$\DeclareMathOperator\SL{SL}$The volume of $\SL\_n(\mathbb{R})/\SL\_n(\mathbb{Z})$ can be computed under the natural measure that it inherits from $GL\_n(\mathbb{R})$. Two formulae seem to be known.
$$\operatorname{vol}(\SL\_n(\mathbb{R})/\SL\_n(\mathbb{Z}))= \zeta(2)\zeta(3) \dotsb \zeta(n).$$
This is available in notes by Paul Garrett [2]. In [1], the volume is given as
$$\operatorname{vol}(\SL\_n(\mathbb{R})/\SL\_n(\mathbb{Z}))= \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\prod\_{i=1}^{n-1}2^{i-1}i!}\zeta(2)\zeta(3) \dotsb \zeta(n).$$


**Main question**.


1.) Are there any such formulæ known for the quotient of $\SL\_n(K\otimes\_{\mathbb{Q}} \mathbb{R})/\SL\_n(\mathcal{O}\_K)$? I expect that it would be an expression involving Dedekind zeta functions. Here $K$ is a number field and $\mathcal{O}\_K$ is the ring of integers.


**Another question**.


2.) Why are the two expressions different? Is one of them wrong or are they under different scaling of the Haar measures? Which of them is the volume with respect to the natural measure on $\SL\_n(\mathbb{R})$?


[1] [Paula - Comparison of volumes of Siegel sets and fundamental domains of $\operatorname{SL}\_n(\mathbb Z)$](https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03613)


[2] [Garrett - Volume of $\operatorname{SL}\_n(\mathbb Z)\backslash\operatorname{SL}\_n(\mathbb R)$ and $\operatorname{Sp}\_n(\mathbb Z)\backslash\operatorname{Sp}\_n(\mathbb R)$](http://www-users.math.umn.edu/%7Egarrett/m/v/volumes.pdf)



Volumes of $\mathrm{SL}_n(K_\mathbb{R})/\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathcal{O}_K)$
$\DeclareMathOperator\SL{SL}$The same argument (due to Siegel, in a classical form, of course), adelized, gives the analogous computation for any number field, and, yes, the corresponding Dedekind zeta appears. (To know that the adelic analogue computes the same thing, rather than the adelic quotient for $\SL\_n$ being larger than the classical one, probably we invoke Strong Approximation, just to be safe.)


Certainly there is the issue of describing a reasonable normalization of the Haar measures. Of course, in a silly way, we could normalize them to get any result we wanted. For that matter, from a contemporary viewpoint, it is more stylish to define "Tamagawa measures" on semisimple groups $G$, designed so that the measure of $G\_k\backslash G\_{\mathbb A}$ is (often) $1$, or some other simple integer. With hindsight, Siegel's computation gives hints about how to do this. (See Weil's book "[Adeles and algebraic groups](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4684-9156-2)".)


Operationally, from a neo-classical viewpoint, the important thing is to make *natural* choices of measures on $P\_v$ and $K\_v$, where $P\_v$ is the $v$-adic minimal parabolic and $K\_v$ is the $v$-adic maximal compact, which assemble to give a measure on $G\_v$. It is natural to give $K\_v$ measure $1$ at non-archimedean places. The measure on $P\_v$ is made from a local multiplicative measure on $k\_v^\times$, which has the natural normalization that $\mathfrak{o}\_v^\times$ has measure $1$. At places $v$ not ramified over $\mathbb Q$, the additive measure naturally gives $\mathfrak{o}\_v$ measure $1$. At absolutely ramified places, there is also a natural normalization as in Iwasawa–Tate theory, and this introduces a power of the discriminant, unsurprisingly.


At archimedean places $v$, thinking in terms of Iwasawa–Tate theory gives a natural measure on $P\_v$. The chief ambiguity here is about $K\_v$. One choice is to relate the measure to the natural measure of spheres. Another is to give $K\_v$ measure $1$. And other choices that adapt to induction over the size $n$. These lead to different constants, attributible to these choices at archimedean places.


EDIT: in response to a [question](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/394851/volumes-of-mathrmsl-nk-mathbbr-mathrmsl-n-mathcalo-k#comment1010387_394856) about why computing "the" volume of $\SL\_n(\mathbb{Q})\backslash\SL\_n({\mathbb A})$ should be essentially the same thing as that of $\SL\_n(\mathbb Z)\backslash\SL\_n(\mathbb R)$, and so on… The most typical (?) thing that is said is that (by Strong Approximation) $\SL\_n(\mathbb A)=\SL\_n(\mathbb Q)\SL\_n(\mathbb{R})\prod\_{p<\infty}\SL\_n(\mathbb Z\_p)$, from which
\begin{gather\*}
\SL\_n(\mathbb Q)\backslash\SL\_n(\mathbb A)/\prod\_{p<\infty}\SL\_n(\mathbb Z\_p)
\approx (\SL\_n(\mathbb Q)\cap \SL\_n(\mathbb R)\prod\_{p<\infty}\SL\_n(\mathbb Z\_p))\backslash\SL\_n(\mathbb R) \\
\;=\; \SL\_n(\mathbb Z)\backslash\SL\_n(\mathbb R).
\end{gather\*}
In particular, a right $\SL\_n(\mathbb R)$-invariant measure on one gives the same on the other. The measures on the various $X\_N$ can be normalized to make everything consonant… A possibly disappointing aspect of this viewpoint is that it gives no *origin* story, despite being an orthodox viewpoint.


Another viewpoint, which in the long term may be more explanatory, is in terms of projective limits of classical quotients $X\_N=\Gamma\_N\backslash\SL\_n(\mathbb R)$, where $\Gamma\_N$ is the principal congruence subgroup of level $N$. When $M$ divides $N$, there is the natural surjection $X\_N\to X\_M$. Ordering positive integers by divisibility, the projective limit (a type of non-abelian *solenoid*) is naturally an object of interest. Already we could look at the proj lim of circles $\mathbb R/N\mathbb Z$, or even the proj lim of circles $\mathbb R/2^n\mathbb Z$. These solenoids were studied from a topological viewpoint in the early 1940s by Eilenberg and MacLane. The latter case gives $(\mathbb R\times \mathbb Q\_2)/\mathbb Z[{1\over 2}]^\Delta$, where $\mathbb Q\_2$ is the $2$-adic numbers. An interesting operational point is that $\mathbb Q\_2$ acts on the *family* of circles $\mathbb R/2^n\mathbb Z$, although it does not act on the individuals.


Similarly the proj lim of $\mathbb R/N\mathbb Z$ is $\mathbb A/\mathbb Q$. That is, in fact every $\mathbb Q\_p$ acts on that family of circles, though not on individuals.


Similarly, $\SL\_n(\mathbb Q\_p)$ acts on the projective family of classical arithmetic quotients $X\_N$, though not on individuals.


(The emergence of adelic things in some areas of physics also seems to be not just by fiat of definition, but because one takes a projective limit of "charge lattices", whatever those are. :) I don't know anything beyond those words…)


