ArXiv x 3

Three recent arXiv preprints this week caught my interest and seemed worth mentioning here.

The first is a paper by Oscar Randal-Williams, which considers (among other things) the cohomology of congruence subgroups of \(\mathrm{SL}_N(\mathbf{Z})\) in the stable range. This is definitely something I have talked on the blog about a number of times, including here and here. To recall; Matthew Emerton and I proved that the completed cohomology groups

\(\widetilde{H}^d(\mathbf{F}_p) = \lim H^d(\mathrm{SL}_N(\mathbf{Z},p^n),\mathbf{F}_p)\)

are independent of \(N\) for \(N\) sufficiently large with respect to \(d\), and are moreover finite vector spaces with a trivial action of \(G = \mathrm{SL}_N(\mathbf{Z}_p)\). I later explained moreover how these groups are the cohomology groups of the homotopy fibre of the map from \(\mathrm{SK}(\mathbf{Z};\mathbf{Z}_p)\) to \(\mathrm{SK}(\mathbf{Z}_p;\mathbf{Z}_p)\). But now the Quillen-Lichtenbaum conjecture shows (thanks to Blumberg and Mandell) how the homotopy groups of these spaces are identified with Galois cohomology groups, which allows one to compute the maps between homotopy groups and understand (at the very least) the cohomology groups in degrees less than \(p\). Since one has a Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence

\(E^{i,j}_2 = H^i(G(p),\widetilde{H}^j(\mathbf{F}_p)) \Rightarrow H^{i+j}(\mathrm{SL}(\mathbf{Z},p),\mathbf{F}_p),\)

this allows one to compute the cohomology of \(\mathrm{SL}(\mathbf{Z},p)\) over \(\mathbf{F}_p\) in low degree by analyzing this spectral sequence. I later came to suspect that for regular primes \(p\) this spectral sequence degenerated immediately at least in degrees less than \(p\) or so, which would allow one to compute the cohomology groups in degree \(d\) explicitly for all large regular \(p\). Actually the prediction was slightly stronger: in the range of cohomology degrees at most \(d\) one only had to avoid a finite set of primes (those dividing \(B_{2k}\) for small \(k\) together with the set of primes \(p\) which divided the finitely many zeta values \(\zeta_p(3), \zeta_p(5), \ldots \zeta_p(2k+1)\) also for small \(k\)). Oscar not only proves this but goes one step further, by showing that it degenerates in small degrees for any prime \(p\), even as a \(\mathrm{SL}(\mathbf{F}_p)\)-module. This implies, for example, that, with \(H^1(G(p),\mathbf{F}_p) = M\) being more or less the adjoint representation, that

\(H^4(\mathrm{SL}_N(\mathbf{Z},p),\mathbf{F}_p) = \mathbf{F}_p \oplus \wedge^2 M \oplus \wedge^4 M\)

for \(p > 5\) if and only if \(p\) does not divide the \(p\)-adic zeta function \(\zeta_p(3)\), and

\(H^4(\mathrm{SL}_N(\mathbf{Z},p),\mathbf{F}_p) = \mathbf{F}_p \oplus \mathbf{F}_p \oplus \wedge^2 M \oplus \wedge^4 M\)

otherwise. Note this condition implies that \(p\) is irregular but is much more restrictive. But it does actually happen! The only known primes with this property are \(p = 16843\) and \(p=2124679\).

Part of my original interest in this problem came from Benson Farb and Tom Church — they noted that these groups should be stable in the weaker sense that they should be “independent of \(N\)” more or less exactly in the sense that there is a uniform description as above (proved later by Andrew Putman), but this left open the question of what the groups actually were. Of course my feeling is that the completed cohomology groups are more “fundamental” and the cohomology at finite level is really just a frothy mix of unwinding what happens in the limit, but one has to admit that this new result is pretty satisfying.

————————

The second is a paper by Will Sawin and Melanie Wood. I remember 20 years ago or so being one of three BPs at Harvard asked to give a small presentation to the Harvard “Friends of Math” (Will Hearst and the gang), along with William Stein and Nathan Dunfield. One memory was that my talk was a chalk talk and theirs were both involved much snazzier technology. But I also remember that Nathan talked about his very nice paper with Bill Thurston on random 3-manifolds. In Melanie and Will’s new paper, they beautifully exploit many of the recent progress on “random groups” (much of it due to the authors themselves) to show that the profinite completion of a random 3-manifold (in the sense of a random Heegaard splitting for larger and larger genus) itself has a limiting distribution.

Here is just one immediate corollary of their results which ties into previous problems considered both by Nathan and me and also Nigel Boston and Jordan Ellenberg. (Actually I say corollary, but I am just guessing that this should easily be a corollary without actually doing any of the computation so any error here is due to me!)

Expected Corollary: For a fixed prime \(p > 2\) and a “random” 3-manifold \(M\), there is a positive probability that:

1. There is a surjection: \(\pi_1(M) \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbf{Z}_p)\),
2. The corresponding tower of covers \(M_n\) coming from congruence subgroups all have trivial first Betti number.

The point of course being that (as in Boston-Ellenberg) one can deduce this from the more restrictive condition that the kernel \(N\) of the map

\(\pi_1(M) \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbf{F}_p)\)

has \(N/N^p = (\mathbf{F}_p)^3\) and no larger, and hence it can be phrased as the pro-finite completion of \(\pi_1(M)\) surjecting onto one pro-finite group but not some other finite group. (Here \(N/N^p = (\mathbf{F}_p)^3\) can I think be weakened to \(N/N^p[N,N] = (\mathbf{F}_p)^3\) by an argument of Simon Marshall). I guess another way of saying this is that the pro-p completion of the cover \(N\) can be described explicitly as the \(p\)-congruence subgroup of \(\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbf{Z}_p)\).

Of course, this work also raises the very natural question:

Question: What is the distribution of \(\widehat{\pi_1(M)}\) on arithmetic 3-manifolds? What about congruence arithmetic 3-manifolds?

The main point of course is that the existence of Hecke operators imposes a lot of extra structure, which one certainly expects (and can be numerically observed) changes the distribution of any given finite group occurring. Here I think the sensible question is to ask for a conjecture rather than a theorem, of course! (Maybe the first sensible question is actually to give a good conjecture for the distribution of the abelianization of these groups…)

————————

The last paper is this one by Peter Kravchuk, Dalimil Mazáč, and Sridip Pal, which I am even less qualified to talk about, which gives remarkable upper bounds for the smallest Laplacian eigenvalue of a (closed) hyperbolic orbifold of fixed genus. For example, when \(g = 2\), they give the bound \(\lambda_1 < 3.8388976481\), which is not too shabby given that there is an example with \(\lambda_1 = 3.83888725\ldots\)! The paper has a number of other gems, including more or less identifying the complete spectrum of all \(\lambda_1\) as comprising a set of isolated points combined with the entire interval \([0,\alpha]\) for some \(\alpha = 15.8\ldots\).