On the equivalence of linear sets

TL;DR

This paper investigates the conditions under which two linear sets are equivalent, providing examples that challenge existing assumptions and characterizing cases where certain collineation conditions are necessary.

Contribution

It presents explicit examples showing the non-necessity of a collineation condition for linear set equivalence and characterizes when this condition is required.

Findings

Examples demonstrate non-necessity of collineation condition

Characterization of linear sets requiring collineation for equivalence

Challenges previous assumptions in linear set theory

Abstract

Let $L$ be a linear set of pseudoregulus type in a line $\ell$ in $\Sigma^*=\mathrm{PG}(t-1,q^t)$, $t=5$ or $t>6$. We provide examples of $q$-order canonical subgeometries $\Sigma_1,\, \Sigma_2 \subset \Sigma^*$ such that there is a $(t-3)$-space $\Gamma \subset \Sigma^*\setminus (\Sigma_1 \cup \Sigma_2 \cup \ell)$ with the property that for $i=1,2$, $L$ is the projection of $\Sigma_i$ from center $\Gamma$ and there exists no collineation $\phi$ of $\Sigma^*$ such that $\Gamma^{\phi}=\Gamma$ and $\Sigma_1^{\phi}=\Sigma_2$. Condition (ii) given in Theorem 3 in Lavrauw and Van de Voorde (Des. Codes Cryptogr. 56:89-104, 2010) states the existence of a collineation between the projecting configurations (each of them consisting of a center and a subgeometry), which give rise by means of projections to two linear sets. It follows from our examples that this condition is not necessary for the equivalence of two linear sets as stated there. We characterize the linear sets for which the condition above is actually necessary.