostow Rigidity) is the assertion that $\Gamma^\sigma$ would also have finite covolume. I assume $\Gamma^\sigma$ is actually cocompact, but is this easy to argue in this case? The following is out of my depth, but with some searching I found that the Howson property (which is a group level property) seems to distinguish lattices and infinite covolume discrete subgroups of $PSL(2, \mathbb{C})$, so this seems to confirm my assumption. – Geoffrey Sangston Dec 02 '23 at 22:19
  • 1
    @GeoffreySangston: A discrete subgroup of $SL(2,C)$ isomorphic to uniform lattice must be a uniform lattice itself: This is not hard to prove. Same for nonuniform lattices. – Moishe Kohan Dec 02 '23 at 22:51
  • That is good news. I could not find this in Witte-Morris or other textbooks (though I could look harder). I was able to find the uniform case in Lemma 1 of Prasad's Discrete Subgroups Isomorphic to Lattices in Semisimple Lie Groups. (And the non-uniform case follows from the main theorem.) Is the proof of Lemma 1 what you have in mind? – Geoffrey Sangston Dec 03 '23 at 01:41
  • 1
    @GeoffreySangston: Prasad's Lemma 1 would definitely do the job. I had in mind a different argument, just in the case of discrete isometry groups of a hyperbolic space. – Moishe Kohan Dec 03 '23 at 01:46
  • Okay, thank you for all of your help. – Geoffrey Sangston Dec 03 '23 at 01:51