No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An origami of genus 3 with arithmetic Kontsevich–Zorich monodromy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 March 2019
Abstract
In this we exploit the arithmeticity criterion of Oh and Benoist–Miquel to exhibit an origami in the principal stratum of the moduli space of translation surfaces of genus three whose Kontsevich–Zorich monodromy is not thin in the sense of Sarnak.
MSC classification
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 169 , Issue 1 , July 2020 , pp. 19 - 30
- Copyright
- © Cambridge Philosophical Society 2019
References
REFERENCES
Avila, A., Matheus, C. and Yoccoz, J.–C.. Zorich conjecture for hyperelliptic Rauzy–Veech groups. Math. Ann. 370 (2018), 785–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoist, Y. and Miquel, S.. Arithmeticity of discrete subgroups containing horospherical lattices, Preprint (2018) available at arXiv:1805.00045.Google Scholar
Brav, C. and Thomas, H.. Thin monodromy in Sp(4). Compositio Math. 150 (2014), 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskin, A., Kontsevich, M. and Zorich, A.. Sum of Lyapunov exponents of the Hodge bundle with respect to the Teichmüller geodesic flow. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 120 (2014), 207–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskin, A., Kontsevich, M. and Zorich, A.. Lyapunov spectrum of square-tiled cyclic covers. J. Mod. Dyn. 5 (2011), no. 2, 319–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskin, A. and Matheus, C.. A coding-free simplicity criterion for the Lyapunov exponents of Teichmüller curves. Geom. Dedicata 179 (2015), 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forni, G.. A geometric criterion for the nonuniform hyperbolicity of the Kontsevich–Zorich cocycle. Appendix by Carlos Matheus. J. Mod. Dyn. 5 (2011), 355–395.Google Scholar
Forni, G. and Matheus, C.. Introduction to Teichmüller theory and its applications to dynamics of interval exchange transformations, flows on surfaces and billiards. J. Mod. Dyn. 8 (2014), 271–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, E. and Rivin, I.. Generic thinness in finitely generated subgroups of SLn (ℤ). Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2017), no. 17, 5385–5414.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez–Romo, R.. Classification of Rauzy–Veech groups: proof of the Zorich conjecture. Invent. Math. (2018).Google Scholar
Matheus, C.. Möller, M. and Yoccoz, J.–C.. A criterion for the simplicity of the Lyapunov spectrum of square-tiled surfaces. Invent. Math. 202 (2015), 333–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, H.. On discrete subgroups containing a lattice in a horospherical subgroup. Israel J. Math. 110 (1999), 333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, G. and Rapinchuk, A.. Generic elements in Zariski-dense subgroups and isospectral locally symmetric spaces. Thin groups and superstrong approximation. Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. 61, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014), 211–252.Google Scholar
Rivin, I.. Large Galois groups with applications to Zariski density. Preprint (2015) available at arxiv.1312.3009.Google Scholar
Sarnak, P.. Notes on thin matrix groups. Thin groups and superstrong approximation. Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., 61 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), (2014), 343–362.Google Scholar
Singh, S. and Venkataramana, T. N.. Arithmeticity of certain symplectic hypergeometric groups. Duke Math. J. 163 (2014), 591–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar