On base sizes for almost simple primitive groups
Timothy C. Burness

TL;DR
This paper classifies non-standard almost simple primitive groups with base size exactly 6, extending previous bounds and utilizing advanced algebraic and probabilistic methods.
Contribution
It provides a complete classification of non-standard groups with base size 6, expanding understanding of base sizes beyond the previously known maximum of 7.
Findings
Non-standard groups have base size at most 7.
Only the Mathieu group M24 achieves base size 7.
The paper classifies all non-standard groups with base size exactly 6.
Abstract
Let be a finite almost simple primitive permutation group, with socle and point stabilizer . A subset of is a base for if its pointwise stabilizer is trivial; the base size of , denoted , is the minimal size of a base. We say that is standard if and is an orbit of subsets or partitions of , or if is a classical group and is an orbit of subspaces (or pairs of subspaces) of the natural module for . The base size of a standard group can be arbitrarily large, in general, whereas the situation for non-standard groups is rather more restricted. Indeed, we have for every non-standard group , with equality if and only if is the Mathieu group in its natural action on points. In this paper, we extend this result by classifying…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
On base sizes for almost simple primitive groups
Timothy C. Burness
School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TW, UK
Abstract.
Let be a finite almost simple primitive permutation group, with socle and point stabilizer . A subset of is a base for if its pointwise stabilizer is trivial; the base size of , denoted , is the minimal size of a base. We say that is standard if and is an orbit of subsets or partitions of , or if is a classical group and is an orbit of subspaces (or pairs of subspaces) of the natural module for . The base size of a standard group can be arbitrarily large, in general, whereas the situation for non-standard groups is rather more restricted. Indeed, we have for every non-standard group , with equality if and only if is the Mathieu group in its natural action on points. In this paper, we extend this result by classifying the non-standard groups with . The main tools include recent work on bases for actions of simple algebraic groups, together with probabilistic methods and improved fixed point ratio estimates for exceptional groups of Lie type.
Key words and phrases:
Primitive permutation groups; base sizes; simple groups
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 20B15; secondary 20E32, 20P05
1. Introduction
Let be a permutation group and recall that a subset of is a base for if its pointwise stabilizer in is trivial. The base size of , denoted by , is the minimal cardinality of a base. For example, if is a finite dimensional vector space and one views as a permutation group on , then a subset of is a base if and only if it contains a basis, hence coincides with the dimension of in this case.
The study of bases has a long history, particularly in the context of finite primitive permutation groups. For example, notice that if is finite then , so an upper bound on provides a bound on the order of in terms of its degree. The investigation of bounds of this form for finite primitive groups has been a widely studied problem for more than a century, with numerous applications (see [3, 7, 32, 40, 44], for example). In more recent decades, following the seminal work of Sims [48] in the early 1970s, bases have been used extensively in the computational study of finite permutation groups (see [45] for more details). Bases also arise naturally in several other settings, including graph theory and combinatorics, and we refer the reader to [5] for further background and connections to other measures on groups and graphs.
In this paper, we focus on bases for finite almost simple primitive groups. In studying the base sizes of such groups, it is natural to make a distinction between so-called standard and non-standard groups, according to the following definition.
Definition**.**
Let be a finite almost simple primitive group, with socle and point stabilizer . We say that is standard if one of the following holds:
- (i)
and is an orbit of subsets or partitions of ; or
- (ii)
is a classical group with natural module and either is an orbit of subspaces (or pairs of subspaces) of , or , is even and .
Otherwise, is non-standard.
Typically, if is standard then the point stabilizer has large order, in the sense that is not bounded above by a polynomial in of fixed degree (for example, if then is a maximal parabolic subgroup of ). In particular, this implies that the base size of a standard group can be arbitrarily large. For example, it is easy to see that for the natural action of on the set of -dimensional subspaces of the natural module. In stark contrast, a highly influential conjecture of Cameron and Kantor [18] from 1993 predicts the existence of an absolute constant such that for every non-standard group . This conjecture was proved by Liebeck and Shalev [36], revealing a remarkable dichotomy for base sizes of almost simple primitive groups. Moreover, through the later work of several authors [10, 11, 15, 16], it has been shown that is the optimal constant, with if and only if in its natural -transitive action on points (this confirms a conjecture of Cameron [17, p.122]).
One of the main open problems in this area is to determine the precise base size of all non-standard permutation groups. The groups with an alternating or sporadic socle are handled in [15, 16] (also see [42]), and there are partial results for classical groups [10, 12, 14] and exceptional groups of Lie type [15]. With a view towards applications, there has been a focus on the case , but a complete classification remains out of reach. More precisely, is the only integer in the range for which we have a complete classification of the non-standard groups with .
The aim of this paper is to make further progress on this problem. In recent joint work with Guralnick and Saxl [13, Theorem 13], we used results on bases for actions of simple algebraic groups to show that there are infinitely many non-standard groups with . By appealing to the connection with bases for algebraic groups, as well as the earlier work in [10, 11, 15, 16] and the probabilistic methods originally introduced in [36], we can classify the groups with . The following is our main result.
Theorem 1**.**
Let be a finite almost simple primitive non-standard permutation group with socle and point stabilizer . Then if and only if one of the following holds:
- (i)
, , or .
- (ii)
* and .*
- (iii)
* and or .*
Remark 1**.**
In Theorem 1 we write to denote a standard maximal parabolic subgroup corresponding to deleting the -th node in the Dynkin diagram of (where we label the Dynkin diagram in the usual way, following Bourbaki [9]). In parts (ii) and (iii), we have for all and for all appropriate almost simple groups with the given socle (in (iii), note that the maximality of implies that does not contain any graph or graph-field automorphisms of ).
By combining [15, Theorems 3 and 4] with the probabilistic proof of Theorem 1, we obtain the following asymptotic result on the abundance of bases of size for almost simple exceptional groups. This is a refinement of [15, Theorem 2].
Corollary 2**.**
Let , , be a sequence of finite almost simple primitive groups with socle an exceptional group of Lie type. Assume that as . Also assume that the sequence contains only finitely many groups of the form given in parts (ii) and (iii) of Theorem 1. Then the probability that randomly chosen points in form a base for tends to as .
We also obtain the following result on intersections of subgroups of almost simple exceptional groups as an immediate corollary of Theorem 1.
Corollary 3**.**
Let be a finite almost simple exceptional group of Lie type with socle and let be any subgroup of not containing . Then one of the following holds:
- (i)
* and is a subgroup of .*
- (ii)
* and is a subgroup of or .*
- (iii)
There exist , , such that
[TABLE]
This is related to Problem 17.41(b) in the Kourovka notebook [41]: Let be a solvable subgroup of a finite group that has no nontrivial solvable normal subgroups. Is it always possible to find conjugates of whose intersection is trivial?
The example , shows that at least conjugates are needed, in general. Through work of Vdovin [49], this problem has essentially been reduced to almost simple groups. Furthermore, for an almost simple exceptional group , he has shown that the conclusion holds with conjugates when is a solvable Hall subgroup of (see [50]). In some sense, part (iii) of Corollary 3 settles the original problem (with conjugates) for almost all subgroups of exceptional groups (if , for example, the only possible exceptions are subgroups for which every maximal overgroup is a parabolic). See recent work of Baikalov [4] for analogous results on solvable subgroups of symmetric and alternating groups.
Let us say a few words on the proof of Theorem 1. Let be a finite almost simple primitive non-standard permutation group with socle and point stabilizer . Assume that . By the main theorems of [10, 11] we immediately deduce that is either a sporadic group or an exceptional group of Lie type. In the former case, the examples arising in part (i) of Theorem 1 are determined in [16], so we may assume that is an exceptional group. Here the main theorem of [15] gives , so further work is needed to determine when equality holds.
To proceed, we refine the probabilistic approach from [15], which relies on fixed point ratio estimates (this method for studying base sizes was originally introduced by Liebeck and Shalev in [36]). To describe the general set-up, fix a positive integer and let be the probability that a randomly chosen -tuple of points in is not a base for , so if and only if . As explained in [15], it is easy to show that
[TABLE]
where represent the distinct conjugacy classes in of elements of prime order. Here
[TABLE]
is the fixed point ratio of , which is the proportion of points in that are fixed by . In view of (1), we can apply upper bounds on fixed point ratios to bound from above.
Detailed results on fixed point ratios for exceptional groups of Lie type are presented in [31], some of which rely on bounds on the dimensions of fixed point spaces for actions of the corresponding exceptional algebraic groups, which are determined in the companion paper [30]. We will make extensive use of these results, together with improved estimates in several cases of interest. Our aim in almost every case is to identify a function , where is the size of the underlying field, such that
[TABLE]
for all , with the additional property that as (the latter property is needed for Corollary 2).
As in [15], we make a distinction between the cases where is a parabolic or non-parabolic subgroup of . Following [15] and [31], we will use a character-theoretic approach to handle the parabolic actions, which relies in part on Lübeck’s work [38] on Green functions for exceptional groups of Lie type; see Section 2 for further details. For non-parabolic actions, we first reduce the problem to a handful of cases of the form , where is a -stable positive dimensional closed subgroup of the ambient simple algebraic group and is an appropriate Steinberg endomorphism of . By studying the embedding of in , we can derive bounds on for elements of prime order, which yield upper bounds on via (2). In this regard, work of Lawther [29] is particularly useful when is a unipotent element.
Remark 2**.**
It is natural to consider the possibility of extending Theorem 1 to the non-standard groups with . Again, there is an immediate reduction to exceptional groups. Indeed, the main theorem of [10] implies that
[TABLE]
is the only non-standard classical group with . Similarly, if is an alternating group then is the only example (see [11]). If is sporadic then the main theorem of [16] implies that if and only if is one of the following:
[TABLE]
To handle the exceptional groups, it may be feasible to proceed as in the proof of Theorem 1. However, the analysis will be significantly more complicated (with many more cases to consider) and some substantial improvements to existing bounds on fixed point ratios will be required.
Finally, let us comment on the notation used in this paper. Most of our group-theoretic notation is standard. In particular, we use the notation from [26] for simple groups of Lie type, so we write and , etc. We also use to denote a simple orthogonal group, which differs from the notation in the Atlas [22]. In addition, denotes the greatest common divisor of integers and , and we use for the number of elements of order in a subset of a finite group. Further notation will be introduced as and when needed.
2. Parabolic actions
Let be a finite almost simple primitive non-standard permutation group with socle and point stabilizer . As explained in the introduction, in order to prove Theorem 1 (as well as Corollaries 2 and 3) we may assume that is an exceptional group of Lie type over , where for a prime . In this section, we assume is a maximal parabolic subgroup of .
Let be the ambient simple algebraic group over the algebraic closure of and let be a Steinberg endomorphism of such that . In addition, let be a -stable parabolic subgroup of corresponding to . We begin with a reduction theorem (in the statement, is an almost simple exceptional group of Lie type with socle ).
Theorem 2.1**.**
Suppose is a maximal parabolic subgroup of . Then , with equality only if one of the following holds:
- (i)
* and .*
- (ii)
* and or .*
- (iii)
, contains graph or graph-field automorphisms, and .
Proof.
This follows immediately from [15, Theorem 3]. ∎
In part (iii) we write to denote the intersection of appropriate parabolic subgroups of type and (here the Levi factor is of type ). Note that is maximal in if and only if contains graph or graph-field automorphisms of .
Proposition 2.2**.**
We have in cases (i) and (ii) of Theorem 2.1.
Proof.
Consider the natural action of on the coset variety and let be the connected base size of as defined in [13] (this is the smallest integer such that contains points with finite pointwise stabilizer). By [13, Theorem 6] we have , so [13, Proposition 2.7(ii)] implies that if . In particular, we conclude that if .
Finally, suppose . In case (i), we observe that there is a non-empty open subset of such that the stabilizer in of every -tuple in is -dimensional. As explained in [13, Remark 5.6], this implies that . In (ii), a Magma [8] calculation shows that (see [15, Remark 1]). ∎
In order to complete the proof of Theorem 1 for parabolic actions, it remains to show that in case (iii) of Theorem 2.1.
Proposition 2.3**.**
We have in case (iii) of Theorem 2.1.
Proof.
Here and . Define as in (1) and write
[TABLE]
where and are the contributions to from semisimple and unipotent elements in , respectively, and is the contribution from graph, field and graph-field automorphisms of . To estimate and we work with the corresponding permutation character , so that for all . Let be the Weyl group of and note that
[TABLE]
We start by estimating . To do this, we proceed as in [15, Section 3.1(ii)], using [31, Corollary 3.2] to compute for any semisimple element . In order to explain the set-up, fix a set of simple roots for and let be the highest root in the root system of . Recall that the semisimple classes in are parametrized by pairs , where is a proper subset of (determined up to -conjugacy), is the subgroup of generated by the reflections in the roots in , and is a conjugacy class representative of . For , the -classes of -stable maximal tori of are parametrized by the conjugacy classes of . Let be a maximal torus of corresponding to and let be the relative rank of (that is, is the multiplicity of as a divisor of ). Finally, let be the Weyl group of the corresponding parabolic subgroup of .
If corresponds to the pair as above, then [31, Corollary 3.2] gives
[TABLE]
which can be evaluated using Magma [8]. For example, suppose is odd and is an involution with . Here , and we compute
[TABLE]
which gives . Since there are fewer than conjugates of in , we deduce that the contribution to from these elements is less than . In this way, by repeatedly applying (5), we calculate that .
Next let us turn to . Here we adopt the approach of [15, Section 3.1(i)], which is based on the method originally introduced in [31, Section 2]. As recorded in [15, p.123], we can write
[TABLE]
where each is an almost character of labelled by a complex irreducible character of (we use the labelling given in [19, Section 13.2]). The restriction of the to unipotent elements gives the Green functions of , which are polynomials in with non-negative coefficients. By implementing an algorithm of Lusztig [39], the relevant Green functions have been computed by Lübeck [38], which allows us to calculate for each element of order . (In the general setting, there is a problem with certain unspecified scalars that arises in the implementation of Lusztig’s algorithm, but this issue does not occur when and has order ; see [15, Section 3.1(i)] for further discussion.) In addition, we can read off from [35, Table 22.2.3] and this allows us to compute precisely.
For instance, if is a long root element then
[TABLE]
and we deduce that the contribution to from these elements is less than . In fact, by computing for all of order , we see that .
To complete the proof, it remains to consider the contribution from graph, field and graph-field automorphisms of . First assume that is an involutory graph automorphism. If then if is even (see [15, Section 3.1(iv)]) and by arguing as in the proof of [31, Lemma 6.4] we deduce that the same bound also holds when is odd. Similarly, if then for all . It follows that the contribution from graph automorphisms is less than
[TABLE]
Similarly, if is an involutory graph-field automorphism then and is equal to the index of a parabolic subgroup in (see [31, p.452]). This implies that , so the contribution from these elements is at most .
Finally, suppose is a field automorphism of prime order . Here and we observe that
[TABLE]
where as in (4). Set and let be the set of prime divisors of . Then the contribution to from field automorphisms is less than
[TABLE]
and thus .
Therefore, by bringing together the above bounds, we conclude that
[TABLE]
and the desired result follows. ∎
Remark 2.4**.**
Notice that in the proof of the previous proposition, we identify an explicit function such that and as . Therefore, in this particular case, the probability that randomly chosen points in form a base for tends to as tends to infinity. By combining this observation with [15, Theorem 3], we see that the same conclusion holds whenever is an exceptional group and is a maximal parabolic subgroup, with the possible exception of the cases recorded in parts (i) and (ii) of Theorem 2.1. Indeed, these cases are genuine exceptions by Proposition 2.2, which explains the additional condition on the sequence in Corollary 2.
3. Non-parabolic actions
For the remainder of the paper, we may assume that is an exceptional group of Lie type and the point stabilizer is a maximal non-parabolic subgroup. As in the previous section, our aim is to establish the bound through a careful analysis of fixed point ratios for prime order elements. In addition, we will show that as , which will allow us to complete the proofs of Theorem 1 and Corollary 2. In view of [15, Theorem 4], we may assume that
[TABLE]
Let us fix some additional notation. As before, let be the ambient simple algebraic group (of type , or ) over the algebraic closure of , so for an appropriate Steinberg endomorphism . For and a closed subgroup we set
[TABLE]
We will repeatedly use standard information on semisimple and unipotent conjugacy classes in (including class lengths, etc.) recorded in [23] (semisimple classes in and ), [46, 47] (conjugacy classes in ) and [35] (unipotent classes in all cases). In particular, we will adopt the notation from [35] for unipotent classes in . We also refer the reader to Lübeck’s online data [37], which provides detailed information on semisimple conjugacy classes in exceptional groups.
As in the proof of Proposition 2.3, it will be convenient to write
[TABLE]
where is the contribution from semisimple elements, from unipotent elements and from field, graph and graph-field automorphisms. In order to estimate these quantities, we will frequently apply the following elementary result (see [15, Proposition 2.3]).
Proposition 3.1**.**
Let be a finite transitive permutation group with point stabilizer . Suppose represent distinct -classes such that and for all . Then
[TABLE]
for any positive integer .
The next four sections are dedicated to the proof of Theorem 1 in the cases where , with , and , respectively. We complete the proof of Corollary 2 in Section 3.5.
3.1.
In this section we handle the case . For , the possibilities for are determined in [6]. For information on semisimple and unipotent conjugacy classes, we refer the reader to [23, Section 3] and [35, Table 22.2.2], respectively. We begin by reducing the problem to subgroups with .
Lemma 3.2**.**
If and , then .
Proof.
As explained in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.8], we have
[TABLE]
where , , and . Therefore, if we have and the result follows. For the remainder, let us assume , so and the possibilities for are given in [6, Theorem 1.1]. Let be an element of prime order .
We claim that if , which implies that (7) holds with (and as above) and thus as required. In view of [31, Theorem 2], we may assume that and is a subgroup of maximal rank. Since , it follows that
[TABLE]
(Here, and elsewhere, we write for an -dimensional torus.) In addition, the condition implies that belongs to one of the classes labelled , or in [35, Table 22.2.2]. Note that .
First assume , in which case and . If is not in the class , then and the desired bound holds. On the other hand, if is a long root element then by arguing as in the proof of [31, Lemma 4.3], noting that the Weyl group contains reflections, we deduce that and the result follows from the bound . Similarly, if then and , so
[TABLE]
and the claim holds.
Next assume . Here , with () or (). If is in then by arguing as in the proof of [31, Lemma 4.4], using [30, Proposition 1.13(ii)], we calculate that
[TABLE]
where and are long root elements in and , respectively, and according to the specific structure of . Similarly, if is in or then and thus since
[TABLE]
Finally, suppose that , so or . If is in or then , so we may assume is a long root element. If then [30, Proposition 1.13(ii)] implies that
[TABLE]
where is a long root element. The case is very similar.
This justifies the claim and we conclude that , as required. ∎
To complete the proof of Theorem 1 for , we may assume that , in which case [15, Lemma 4.7] implies that either
- (i)
with , , or ; or
- (ii)
and is a subfield subgroup of type .
In (ii), the proof of [15, Proposition 4.11] gives . Similarly, if in (i) (see the proof of [15, Lemma 4.10]). For the three remaining possibilities, [15] only gives , so we need to improve the bound in each of these cases.
It will be convenient to introduce some additional terminology. For a semisimple element , let us say that is large if has an , or factor (otherwise is small), and write , where is the contribution to from the semisimple elements with large centralizer.
Lemma 3.3**.**
If and with , then .
Proof.
Write as in (3). By arguing as in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.10], we have
[TABLE]
Next we claim that . If then the proof of [15, Lemma 4.10] yields
[TABLE]
as required. Now assume , so and . Note that the semisimple classes in are listed in [6, Table 2], together with the structure of the corresponding centralizers.
Let be an element of odd prime order and define and as in (6). First assume is large, in which case (more precisely, is a or element in the notation of [6, Table 2]), and [30, Theorem 2] gives . Now has classes of elements of order and one checks that for all of order . Therefore, by arguing as in the proof of [31, Lemma 4.5], we deduce that
[TABLE]
Since contains at most such elements, it follows that .
Now assume is small. Here , and by arguing as above we deduce that . Therefore, and we conclude that for all .
Finally, let be a unipotent element of order . The -class of each unipotent element in is determined in [29, Section 4.10] and this allows us to compute precisely, which yields a good upper bound on . First assume is odd. As explained in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.10], if then , which implies that the contribution to from these elements is less than (here we are using the fact that has precisely unipotent elements). Similarly, if then one checks that . For example, if is a long root element then and
[TABLE]
where and are long root elements in and , respectively, whence as claimed. Since contains at most such elements, it follows that
[TABLE]
A similar calculation when also shows that (here the -class of each involution in is recorded in [15, Table 3]).
We conclude that
[TABLE]
and the result follows. ∎
Lemma 3.4**.**
If and with , then .
Proof.
Define and as before. We start by estimating .
First assume . Let be a semisimple element of prime order . If is large then by [31, Theorem 2] and we calculate that has at most such elements. On the other hand, if is small then by appealing to [31, Lemma 4.5] we deduce that
[TABLE]
since by [30, Theorem 2]. Therefore
[TABLE]
Now assume , so and with . Suppose is large. As noted in the proof of the previous lemma, the condition on implies that and there are fewer than such elements in . Now has classes of elements of order ; if is such an element then and . Therefore with (see [30, Theorem 2]), so . It follows that . Similarly, if is small then and , whence . In particular, for all .
Next we consider . Let be a unipotent element of order . First assume is odd, so and we can compute using the fusion information in [29, Section 4.11]. We find that is a union of at most two -classes, so the proof of [31, Lemma 4.5] yields
[TABLE]
since (see [35, Table 22.1.2]). If then and thus the contribution to from these elements is at most
[TABLE]
If then belongs to one of the -classes labelled , , , or . As noted in the proof of the previous lemma, there are fewer than such elements in and we calculate that . For example, if then and the bound on follows from (8). On the other hand, if then and
[TABLE]
where is a long root element, which gives . Therefore, the contribution from these elements is less than and we conclude that when is odd.
Now suppose . There are six conjugacy classes of involutions in ; four classes in the connected component , with representatives , (where has Jordan form on the natural -module), plus two classes of involutory graph automorphisms in . The latter two classes are represented by elements and , where and with a long root element. By inspecting [29, Section 4.11] and the proof of [13, Lemma 3.18], we deduce that is in the -class , is in , and are in , is in and is in . It follows that and thus since contains at most involutions. We conclude that for all .
Finally, let us estimate , which is the contribution to from field automorphisms. Let be a field automorphism of prime order , so . If then [31, Theorem 2] yields , and we note that has at most such elements. Similarly, if is odd then
[TABLE]
and thus
[TABLE]
By combining the above estimates, we conclude that and the proof of the lemma is complete. ∎
Lemma 3.5**.**
If and with , then .
Proof.
Write and as before. As explained in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.9], we have
[TABLE]
Next we claim that . To see this, let be a semisimple element of prime order and let us assume for now. As in the proofs of the previous two lemmas, we have . Now assume is small, so is odd and [15, (4.4)] implies that
[TABLE]
where and (see [30, Theorem 2]). If then and by inspecting [23] we calculate that has at most such elements. Therefore,
[TABLE]
and we deduce that .
Now assume , so and or . As noted in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.9], if is large then and we deduce that . Now assume is small. If then , or (see [25, Table 4.7.1]), and as before, so (9) implies that . Since contains fewer than elements of order (see [6, Table 2]), their contribution is at most . Finally, suppose . By considering the conjugacy classes in , we see that is a union of at most distinct -classes, so
[TABLE]
Therefore, .
Finally, let us turn to . If then , where the terms are presented in [15, Table 8]. Now assume is odd and let be a unipotent element of order . As explained in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.9], we have
[TABLE]
and we can calculate using [28] and the restriction of the minimal module for (here is one of the irreducible -dimensional modules for , and [math] denotes the trivial module).
First assume , in which case . If then (10) implies that and thus the contribution to from these elements is less than since by [31, Proposition 1.3(ii)]. Similarly, if then and the contribution is less than . Next assume . By considering each -class in turn, we calculate that , so the contribution is at most . Finally, the contribution from long root elements is less than since by [31, Theorem 2]. We conclude that for all .
By bringing together the above bounds, we see that and the result follows. ∎
This completes the proof of Theorem 1 for .
3.2. ,
Next we assume is an almost simple group with socle and is a non-parabolic maximal subgroup. Throughout this section, we will assume that ; the case requires special attention and it will be handled separately in Section 3.3. We will make extensive use of the information on conjugacy classes of semisimple and unipotent elements in [23, Section 2] and [35, Table 22.2.3]. In addition, we will also refer to [21, Table 2], which gives information on the centralizers of semisimple elements in of order at most . Throughout this section, we set .
Lemma 3.6**.**
If , and , then .
Proof.
Define and as in (3). We begin by estimating , so let be a semisimple element of prime order. As noted in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.15], there are fewer than such elements in with , and [30, Theorem 2] gives . If then and by applying Proposition 3.1 and the given bound , we deduce that
[TABLE]
Next let us turn to . As above, the contribution from unipotent elements with is less than , so we may assume that belongs to one of the classes labelled or . If is in then by [30, Theorem 2] and there are fewer than such elements in , so the contribution from long root elements is less than . Now assume is in the class, so . We claim that contains at most such elements, so their contribution is at most by Proposition 3.1. This is obvious if , so let us assume . By arguing as in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.13], which proceeds by inspecting the various possibilities for arising in [34, Theorem 2], it is not difficult to rule out the existence of a maximal subgroup with and . This establishes the claim and we conclude that
[TABLE]
To complete the proof, it remains to estimate the contribution from field, graph and graph-field automorphisms. By Proposition 3.1, the contribution from elements with is less than , so we may assume , which implies that is an involutory graph automorphism with . We claim that
[TABLE]
so the contribution from these elements is at most . For , the claim follows from [30, Theorem 2], so we may assume and it suffices to show that . Following the proof of [15, Lemma 4.13], it is straightforward to reduce to the case where is an almost simple group of Lie type in characteristic , and we can easily rule out the existence of such a subgroup with and . Therefore, and we conclude that
[TABLE]
This completes the proof of the lemma. ∎
Next we determine the cases that arise with (recall that we are assuming is non-parabolic throughout this section).
Lemma 3.7**.**
If , and , then one of the following holds:
- (i)
* with , , , or ();*
- (ii)
, and .
Proof.
If then the result follows from [15, Lemma 4.14], so we may assume . Since , we can proceed as in the proof of [1, Lemma 5.3] to rule out any additional subgroups. In particular, note that if and is a subfield subgroup of type then
[TABLE]
The result follows. ∎
Some of the cases arising in Lemma 3.7 have already been handled in [15]. Indeed, the proof of [15, Proposition 4.21] shows that in (ii), and the same bound holds in (i) when or (see [15, Lemmas 4.16 and 4.20]). Therefore, we may assume with , or . We start with the case , which requires the most work.
Lemma 3.8**.**
If , and with , then .
Proof.
First observe that , where is an involutory graph automorphism of . Write as before (see (3)) and note that
[TABLE]
Case 1. Semisimple elements. We start by estimating . Let be a semisimple element of prime order and note that induces an automorphism on . First assume . Here [31, Theorem 2] gives and by inspecting [23] we calculate that contains fewer than such elements, hence their combined contribution to is less than . To obtain a sufficient bound on the remaining contribution to , we need to improve the fixed point ratio estimates in [31]. To do this, we will work closely with the proof of [31, Lemma 5.4].
Suppose has an factor. By the proof of [31, Lemma 5.4] we have (otherwise ) and , so
[TABLE]
with and , hence . By inspecting [23], one checks that contains fewer than such elements, so their contribution to is less than . Similarly, if then (so ), and the proof of [31, Lemma 5.4] gives . Since contains at most such elements, Proposition 3.1 implies that their contribution is less than .
By inspecting [23], the remaining possibilities for are as follows:
[TABLE]
(Notice that since has prime order; see [24, 14.1].) As noted in the proof of [31, Lemma 5.4], there are at most distinct -classes in . Therefore, if we choose with minimal, then
[TABLE]
We will use this upper bound to show that
[TABLE]
for the remaining semisimple elements that we are interested in.
First we show that if , or , so the contribution from these elements is less than . To justify the claim, first note that (see [21, Table 2], for example). Since and , the bound in (11) is sufficient if . Suppose . Since has to divide the order of the centre of , we deduce that (see [46, Table III]) and the result follows as before. Similarly, if then the information on semisimple centralizers in [47, Table 9] and [23] implies that , and once again the desired bound follows via (11).
Similar reasoning shows that if or . For instance, if then by arguing as in the proof of [31, Lemma 5.4] we deduce that
[TABLE]
and the result follows from (11). By carefully inspecting [23], one checks that there are at most such elements in , so the contribution to from the elements with or is less than .
Next we show that if or . Suppose . By inspecting [23], we deduce that (that is, if then there are no prime order elements with ). Now or , so
[TABLE]
and the desired bound holds. Similarly, if then and the bounds
[TABLE]
are sufficient (via (11)) if . Finally, if then we can replace the terms and in the above bounds by and , respectively (since ), and the result follows as before. One checks that there are at most elements in with or , so the contribution to is less than .
Finally, let us assume or . We claim that . In both cases, and
[TABLE]
so the claim follows from (11) if . For , we can replace the term in the lower bound for by and the result follows. By inspecting [23], one checks that contains fewer then such elements, so their contribution is less than .
Bringing together all of the above estimates, we conclude that
[TABLE]
Case 2. Unipotent elements. Now let us turn to the contribution from unipotent elements. Note that the unipotent classes in , together with the corresponding classes in , are listed in [28, Table A]. We refer the reader to [35, Tables 22.2.3 and 22.2.4] for information on the conjugacy classes and centralizers of unipotent elements in and .
First assume , so . If is a long root element, then [31, Theorem 2] gives and it is easy to check that there are fewer than such elements in . Similarly, if is in the class then and there are at most such elements in , and for in the class we have and contains fewer than such elements. By applying Proposition 3.1, we conclude that
[TABLE]
when .
Now assume is odd. First we claim that the contribution from unipotent elements with is at most . By inspecting [28, Table A], we see that . For , the bound in [15, (4.16)] implies that and so the claim follows from the fact that contains fewer than such elements. Now assume , so has order and the bound on implies that is in the class (for example, this follows by considering the Jordan form of on the Lie algebra of , as given in [28, Table 6]). Here and is connected, so by [15, (4.16)] and we note that there are at most of these elements in , so the contribution is less than and the claim follows.
As noted in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.19], the contribution from unipotent elements with is less than . Finally, let us assume and , so is in one of the -classes labelled , , or (see [28, Table A]). As above, the contribution from long root elements is less than , with the remaining unipotent elements contributing at most , where
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
if is odd.
Case 3. Remaining elements. It remains to estimate the contribution from field, graph and graph-field automorphisms. As in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.19], the contribution from involutory graph and graph-field automorphisms is less than . Similarly, the contribution from odd order field automorphisms is at most
[TABLE]
(the inequality holds since we may assume ) and that from involutory graph automorphisms is less than
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
and by bringing together the bounds in (12), (13) and (14), we conclude that
[TABLE]
The result follows. ∎
Lemma 3.9**.**
If , and with , then .
Proof.
We proceed as in the proof of the previous lemma, estimating , and in turn. The argument closely follows the proof of [15, Lemma 4.17].
Let be a semisimple element of prime order and set , and . As noted in the proof of the previous lemma, there are fewer than semisimple elements with , so [31, Theorem 2] implies that their contribution is less than .
Next we claim that if . For elements with , this follows immediately from the upper bound in [15, (4.11)], since (the latter bound is established in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.17]). On the other hand, if then or , so
[TABLE]
and the desired bound holds since . Therefore, the contribution from these elements is less than .
To complete the analysis of semisimple elements, we may assume that , in which case , or (note that by [24, 14.1]). First observe that . This is clear if since ; in the other two cases, must divide the order of the centre of and by inspecting [23] we deduce that . In addition, and by [30, Theorem 2], so [15, (4.11)] implies that . Therefore, the combined contribution from these elements is less than . We conclude that
[TABLE]
Next let us consider the contribution from unipotent elements. First assume . As explained in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.17], we can determine the -class of each involution in by considering the restriction , where is one of the minimal modules for . In terms of the standard Aschbacher-Seitz [2] notation for involutions in , we find that , and . This implies that , where
[TABLE]
In particular, .
Now assume is odd. Once again, as noted in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.17], we can determine the -class of each unipotent element in and it is routine to check that the upper bound on presented in [15, (4.10)] is satisfied. If then and we deduce that if . On the other hand, if then and we see that is the only possibility, given the condition on . Here [15, (4.10)] gives and there are fewer than such elements in . Therefore, for any , it follows that the contribution to from these unipotent elements is less than . Finally, suppose , so belongs to one of the classes labelled , , , or (no unipotent elements in are in the -class ). By applying the bounds in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.17], we conclude that
[TABLE]
Finally, let us consider . By directly applying the bounds presented in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.17], we deduce that
[TABLE]
Bringing together the above bounds, we conclude that and the result follows. ∎
Lemma 3.10**.**
If , and with , then .
Proof.
This is similar to the proof of the previous lemma, working with the proof of [15, Lemma 4.18] in place of [15, Lemma 4.17]. Note that one of or is a composition factor of (see [33, Table 5.1]).
First let be a semisimple element of prime order and define , and as before. We claim that if . For , this follows immediately from the upper bound in [15, (4.13)] since and by [31, Theorem 2]. The same bound is also sufficient if and . Finally, if and then
[TABLE]
and the claim follows since . This justifies the claim and it follows that the contribution to from these elements is less than . By inspecting [23], one checks that there are fewer than semisimple elements in with and [31, Theorem 2] gives . Therefore,
[TABLE]
Next let us consider unipotent elements. First assume . If is a composition factor of , then the proof of [15, Lemma 4.18] implies that
[TABLE]
Similarly, if is a composition factor, then , where
[TABLE]
In both cases, these estimates imply that when .
Now assume is odd. As explained in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.18], if then and so the contribution from these elements is less than and it remains to consider the elements in the classes and . If is in then the proof of [15, Lemma 4.18] gives , whereas [31, Theorem 2] gives for a long root element . Therefore,
[TABLE]
when is odd.
Finally, let us consider . From the bounds given in the proof of [15, Lemma 4.18], we deduce that the contribution from field and graph-field automorphisms is less than
[TABLE]
Now assume is an involutory graph automorphism. If then the proof of [15, Lemma 4.18] gives , so the contribution to is less than . Finally, suppose , so
[TABLE]
Here the proof of [15, Lemma 4.18] gives , which is not sufficient. We claim that , which implies that the contribution from these elements is less than . To justify the claim, first observe that
[TABLE]
where or according to the structure of . As noted in [15, (4.8)], this gives and one checks that this bound is sufficient if . For , we compute precisely and then use the upper bound in (16). For example, if then
[TABLE]
and the claim follows. We conclude that
[TABLE]
Therefore, and the proof of the lemma is complete. ∎
This completes the proof of Theorem 1 for with .
3.3.
Here we handle the special cases with or . We refer the reader to [15, Table 9] for useful information on the classes of elements in of odd prime order. The maximal subgroups of are determined in [27] and [51] for and , respectively (in the latter case, it turns out that the list of maximal subgroups presented in the Atlas [22] is complete).
We begin by extending Lemma 3.6 to the case .
Lemma 3.11**.**
If and , then .
Proof.
From the list of maximal subgroups in [22, 27], we first observe that the condition implies that . Write as before.
We start by estimating . Let be an element of odd prime order . Clearly, the contribution from the elements with is less than . Now assume , so . If , or if and or , then and thus the contribution to is less than . If and or then and by inspecting the possibilities for in [22], one checks that . For example, if then
[TABLE]
This means that the contribution from these elements is less than and we conclude that .
Next let us turn to the contribution from unipotent involutions. There are three -classes to consider, labelled , and . If then by [30, Theorem 2] and there are fewer than such elements in , so their contribution to is less than . Now assume is in or . If then and , so these elements contribute less than . Similarly, if then , and the contribution is at most . We conclude that .
Finally, let us assume is an involutory graph automorphism. If then and so the contribution to from these elements is less than . On the other hand, if then and by combining [31, Theorem 2] and [15, Lemma 4.12] we see that , so the contribution here is at most . This gives and we conclude that
[TABLE]
as required. ∎
Lemma 3.12**.**
If and , then .
Proof.
By inspecting [27, Table 1], we deduce that , or . In fact, in view of [15, Lemmas 4.16 and 4.19], we only need to handle the latter case. Here if , and it will be useful to observe that and . Write as usual.
First we estimate . The contribution from the elements with is less than . On the other hand, if then has order and , so the contribution from these elements is less than .
Finally, let us consider , which is the contribution from involutions. The subgroup has two classes of involutions, labelled and , and the labels stay the same when viewed as involutions in (see the proof of [15, Lemma 4.18]). If is in then and there are at most such elements in , so the contribution is less than . If is any other involution, then and , so the contribution here is at most .
We conclude that . ∎
Lemma 3.13**.**
If and , then .
Proof.
According to the Atlas [22], is one of the following:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
By inspecting [15], we immediately deduce that in cases (a)–(d), so it remains to consider (e), (f) and (g). We define , and in the usual fashion.
Case 1. . As explained in the proof of Lemma 3.9, we have , where the and terms are defined in (15), whence .
Next consider and let be a semisimple element of prime order . If then and so the contribution to is less than since . Now assume and note that . Therefore, the contribution from the elements with is less than . Now assume , in which case is in one of the classes labelled and in [22] and there are fewer than such elements in . Since , the proof of [31, Lemma 4.7] gives and we conclude that the contribution to is less than . Therefore, .
Finally, let be an involutory graph automorphism. If then and [31, Theorem 2] gives , so the contribution from these elements is less than . On the other hand, if then and , which gives a contribution of at most .
We conclude that .
Case 2. or . We handle both cases simultaneously. Suppose has odd prime order . If then and we calculate that
[TABLE]
Therefore, the contribution to from elements of order is less than . On the other hand, if then and so the remaining contribution is less than since . It follows that .
Finally, suppose is an involution. If is a long root element then and by applying [30, Proposition 1.13(ii)] we deduce that , so the contribution from these elements is less than . As in the previous case, the contribution from graph automorphisms with is at most . For the remaining involutions we have and their contribution is less than since . Therefore, and the result follows. ∎
3.4.
In this final section we complete the proof of Theorem 1 by handling the groups with socle . We adopt the same notation as before. In particular, we will write . We refer the reader to [46, 47] for information on the conjugacy classes in (also see [35, Table 22.2.4] and [37] for useful data on unipotent and semisimple classes, respectively). The case requires special attention and it will be treated separately in Lemma 3.19.
Lemma 3.14**.**
If