Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Take your favourite model of the hyperbolic plane $\mathfrak h$. It is well known how to define cusps, and we know those are $\mathbb Q \cup \{ \infty \}$.

Now pick a higher dimensional hyperbolic space. In particular, I am interested in the following "kind" of hyperbolic space:

\begin{equation} \mathfrak h^n= \{ A \in GL_n(\mathbb R) \, | \, A \text{ is upper triangular and } A_{i,i}>0, \, A_{n,n}=1 \}. \end{equation} This can be viewed as an hyperbolic space by considering each element as a product of a diagonal matrix $y$ with positive eigenvalue, and $n$-th eigenvalue $1$, and a unipotent upper triangular matrix $x$, just like by using the upper-plane model we can define $\mathfrak h$ as the set of matrices $\begin{pmatrix} y & x // 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$ with $y>0$.

Now comes my question: what are the cusps in this higher dimensional hyperbolic space? Is there a natural generalization, either by using geometric or algebraic properties of cusps in the usual hyperbolic plane?

Motivation: After studying modular forms and in particular Maass forms, in the $2$-dimensional case (i.e. for congruence subgroups of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$) I am now studying the more general $n$-dimensional case. While there is still a notion of cusp form, it is only defined in a very implicit way, by introducing some integral and saying that cusp forms are the ones such that the integral vanish identically. I will add more details in case they are deemed to be relevant.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

The correct buzzword here is "symmetric spaces". If $G$ is a semisimple Lie group, then the symmetric space for $G$ is $G / K$, where $K$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $G$ (well-defined up to conjugacy). It's a nice exercise to check that you get the usual upper half-plane by taking $G = SL_2(\mathbb{R})$ and $K = SO_2(\mathbb{R})$. I haven't checked too carefully but it looks very much like your example is the symmetric space for $SL_n(\mathbb{R})$.

Now, a subtle point about cusps for the upper half-plane. It's not the case that "the cusps of $\mathfrak{h}$ are $\mathbb{Q} \cup \infty$". If you take the quotient of $\mathfrak{h}$ by a subgroup $\Gamma$ of $SL_2(\mathbb{R})$ which is commensurable with $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$, then the "right" way to compactify this is to throw in $\mathbb{Q} \cup \infty$, which is preserved by $\Gamma$. But there are other types of discrete groups acting on $\mathfrak{h}$, and if you want to compactify the quotient by one of these, the set of extra points you have to add will be different (in particular, $\Gamma$ won't necessarily preserve $\mathbb{Q} \cup \infty$). (Silly example: there are discrete groups $\Gamma$ for which the quotient $\Gamma \backslash \mathfrak{h}$ is compact, and there the right set of "cusps" to use is clearly the empty set!). So the definition of "cusp" depends on the additional data of a commensurability class of discrete subgroups.

Now, back to the higher-dimensional case. There is a very rich theory of compactifications of symmetric spaces (or more precisely of locally symmetric spaces, which are the quotients of symmetric spaces by discrete subgroups of $G$). It turns out that if your $G$ is defined over $\mathbb{Q}$, and you want to quotient out by the action of arithmetic subgroups of $G$, then there are canonical good compactifications given in terms of the conjugacy classes of $\mathbb{Q}$-rational parabolic subgroups of $G$. I use the plural because there are two subtly different standard compactifications: the Baily-Borel and Borel-Serre compactifications. Googling the name of either of these will bring up lots of relevant information.

PS. To link this back to your question: the definition of "cuspidal" for automorphic forms on general Lie groups is given in terms of vanishing of integrals over parabolic subgroups, which are the building blocks of the BB/BS compactifications.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.