Overgroups of regular unipotent elements in simple algebraic groups
Abstract
We investigate positive-dimensional closed reductive subgroups of almost simple algebraic groups containing a regular unipotent element. Our main result states that such subgroups do not lie inside proper parabolic subgroups unless possibly when their connected component is a torus. This extends the earlier result of Testerman and Zalesski treating connected reductive subgroups.
1. Introduction
Let be a simple linear algebraic group defined over an algebraically closed field. The regular unipotent elements of are those whose centraliser has minimal possible dimension (the rank of and these form a single conjugacy class which is dense in the variety of unipotent elements of ) The main result of our paper is a contribution to the study of positive-dimensional subgroups of . which meet the class of regular unipotent elements. Since any parabolic subgroup must contain representatives from every unipotent conjugacy class, the question arises only for reductive, not necessarily connected subgroups, where we establish the following:
In addition, we show that for many simple groups there exists a closed reductive subgroup , with a torus and such that meets the class of regular unipotent elements of (See Proposition .7.2 and Examples 7.7, 7.11.) Finally, we go on to consider subgroups of non-simple almost simple algebraic groups where there is a well-defined notion of regular unipotent elements in unipotent cosets of We establish the corresponding result in this setting; see Corollary .6.2.
The investigation of the possible overgroups of regular unipotent elements in simple linear algebraic groups has a long history. The maximal closed positive-dimensional reductive subgroups of which meet the class of regular unipotent elements were classified by Saxl and Seitz Reference 17 in 1997. In earlier work, see Reference 21, Thm 1.9, Suprunenko obtained a particular case of their result. In order to derive from the Saxl–Seitz classification an inductive description of all closed positive-dimensional reductive subgroups containing regular unipotent elements, one needs to exclude that any of these can lie in proper parabolic subgroups. For connected this was shown by Testerman and Zalesski in Reference 22, Thm 1.2 in 2013. They then went on to determine all connected reductive subgroups of simple algebraic groups which meet the class of regular unipotent elements. Our result generalises Reference 22, Thm 1.2 to the disconnected case and thus makes the inductive approach possible. It is worth pointing out that the analogous result is no longer true even for simple subgroups once one relaxes the condition of positive-dimensionality. For example, there exist reducible indecomposable representations of the group whose image in the corresponding contains a matrix with a single Jordan block, i.e., the image meets the class of regular unipotent elements in In .Reference 3, Burness and Testerman consider of exceptional type simple algebraic groups which meet the class of regular unipotent elements and show that with the exception of two precise configurations, such a subgroup does not lie in a proper parabolic subgroup of -subgroups (see Reference 3, Thms 1 and 2).
Our proof of Theorem 1 relies on the result of Testerman–Zalesski Reference 22 in the connected case, which actually implies our theorem in characteristic 0 (see Remark 2.1) as well as on results of Saxl–Seitz Reference 17 classifying almost simple irreducible and tensor indecomposable subgroups of classical groups containing regular unipotent elements and maximal reductive subgroups in exceptional groups with this property. For the exceptional groups we also use information on centralisers of unipotent elements and detailed knowledge of Jordan block sizes of unipotent elements acting on small modules, as found in Lawther Reference 6. For establishing the existence of positive-dimensional reductive subgroups with , a torus, and meeting the class of regular unipotent elements, we produce subgroups which centralise a non-trivial unipotent element and hence necessarily lie in a proper parabolic subgroup of (See .Reference 15, Thm 17.10, Cor. 17.15.)
After collecting some useful preliminary results we deal with the case of in Section 3, with the orthogonal case in Section 4, and with the simple groups of exceptional type in Section 5. The case of almost simple groups is deduced from the connected case in Corollary 6.2. Finally, in Section 7 we discuss the case when is a torus.
2. Preliminary results
In this paper we consider almost simple algebraic groups defined over an algebraically closed field of characteristic and investigate closed positive-dimensional subgroups that contain a regular unipotent element. For us, throughout “algebraic group” will mean “linear algebraic group”, and all vector spaces will be finite-dimensional vector spaces over An algebraic group . is called an almost simple algebraic group if is simple and embeds into Thus, . is an extension of by a subgroup of its group of graph automorphisms (see, e.g., Reference 15, Thm 11.11). As a matter of convention, a “reductive subgroup” of an algebraic group will always mean a closed subgroup whose unipotent radical is trivial. In particular, a reductive group may be disconnected. For an algebraic group we write , to denote the unipotent radical of Throughout, all . are rational, as are all extensions, and cohomology groups are those associated to rational cocycles. -modules
Let us point out that for the question treated here, the precise isogeny type of the ambient simple algebraic group will not matter, as isogenies preserve parabolic subgroups as well as regular unipotent elements. (If is almost simple and does not divide the order of the fundamental group of the natural map , induces an isogeny of onto its adjoint quotient, preserving regular unipotent elements in in the general case, a reduction to ; of adjoint type is given in Reference 18, I.1.7.) In particular, for a classical type simple algebraic group we will argue for the groups , and and for the groups of type , and defined over of characteristic we may choose to work with whichever group is more convenient under the given circumstances. ,
We start by making two useful observations which will simplify the later analysis.
2.1. Jordan forms and tensor products
The following elementary fact will be used throughout (see also Reference 17, Lemma 1.3(i)):
Before establishing a useful consequence of Lemma 2.4, we recall the following well-known Clifford-theoretic result, see, e.g., Reference 2, Prop. 2.6.2:
We now show the desired corollary of Lemma 2.4:
The proof of the next result is modelled after the proof of Reference 17, Prop. 2.1 which treats a more special situation:
2.2. On subgroups containing regular unipotent elements
For connected groups, the following result from Reference 22, Lemma 2.6 will be useful:
We will make frequent use of the following result, the second part of which was essentially shown by Saxl and Seitz Reference 17, Prop. 2.2:
We will obtain a similar classification for unipotent elements in with a Jordan block of size when in Proposition 4.1.
2.3. Jordan forms and orders of regular unipotent elements
While the notion of regular unipotent element is well known for connected reductive groups, this is much less so for non-connected reductive groups. Still, similar results hold.
Let be a not necessarily connected reductive algebraic group and let be unipotent. Spaltenstein Reference 18, p. 41 and II.10.1 has shown (generalising a result of Steinberg in the connected case) that the coset of the connected component contains a unipotent class -conjugacy that is dense in the variety of unipotent elements of called the class of regular unipotent elements of ,. Since this variety is irreducible Reference 18, Cor. I.1.6, is also the unique class of unipotent elements in of maximal dimension.
We now describe the Jordan block structure of regular unipotent elements in classical type almost simple groups on their natural representation. For us, the natural representation for the extension of , by its graph automorphism of order 2 is defined by its embedding into the stabiliser in , of a pair of complementary totally singular subspaces, with acting in its natural representation, respectively its dual, on these subspaces. We do not consider or as being of classical type.
Since the natural representations are faithful, the above result also allows one to read off the orders of regular unipotent elements of almost simple classical groups.
2.4. Some results on extensions
We conclude this preparatory section by collecting some basic properties on Ext-groups. We state the following well-known result for future reference (see Reference 24, Prop. 3.3.4).
We thank Jacques Thévenaz for pointing out the following result:
3. The case of
In this section we prove Theorem 1 for those classical type simple algebraic groups for which regular unipotent elements have a single Jordan block on their natural module (see Lemma 2.12). We are in the following situation: is a (not necessarily connected) reductive subgroup of the form for a regular unipotent element of We also assume that . is not a torus; this case will be considered in Section 7.1. We will show that cannot be contained in a proper parabolic subgroup of that is, , acts irreducibly on For this, we may whenever convenient, assume that . is semisimple, since if is not contained in a proper parabolic subgroup of then neither is As . has a single Jordan block on if , are subspaces, then -invariant has a single Jordan block on .
3.1. The completely reducible case
We first deal with the case when is completely reducible for .
In view of Lemma 3.1, it seems interesting to determine the structure of irreducible subgroups containing regular unipotent elements.
3.2. The not completely reducible case
We now use results of McNinch on semisimplicity of low-dimensional modules in order to study extensions of irreducible modules for simple algebraic groups on which a full Jordan block acts.
The extension question for the exceptional modules showing up in Proposition 3.2(2) can be discussed in a similar manner:
We can now prove the main result of this section, establishing Theorem 1 for the classical algebraic groups of type , and Recall that it suffices to consider any group isogenous to . .
Thus for Theorem 1, as far as simple groups of classical type are concerned, it remains to consider groups of type .
4. The case of
In this section we consider the following situation: for and , is a (not necessarily connected) reductive subgroup of the form with , not a torus, for a regular unipotent element of Recall from Lemma .2.12(c) that regular unipotent elements of have two Jordan blocks on of sizes , if and sizes , when .
4.1. Almost simple groups containing an element with a large Jordan block
4.2. A reduction result
In what follows we investigate further the case (4) of the preceding result.
The following proposition treats the special case arising out of Proposition 4.3 when By our Lemma .2.9, contains a regular unipotent element. This case should have been treated in Reference 22 but the argument there is incomplete in precisely this setting. So we have included a proof here.
4.3. Proof of Theorem 1 for ,
Let where , be a reductive subgroup, with , a regular unipotent element of Assume that . Then . does not lie in any proper parabolic subgroup of .
It suffices to prove the claim for and hence we may and will assume that , is semisimple. Moreover, by Remark 2.2 we may assume that is the product over a single of simple components. Assume that -orbit lies in a proper parabolic subgroup of Then there is an . flag -invariant with totally singular and dual to as an and -module, non-degenerate. We choose such that is maximal possible (and so is minimal). Hence, we are in the setting of Proposition 4.6.
By the choice of and since we have that , acts as in (1)–(4) of Proposition 4.2 on Also, by Lemma .2.8, acts with a single Jordan block on as well as on and with two Jordan blocks on , .
First assume that acts non-trivially on and thus that By Proposition .4.6, acts non-trivially on as well, which has dimension at least 6.
We first discuss the case where Let . , be the projections of , into the two factors of the Levi subgroup , respectively. Since is irreducible on by Theorem 3.9, it cannot lie in a proper parabolic subgroup of and by the choice of , neither is , contained in a proper parabolic subgroup of Write . and so We know that . is a single Jordan block, and has a block of size and one of size 2, by Lemma 2.8. Since by assumption, has order smaller than so some power , with lies in we choose ; minimal with this property. As before, we see that must centralise But then . as well, as otherwise is a non-trivial unipotent element of centralised by whence by Borel–Tits, , lies in a proper parabolic subgroup of which is not the case. Note that no smaller power of , lies in as otherwise that element would (as before) centralise forcing , to lie in a proper parabolic of again a contradiction. So , have the same order .
Recall that has a single block of size on and blocks of sizes and on Also, . has two blocks on one of size 1 or 2. But the first possibility is ruled out as , and so .
We now show that has order on that is, order twice as large as its order on , (and on Let ). be minimal such that so , is also minimal so that Hence we have . and In particular, . Since also . the order of , in its action on is In particular, . acts as an involution on with , and (as As in a previous proof, the centraliser of ). in has composition factors of dimensions on and as , centralises the , factors on -composition must be obtained as a refinement of this.
Note that since and there are at least three composition factors and so , cannot act irreducibly on ruling out configurations (1) and (2) of Proposition ,4.2. Considering the cases in (3) and (4), we see that has composition factor dimensions on among
As and the first case yields , and In the second case, the natural module for . must remain irreducible for as else there are five composition factors, and so either , or , and .
If then , has one block of size 2 and the remaining blocks of size 1 on By Lemma .2.3 this can only happen if for some so , has order on and by the previous analysis, its order on and on is (so as above). But this implies a contradiction. ,
Hence we have and and has exactly two blocks of size 1 on (coming from the block of on while the one block of size ), produces only blocks of size for So . is a power of say , Thus, . has order on and the order of on is so , and forcing , .
We claim that neither of the possible actions of on (as in Proposition 4.2(3) and (4)) is consistent with this. First suppose we have the configuration of Proposition 4.2(3), where , is irreducible on and Let . be the of -submodules such that , On each of these . acts reducibly and so has at least two Jordan blocks. Hence we have and whence , as has a single Jordan block on which gives , contradiction. ,
So finally we are left to consider the case where acts on as in Proposition 4.2(4). Here we have with , , and Recall that . has order on and thus the same order on the codimension 1 subspace which is again twice the order of , on and on So again . acts as an involution on and the factors are of dimensions -composition This is only consistent with the . analysis if This is the final contradiction settling Case 1a. .
So now we have As . we may apply Proposition ,4.2 to the action of on and as , we are in either case (1) or (3). If we are in case (1), acts as on so , acts by an inner automorphism on a component of and we are done by Lemma 2.9 and Reference 22.
In case (3) of Proposition 4.2, we have with preimages , in Now . acts non-trivially on both normalised by , so , has two Jordan blocks on each by Theorem ,3.9. Counting fixed points on as in Case 1a, we reach a contradiction.
Now assume that acts trivially on Let . be the subspace of -invariant of codimension 1. Note that is non-degenerate and acts as a regular unipotent element of by Lemma 2.8 and the image of lies in a proper parabolic subgroup of this orthogonal group. So it suffices to derive a contradiction in that situation, whence henceforth we assume Again, as . we may apply the conclusion of Proposition ,4.2 to the image of in (using our assumption that ).
In case (1) of Proposition 4.2 again we have as in Case 1b, a situation that was handled in Reference 22.
In case (2) of Proposition 4.2 we have with , as Note that . is then a completely reducible since there are no extensions between the natural and the trivial module for -module so , is isomorphic to an -submodule of Assume that . Then, by dimension reasons, this intersection must be one of the two non-isomorphic irreducible . But then -summands. has a non-degenerate form and thus is a self-dual -invariant which it is not. Thus, -module, is a non-degenerate of -submodule and , is its 2-dimensional orthogonal complement. Since are both sums of homogeneous of -components the decomposition , is making -invariant, an irreducible Thus -module. is a 1-dimensional totally singular subspace, but the fixed points of the non-trivial unipotent elements of are non-singular.
In case (3) of Proposition 4.2, we have an decomposition -stable with irreducible on Write . for the full preimage of in , both , of -submodules By Theorem .3.9, as is reducible for we deduce that , has two blocks on If . has more than one Jordan block on as well, then counting fixed points as in Case 1a we obtain a contradiction. So has a single Jordan block on whence , and .
Now first assume that so that Using that . we have and a dimension count then shows the sum is direct. Hence , contradicting the Jordan block structure of , on Similarly, when . and hence consider , Then . , and these two intersect in , By assumption, . has one fixed point on but on , it has a two-dimensional fixed point space, giving a contradiction.
In case (4) of Proposition 4.2, we have and has subspaces -invariant with non-singular of dimension 1, such that acts with one Jordan block on By Proposition .4.3 we may decompose into a product of simple groups all isomorphic to either , or with , where we set , in the case of Furthermore, . is a power of 2, with since otherwise we are done by Lemma 2.9 and Proposition 4.5. As has Jordan blocks of sizes on , has two Jordan blocks of size and two of size 1.
Note that acts trivially on the 2-dimensional full preimage of in By our assumption, . cannot be totally singular. Let be a 1-dimensional non-singular subspace. Then lies in the stabiliser isomorphic to so in , We claim that . has Jordan block sizes on Indeed, as it has block sizes . on the only other possibility would be , (note that all odd block sizes must occur an even number of times). But by Reference 9, Thm 6.6 the centraliser of such an element has reductive part of its centraliser containing an while the reductive part of the centraliser of , in is just a torus, a contradiction.
Now the factors of -composition are the and two trivial modules. Thus, by self-duality, has a submodule of codimension 1, and this is the sum of submodules of dimension at most (namely either the or extensions of some by a trivial module). But has block sizes times) on so at least one block of size , on By Theorem .3.9, this contradicts the fact that has no irreducible of that dimension. -submodules■
5. Exceptional types
In this section we consider algebraic groups defined over of characteristic See Remark .2.1.
We will make extensive use of the known data on unipotent elements in simple algebraic groups of exceptional type, including element orders and power maps given in Reference 6 and structure of centralisers described in Reference 9. We follow the notation in Reference 6 for the labelling of unipotent classes. In particular, if the class of is denoted by some Dynkin type, then is a regular element in a Levi subgroup of that type.
In the course of our proof we will require precise knowledge on the existence and conjugacy classes of complements to in for certain unipotent elements , as in the next result. ,
Let be unipotent and let be connected reductive, where
Then there exists a connected reductive group such that and lies in a conjugate of .
Throughout we write The existence of a complement to . in follows from Reference 9, 17.6. We now turn to the proof of the remaining assertions.
Consider first with , , , a unipotent element of type and where , is a long root of -subgroup (see Reference 9, Tab. 22.1.2). By Reference 7, Thm 5 there exist two classes of such in -subgroups coming from the two non-conjugate , Levi factors of By .Reference 7, Cor., p.2, there exists a unique class of complements to in For both classes of . each non-trivial -subgroups, factor of -composition occurs as a composition factor of for some , where , is the natural -dimensional (See -module.Reference 7, Tab. 8.2.) There exists a unique class of of -subgroups and restricting each of the given irreducible , to such an -modules we find that the composition factors of -subgroup on have highest weights among , (the fundamental dominant weights of ), for , and the zero weight. Using Reference 4, II.2.14 we have for all factors -composition of and hence by Reference 20, Prop. 3.2.6, there exists a unique class of complements to in Thus there exists . with as claimed.
In the other two cases, we have with , , and , is a unipotent element of type either or and , where , respectively , long root subgroups. The action of a long root , on has composition factors the natural, dual or trivial module, and so in case we have a unique class of complements to , in establishing the result. ,
In the case we must argue slightly differently because here there is a -dimensional factor -composition of with Now . lies in a parabolic subgroup of with Moreover, considering the labelled diagram of the class of . (see Reference 9, Tab. 22.1.1) and applying Reference 9, Thm 17.4, we see that we may take to be a subgroup of -parabolic There exists a composition series of . as an all of whose terms are -module, -dimensional and trivials. The subgroup -modules is uniquely determined up to conjugacy in and, by Reference 8, Lemma 9.1.1, each such irreducible upon restriction to is the indecomposable tilting module with the 6-dimensional irreducible By -module.Reference 4, Prop. §E.1, Hence, all complements to . in are conjugate and by considering the action of on we have the same statement for , Arguing as in the previous cases now yields the claim. .
■Let be a simple algebraic group of exceptional type and a reductive subgroup with a regular unipotent element of and Then . does not lie in a proper parabolic subgroup of .
Let be as in the assertion and assume that lies in a proper parabolic subgroup of Then we have . by Reference 22, Thm 1.2. Also, by passing to we may assume that is semisimple. We will need to consider the image of in Levi factors, and for this throughout we write for the quotient of by its largest normal unipotent subgroup (which, being finite, is centralised by Note that ). maps isomorphically to a subgroup of on which the image of then acts faithfully.
By Remark 2.2, we may moreover assume that has a single orbit on the set of simple components of and, by Lemma ,2.9 it does not act as an inner automorphism on In particular, . On the other hand, as . lies in a proper parabolic subgroup of , This already rules out the case . Furthermore, regular unipotent elements of . are also regular in under the natural embedding, and proper parabolic subgroups of lie in such of hence it suffices to prove our result for , or The orders of regular unipotent elements in these groups for small primes are given in Table .2.
We first consider the case that acts by an inner automorphism on and does not contain elements of order so in particular , .
Then by Lemma 3.5, is centralised by a unipotent element of this order. We discuss this situation by comparing the list of centralisers of unipotent elements Reference 9, §22 and the list of unipotent element orders Reference 6, Tab. 5–9.
Let first and consider the case where we have , and centralises By .Reference 9, Tab. 22.1.3 and Reference 6, Tab. 5 unipotent elements of order 8 centralising a group of semisimple rank at least 2 lie in class with reductive part of the centraliser of type , Since . we conclude that Now . acts as an inner automorphism of and so centralises which lies in the class , by ,Reference 6, Tab. D. Moreover, using Reference 9, Tab. 22.1.3, we see that the full connected centraliser of has a reductive complement to a , of -subgroup generated by long root elements of Now . and we consider the possible embedding of in By .Reference 10, Lemma 2.2, must lie in a proper parabolic subgroup of and by rank considerations we find that lies in an subgroup of -parabolic As . is generated by long root subgroups of the Levi factor , is also generated by long root subgroups of Now arguing as in Lemma .5.1, we find that is a long root of -subgroup that is, a Levi factor of , (The . Levi factor of acts on with composition factors the natural, dual or trivial module for But now the centraliser of .) is an and so normalizes an subgroup of But there is no such example in .Reference 17, Thm A. For we have and and again by ,Reference 9, Tab. 22.1.3 and Reference 6, Tab. 5 there is no possibility. For we have contrary to our assumption. ,
For and we have but all centralisers of such elements have semisimple rank at most 1 by Reference 9, §22. When and so the unipotent classes , , , , and need to be discussed. Here the semisimple parts of the centralisers have type , , , , respectively. As , is contained in one of those, and has a single orbit on its set of simple components, must be of type Now . contains acting as an inner element on and so , centralises But by .Reference 6, Tab. D, lies in class with semisimple part of its centraliser a , generated by long root subgroups, by -subgroupReference 9, §22. By Lemma 5.1, must be a long root There are two classes of Levi subgroups . in Using Borel–de Siebenthal one sees that one is centralised by an . the other by a , Thus in any case, . contains a subgroup of of maximal semisimple rank, so the normaliser of and all of its overgroups are reductive. But by Reference 17, Thm A there are no such subgroups containing a regular unipotent element. For we have contrary to our assumption. ,
Finally, assume For . we have Only the 17 unipotent classes .
of contain elements of order 16. Of these, only the first three cases have a semisimple part of the centraliser of rank at least 2, of type , and respectively. So or with , acting by the graph automorphism. In the second case, centralises and lies in class but the latter has centraliser of rank 1. So in fact , By .Reference 9, Tab. 22.1.1, the remaining possible subgroups , of are generated by long root subgroups, and by Lemma 5.1, is contained in one of them. Now all subgroups of type of these are again generated by long root subgroups, hence so is Thus, the centraliser of . is of type and so , acts on an whose normaliser is a maximal subgroup of , But since this does not appear in .Reference 17, Thm A, its normaliser does not contain regular unipotent elements.
If then but no unipotent element of order bigger than 9 has a centraliser of semisimple rank at least 3. If , then but none of the seven unipotent classes having centraliser of semisimple rank at least 5 contains elements of order 25. Finally, for , we have which is not allowed here. ,
We next consider the case that acts by an inner automorphism on and that , does contain an element of order .
When and then , is a semisimple subgroup with an element of order 8 having a non-trivial graph automorphism transitively permuting the simple factors. Therefore, is one of By assumption . lies in a proper parabolic subgroup of with Levi factor and thus , contains one of the above groups, with the image of inducing a non-trivial graph automorphism of order By rank considerations, only . , and might occur. The minimal dimension of a representation of on which acts non-trivially is 10, so this cannot occur inside This representation embeds . into but not into , by the block structures given in Lemma 2.12. Also, the smallest faithful representation of has dimension too large for any proper Levi subgroup. So in fact we must have , inside a Using -parabolic.Reference 20, 3.2.6 one can check that this embedding is into a Levi factor, and so is a Levi subgroup of By .Reference 9, Tab. 22.1.3, no non-trivial unipotent element of has a in its centraliser, so is a torus, and then in fact it must be the centre of a Levi subgroup of type As . acts on Proposition ,7.8 below implies that must centralise But . lies in the class and has centraliser of rank by Reference 9, Tab. 22.1.3, a contradiction.
For and with we have that , contains elements of order 9 and has an outer automorphism of order 3, so But the smallest faithful representation of . has dimension 24, which is too large for containment in any proper parabolic subgroup of For . where the only option is that But again by Borel–de Siebenthal no proper parabolic subgroup has a Levi factor containing a group . with .
For with the semisimple group has an element of order 16 and a non-trivial graph automorphism, whence But clearly no Levi factor of a proper parabolic subgroup of . can contain with or For . with the only possibilities with a graph automorphism of order 3 are , and All could only lie in a proper parabolic subgroup of type . But . has no maximal rank subgroups or by Borel–de Siebenthal. When ,Reference 7, Thm 5 shows that is a Levi factor of Again by Borel–de Siebenthal there is a subgroup . centralising so , is reductive. But by Reference 17, Thm A, there is no positive-dimensional maximal reductive subgroup of containing a regular unipotent element. For again the only possibility is The only proper parabolic subgroups whose Levi factor might contain . with are those of type The list in .Reference 17, Thm B shows that there is no maximal reductive subgroup of containing a regular unipotent element of and such an .
For and we have The only semisimple groups of rank at most 7 with a unipotent element of order 16 and an even order graph automorphism are . , and Now for . or the element of order 16 acts as an inner element of order 8. Thus is centralised by the element of order 16, which is not possible. Assume and induces a graph automorphism on There is only one class of subgroups . in by Reference 7, Thm 5 and hence is a Levi factor of Again, . normalises the centraliser of such an hence a subgroup , and as above this is not possible by ,Reference 17, Thm A. If then and there is no possible case. When , or then , must have at least simple components, whence Now for . the group , does not contain elements of order 25, so we have and The only proper parabolic subgroup of . with a Levi factor containing with is of type By .Reference 11, Thm 4 and Tab. 17 and 18, such an lies in a Levi factor Now the centraliser of that . contains the centralising the subgroup. So again the normaliser of -Levi in has maximal semisimple rank, and Reference 17, Thm A shows that this cannot contain regular unipotent elements.
Finally, consider the case that is not inner. Then either has at least components, or there are components and on each of them induces a graph automorphism of order Either possibility forces . so , Furthermore, . must act by an inner automorphism on When . then the possibilities are or In the first case, by Lemma .3.5 there exists an element of order 4 centralising an which is not possible by ,Reference 9, §22. In the case and acts as an outer automorphism of order 4. The only Levi factor possibly containing a subgroup with is of type but , contains elements of order 16 while does not have such elements. When then none of the groups ; , and contains elements of that order, so by Lemma 3.5 there is an element of of order 8 centralising such a subgroup, which is not the case by Reference 6 and Reference 9. Finally, when then again and the candidates for , are , and Assume . then , acts by an inner automorphism so centralises But . lies in class (there is a misprint in Reference 6, Tab. D), and its centraliser does not contain an Similarly, if . then in class , centralises , which is not possible. The same argument rules out , This completes our case distinction and thus the proof. .■
Theorem 1 now follows by combining Theorems 3.9, 4.7 and 5.2.
6. Regular unipotent elements in almost simple groups
We now extend our main result to the case of regular unipotent elements in cosets of simple groups in almost simple groups.
The regular unipotent elements in a coset of an almost simple group of “exceptional type” can be realized as follows:
(a) The group occurs as a subgroup of in a natural way (see e.g. Reference 15, Ex. 13.9). Now according to Reference 6, Tab. 4 the only unipotent class of for containing elements of order 27 is the class of regular unipotent elements. Also, the regular unipotent elements in an outer coset of the disconnected group have order 27 (see Reference 13, Tab. 8). Thus, they are regular unipotent elements of .
(b) Similarly, the disconnected group occurs inside the normaliser of a Levi subgroup of type inside Again by .Reference 6, Tab. 7 the only unipotent class of for containing elements of order 32 is the class of regular unipotent elements, and since regular unipotent elements in the outer coset of have order 32 (see Reference 14, Tab. 10), they must be regular unipotent elements of .
We then obtain the following consequence of Theorem 1:
Let be almost simple of type or with or of type , with and , be a reductive subgroup with a regular unipotent element of and Then . does not lie in any proper subgroup of such that is a parabolic subgroup of .
In each case, we embed in a simple algebraic group namely, ; and embed into via their natural representation, embeds into (see remarks before Lemma 2.12), and , embed into , , respectively under the embeddings given in Example 6.1. Applying Lemma 2.12 and Example 6.1, we have that the embedding sends regular unipotent elements in an outer coset of to regular unipotent elements of Now, if . lies in a proper subgroup of with a parabolic subgroup of with then , and by the Borel–Tits theorem, the latter lies in a proper parabolic subgroup of , Thus, in all cases our claim for the almost simple group . follows from Theorem 1 for the simple group .
■Note that the type of subgroups allowed for in the preceding statement are those given by the most general possible definition of “parabolic subgroups of an almost simple group”.
7. Regular unipotent elements in normalisers of tori
Here, we show that if one removes the hypothesis that in Theorem 1, the conclusion is no longer valid. More generally, for a simple group we investigate the structure of torus normalisers in that contain a regular unipotent element and lie in some proper parabolic subgroup of .
7.1. Torus normalisers in
Let where is a torus and is unipotent with a single Jordan block. Then all weight spaces of on have the same dimension Moreover . is contained in a proper parabolic subgroup of if and only if .
Since normalises the weight spaces of , on are permuted by Moreover this action must be transitive as otherwise . would have at least two Jordan blocks on Thus, they all have the same dimension, and if they are 1-dimensional, . is an irreducible and so -module does not lie in any proper parabolic subgroup of .
Now assume the common dimension of the weight spaces is and set Since . has order, the number of weight spaces, -power is a , It follows by Lemma -power.2.3 that acts with a single Jordan block (of size on each weight space. In particular, ) centralises and thus lies in a proper parabolic subgroup of by the Borel–Tits theorem (Reference 15, Rem. 17.16).
■Groups as in the previous result do in fact exist:
Let be an integer, where There exists a . torus -dimensional where , with , weight spaces on -dimensional normalised by a unipotent element , with a single Jordan block. Moreover, lies in a proper parabolic subgroup of if and only if .
Decompose into a direct sum of subspaces of dimension Let . be the permutation matrix for a permutation sending an ordered basis of to an ordered basis of for where , Then . has order For . let be the torus of scalar matrices and a unipotent element with a single Jordan block. Set As . permutes the transitively and we have that is the wreath product of with and we can write elements of , as for and some Then the element . has power th which has Jordan blocks of size on But then . must have a single Jordan block on by Lemma 2.3. Now with the subgroup is as in Proposition 7.1 and thus the claim follows.
■7.2. Torus normalisers in and
We next discuss those classical groups in which regular unipotent elements have a single Jordan block on the natural module, that is, the types and (see Lemma 2.12).
For this, note that weight spaces for non-zero weights of a torus in and are totally isotropic and totally singular, respectively, and weight spaces for weights with are orthogonal to each other. To see this for , let , be the quadratic form and the associated bilinear form on Let . be a weight of with weight space Then for . we have , for all , Since there exists . with we find So non-zero weight spaces are indeed totally singular. Further, for . and two weights of and , we have , for all and if , then The argument for . is completely analogous.
Let or with and where is a torus and is regular unipotent in Then . .
Assume Write . for the natural module of and let be its space decomposition. Note that we have -weight since Now . permutes the and hence their corresponding weights. As acts as a single Jordan block on by Lemma 2.12, this action must be transitive, so is a power of Since . there is at least one non-zero weight As we are in . or then , is also a weight, so both and lie in one contradicting that -orbit, .
■In the case by the exceptional isogeny between , and we need not consider type .
Let , or and with a torus and having a single Jordan block on If . is the space decomposition then the -weight are totally isotropic or totally singular, respectively, and permuted transitively by Moreover, up to renumbering, there is an orthogonal decomposition . .
As has a single Jordan block, it permutes the transitively and so is a 2-power. All are totally isotropic or totally singular, respectively, by the remarks before Lemma 7.3, and orthogonal to all other weight spaces that do not have opposite weight. Further, if is a weight of then so is and thus for a suitable numbering, , and have opposite weights, for Thus we obtain the claimed orthogonal decomposition. .
■The situation nailed down in Proposition 7.4 does give rise to examples within proper parabolic subgroups. To see this, let , with where , with odd. By Lemma 2.12, for any odd the stabiliser in of a maximal totally singular subspace contains a unipotent element with a single Jordan block. This normalises and , centralises Now embed .
( factors). The normaliser of in contains an element cyclically permuting the factors. Set By construction, . has Jordan blocks of size so by Lemma ,2.3, has a single Jordan block on it normalises , and , centralises Thus, . lies in a proper parabolic subgroup of Since . this also provides examples in , .
7.3. Torus normalisers in
Here we consider tori in normalised by a regular unipotent element.
Let with , a torus and regular unipotent in Then . and if is the space decomposition then up to renumbering the -weight we have one of: ,
- (1)
, is even, interchanges and and , acts with Jordan blocks of sizes on both and ;
- (2)
permutes transitively (so for some and ) is the space, with -weight or ;
- (3)
acts transitively on and on so , for some and , and are weight spaces for opposed weights. -dimensional
Let be the decomposition of into non-zero spaces. Note that we have -weight since From the block structure of . it follows that has at most two orbits on the set of In addition, the sum of the weight spaces in one of the orbits is of dimension at most . Since we are in . if , is a weight of on then so is , Now first assume that . is odd. Then and can only lie in the same if -orbit So . has two orbits on the set of weight spaces, one of length and the other of length 1. There is a non-zero weight in one of the orbits; the weight space of then lies in the other orbit. This forces contrary to our assumption. ,
Thus we have First assume . permutes the transitively. Then stabilises each and has same block sizes , on each of them. Since is a 2-power, the blocks of on then have sizes whence , and so Since . and are both totally singular, is contained in the stabiliser of a decomposition of into a sum of two maximal totally singular subspaces. If is odd, then this stabiliser in fixes each (see Reference 5, Lemma 2.5.8). Thus is even, interchanges and and has Jordan blocks as claimed in (1).
Next assume that permutes transitively. Then without loss of generality If . is not the 0-weight space, then the opposite weight space must be one of the other so , and , contradicting our assumption. So we arrive at (2). ,
Finally, assume that permutes transitively. Then and the corresponding weights are opposed and interchanged by which is (3) ,
■We show that the cases in Proposition 7.6 do give rise to examples within proper parabolic subgroups. So let .
(1) Let be even, be the 1-dimensional central torus of inside the stabiliser in of a pair of maximal totally singular subspaces. Thus acts by scalars on both Then . is normalised by the outer elements of interchanging Now by Lemma .2.12, a regular unipotent element in the outer coset of has Jordan blocks of sizes hence is regular unipotent in , Then . lies in the centraliser of the non-trivial unipotent element (non-trivial as soon as thus inside a proper parabolic subgroup. This is an example of (1) in Proposition ),7.6.
(2) Let be the stabiliser of an orthogonal decomposition of where , with Then by .Reference 17, Thm B(ii)(a) there is a subgroup with , a maximal torus and a regular unipotent element of We number the weights . of on such that acts as the permutation on these. For the group , is an example for case (2). On the other hand by taking the direct product of with a subgroup of as constructed in Example 7.5, and intersecting with we find an example for (3), and as in part (1) we see that both lie inside proper parabolic subgroups.
(3) The example for in Proposition 7.2 falls into case (3); this can be seen from the weight spaces on the two modules, as the natural module for is the wedge square of the natural module for .
We are not aware of examples of torus normalisers in disconnected groups containing outer regular unipotent elements and lying in a proper parabolic subgroup.
7.4. Torus normalisers in simple exceptional groups
Finally, we investigate the case of exceptional groups.
Let be a torus and of prime-power order Then . .
We have with If . has order then it must have an eigenvalue that is a primitive root of unity. But then all Galois conjugates of th are also eigenvalues of and there are , of these.
■Let be a torus in a connected reductive group and a unipotent element acting non-trivially on Then . divides the order of the Weyl group of Indeed, by assumption . is non-trivial. As is a Levi subgroup of and the claim follows with ,Reference 15, Cor. 12.11.
Let be simple of exceptional type and with a non-trivial torus and a regular unipotent element of Then one of the following holds: .
- (1)
, , or ;
- (2)
, , .
The regular unipotent element induces a non-trivial automorphism of so by the previous remark, , divides the order of the Weyl group of .
Combining the map on unipotent classes -powerReference 6, Tab. D and E and the structure of centralisers Reference 9, §22 we have compiled in Table 3 a list of the dimensions of maximal tori in the centralisers for and .
Now first consider Then . so , has order at most 4 when respectively 3 when , by Proposition ,7.8. Hence respectively , must centralise , which by Table ,3 implies and But in that case, . has order at most 2, so centralises and we reach a contradiction to Table 3.
When then , and by Proposition 7.8, has order at most 8. Again by Table 3 this gives that has order 8 and contradicting the bound in Proposition ,7.8.
For with we have when respectively. For using Proposition ,7.8 and Table 3 we find that and of order 8 is the only possibility. Here lies in class by Reference 6, Tab. D, and its centraliser has rank 4. Let be an subgroup of -Levi containing it has connected centre ; of dimension 4, so this must be the torus in Now . normalises so it also normalises , and thus , If . acts by an inner automorphism on then by Lemma ,3.5 there is an element of order 16 centralising but the only elements of , of that order are regular, a contradiction. Therefore, it acts by a graph automorphism on the and is inner and hence some element of order centralises Again by .Reference 9 and Reference 6 there is no element of order 8 in with such a centraliser. So this does not occur. Next, for the case using Proposition 7.8 and Table 3 as above, only with of order 3 remains. So in class , by Reference 6, Tab. D, centralises and we reach case (1) of the statement. The case , is not possible by Table 3.
For with Proposition 7.8 and Table 3 and arguing as above we are left with the case that and either and has order 8, or and or , and The last case occurs in the conclusion, so we need to exclude the former two. If . and then , centralises and lies in class Let . be a Levi subgroup of this type containing It has centre . of dimension 2, so this is in fact Now . normalises and hence also Now . of order 16, acts as an inner element on this, and by Lemma ,3.5 and using Reference 6 and Reference 9 we arrive at a contradiction. The case where is similar.
Finally for the same line of argument as for the other groups shows that no new configurations occur. ,
■Both cases in Proposition 7.10 do actually lead to examples.
(a) Let with By .Reference 17, Thm A, there is a maximal subgroup of containing a regular unipotent element with , a 2-dimensional torus. As centralises the subgroup , of then lies in a proper parabolic subgroup and so yields an example for the situation in Proposition 7.10(a).
(b) Let with According to .Reference 17, Thm A there is a maximal subgroup in containing a regular unipotent element with , a 1-dimensional torus. Then yields an example for the situation in Proposition 7.10(b).
Acknowledgments
This work was motivated in part by a question which Jay Taylor raised after a talk by the second author in Pisa. In addition, we acknowledge having had several useful conversations on cohomology with Steve Donkin, Jacques Thévenaz and Adam Thomas, and thank Thomas, Mikko Korhonen and David Craven for their careful reading of and comments on an earlier version, and David for spotting a gap in a proof.
Note added in proof
After becoming aware of our results, M. Bate, B. Martin and G. Röhrle in a recent preprint entitled “Overgroups of regular unipotent elements in reductive groups” have proposed a short, case-free proof of our Theorem 1 using the machinery of irreducibility. -complete