i) If d 1 > d 2 then conditions (T 1 ) and (N 1 ) hold. (ii) If d 1 = d 2 but K Γ 1 ⊂ K Γ 2 then again conditions (T 1 ) and (N 1 ) hold. Thus, unless d 1 = d 2 and K Γ 1 = K Γ 2 , conditions (T i ) and (N i ) hold for at least one i ∈ {1, 2}.Assume now that d 1 = d 2 =: d and the subgroups Γ 1 and Γ 2 are arithmetic.(iii) If d is either even or is congruent to 3(mod 4), then either M 1 and M 2 are commensurable, hence length-commensurable and F 1 = F 2 , or (T i ) and (N i ) hold for at least one i ∈ {1, 2}.(iv) If d ≡ 1(mod 4) and in addition K Γ i = Q for at least one i ∈ {1, 2} then either M 1 and M 2 are length-commensurable (although not necessarily commensurable), or conditions (T i ) and (N i ) hold for at least one i ∈ {1, 2}.The results of [5] enable us to consider the situation where one of the groups is of type B n and the other is of type C n . the preparation of this paper, the second-named author was visiting the Mathematics Department of the University of Michigan as a Gehring Professor; the hospitality and generous support of this institution are thankfully acknowledged.
Weak containmentThe goal of this section is to derive several consequences of the relation of weak containment (see Definition 1 of the Introduction) that will be needed later. We begin with some definitions and results for algebraic tori. Given a torus T defined over a field K, we let K T denote its (minimal) splitting field over K (contained in a fixed algebraic closure K of K). The following definition goes back to [9].Definition 4. A K-torus T is called K-irreducible (or, irreducible over K) if it does not contain any proper K-subtori.