The proofs of Theorems 5.1 and 7.1 of [2] contain a gap. We will show below how to close it under some suitable additional assumptions in these theorems and their corollaries. We will assume the notation of [2] throughout. In particular, $\mu$ is a measure invariant and ergodic under an $R^k$-action $\alpha$. Let us first explain the gap. Both theorems are proved by establishing a dichotomy for the conditional measures of $\mu$ along the intersection of suitable stable manifolds. They were either atomic or invariant under suitable translation or unipotent subgroups $U$. Atomicity eventually led to zero entropy. Invariance of the conditional measures showed invariance of $\mu$ under $U$. We then claimed that $\mu$ was algebraic using, respectively, unique ergodicity of the translation subgroup on a rational subtorus or Ratner's theorem (cf. [2, Lemma 5.7]). This conclusion, however, only holds for the $U$-ergodic components of $\mu$ which may not equal $\mu$. In fact, in the toral case, the $R^k$-action may have a zero-entropy factor such that the conditional measures along the fibers are Haar measures along a foliation by rational subtori. Since invariant measures with zero entropy have not been classified, we cannot conclude algebraicity of the total measure $\mu$ at this time. In the toral case, the existence of zero entropy factors turns out to be precisely the obstruction to our methods. The case of Weyl chamber flows is somewhat different as the ‘Haar’ direction of the measure may not be integrable. In this case, we need to use additional information coming from the semisimplicity of the ambient Lie group to arrive at the versions of Theorem 7.1 presented below.
Invariant measures and arithmetic quantum unique ergodicity
