Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 40 references

Exotic proper actions on homogeneous spaces via convex cocompact representations

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs homogeneous spaces on which cocompact lattices of O(n,1) act properly for n = 2, 3, 4, while no non-compact semisimple subgroup acts properly at all.

desk verdict A genuine separation result in the Clifford–Klein program, with the one real risk being the hand-checked combinatorial case analysis in Section 4. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14274 v2 pith:SV4LL774 submitted 2025-01-24 math.GR math.GTmath.RT

Maciej Bochenski , Yosuke Morita This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GRmath.GTmath.RT MSC 22E4053C3057S3020F55
keywords Clifford–Kleinformsproperactionshomogeneousspacesofreductivetypeconvexcocompactrepresentationsright-angledCoxetergroupsnilpotentorbitsweightedDynkindiagramsO(n1)lattices
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

The central claim is that, on certain homogeneous spaces $G/H$ of reductive type (coset spaces of a linear reductive Lie group by a reductive subgroup), having a 'large' discrete group act properly does not force having a 'large' continuous group act properly. Concretely, for each of $n=2,3,4$ the paper constructs such $G/H$ that admit a discrete subgroup isomorphic to a cocompact lattice of $O(n,1)$ acting properly, while admitting no non-compact semisimple subgroup that acts properly. The existence side is built from convex cocompact representations (representations whose image acts cocompactly on an invariant convex set in hyperbolic space) and their strictly dominated deformations; a small such deformation of the standard embedding of a cocompact lattice of $O(n,1)$ into a larger orthogonal group supplies the discrete action. The non-existence side is built from nilpotent orbits and weighted Dynkin diagrams (root-system diagrams whose labels encode the candidate semisimple subgroups), reduced to an elementary but laborious case analysis showing that every candidate Cartan projection lies in the walls of the fixed subspace. This separates discrete and continuous 'large' actions for the first time, a question that was open even for $n=2$.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. On the existence side, the paper uses convex cocompact representations into $O(N,1)$ (representations whose image acts cocompactly on an invariant convex subset of hyperbolic $N$-space) and strict domination: a representation $\rho_t$ of $\Gamma$ into $O(N,1)$ is strictly dominated by the standard embedding $j$ if the best Lipschitz constant of a $(j,\rho_t)$-equivariant map of hyperbolic $N$-space is $<1$, yielding uniform control of Cartan projections and hence, via the properness criterion of Fact 2.1, a proper action. On the non-existence side, the paper uses the standard correspondence between $\mathfrak{sl}_2$-triples and nilpotent orbits: a hypothetical proper semisimple subgroup action would produce an $\mathfrak{sl}_2$-subalgebra whose standard neutral element is encoded by a weighted Dynkin diagram (a Dynkin diagram whose nodes are labelled by the values of that element on simple roots), and the assertion that every such diagram lies in the walls of the fixed subspace $\mathfrak{a}_H$ is translated into the elementary combinatorial statement $(*_m)$, about signed permutations of a fixed vector pairing to zero with a vector of prescribed multiplicities.

What would settle it

Search for a counterexample to $(*_m)$: for some $m\ge 4$, a sequence $(a_0,\dots,a_{2m})$ satisfying $(\ddagger_m)$ whose vector $v_a$ has nonzero inner product with every signed permutation of $(2,1,\dots,1,0)$. Such a sequence would produce a nilpotent orbit whose standard neutral element avoids the walls of $\mathfrak{a}_H$, giving a proper $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$-action and disproving Theorem 1.12(2).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves Theorem 1.12: for $m\ge 2$, take $G=O(m+1,m)$ or $O(2m+1,\mathbb{C})$ and a reductive subgroup $H$ with $\mathfrak{a}_H=\{(t_1,\ldots,t_m)\in\mathbb{R}^m \mid 2t_1+t_2+\cdots+t_{m-1}=0\}$. For the three pairs $(n,N)=(2,3),(3,6),(4,8)$, if $m\ge N$ then $G/H$ is (P-cocH$_n$): there exists a discrete subgroup isomorphic to a cocompact lattice of $O(n,1)$ acting properly on $G/H$. If $m\ge 4$, then $G/H$ is not (P-ss): no non-compact semisimple subgroup acts properly. Choosing $m\ge 8$ gives one space that is (P-cocH$_2$), (P-cocH$_3$), and (P-cocH$_4$) and simultaneously not (P-ss), which is the content of Theorem 1.3. This shows that the proper-action hierarchy is strict in a new way: (P-cocH$_n$) does not imply (P-ss), and in particular (P-surf) does not imply (P-sl2R).

Load-bearing premise

The proof that no non-compact semisimple subgroup acts properly rests on a manual eight-step case analysis (Steps 1--8 of Section 4) with finite tables for $m=4,\dots,7$ and induction steps for larger $m$; if some sequence satisfying the combinatorial conditions $(\ddagger_m)$ were missed, the non-existence conclusion would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $n=2$, (P-surf) does not imply (P-sl2R): a surface-group action can exist with no proper $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$-subgroup action.
  • For $n=2,3,4$, (P-cocH$_n$) does not imply (P-ss): cocompact hyperbolic lattice actions exist with no standard semisimple explanation.
  • A single homogeneous space with $m\ge 8$ is simultaneously (P-cocH$_2$), (P-cocH$_3$), (P-cocH$_4$) and not (P-ss).
  • There are continuously many pairwise non-conjugate such discrete subgroups (Remark 3.6), so the phenomenon is not isolated.
  • The construction extends to any convex cocompact right-angled reflection group with $f$ facets (Theorem 3.8), producing proper actions commensurable to such groups when the appropriate pair $(\mathfrak{a}_L\not\subset W\mathfrak{a}_H)$ is available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The combinatorics of $(*_m)$ is finite and explicit enough that an automated search over sequences satisfying $(\ddagger_m)$ could push the non-existence part beyond the paper's tables for $m=4,\ldots,7$, testing Conjecture 5.5 for larger $n$.
  • The existence recipe is insensitive to the specific $H$ once $\mathfrak{a}_L\not\subset W\mathfrak{a}_H$, so the same deformation argument should apply to many other reductive subgroups and higher-rank spaces, exactly the direction the paper's Conjecture 5.3 points toward.
  • Because Proposition 5.14 already upgrades the $n=2$ example to a Zariski-dense surface subgroup, small deformations of the constructed subgroups seem to preserve properness; the same stability may hold for $n=3,4$, which would answer Question 5.13 affirmatively.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a series of homogeneous spaces G/H of reductive type with the following two properties: for each n=2,3,4 there is a discrete subgroup of G isomorphic to a cocompact lattice of O(n,1) acting properly on G/H, while there is no non-compact semisimple subgroup of G acting properly on G/H. The positive half is proved via convex cocompact representations: using results of Guéritaud–Kassel and Danciger–Guéritaud–Kassel, the authors show that a reductive subgroup L locally isomorphic to O(n,1)×O(N,1) with a_L not contained in W a_H yields the desired discrete subgroups. The negative half is proved via the classification of nilpotent orbits in o(2m+1,C), reducing the non-existence of proper SL(2,R)-actions to a combinatorial assertion (*_m) about sequences satisfying (‡_m). This assertion is proved by an eight-step induction with finite tables for m=4,5,6,7.

Significance. If the proof is correct, the paper provides the first examples of homogeneous spaces of reductive type that are (P-cocH_n) for n=2,3,4 but not (P-ss), thereby showing that the discrete and continuous notions of 'large' group action genuinely diverge. This gives a striking contrast with Kobayashi's conjecture and with the equivalence results for symmetric subgroups. The paper also corrects a minor technical error in a theorem of Tholozan (Remark 5.19). The construction is well-motivated and cleanly reduces the positive half to known deep results; the negative half uses a transparent reduction to elementary combinatorics. The main weakness is that the combinatorial case analysis is presented as a manual verification with several steps left to the reader, and one reduction in Section 3 is not justified as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, Proposition 3.1] The proof starts with "One may assume that N=n", but this is not a legitimate reduction as stated. For N>n, the representation ρ takes values in O(N,1), and the Lipschitz constants C_Lip(J,ρ) and C_Lip(ρ,J) are defined on H^N, not on H^n. The argument can likely be repaired by running the same proof with J in place of j and with hyperbolic space H^N, using that ||μ_J(γ)||=||μ_j(γ)||; however, this replacement is not made explicit. Since the proposition is used with N=3,6,8 in Theorem 1.10, the missing justification is load-bearing for the main construction.
  2. [§4, Steps 2–7] The proof of (*_m) leaves several load-bearing verifications to the reader. In Step 2, the constructed sequence a' satisfies (‡_{m-1}) only if a_{2m-1}=a_{2m}=0; this follows from a_0≥1 and the sum condition but is not stated. In Step 4, the construction requires a_{2m-2}=a_{2m}=0 under the supposition of a positive odd entry; again this is not explained. In Step 5, the claim 0≤a_{2i-2}-a_{2i}≤1 is dismissed with "similarly"; this bound is essential for Step 7 to produce a valid (‡_{m-4}) sequence and for Step 8 to obtain the contradiction m≤7. In Steps 3 and 6, the tables are asserted to be exhaustive without describing the enumeration rule, so the reader cannot easily verify completeness. These gaps affect the central claim that G/H is not (P-ss).
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4, notation] The symbol N is used both for the positive integer in the pair (n,N) and for the set of natural numbers; in Section 4, sequences have entries a_i∈N that can be zero, so please clarify that N means {0,1,2,...} or replace it with Z_{\ge 0}.
  2. [§4, definition of v_a] The vector v_a is defined by concatenating blocks of equal entries; it may be helpful to state explicitly that the entries are arranged in nonincreasing order, since the vector is later acted on by signed permutations.
  3. [§1.3] In Theorem 1.12(2), the condition is written "not(P-ss)" while the rest of the paper uses "(P-ss)"; please make the notation consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the construction and non-existence halves are self-contained and import external results rather than presupposing the target theorem.

full rationale

The paper's two halves have independent inputs. The existence half (Theorem 1.10, Section 3) derives proper discrete actions from the Kobayashi–Benoist properness criterion (Fact 2.1), the Guéritaud–Kassel Lipschitz and Cartan-projection comparison results (Facts 2.6, 2.8, 2.10), and Danciger–Guéritaud–Kassel's strictly dominated deformation families (Fact 2.12, Lemma 2.13). These are external published results, not restatements of the paper's conclusion, and the small parameter t in the construction is not fitted to the target homogeneous space; it is chosen sufficiently small after the fact. The non-existence half (Theorem 1.12(2), Section 4) is reduced to the combinatorial assertion (*_m) via the standard Gerstenhaber classification of nilpotent orbits of o(2m+1,C) and the Springer–Steinberg weighted Dynkin diagram formula (Facts 2.20, 2.21). The reduction is a genuine translation of the root-theoretic condition h in W a_H into an inner-product equation; the assertion (*_m) is then proved independently by induction and finite tables (Tables 1–4). The eight-step case analysis is laborious and hand-checked, so its completeness is a verification risk, but it does not assume the theorem it is used to prove. Self-citations to [Boc17], [BdGJT22+], and [BJOT15] appear only in Section 5 as contextual examples and open-question discussion, not as load-bearing steps in the proofs of Theorems 1.10 or 1.12. No fitted input is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled through citation. Accordingly, the central claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters and no new entities. It relies on standard external theorems (properness criterion, convex cocompact representation theory, nilpotent orbit classification) and on an elementary combinatorial assertion proved by case analysis. The only custom ingredient is Theorem 1.10, whose proof is given.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Kobayashi-Benoist properness criterion (Fact 2.1)
    Used throughout to convert properness of actions into boundedness of Cartan projections; imported from Kobayashi and Benoist.
  • standard math Gueritaud-Kassel existence and continuity of Lipschitz constants for convex cocompact representations (Facts 2.6, 2.8, 2.10)
    Provides the quantitative control of Cartan projections needed in Proposition 3.1; external result from GK17.
  • standard math Danciger-Gueritaud-Kassel existence of strictly dominated deformations for (2,3) and (4,8), extended to (3,6) via the four-colour theorem (Fact 2.12, Lemma 2.13)
    Supplies the deformed representations entering Theorem 1.10. Lemma 2.13 is proved in the paper using the four-colour theorem.
  • standard math Jacobson-Morozov and Kostant theory of sl2-triples and nilpotent orbits (Facts 2.16, 2.17)
    Basis for reducing (P-ss) to (P-sl2R) and encoding SL(2,R)-subgroups by weighted Dynkin diagrams.
  • standard math Gerstenhaber partition classification and Springer-Steinberg weighted Dynkin diagram formula for O(2m+1,C) (Facts 2.20, 2.21)
    Imported classification that the non-existence proof relies on; any incompleteness would threaten Theorem 1.12(2).
  • domain assumption The restricted root system of O(m+1,m) coincides with that of O(2m+1,C)
    Used to transfer the non-existence proof from the complex group to its split real form in Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exotic proper actions on homogeneous spaces via convex cocompact representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SV4LL774

@misc{pith2026250114274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exotic proper actions on homogeneous spaces via convex cocompact representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SV4LL774}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14274}
}
read the original abstract

We construct a series of homogeneous spaces G/H of reductive type which admit proper actions of discrete subgroups of G isomorphic to cocompact lattices of O(n,1) (n=2,3,4) but do not admit proper actions of non-compact semisimple subgroups of G. The existence of such homogeneous spaces was previously not known even for n=2. Our construction of proper actions of discrete subgroups is based on Gu\'eritaud-Kassel's work on convex cocompact subgroups of O(n,1) and Danciger-Gu\'eritaud-Kassel's work on right-angled Coxeter groups. On the other hand, the non-existence of proper actions of non-compact semisimple subgroups is proved by the theory of nilpotent orbits and elementary combinatorics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14274 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The −∞ < 𝑠 < 0 case ℓ ∥𝜇𝑗 (𝛾) ∥ ∥𝜇𝜌 (𝛾) ∥ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Appel, W

    K. Appel, W. Haken, Every planar map is four colorable. I. Discharging, Illinois J. Math.\ 21 (1977), 429--490

    work page 1977

  2. [2]

    Appel, W

    K. Appel, W. Haken, J. Koch, Every planar map is four colorable. II. Reducibility, Illinois J. Math.\ 21 (1977), 491--567

    work page 1977

  3. [3]

    Benoist, Actions propres sur les espaces homog\` e nes r\' e ductifs, Ann.\ of Math.\ (2) 144 (1996), 315--347

    Y. Benoist, Actions propres sur les espaces homog\` e nes r\' e ductifs, Ann.\ of Math.\ (2) 144 (1996), 315--347

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    Benoist, Propri\' e t\' e s asymptotiques des groupes lin\' e aires, Geom.\ Funct.\ Anal.\ 7 (1997), 1--47

    Y. Benoist, Propri\' e t\' e s asymptotiques des groupes lin\' e aires, Geom.\ Funct.\ Anal.\ 7 (1997), 1--47

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Bergeron, F

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

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Boche\'nski, Proper actions on strongly regular homogeneous spaces, Asian J

    M. Boche\'nski, Proper actions on strongly regular homogeneous spaces, Asian J. Math.\ 21 (2017), 1121--1133

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Non-virtually abelian discontinuous group actions vs. proper SL(2,R)-actions on homogeneous spaces

    M. Boche\'nski, W. A. de Graaf, P. Jastrz e bski, A. Tralle, Non-virtually abelian discontinuous group actions vs.\ proper SL(2, ) -actions on homogeneous spaces, arXiv:2206.01069, to appear in Exp.\ Math

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [8]

    Boche\'nski, P

    M. Boche\'nski, P. Jastrz e bski, T. Okuda, A. Tralle, Proper SL(2, ) -actions on homogeneous spaces, Internat.\ J. Math.\ 27 (2016), 1650106, 10 pp

    work page 2016

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Boche\'nski, A

    M. Boche\'nski, A. Tralle, Clifford--Klein forms and a-hyperbolic rank, Int.\ Math.\ Res.\ Not.\ IMRN (2015), 6267--6285

    2015

  2. [10]

    Bourdon, Structure conforme au bord et flot g\'eod\'esique d'un CAT (-1) -espace, Enseign.\ Math.\ (2) 41 (1995), 63--102

    M. Bourdon, Structure conforme au bord et flot g\'eod\'esique d'un CAT (-1) -espace, Enseign.\ Math.\ (2) 41 (1995), 63--102

    1995

  3. [11]

    B. H. Bowditch, Spaces of geometrically finite representations, Ann.\ Acad.\ Sci.\ Fenn.\ Math.\ 23 (1998), 389--414

    1998

  4. [12]

    Calabi, L

    E. Calabi, L. Markus, Relativistic space forms, Ann.\ of Math.\ (2) 75 (1962), 63--76

    1962

  5. [13]

    D. H. Collingwood, W. M. McGovern, Nilpotent orbits in semisimple Lie algebras, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York (1993)

    1993

  6. [14]

    Danciger, F

    J. Danciger, F. Gu\'eritaud, F. Kassel, Proper affine actions for right-angled Coxeter groups, Duke Math.\ J. 169 (2020), 2231--2280

    2020

  7. [15]

    Desgroseilliers, F

    M. Desgroseilliers, F. Haglund, On some convex cocompact groups in real hyperbolic space, Geom.\ Topol.\ 17 (2013), 2431--2484

    2013

  8. [16]

    Gu\'eritaud, O

    F. Gu\'eritaud, O. Guichard, F. Kassel, A. Wienhard, Anosov representations and proper actions, Geom.\ Topol.\ 21 (2017), 485--584

    2017

  9. [17]

    Gu\'eritaud, F

    F. Gu\'eritaud, F. Kassel, Maximally stretched laminations on geometrically finite hyperbolic manifolds, Geom.\ Topol.\ 21 (2017), 693--840

    2017

  10. [18]

    Kapovich, Representations of polygons of finite groups, Geom.\ Topol.\ 9 (2005), 1915--1951

    M. Kapovich, Representations of polygons of finite groups, Geom.\ Topol.\ 9 (2005), 1915--1951

    2005

  11. [19]

    Kapovich, B

    M. Kapovich, B. Leeb, J. Porti, Morse actions of discrete groups on symmetric spaces, arXiv:1403.7671, preprint

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kassel, Quotients compacts d'espaces homog\`enes r\'eels ou p-adiques, Ph.D

    F. Kassel, Quotients compacts d'espaces homog\`enes r\'eels ou p-adiques, Ph.D. Thesis, Universit\'e Paris-Sud (2009), available at: https://www.ihes.fr/ kassel/These.pdf https://www.ihes.fr/ kassel/These.pdf

    2009

  13. [21]

    Kassel, N

    F. Kassel, N. Tholozan, Sharpness of proper and cocompact actions on reductive homogeneous spaces, arXiv:2410.08179, preprint

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    I. Kim, P. Pansu, Flexibility of surface groups in classical simple Lie groups, J. Eur.\ Math.\ Soc.\ 17 (2015), 2209--2242

    2015

  15. [23]

    Kobayashi, Proper actions on homogeneous spaces of reductive type, Math.\ Ann.\ 285 (1989), 249--263

    T. Kobayashi, Proper actions on homogeneous spaces of reductive type, Math.\ Ann.\ 285 (1989), 249--263

    1989

  16. [24]

    Kobayashi, Criterion for proper actions of homogeneous spaces of reductive groups, J

    T. Kobayashi, Criterion for proper actions of homogeneous spaces of reductive groups, J. Lie Theory 6 (1996), 147--163

    1996

  17. [25]

    T. Kobayashi, Discontinuous groups and Clifford-Klein forms of pseudo-Riemannian homogeneous manifolds, Algebraic and analytic methods in representation theory (S nderborg, 1994), Perspectives in Mathematics, vol. 17, Academic Press, San Diego, CA (1997), 99--165

    1997

  18. [26]

    Kobayashi, Discontinuous groups for non-Riemannian homogeneous spaces, Mathematics unlimited--2001 and beyond, Springer, Berlin (2001), 723--747

    T. Kobayashi, Discontinuous groups for non-Riemannian homogeneous spaces, Mathematics unlimited--2001 and beyond, Springer, Berlin (2001), 723--747

    2001

  19. [27]

    R. S. Kulkarni, Proper actions and pseudo-Riemannian space forms, Adv.\ in Math.\ 40 (1981), 10--51

    1981

  20. [28]

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

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

    2006

  21. [29]

    G. S. Lakeland, C. J. Leininger, Strict contractions and exotic _0(d,1) quotients, J. Lond.\ Math.\ Soc.\ (2) 96 (2017), 642--662

    2017

  22. [30]

    Marquis, Anti-de Sitter strictly GHC-regular groups which are not lattices, Trans.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ 372 (2019), 153--186

    G.-S.\ Lee, L. Marquis, Anti-de Sitter strictly GHC-regular groups which are not lattices, Trans.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ 372 (2019), 153--186

    2019

  23. [31]

    J. C. Lofrin, Affine spheres and convex RP ^n -manifolds, Amer.\ J. Math.\ 123 (2001), 255--274

    2001

  24. [32]

    Monclair, J.-M.\ Schlenker, N

    D. Monclair, J.-M.\ Schlenker, N. Tholozan, Gromov--Thurston manifolds and anti-de Sitter geometry, arXiv:2310.12003, to appear in Geom.\ Topol

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Okuda, Classification of semisimple symmetric spaces with proper SL(2, ) -actions, J

    T. Okuda, Classification of semisimple symmetric spaces with proper SL(2, ) -actions, J. Differential Geom.\ 94 (2013), 301--342

    2013

  26. [34]

    Okuda, On examples of semisimple symmetric spaces which do not have proper actions of SL(3, ) and SU(2,1) , RIMS K\^ o ky\^ u roku 1877 (2014), 152--157 (in Japanese)

    T. Okuda, On examples of semisimple symmetric spaces which do not have proper actions of SL(3, ) and SU(2,1) , RIMS K\^ o ky\^ u roku 1877 (2014), 152--157 (in Japanese)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Okuda, Homogeneous space with non-virtually abelian discontinuous groups but without any proper SL(2, ) -action, Internat.\ J

    T. Okuda, Homogeneous space with non-virtually abelian discontinuous groups but without any proper SL(2, ) -action, Internat.\ J. Math.\ 27 (2016), 1650018, 7 pp

    2016

  28. [36]

    Potyagailo, E

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

    2005

  29. [37]

    Salein, Vari\' e t\' e s anti-de Sitter de dimension 3 exotiques, Ann.\ Inst.\ Fourier (Grenoble) 50 (2000), 257--284

    F. Salein, Vari\' e t\' e s anti-de Sitter de dimension 3 exotiques, Ann.\ Inst.\ Fourier (Grenoble) 50 (2000), 257--284

    2000

  30. [38]

    A. Selberg, On discontinuous groups in higher-dimensional symmetric spaces, Contributions to function theory (internat.\ Colloq.\ Function Theory, Bombay, 1960), Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay (1960), 147--164

    1960

  31. [39]

    Tholozan, Volume entropy of Hilbert metrics and length spectrum of Hitchin representations into (3, ) , Duke Math.\ J

    N. Tholozan, Volume entropy of Hilbert metrics and length spectrum of Hitchin representations into (3, ) , Duke Math.\ J. 166 (2017), 1377--1403

    2017

  32. [40]

    Wang, Some examples of complete hyperbolic affine 2 -spheres in ^3 , Lecture Notes in Math., 1481, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1991), 271--280

    C. Wang, Some examples of complete hyperbolic affine 2 -spheres in ^3 , Lecture Notes in Math., 1481, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1991), 271--280

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.