Fake Galois actions
Niamh Farrell
Fachbereich Mathematik, TU Kaiserslautern, Postfach 3049, 67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany
[email protected]
and
Lucas Ruhstorfer
Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Gaussstrasse 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany
[email protected]
Abstract.
We prove that for all non-abelian finite simple groups S, there exists a fake mth Galois action on IBr(X) with respect to X⊲X⋊Aut(X), where X is the universal covering group of S and m is any non-negative integer coprime to the order of X. This is one of the two inductive conditions needed to prove an ℓ-modular analogue of the Glauberman–Isaacs correspondence.
Key words and phrases:
Modular Glauberman–Isaacs correspondence, Brauer characters, fake Galois actions, Clifford theory, finite reductive groups
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
20C20, 20C33
The first author gratefully acknowledges financial support received from a London Mathematical Society 150th Anniversary Postdoctoral Mobility Grant, and from the DFG project SFB-TRR 195.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-1440140 while the second named author was in residence at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, California, during the Spring 2018 semester. The second author’s research was conducted in the framework of the research training group GRK 2240: Algebro-geometric
Methods in Algebra, Arithmetic and Topology, which is funded by the DFG
1. Introduction
Let G and A be finite groups such that A acts on G via group automorphisms. Then the action of A on G induces an action on the set of complex irreducible characters of G. Deep work of Glauberman in the 1960’s revealed an astonishing correspondence between the A-invariant characters of G, and the characters of the fixed point subgroup CG(A), when A and G have coprime orders and A is solvable. This work was extended by Isaacs in the 1970’s and their combined results became known as the Glauberman–Isaacs correspondence. This is a very important result in the representation theory of finite groups, and it has been used in a fundamental way in solving many problems relating to group actions, as well as in work on some of the famous open conjectures in modular representation theory such as the Alperin weight conjecture.
Theorem** (Glauberman–Isaacs Correspondence).**
Let G and A be finite groups. Suppose that A acts on G via group automorphisms and suppose that (∣A∣,∣G∣)=1. Then there exists a canonical bijection between the set of A-invariant irreducible characters of G and the set of irreducible characters of the fixed point subgroup CG(A).
We are concerned with an ℓ-modular analogue of the Glauberman–Isaacs correspondence. Let ℓ be a prime and suppose that A and G are as in the Theorem above. Then the action of A on G yields a natural action on the ℓ-Brauer characters of G. In [11, Problem 4], Navarro posed the following question: does there exist a bijection between the set of A-invariant irreducible ℓ-Brauer characters of G and the set of irreducible ℓ-Brauer characters of CG(A)? The answer is known in some specific cases, for example the answer is yes if G is ℓ-solvable [18], but it is not known in general whether such a correspondence always exists. Späth and Vallejo Rodríguez proved a reduction theorem for this question in [16]. For this they introduced a set of conditions on finite simple groups which they called the inductive Brauer-Glauberman (IBG) condition [16, Definition 6.1], and proved the following.
Theorem** ([16, Theorem A]).**
Let G and A be finite groups. Suppose that A acts on G with (∣A∣,∣G∣)=1. Suppose that all finite non-abelian simple groups involved in G satisfy the IBG condition. Then the number of A-invariant irreducible ℓ-Brauer characters of G is equal to the number of irreducible ℓ-Brauer characters of CG(A).
The IBG condition is known to hold for finite simple groups of Lie type defined over a field of characteristic ℓ, and for finite simple groups not of Lie type [14]. In order to prove Navarro’s conjecture it therefore remains to show that the IBG condition holds for all finite simple groups of Lie type in non-defining characteristic. This condition has two parts. The first part is a stronger, suitably equivariant version of a modular Glauberman–Isaacs correspondence. The second part is the existence of what Späth and Vallejo Rodríguez call a fake mth Galois action, see Definition 2.2. Galois automorphisms act on ordinary characters and change their Clifford theory. A fake Galois action is a bijective map on the set of irreducible Brauer characters changing the Clifford theory in an analogous way. We are concerned here with this part of the condition and prove the following result.
Theorem A**.**
Let S be a non-abelian simple group and let X be the universal covering group of S. Then for all non-negative integers m such that (∣X∣,m)=1, there exists a fake mth Galois action on IBr(X) with respect to X⊲X⋊Aut(X).
The organisation of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we recall the most important definitions and notation. We also state some general results about projective representations which might be of independent interest. In Section 3 we prove the existence of fake Galois actions for groups of Lie type A. The main idea is to use the ordinary Galois action on complex characters and the fact that the ℓ-decomposition matrix of SLn(q) is unitriangular. In Section 4 we deal with all groups of Lie type not of type A. As the outer automorphism group of D4(q) is more complicated than in the other cases, it often has to be dealt with using separate arguments. The construction of fake Galois actions for exceptional covering groups of simple finite groups of Lie type with non-cyclic outer automorphism groups is in Section 5. Finally, the proof of the main theorem is in Section 6.
Acknowledgements
We are extremely grateful to Professor Britta Späth for her support and encouragement on this project. The first author would like to thank the Bergische Universität Wuppertal for generously hosting her for a period of six months during which much of this article was written. We also thank Professor Gunter Malle for his careful reading of an earlier manuscript and for his helpful comments.
2. Notation, definitions and preliminary results
2.1. Notation
Let ℓ be a prime and let F=Fℓ be an algebraic closure of the finite field of ℓ elements. Let G be a finite group and let N⊲G. We let Irr(G) denote the set of complex irreducible characters of G and IBr(G) denote the set of ℓ-modular Brauer characters of G (see [12, Chapter 2]). For χ∈Irr(G), χN denotes the restriction of χ to N and Irr(N∣χ) denotes the set of irreducible constituents of χN. For θ∈Irr(N), θG denotes the induced character of G and Irr(G∣θ) denotes the set of irreducible constituents of θG. The notation for irreducible Brauer characters is analogous (see [12, Corollary 8.7]). For θ a complex or irreducible character of G, let Gθ denote the stabiliser of θ in G. Let Gℓ′ denote the subset of G of elements with order coprime to ℓ. Then d1:ZIrr(G)→ZIBr(G) denotes the decomposition map given by d1(χ)=χ∘ν where ν is the characteristic function of Gℓ′.
2.2. Fake mth Galois action
Recall that a modular character triple is a triple (G,N,θ) where N⊲G are finite groups and θ is a G-stable Brauer character of N. Suppose that D:G→GLθ(1)(F) is a representation of N affording θ. Then there exists a projective representation P of G such that PN=D, and we can choose P such that its associated factor set α:G×G→F× satisfies α(g,n)=α(n,g)=1 for all g∈G and n∈N. We say that such a projective representation P is associated to the triple (G,N,θ), or associated to θ.
Definition 2.1**.**
Let (G,N,θ) and (G,N,θ′) be modular character triples and let m be a positive integer such that (m,∣N∣)=1. Then we write
[TABLE]
if there exist projective representations P and P′ of G associated to θ and θ′ respectively, such that
for every c∈CG(N) the scalar matrices P(c) and P′(c) are associated to some m′ roots of unity ξ and ξm;
the factor sets α and α′ of P and P′ respectively take as values m′ roots of unity and satisfy
[TABLE]
for every g,g′∈G.
Definition 2.2**.**
Let N⊲G. There exists a fake mth Galois action on IBr(N) with respect to N⊲G if there exists a G-equivariant bijection
[TABLE]
such that for every θ∈IBr(N),
[TABLE]
Let P:G→GLn(F) be a projective representation with factor set α:G×G→F×. For an element x∈G we let Px denote the projective representation given by Px(g)=P(gx−1) for all g∈G.
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let N⊲G be finite groups. Let θ∈IBr(N) and let f:IBr(N)→IBr(N) be a G-equivariant bijection. Then (Gθ,N,θ)(m)≈(Gθ,N,f(θ)) if and only if (Gθg,N,θg)(m)≈(Gθg,N,f(θg)) for any g∈G.
Proof.
Let P and P′ be the projective representations associated to θ and f(θ) respectively such that (Gθ,N,θ)(m)≈(Gθ,N,f(θ)) as in Definition 2.1. Then for any g∈G, Pg and P′g are projective representations associated to θg and f(θ)g respectively, and they satisfy the properties of Definition 2.1 so (Gθg,N,θg)(m)≈(Gθg,N,f(θg)).
∎
2.3. Results from group theory
Recall that every subgroup U of G×H has the form
[TABLE]
for some 5-tuple (G1,G2,H1,H2,φ) where G2⊲G1≤G and H2⊲H1≤H and φ:G1/G2→H1/H2 is an isomorphism. We note that U is a subgroup of G1×H1, and G2×1 and 1×H2 are normal subgroups of U.
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let G be a finite group and let a∈N>0. Suppose that U is a subgroup of G×Ca associated to a 5-tuple (G1,G2,H1,H2,φ) such that G1 is abelian or G1=G2⋊K for some finite group K. Then U≅G2⋊H1.
Proof.
If G1 is abelian then U is a subgroup of an abelian group so the result follows from the classification of finite abelian groups. Suppose now that G1=G2⋊K for some finite group K.
Consider the projection map π:U→H1, given by π(g,h)=h. Since ker(π)=G2×1 we obtain an exact sequence,
[TABLE]
Let H1=⟨h1⟩. Consider the map π′:H1→U,h1↦(g1,h1) where g1∈K is such that φ(g1G2)=h1H2. Since K≅G1/G2≅H1/H2, the order of h1 equals the order of (g1,h1) and hence this map is well defined. As π∘π′= id, π′ is a section of π and hence U≅G2⋊H1 as required.
∎
Corollary 2.5**.**
Let a∈N>0 and let U≤S4×Ca be associated to a 5-tuple (G1,G2,H1,H2,φ). Then U≅G2⋊H1. Moreover, if A4≤G1, then V4×1⊲U.
Proof.
By Lemma 2.4, we need to show that for any U≤S4×Ca associated to a 5-tuple (G1,G2,H1,H2,φ), either G1 is abelian or G1=G2⋊K for some finite group K. Clearly if G2 is trivial, then the second condition automatically holds. Since H1≤Ca is cyclic and G1/G2≅H1/H2, it follows that G1/G2 is cyclic. It is therefore enough to consider each of the possibilities for G1 and G2 such that G1 is not abelian, G2 is not trivial, and G1/G2 is cyclic.
First let G1=S4. Then G2=A4 and G1=G2⋊⟨(1,2)⟩ is a semidirect product. If G1=S3 then G2≅A3 and hence G1=G2⋊⟨(1,2)⟩. Now suppose that G1=D8=⟨a,b∣a4=b2=1,[b,a]=a2⟩. Then G2 is of order 2 or 4. If ∣G2∣=2 then G2=⟨a2⟩ and G1/G2≅C2×C2 is not cyclic. Therefore G2 is of order 4 and so either G2=⟨a⟩ and G1=G2⋊⟨b⟩; G2=⟨a2,b⟩ and G1=G2⋊⟨ab⟩; or G2=⟨ab,a2⟩ and G1=G2⋊⟨b⟩. Finally, suppose that G1=A4. Then G2=V4 and G1=G2⋊⟨(1,2,3)⟩. We note that whenever A4≤G1 we have V4≤G2 and therefore V4×1⊲U.
∎
2.4. Results from ordinary and projective character theory
Lemma 2.6**.**
Let N⊲G be finite groups. Let θ∈IBr(N) and let χ,χ′∈IBr(G∣θ). Then if G/N is abelian, or if χ and χ′ are extensions of θ, there exists a linear character λ∈IBr(G/N) such that χ=λχ′.
Proof.
By definition, χ and χ′ are irreducible constituents of θG. It then follows from [12, Corollary 8.20] that there exists an irreducible character λ∈IBr(G/N) such that χ=λχ′. If G/N is abelian, then λ is a linear character. If χ and χ′ are both extensions of θ then χ and χ′ have the same degree. Therefore, λ is again a linear character.
∎
If λ:Gℓ′→C× is a linear Brauer character of G we denote (by abuse of notation) λ:G→F× the unique representation affording λ. The following is a generalisation of ideas present in the proof of [14, Proposition 5.2].
Lemma 2.7**.**
Let G be a finite group. Suppose that H1⊲G and G=H1H2. Let H=H1∩H2 and let θ∈IBr(H) be a G-stable Brauer character of H. Suppose that there exists an extension θ1∈IBr(H1) of θ. Let D1:H1→GLθ(1)(F) be a representation of H1 affording θ1 and let P2:H2→GLθ(1)(F) be a projective representation associated to θ with factor set α2, such that D1 and P2 agree on H. Then there exists a well defined projective representation P:G→GLθ(1)(F) associated to θ with factor set α such that for all g=h1h2,g′=h1′h2′∈G, h1,h1′∈H1, h2,h2′∈H2,
[TABLE]
and α satisfies
[TABLE]
where λh2 is the unique linear Brauer character of IBr(H1/H) such that θ1h2λh2=θ1.
Proof.
Let x1∈H1 and x2∈H2 such that g=h1h2=x1x2∈G. Then h1−1x1=h2x2−1:=h∈H. Thus P(h1h2)=P(h1hh−1h2)=P(x1x2), so P is well defined.
Now let g=h1h2 and g′=h1′h2′∈G. Then
[TABLE]
We define the following two maps for this fixed h2.
[TABLE]
The maps ν1 and ν2 are representations of H1 associated to θ1 and θ1h2 respectively. Since θ is G-stable, θh2=θ so θ1 and θ1h2 extend the same character θ of H. Hence there exists a linear character λh2∈IBr(H1/H) such that θ1h2λh2=θ1, by Lemma 2.6.
Recall our convention that we also denote the representation affording λh2 by λh2. The representations ν2λh2 and ν1 both afford θ1, so they are similar representations of H1. Since ν2λh2 and ν1 coincide on H, it follows that ν2λh2=ν1. We therefore have the following:
[TABLE]
Thus P is a projective representation with factor set α satisfying α(g,g′)=λh2(h1′)α2(h2,h2′)−1 for all g=h1h2, g′=h1′h2′∈G where λh2∈IBr(H1/H) is the linear character determined by θ1h2λh2=θ1 and α2 is the factor set of P2. Since P∣H is an ordinary representation of G affording θ, P is a projective representation of G associated to θ. ∎
2.5. Finite groups of Lie type
Let p=ℓ be a prime and let G be a simple simply connected algebraic group defined over Fp. Let Φ be a root system of G relative to a maximal torus T with base Δ. For α∈Φ let xα be the associated one-parameter subgroup. Let F0:G→G be the field automorphism defined by xα(t)↦xα(tp) for all α∈Φ and t∈F. For a symmetry τ of the Dynkin diagram associated to Δ we let τ:G→G be the graph automorphism given by xα(t)↦xτ(α)(t). Let F:G→G be a Frobenius endomorphism of the form F=F0fτ, where τ is a graph automorphism as above and q=pf, endowing G with an Fq-structure. Let GF be the finite group of the fixed points of G under F. We say that GF is untwisted if F=F0f and twisted otherwise.
Let G∗ be a connected reductive algebraic group with maximal torus T∗ such that (G∗,T∗,F∗) is dual to (G,T,F) in the sense of [6, Definition 13.10] and the subsequent discussion. Since it will be clear which Frobenius we are referring to, we drop the * notation and just write F for both Frobenius maps.
Let ι:G↪G~ be a regular embedding of algebraic groups, with G~ a connected reductive algebraic group such that Z(G~) is connected and [G~,G~]⊆G (see [1, Section 15.1]). The Frobenius endomorphism F extends to G~ and we also denote by F:G~→G~ a fixed extension of F to G~. Then T~=Z(G~).T is an F-stable maximal torus of G~ and we let G~∗ and T~∗ be such that (G~∗,T~∗,F) is dual to (G~,T~,F). Let ι∗:G~∗→G∗ be a surjective morphism dual to ι.
To each G∗F-conjugacy class (s) of a semisimple element s∈G∗F we have an associated rational Lusztig series E(GF,(s))⊆Irr(GF), see remarks before [6, Proposition 14.41]. In addition we let E(GF,ℓ′) be the union of rational Lusztig series E(GF,(s)) where s runs over all semisimple elements of G∗F with order coprime to ℓ.
3. Finite groups of Lie type of type A
For this section we let G=SLn(Fp), G~=GLn(Fp) with n>1. Let m∈N be such that (m,∣GF∣)=1 and therefore (m,∣G~F∣)=1.
Let D=⟨F0,τ⟩ be the group of automorphisms of G~F generated by field and graph automorphisms.
Remark 3.1**.**
Let Θ:IBr(GF)→Irr(GF) denote the injective map given in [4, Definition 2.2]. It follows from [4, Theorem A and Lemma 2.3] that Θ(IBr(GF)) is an Aut(GF)-stable unitriangular basic set for GF and Θ is Aut(GF)-equivariant. Hence for all H≤ Aut(GF) and all θ∈IBr(GF), Hθ=HΘ(θ).
Lemma 3.2**.**
For any χ∈IBr(G~F) there exists a θ∈IBr(GF∣χ) such that
- (i)
(G~F⋊D)θ=G~Fθ⋊Dθ, and
2. (ii)
θ* extends to (GF⋊D)θ.*
Proof.
Let χ∈IBr(G~F), θ∈IBr(GF∣χ) and ψ=Θ(θ). By [2, Theorem 4.1], there exists a g∈G~F such that ψg satisfies (i) and (ii). We claim that θg∈IBr(GF∣χ) satisfies (i) and (ii). Since Θ(θg)=Θ(θ)g=ψg, it follows from Remark 3.1 that (G~F⋊D)θg=(G~F⋊D)ψg=G~Fψg⋊Dψg=G~Fθg⋊Dθg so θg satisfies (i).
Since ψg satisfies part (ii), there exists an extension ψ~∈Irr(GF⋊D)ψg of ψg. By Remark 3.1 and (i) we have that (GF⋊D)ψg=GF⋊Dθg. Then since d1(ψ~)GF=d1(ψ~GF)=d1(ψg), θg is a constituent of d1(ψ~)GF of multiplicity 1. It follows that there exists some irreducible constituent η∈IBr(GF⋊Dθg) of d1(ψ~) such that θg is an irreducible constituent of ηGF of multiplicity 1. Since θg is stable in GF⋊Dθg, it follows that η is an extension of θg to GF⋊Dθg, so θg satisfies (ii).
∎
Lemma 3.3**.**
There exists a D-equivariant bijection
[TABLE]
such that f~m(λχ)=λmf~m(χ) for all χ∈IBr(G~F) and all λ∈IBr(G~F∣1GF), and f~m(IBr(G~F∣ν))=IBr(G~F∣νm) for all ν∈IBr(Z(G~F)).
Proof.
Recall that there exists a bijection Z(G~∗)F→Irr(G~F∣1GF), z↦z^ , see for example [6, Proposition 13.30]. The set E(G~F,ℓ′) is a basic set of Irr(G~F) and we can define an injective map Θ~:IBr(G~F)→Irr(G~F) with image E(G~F,ℓ′) such that the decomposition matrix associated to this map is unitriangular [7, 2.4]. For every z∈Z(G~∗)ℓ′F we have that Θ~(ψd1(z^))=Θ~(ψ)z^ for all ψ∈IBr(G~F). Let σ∈ Gal(Q∣G~F∣/Q) be a Galois automorphism such that σ(ζ)=ζm, where ζ is a primitive ∣G~F∣-th root of unity. Define a map
[TABLE]
Since E(G~F,ℓ′)σ=E(G~F,ℓ′) by [15, Lemma 9.1], this map is well defined.
Let λ∈IBr(G~F∣1GF) and let z∈Z(G~∗)ℓ′F be the central element such that d1(z^)=λ. Then for all χ∈IBr(G~F),
[TABLE]
Now let ν∈Irr(Z(G~F)). Then since Θ~(IBr(G~F)∣d1(ν))⊆IBr(G~F∣ν) and Irr(G~F∣ν)= Irr(G~F∣νm), it follows that f~m(IBr(G~F∣ν))= IBr(G~F∣νm).
∎
Lemma 3.4**.**
Let θ∈IBr(GF) and let χ∈IBr(G~F∣θ). Suppose that (G~F⋊D)θ=G~Fθ⋊Dθ. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
If d∈Dθ then χ and χd are both elements of IBr(G~F∣θ) so χd=χλ for some linear λ∈IBr(G~F/GF) by Lemma 2.6. Hence Dθ⊆{d∈D∣χd=χλ for some λ∈ IBr(G~F/GF)}.
Now suppose that d∈D is such that χd=χλ for some λ∈IBr(G~F/GF). Then θd and θ are both elements of IBr(GF∣χd), so θd=θg for some g∈G~F. Therefore g−1d∈(G~F⋊D)θ. Since (G~F⋊D)θ=G~Fθ⋊Dθ, it follows that g∈G~Fθ and d∈Dθ.
∎
Let G be a set of representatives of the (G~F⋊D)-orbits of characters in IBr(GF) satisfying Lemma 3.2 (i) and (ii). For θ∈IBr(GF), let θ0 denote the unique character in G such that θ=θ0gd for some gd∈G~F⋊D, and let θ~0∈IBr(G~F∣θ0).
There exists a unique character χ0′∈G and element d′∈D such that χ0′d′∈IBr(GF∣f~m(θ~0)).
Since (G~F⋊D)χ0′d′=d′(G~Fχ0′)⋊d′(Dχ0′), the character χ0′d′ also satisfies the conditions of Lemma 3.2 (i) and (ii).
We let χ0:=χ0′d′ and define a map fm:IBr(GF)→IBr(GF) by
[TABLE]
We claim that this is a well defined (G~F⋊D)-equivariant bijection. First suppose that θ~0 and θ~0′ are two elements of IBr(G~F∣θ0). Then since G~F/GF is abelian, θ~0=λθ~0′ for some linear character λ∈IBr(G~F/GF) by Lemma 2.6. Further, f~m(θ~0)=λmf~m(θ~0′) so IBr(GF∣f~m(θ~0))=IBr(GF∣f~m(θ~0′)). Hence χ0, and therefore fm(θ), is independent of the choice of θ~0∈IBr(G~F∣θ0). Thus the map is well defined, and (G~F⋊D)-equivariant by construction.
Lemma 3.5**.**
In the notation as above we have (G~F⋊D)θ0=(G~F⋊D)χ0.
Proof.
Since θ0 and χ0 satisfy Lemma 3.2 (i) and (ii), (G~F⋊D)θ0=G~Fθ0⋊Dθ0 and (G~F⋊D)χ0=G~Fχ0⋊Dχ0. By Lemma 3.4,
[TABLE]
Therefore, since f~m is a D-equivariant bijection and f~m(θ~0)∈IBr(G~F∣χ0),
[TABLE]
Recall that G~Fθ0=⋂ker(λ) where λ runs over the elements of StabIBr(G~F/GF)(θ~0). Since f~m is a bijection and f~m(λθ~0)=λmf~m(θ~0), λ stabilises θ~0 if and only if f~m(λ)=λm stabilises f~m(θ~0). Thus, since (m,∣G~F∣)=1, G~Fθ0=⋂ker(λm) where λm now runs over the elements of StabIBr(G~F/GF)(f~m(θ~0)). In particular, G~Fθ0=G~Ffm(θ0) and the result follows.
∎
Since f~m is a bijection such that f~m(λχ)=λmf~m(χ) for all χ∈IBr(G~F) and all λ∈IBr(G~F∣1GF), by construction the map fm∣G:G→IBr(GF) is an injection. Hence by Lemma 3.5, fm:IBr(GF)→IBr(GF) is a (G~F⋊D)-equivariant bijection, proving the claim. It follows that (G~F⋊D)θ=(G~F⋊D)fm(θ) for all θ∈IBr(GF).
Proposition 3.6**.**
The map fm: IBr(GF)→ IBr(GF) defines a fake mth Galois action on IBr(GF) with respect to GF⊲G~F⋊D.
Proof.
Since fm: IBr(GF)→ IBr(GF) is a (G~F⋊D)-equivariant bijection, by Definition 2.2 and Lemma 2.3 it remains to show that
[TABLE]
for every θ∈G.
Let θ∈G. Since G~F/GF is cyclic there exists an extension θ1 of θ to G~θF. Since θ satisfies Lemma 3.2 (i) and (ii), (G~F⋊D)θ=G~θF⋊Dθ and there exists an extension θ2 of θ to GF⋊Dθ. Let H1=G~θF and let H2=GF⋊Dθ. Let D1 be an ordinary representation of G~θF affording θ1. Let D2 be an ordinary representation of GF⋊Dθ affording θ2 such that D1 and D2 agree on GF. Then by Lemma 2.7 there exists a projective representation P:(G~F⋊D)θ→GLθ(1)(F) associated to θ with factor set α such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for all x=h1h2,x′=h1′h2′∈(G~F⋊D)θ, h1,h1′∈G~θF, h2,h2′∈GF⋊Dθ, where λh2 is the linear Brauer character of G~θF/GF such that θ1h2λh2=θ1.
Let θ~1∈IBr(G~F) correspond to θ1∈IBr(G~Fθ∣θ) via Clifford correspondence with respect to θ [12, Theorem 8.9]. Let θ1′∈IBr(G~fm(θ)F∣fm(θ)) denote the Clifford correspondent of f~m(θ~1) with respect to fm(θ). Since fm(θ) satisfies Lemma 3.2 (i) and (ii), there exists an extension θ2′ of fm(θ) to GF⋊Dθ. Let D1′ be an ordinary representation of G~θF associated to θ1′. Let D2′ be an ordinary representation of GF⋊Dθ affording θ2′ such that D1′ and D2′ agree on GF. Then by Lemma 2.7 again, there exists a projective representation P′:(G~F⋊D)θ→GLθ(1)(F) associated to fm(θ) with factor set α′ such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for all x=h1h2,x′=h1′h2′∈(G~F⋊D)θ, h1,h1′∈G~θF, h2,h2′∈GF⋊Dθ, where λh2′ is the linear Brauer character of IBr(G~θF/GF) such that θ1′h2λh2′=θ1′.
Let λ~h2′∈IBr(G~F/GF) be an extension of λh2′ to G~F. It follows from Lemma 3.3 that f~m(θ~1)h2λ~h2′=f~m(θ~1). Since f~m is D-equivariant, we have the following for any h2∈GF⋊Dθ,
[TABLE]
Hence λh2′=λh2m for each h2∈GF⋊Dθ, so α(x,x′)m=α′(x,x′) for all x,x′∈(G~F⋊D)θ.
From the description of the action of automorphisms of GF given in [8, Theorem 2.5.1], we observe that CG~F⋊D(GF)=Z(G~F). Therefore P∣Z(G~F)=D1∣Z(G~F)=νId where ν∈IBr(Z(G~F)∣θ~1). Similarly, P′∣Z(G~F)=D1′∣Z(G~F)=ηId where η∈IBr(Z(G~F)∣f~m(θ~1)). Since f~m(IBr(G~F∣ν))=IBr(G~F∣νm) for all ν∈IBr(Z(G~F)) by Lemma 3.3, it follows that η=νm. Therefore ((G~F⋊D)θ,GF,θ)(m)≈((G~F⋊D)θ,GF,fm(θ)).
∎
Corollary 3.7**.**
There exists a fake mth Galois action on IBr(GF) with respect to GF⊲GF⋊Aut(GF).
Proof.
Let H:=G~F⋊D. It follows from [8, Theorem 2.5.1] that there exists a surjective map H↠Aut(GF) such that H/CH(GF)≅Out(GF). Therefore we can apply [16, Corollary 4.12] and conclude that there exists a fake mth Galois action on IBr(GF) with respect to GF⊲GF⋊Aut(GF).
∎
4. Finite groups of Lie type of type B, C, D, E6 and E7
We continue with the notation of Section 2.5 with G a simple algebraic group of simply connected type and F=F0fτ a Frobenius endomorphism defining an Fq-structure on G with q=pf. For this section we assume that G is of type B, C, D, E6, or E7.
In addition we assume that τ2=1, that is, we exclude the case where GF is of type 3D4.
Let L:G→G denote the Lang map defined by L(g)=g−1F(g) for all g∈G.
Let Diag(GF) denote the group of diagonal automorphisms of GF in Out(GF). By [17, 12.5], the proof of [9, Proposition 1.5] together with [5, Lemma 1.3],
[TABLE]
Hence each diagonal automorphism of GF can be realised as conjugation by some element of L−1(Z(G)). Since the Lang map is surjective on G and the restriction L∣L−1(Z(G)) is a group homomorphism with kernel GF, we have L−1(Z(G))/GF≅Z(G). Let Γ be the group of graph automorphisms which commute with F, regarded as automorphisms of L−1(Z(G)).
Define A:=L−1(Z(G))⋊⟨F0,Γ⟩. Then
[TABLE]
and for convenience we identify A/GF with Z(G)⋊⟨F0,Γ⟩. By construction of A there is a surjection
[TABLE]
Let z∈Z(G) and let x∈L−1(Z(G)) be such that L(x)=z. Then we let δz∈Out(GF) denote the diagonal automorphism of GF given by conjugation by x. In order to express A/GF in a more convenient form, we use the following lemma to define one more piece of notation.
Lemma 4.1**.**
If F0 does not act trivially on Z(G) then there exists a graph automorphism γ∈Γ such that γF0 acts trivially on Z(G).
Proof.
The result is immediate if Z(G) is trivial or of order 2 so there are just three cases to consider. We use the notation of [8, Section 1.12].
First suppose that G is of type E6 and p=3. Let 1=ω∈Fp× with ω3=1. By [8, Table 1.12.6], h=hα1(ω)hα2(ω2)hα5(ω)hα6(ω2) is a generator of Z(G). If p≡1mod(3) then ωp=ω so F0 acts trivially on Z(G). If p≡2mod(3) then ωp=ω2, so F0(h)=h2. Further, the non-trivial graph automorphism γ acts on Z(G) by γ(h)=hα6(ω)hα5(ω2)hα2(ω)hα1(ω2)=h2. Therefore γ and F0 have the same action of order 2 on Z(G), and hence γF0 acts trivially on Z(G).
Now suppose that G is of type D2m for some m∈N, and p=2. Then Z(G) has two generators, h1=hα1(−1)hα3(−1)…hα2m−1(−1) and h2=hα2m−1(−1)hα2m(−1). Since p=2, the field automorphism F0 stabilises −1, hence F0 acts trivially on the centre.
Finally, suppose that G is of type D2m+1 for some m∈N, and p=2. Let 1=ω∈Fp× such that ω2=−1. Then Z(G) has one generator h=hα1(−1)hα3(−1)…hα2m−1(−1)hα2m(ω)hα2m+1(−ω). Again, since p is odd, F0 stabilises −1. If p≡1 mod (4) then F0(ω)=ω so F0 acts trivially on Z(G). If p≡3 mod (4) then F0(ω)=ω3=−ω. The non-trivial graph automorphism γ swaps α2m and α2m+1 so γ(h)=hα1(−1)hα3(−1)…hα2m−1(−1)hα2m+1(ω)hα2m(−ω). In particular, γ and F0 have the same action on Z(G) and hence γF0 acts trivially on Z(G).
∎
Notation 4.2**.**
If F0 acts trivially on Z(G) then we let F0′:=F0. Otherwise we let F0′:=γF0 where γ is the non-trivial graph automorphism such that γF0 acts trivially on Z(G) as given in Lemma 4.1.
Then we have
[TABLE]
where ⟨F0′⟩≅Ca for some positive integer a. As Z(G) is the p′-part of Λ(Φ) given in [10, Table 9.2], and Γ can be determined by the Dynkin diagram of G, we observe the following.
Corollary 4.3**.**
There exists a positive integer a such that A/GF has the following form:
If GF is of type D4 then A/GF is a subgroup of (V4⋊S3)×Ca≅S4×Ca.
If G is of type E6 then A/GF is a subgroup of (C3⋊C2)×Ca≅S3×Ca.
Otherwise A/GF is a subgroup of (V4⋊C2)×Ca≅D8×Ca or (C4⋊C2)×Ca≅D8×Ca.
We conclude this section with results on the group theoretic structure of A. The following two lemmas are used in the proof of Proposition 4.10.
Lemma 4.4**.**
CA(GF)=Z(G)⟨F⟩**
Proof.
It is clear that Z(G)⟨F⟩ acts trivially on GF, so Z(G)⟨F⟩⊆CA(GF). Now suppose that g∈L−1(Z(G)) and d∈⟨F0,Γ⟩ are such that gd∈CA(GF). As gd induces the identity on GF it follows from [8, Theorem 2.5.1] that g and d both induce the identity on GF. Therefore g∈Z(L−1(Z(G))=Z(G) and d=Fi for some i, so gd∈Z(G)⟨F⟩.
∎
Lemma 4.5**.**
If F acts trivially on Z(G) then F has order exp(Z(G)) on L−1(Z(G)).
If Z(G) is cyclic and F acts non-trivially on Z(G) then F has order 2 on L−1(Z(G)), and if Z(G) is not cyclic and F acts non-trivially on Z(G) then F has order 4 on L−1(Z(G)).
Proof.
Let z∈Z(G) and let x∈L−1(Z(G)) be such that L(x)=z. Then F(x)=xz. If F(z)=z then Fk(x)=xzk for all k∈N, so Fo(z)(x)=x where o(z) denotes the order of z. Therefore F has order exp(Z(G)) on L−1(Z(G)).
Now suppose that F is non-trivial on Z(G). If Z(G)=⟨z⟩ then F(z)=z−1 and therefore F2(x)=xF(z)z=x. Thus F has order 2 on L−1(Z(G)). If Z(G) is not cyclic then Z(G)≅C2×C2. Then for all z∈Z(G), F2(z)=z so F4(x)=F3(z)F2(z)F(z)zx=F(z)2z2x=x. Hence F has order 4 on L−1(Z(G)).
∎
The following lemma is used in the proof of Proposition 4.12.
Lemma 4.6**.**
There exists an isomorphism G~F/Z(G~)≅L−1(Z(G))/Z(GF) which maps GFZ(G~F)/Z(G~F) to GFZ(G)/Z(G).
Proof.
Let g~∈G~F. Since G~=Z(G~)G we can choose a zg~∈Z(G~) such that g~zg~∈G. Then L(g~zg~)=L(zg~)∈Z(G) so we can define a set-theoretic map G~F→L−1(Z(G)) given by g~↦g~zg~. The coset g~zg~Z(G) is uniquely determined by g~, so the map G~F→L−1(Z(G))/Z(G) given by g~↦g~zg~Z(G) is a group homomorphism. The kernel of this homomorphism is Z(G~), therefore G~F/Z(G~)≅L−1(Z(G))/Z(GF). The second claim follows directly from the construction of the isomorphism.
∎
4.1. Constructing projective representations
In this section we construct projective representations of Aθ associated to θ for θ∈IBr(GF). In Section 4.2 we will then use these projective representations to define a fake mth Galois action on IBr(GF) first with respect to GF⊲A, and hence with respect to GF⊲(GF⋊Aut(GF)), for every m such that (m,∣GF∣)=1.
The following technical lemma is central to the constructions which follow. Thanks to [14, Lemma 4.5 (b)], we do not need to construct projective representations for θ∈IBr(GF) where Out(GF)θ is cyclic (see the proof of Proposition 4.13). Because of the graph automorphism of order 3, when GF is of type D4 some cases require special methods. It is therefore often convenient to make one or both of the following assumptions.
Assumption 4.7**.**
Let θ∈IBr(GF).
Out(GF)θ* is non-cyclic.*
If GF is of type D4, then Aθ≤L−1(Z(G))⋊⟨F0,γθ⟩ where γθ∈Γ is such that γθ2=1.
Notation 4.8**.**
In Lemma 4.9, Proposition 4.10 and Proposition 4.11, if GF is of type D4 then we work under Assumption 4.7 (ii). We let Γ′:=⟨γθ⟩ if GF is of type D4, let Γ′:=Γ otherwise. Then Aθ≤L−1(Z(G))⋊⟨F0,Γ′⟩ and Aθ/GF is a subgroup of (Z(G)⋊Γ′)×⟨F0′⟩ with Γ′=⟨γ′⟩≅C2.
Lemma 4.9**.**
Let θ∈IBr(GF) be a character satisfying Assumption 4.7 (i) and (ii), and let γ′ be as in Notation 4.8. Then there exist finite groups U1⊲Aθ and U2≤Aθ such that Aθ=U1U2, U1∩U2=GF, Z(G)≤U1, and either F∈U2 or γ′F∈U2 and γ′∈U1. Furthermore, U1/GF is a subgroup of D8 if G is of type D, U1/GF is a subgroup of S3 otherwise, and U2/GF is cyclic.
Proof.
Let G:=Z(G)⋊Γ′ and let H:=⟨F0′⟩. Let U be a subgroup of G×H such that Aθ/GF≅U. Recall that (as discussed in Section 2.3) U has the form
[TABLE]
for some 5-tuple (G1,G2,H1,H2,φ) where G2⊲G1≤G, H2⊲H1≤H, and φ:G1/G2→H1/H2 is an isomorphism. If G is of type D then by Assumption 4.7 (ii) and the definition of Γ′, G is a subgroup of D8. If G is not of type D then G is a subgroup of S3. Thus there are only a small number of possibilities for (G1,G2,H1,H2,φ), so we prove the claim by considering each of them individually. Note that U∩(G×1)=G2×1 and U∩(1×H)=1×H2. Since F and Z(G) act trivially on IBr(GF), both F and Z(G) are contained in Aθ and hence F and Z(G)GF/GF are contained in Aθ/GF.
It follows from the definition of G that Z(G)GF/GF≤G×1∩U=G2×1. Moreover, either F∈H (in which case F∈1×H2), or γ′F∈H.
First suppose that G2=1. It then follows from Lemma 2.4 that U≅H1, which is cyclic. Since Aθ/GF surjects onto Out(GF)θ, therefore Out(GF)θ is cyclic, contradicting Assumption 4.7 (i).
Now suppose that G1=G2. Then since G1/G2≅H1/H2, it follows that H1=H2 and φ(gG2)=hH2 for all g∈G1, h∈H1. Therefore U=G1×H1.
Let U1,U2≤Aθ be such that U1/GF≅G1×1 and U2/GF≅1×H1. Then U2/GF is cyclic, and U1/GF is a subgroup of D8 if G is of type D, and a subgroup of S3 if G is not of type D.
If F∈H then F∈1×H2=1×H1, as mentioned above, so F∈U2. If γ′F∈H then since γ′∈G, it follows that γ′∈G1 and γ′F∈H1 and hence γ′F∈U2 and γ′∈U1. As Z(G)GF/GF≤G2×1, clearly Z(G)≤U1.
By examination of the possibilities for (G1,G2,H1,H2,φ), it only remains to consider the case when θ∈IBr(GF) is such that G1/G2≅H1/H2≅C2.
First suppose that G2 has a direct complement in G1, so G1=G2⋊⟨ν⟩ where ν2=1. Let i∈N such that H1=⟨(F0′)i⟩ and H2=⟨(F0′)2i⟩. We claim that U=G2⋊⟨ν(F0′)i⟩. Since ⟨ν⟩≅G1/G2≅H1/H2≅⟨(F0′)iH2⟩, the isomorphism φ sends νG2 to (F0′)iH2. Any (g,h)∈U can be written as (g2,1)(νj,(F0′)ik) for some g2∈G2 and some positive integers j and k. Then φ(νjG2)=(F0′)ikH2 and φ(νjG2)=φ(νG2)j=(F0′)ijH2 so (F0′)i(k−j)∈H2. Hence φ(νk−j)∈G2∩⟨ν⟩={1} since ⟨ν⟩ is a direct complement of G2 in G1. Therefore νj=νk and (g,h)=(g2,1)(ν,(F0′)i)j∈G2⋊⟨ν(F0′)i⟩, proving the claim.
Now we let U1,U2≤Aθ such that U1/GF=G2×1 and U2/GF=1×⟨ν(F0′)i⟩. As in the previous case, it is immediate that Z(G)≤U1, U2/GF is cyclic, and U1/GF is a subgroup of D8 if G is of type D, and a subgroup of S3 otherwise. If F∈H then F∈1×H2≤1×⟨ν(F0′)i⟩ since ν2=1, and hence F∈U2. Otherwise γ′F∈H so γ′F=(F0′)r for some positive integer r. Then since F∈U, we have γ′(F0′)r∈G2⋊⟨ν(F0′)i⟩. If γ′∈G2 then γ′=ν so r is an even multiple of i, and hence γ′∈U1 and γ′F∈U2. If γ′=ν then F=ν(F0′)r∈⟨ν(F0′)i⟩, so F∈U2. Finally, if γ′=g2ν for some nontrivial g2∈G2, then note that G1=G2⋊⟨g2ν⟩ and by defining U1 and U2 now in relation to this new decomposition of G1, again we see that F∈U2.
The final case to consider is when G1/G2≅H1/H2≅C2 and G2 does not have a direct complement in G1. This occurs only if G is of type Dn with G≅D8 and G1≅C4, the unique cyclic subgroup of D8 of order 4. If n is even then let z1,z2∈G be such that Z(G)=⟨z1,z2⟩. Then G=(⟨z1⟩×⟨z2⟩)⋊⟨γ′⟩. In this case fix z3:=z1z2. Then G1=⟨z1γ′⟩ or ⟨z2γ′⟩, and G2=⟨z3⟩. If n is odd then then let z1∈G be such that Z(G)=⟨z1⟩. Then G=⟨z1⟩⋊⟨γ′⟩ and G1=⟨z1⟩. In this case we fix z3:=z12, so again we get G2=⟨z3⟩.
In both cases we can show that U=⟨z3⟩×⟨z1γ′(F0′)i⟩, using arguments similar to the case above where G2 has a direct complement in G1. As usual, we let U1,U2≤Aθ such that U1/GF≅⟨z3⟩×1 and U2/GF≅1×⟨z1γ′(F0′)i⟩. Clearly Z(G)≤U1, U2/GF is cyclic, and U1/GF is a subgroup of D8.
Since F∈U, either F∈⟨z1γ′(F0′)i⟩ or z3F∈⟨z1γ′(F0′)i⟩. In the first case then F∈U2 so we are done. Suppose that z3F∈⟨z1γ′(F0′)i⟩. The map δ:A/GF↠Out(GF) introduced at the beginning of Section 4 induces a surjection U↠Out(GF)θ, so Out(GF)θ≤⟨δz2,δz1γ′(F0′)i⟩. Now since z3F∈⟨z1γ′(F0′)i⟩, we have δz3F∈⟨δz1γ′(F0′)i⟩ and therefore Out(GF)θ is cyclic, contradicting Assumption 4.7 (i).
∎
Proposition 4.10**.**
Suppose that G is of type B, C, E6 or E7 and let θ∈IBr(GF) satisfying Assumption 4.7 (i).
There exists a projective representation P of Aθ associated to θ with factor set α such that α6=1 and for every c∈CA(GF), P(c)=ξId for a sixth root of unity ξ.
Proof.
By Lemma 4.9, there exist finite groups U1 and U2 such that Z(G)≤U1⊲Aθ, U2≤Aθ, Aθ=U1U2, U1∩U2=GF, U2/GF is cyclic and U1/GF is a subgroup of S3, and either F∈U2, or Fγ′∈U2 and γ′∈U1.
Since U1/GF has cyclic Sylow subgroups, θ extends to a character θ1 of U1 by [12, Theorem 8.29], and since U2/GF is cyclic θ also extends to a character θ2 of U2. Let D1:U1→GLθ(1)(F) be a representation of U1 affording θ1 and let D2:U2→GLθ(1)(F) be a representation of U2 affording θ2 which agrees with D1 on GF. It then follows from Lemma 2.7 that there exists a projective representation P:Aθ→GLθ(1)(F) associated to θ with factor set α such that for all g=u1u2,g′=u1′u2′∈Aθ, u1,u1′∈U1, u2,u2′∈U2,
[TABLE]
where λu2 denotes the linear Brauer character of U1/GF such that θ1u2λu2=θ1. Since U1/GF is a subgroup of S3, λu2 takes as values 2nd or 3rd roots of unity. In particular, α6=1.
Recall that CA(GF)≅Z(G)⟨F⟩ by Lemma 4.4. For c=zFi an arbitrary element of CA(GF), we have
[TABLE]
where the second equality holds because Z(G)≤U1. Since G is of type B, C, E6 or E7, ∣Z(G)∣≤3 and by Lemma 4.5, F has order less than or equal to 3 on L−1(Z(G)).
If F∈U2 then P(Fi)=D2(Fi) and since D1(z) and D2(Fi) are matrices containing roots of unity of order less or equal than 3, it follows that P(c)=ξId for some ξ such that ξ6=1. If γ′F∈U2 and γ′∈U1 then P(F)=D1(γ′)D2(γ′F). Since F∈CA(GF), P(F) is a scalar matrix and hence by a base change we can also assume that D2(γ′F) is a diagonal matrix. Therefore D1(γ′)=P(F)D2(γ′F)−1 is also a scalar matrix. Since the orders of γ′ and γ′F are divisors of 6, the entries of D1(γ′) and D2(γ′F) are 6th roots of unity. Hence the scalar associated to P(F), and therefore the scalar associated to P(Fi), is a 6th root of unity and so P(c)=ξId for some sixth root of unity ξ.
∎
Proposition 4.11**.**
Suppose that G is of type D and suppose that θ∈IBr(GF) satisfies Assumption 4.7 (i) and (ii). Then there exists a projective representation P of Aθ associated to θ with factor set α such that α4=1 and for every c∈CA(GF), P(c)=ξId for a fourth root of unity ξ.
Proof.
Lemma 4.9 shows that there exist finite groups U1 and U2 such that Z(G)≤U1⊲Aθ, U2≤Aθ, Aθ=U1U2, U1∩U2=GF, U1/GF is a subgroup of D8, U2/GF is cyclic and either F∈U2, or Fγ′∈U2 and γ′∈U1. Unlike Proposition 4.10, however, when G is of type D we cannot assume that θ extends to U1 as it is possible that U1/GF has non-cyclic Sylow subgroups. We therefore need to construct P in two steps.
We claim that there exist finite groups K1 and K2 such that U1=K1K2, K1⊲U1, K1∩K2=GF, K2 is normalised by U2, and such that K1/GF is a subgroup of C4 and K2/GF is a subgroup of C2. In addition, Z(G) is contained in either K1 or K2 and whenever γ′∈U1, either γ′∈K1 or γ′∈K2. If U1/GF is cyclic then the claim holds trivially with K1=U1 and K2=GF.
Suppose that U1/GF is not cyclic. If U1/GF is isomorphic to D8 then γ′ is not a power of the field automorphism F0, and hence GF is untwisted. In this case we let K1 and K2 be subgroups of U1 such that K1/GF is the unique cyclic subgroup of U1/GF of order 4 and K2/GF=⟨γ′⟩. If n is even then since GF is untwisted, Z(G)=Z(G)F≤GF≤K1. If n is odd then K1/GF≅Z(G) and therefore Z(G)≤K1. Hence the properties for Z(G) and γ′ are satisfied.
Now suppose that U1/GF is isomorphic to C2×C2. If Z(G)=Z(G)F then we let K2=Z(G)GF and if Z(G)=Z(G)F then we let K2 be such that K2/GF is a subgroup of U1/GF of order 2 stabilised by the action of U2/GF. If γ′∈U1 but γ′∈/K2 we let K1/GF=⟨γ′⟩. Otherwise, we let K1/GF be a direct complement of K2/GF in U1/GF. Again, the properties for Z(G) and γ′ are clearly satisfied. Finally, since U1/GF is not cyclic, it follows from the proof of Lemma 4.9 that (in the notation of Lemma 4.9) either U1/GF≅G1=G2, U2/GF≅H1 and Aθ/GF≅G1×H1; or G1/G2≅C2, G2 has a direct complement in G1, U1/GF≅G2, U2/GF≅⟨ν(F0′)i⟩ and Aθ/GF≅G2×⟨ν(F0′)i⟩. In particular, U2/GF centralises U1/GF and hence U2 centralises K2 and the claim is proved.
We now construct P. Let D be a representation of GF affording θ. As K1/GF, K2/GF and U2/GF are cyclic, D extends to representations DK1 of K1, DK2 of K2 and DU2 of U2. As K2 is normalised by U2, it follows from Lemma 2.7 that there exists a projective representation PK2U2 of K2U2 associated to θ with factor set αK2U2 such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for any ku,k′u′∈K2U2, where λu∈IBr(K2/GF).
Applying Lemma 2.7 again yields a projective representation P of Aθ=K1K2U2 associated to θ with factor set α such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for any k1k2u,k1′k2′u′∈K1K2U2, where λk2u∈IBr(K1/GF). Since K1/GF is a subgroup of C4 and K2/GF is a subgroup of C2, it follows that λk2u(k1′)λu(k2′) has order dividing 4 and hence α4=1.
Finally, let c=zFi be an arbitrary element of CA(GF). Note that P(c)=α(z,Fi)−1P(z)P(Fi). By construction, Z(G) is contained in either K1 or K2 so P(z)=DK1(z) or P(z)=DK2(z). Because G is of type D, the central element z has order dividing 4 and hence the scalar associated to the scalar matrix P(z) is a fourth root of unity. It follows from Lemma 4.1 that the order of F on L−1(Z(G)) divides 4.
If F∈U2 then P(Fi)=DU2(Fi), a scalar matrix associated to a fourth root of unity.
Otherwise, γ′F∈U2 and γ′∈U1 and hence, as in Proposition 4.10, P(F)=DK1(γ′)DU2(γ′F) or DK2(γ′)DU2(γ′F). As in Proposition 4.10, we can assume that DU2(γ′F) is a diagonal matrix and since the orders of γ′ and γ′F divide 4, the scalar associated to P(F), and therefore the scalar associated to P(Fi), is a fourth root of unity. In particular, P(c)=ξId for some fourth root of unity ξ.
∎
Proposition 4.12**.**
Suppose that GF is of type D4 and suppose that θ∈IBr(GF) satisfies Assumption 4.7 (i) but not Assumption 4.7 (ii). Then there exists an integer r∈{4,6} and a projective representation P of Aθ associated to θ with factor set α such that αr=1 and for every c∈CA(GF), P(c)=ξId for an rth root of unity ξ.
Proof.
Recall that by Corollary 4.3, Aθ/GF is isomorphic to a subgroup of
S4×Ca for some positive integer a. As GF is of type D4 the automorphism F acts trivially on Z(G), see for instance the proof of Lemma 4.1. Therefore, Z(G)=Z(G)F=Z(GF) by [3, Proposition 3.6.8].
Let ν∈IBr(Z(G)) be such that θZ(G)ℓ′=θ(1)ν. Note that L−1(Z(G)) and F0 act trivially on Z(G), so in fact only Γ acts non-trivially on Z(G). Using the parametrisation of generators of Z(G) given in [8, Table 1.12.6] we see that any graph automorphism of order 3 acts non-trivially on Z(G). However, the only element of IBr(Z(G)) stabilised by an action of order 3 is the trivial character. Thus, if ν is nontrivial then Aθ≤L−1(Z(G))⋊⟨F0,γ⟩ for some suitable graph automorphism γ∈Γ of order 2. In other words, then θ satisfies Assumption 4.7 (ii). We can therefore assume that θ is trivial on Z(G).
Note that GF⟨F⟩⊲Aθ. We can extend θ to a character θ0=θ×1⟨F⟩∈IBr(GF⟨F⟩), and since θ is trivial on Z(G) we have Aθ=Aθ0. Since Aθ/(GF⟨F⟩) is isomorphic to a subgroup of S4×Ca, Corollary 2.5 shows that Aθ/(GF⟨F⟩)≅G2⋊H1 for some subgroup G2 of S4 and some cyclic group H1. If G2 is isomorphic to a subgroup of S3 or D8 then the existence of a projective representation P associated to θ with factor set α satisfying α6=1 or α4=1 (respectively) follows from the arguments in Propositions 4.10 and 4.11.
It remains to consider the case that Aθ/(GF⟨F⟩)≅G2⋊H1 and G2≅A4 or S4. As shown in Corollary 2.5, then V4×1⊲Aθ/(GF⟨F⟩). Thus L−1(Z(G))≤Aθ, so θ is stable in L−1(Z(G)).
We claim that θ extends to L−1(Z(G)) and hence to a character of L−1(Z(G))⟨F⟩ lying over θ0. If ℓ=2 then the quotient L−1(Z(G))/GF is an ℓ-group and hence θ extends to a character θ^ of L−1(Z(G)) by Green’s indecomposability theorem [12, Theorem 8.11]. Suppose now that ℓ=2. As L−1(Z(G))≤Aθ it follows that the character θ is stable under diagonal automorphisms, and hence θ is G~F-stable. In particular, it follows from [7, Theorem B] that θ extends to a character θ~ of G~F such that θ~ also lies over the trivial character of Z(G~F). But we saw in Lemma 4.6 that G~F/Z(G~F)≅L−1(Z(G))/Z(GF), therefore θ extends to a character θ^ of L−1(Z(G)). Note that F acts trivially on the quotient L−1(Z(G)/Z(G). Therefore, the extension θ^∈IBr(L−1(Z(G)))/Z(G)) is F-stable and hence can be extended to a character θ^0 of L−1(Z(G))⟨F⟩ lying above θ0, as claimed.
We can now construct a suitable projective representation P of Aθ=Aθ0 which is associated to θ0, and therefore to θ. Since Aθ/GF⟨F⟩ is isomorphic to a subgroup of V4⋊(S3⋊Ca), there exist groups H1=L−1(Z(G))⟨F⟩⊲Aθ and H2≤Aθ such that H1H2=Aθ and H1∩H2=GF⟨F⟩ with H1/GF⟨F⟩≅V4 and H2/GF⟨F⟩ isomorphic to subgroup of S3×Ca. Furthermore, there exist groups K1⊲H2 and K2≤H2 such that K1K2=H2 and K1∩K2=GF⟨F⟩ with K1/GF⟨F⟩ isomorphic to a subgroup of S3 and K2/GF⟨F⟩ cyclic. As K1/GF⟨F⟩ has cyclic Sylow subgroups, θ0 extends to K1, so by Lemma 2.7 there exists a projective representation P2 of H2 associated to θ with factor set α2 such that α2r=1 for some r∈{2,3}. By the claim above, θ0 extends to a character θ^0 of H1. Let D1 be an ordinary representation of H1 affording θ^0 such that D1 and P2 agree on GF⟨F⟩. Then by Lemma 2.7 again, there exists a projective representation P associated to θ0 with factor set α such that α6=1. Since θ0 extends θ, P is also associated to θ.
Finally, since Z(G)=Z(G)F Lemma 4.4 shows that CA(GF)=Z(G)⟨F⟩≤GF⟨F⟩. Hence for any c=zFi∈CA(GF) and any projective representation P′ of Aθ associated to θ0 (in particular, for P), we have
[TABLE]
so P′(c)=ξId for a root of unity ξ of order at most 2.
∎
4.2. Fake Galois actions
For θ∈IBr(GF), we let θ∈IBr(GF) be the character given by θ(g)=θ(g−1) for all g∈GF.
Proposition 4.13**.**
Let G be a simple, simply connected algebraic group of type B, C, D, E6 or E7. For any positive integer m such that (m,∣GF∣)=1, there exists a fake mth Galois action on IBr(GF) with respect to GF⊲GF⋊Aut(GF).
Proof.
Let θ∈IBr(GF). We fix a positive integer rθ as follows. If Out(GF)θ is cyclic then rθ:=exp(Z(G)). If Out(GF)θ is not cyclic then it follows from Propositions 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 that there exists a projective representation P of Aθ associated to θ with factor set α such that αk=1 for some k∈{4,6}. In this case we fix rθ:=k.
Since (m,∣GF∣)=1 and ∣GF∣ is divisible by 2 and 3 by [10, Table 24.1], m and rθ are coprime and hence m≡±1mod(rθ). We can therefore define a map on IBr(GF) by
[TABLE]
Since Aθˉ=Aθ and fm(θˉ)=fm(θ), the map fm:IBr(GF)→IBr(GF) is a well defined bijection. We claim that this bijection defines a fake mth Galois action on IBr(GF) with respect to GF⊲GF⋊Aut(GF).
First suppose that Out(GF)θ is cyclic and let ν∈IBr(Z(GF)∣θ). Then
[TABLE]
so νm∈IBr(Z(GF)∣fm(θ)). Thus it follows from [14, Lemma 4.5(b)] that
[TABLE]
Now suppose that Out(GF)θ is not cyclic. By definition of rθ, there exists a projective representation P of Aθ associated to θ with factor set α such that αrθ=1. Moreover, by Propositions 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12, for every c∈CA(GF), we have P(c)=ξId where ξ is an rθth root of unity. It then follows from [14, Proposition 4.7] that
[TABLE]
By construction of A, there exists a surjective map A↠GF⋊Aut(GF) such that A/CA(GF)≅Out(GF), and hence there exists a surjective map Aθ↠GF⋊Aut(GF)θ such that Aθ/CA(GF)≅Out(GF)θ. Thus by [16, Corollary 4.12],
[TABLE]
Consequently, by Definition 2.2, there exists a fake mth Galois action on IBr(GF) with respect to GF⊲GF⋊Aut(GF).
∎
5. Exceptional Covering Groups
In this section we deal with the simple finite groups of Lie type with non-cyclic outer automorphism group whose Schur multiplier has non-trivial exceptional part. We continue to use the notation of Section 2.5 with G a simple simply connected algebraic group defined over Fp where p=ℓ, F:G→G a Frobenius endomorphism, and GF the finite group of the fixed points of G under F. Let S≅GF/Z(GF) be a finite simple group of Lie type, and let X be the universal cover of S. Let M(S) denote the Schur multiplier of S and recall that Z(X)≅M(S)≅Mc(S)×Me(S), where Mc(S) denotes the canonical part of the Schur multiplier and Me(S) denotes the exceptional part.
Lemma 5.1**.**
Suppose that S∈{O8+(2),U6(2),2E6(2),U4(3)}. Let ν∈IBr(Z(X)). Then either ν is trivial on Me(S) or Out(S)ν is cyclic.
Proof.
Write ν=ν1×ν2 with ν1∈IBr(Mc(S)) and ν2∈IBr(Me(S)) and suppose that ν2 is non-trivial. If S∈{O8+(2),U6(2),2E6(2)} then by [8, Table 6.3.1], the outer automorphism group Out(S)≅S3 acts faithfully on Me(S)≅C2×C2. However, no non-trivial character of C2×C2 is stabilized by a non-trivial action of an automorphism of order 3, therefore Out(S)ν≅C2 is cyclic. If S=U4(3) then Out(S)≅D8 acts faithfully on Me(S)≅C3×C3. Again, no non-trivial character of C3×C3 is stabilized by C2×C2 acting faithfully on C3×C3, hence Out(S)ν≅C4 is cyclic.
∎
Remark 5.2**.**
Let π:X→GF be the quotient map. Then there is a natural bijection
[TABLE]
so we identify any θ∈IBr(GF) with a character of X which is trivial on Me(S), which we also denote by θ. By [13, Corollary B.8] there exists an isomorphism
[TABLE]
sending ϕ↦ϕ^ where ϕπ=πϕ^. This induces a quotient map
[TABLE]
such that π(X)=GF. Let θ∈IBr(GF) and let P be a projective representation of GF⋊Aut(GF)θ associated to θ with factor set α. Let P^ denote the projective representation of X⋊Aut(X)θ given by
[TABLE]
for all x∈X⋊Aut(X)θ. Then the factor set α^ of P^ satisfies α^(x,y)=α(π(x),π(y)) for all x,y∈X⋊Aut(X)θ.
We set up some final pieces of notation. Let G be a finite group and let P:G→GLn(F) be a projective representation with factor set α:G×G→F×. We denote by P the projective representation given by P(g)=(P(g)T)−1 for all g∈G. Its factor set α satisfies α(g,g′)=α(g,g′)−1 for all g,g′∈G. Let σ:F→F denote the Galois automorphism given by x↦xℓ for x∈F, and recall that if θ∈IBr(G) then θσ∈IBr(G), see [12, Problem 2.10]. We denote by Pσ the projective representation given by Pσ(g)=σ(P(g)) for all g∈G. The associated factor set ασ satisfies ασ(g,g′)=σ(α(g,g′)) for all g,g′∈G.
Proposition 5.3**.**
Suppose that S∈{O8+(2),U6(2),2E6(2),U4(3)} and let X be the universal cover of S. Then for any positive integer m such that (m,∣X∣)=1, there exists a fake mth Galois action on IBr(X) with respect to X⊲X⋊Aut(X).
Proof.
Let X:=IBr(X)∖IBr(X∣1Me(S)) and fix a positive integer m such that (m,∣X∣)=1. We claim that there exist suitable bijections fm:IBr(X∣1Me(S))→IBr(X∣1Me(S)) and gm:X→X, such that the bijection hm:IBr(X)→IBr(X) given by
[TABLE]
defines a fake mth Galois action on IBr(X) with respect to X⊲X⋊Aut(X).
Let fm:IBr(GF)→IBr(GF) be the bijection given in Corollary 3.7 (if S=U6(2) or U4(3)) or Proposition 4.13 (if S=O8+(2) or 2E6(2)) such that
[TABLE]
for every θ∈IBr(GF). By Remark 5.2, it follows that
[TABLE]
for all θ∈IBr(GF).
We will now construct gm. Suppose first that S∈{O8+(2),U6(2),2E6(2)} or S=U4(3) and ℓ=2.
Define a map gm:X→X by
[TABLE]
This is an Aut(X)-equivariant bijection. Let ν∈IBr(Z(X)∣θ). Note that if S∈{O8+(2),U6(2),2E6(2)} then Z(X) is a subgroup of C2×C2×C3 and if S=U4(3) and ℓ=2, then Z(X)ℓ′=C32. Therefore
[TABLE]
and hence νm∈IBr(Z(X)∣gm(θ)). Since ℓ divides the order of S and p=ℓ, it only remains to define gm in the case where S=U4(3) and ℓ∈{5,7}. If ℓ=5 we fix a pair of integers (k1,k2):=(3,4) and if ℓ=7 we fix (k1,k2):=(4,3). We then define a bijection gm:X→X by
[TABLE]
Again, clearly gm is an Aut(X)-equivariant bijection, and if ν∈IBr(Z(X)∣θ) then νm∈IBr(Z(X)∣gm(θ)). Now since Out(S)θ is cyclic for all θ∈X by Lemma 5.1, it follows from [14, Lemma 4.5(b)] and [16, Corollary 4.12] that
[TABLE]
for all θ∈X.
Finally, with hm:IBr(X)→IBr(X) defined as above, we have
[TABLE]
for all θ∈IBr(X), and hence hm defines a fake mth Galois action on IBr(X) with respect to X⊲X×Aut(X).
∎
We now set up some notation for the following proposition. Let G=SL3(F4), G~=GL3(F4), and let F0:G~→G~ be the field automorphism given by squaring all matrix entries. Fix a Frobenius automorphism F:G~→G~ given by F:=F02. Then GF/Z(GF)=L3(4) which we denote by S. Let X be the universal cover of S. We denote the graph automorphism by γ:G→G,(aij)↦(aij)−T. Let T~ be the set of diagonal matrices in G~F and note that T~≅C33 is an elementary abelian group of exponent 3. Let t∈T~. It follows from [9, Proposition 1.5] and [5, Lemma 1.3] that the map δ:GF→GF given by x↦tx realizes a diagonal automorphism of order 3. Thus the order of δ∈Aut(GF) coincides with the order of δInn(GF) in Out(GF).
Let A:=⟨F0,γ,δ⟩ considered as automorphisms of S and let A~ be the preimage of A under the isomorphism Aut(X)→Aut(S) given in [13, Corollary B.8]. Since F0(δ)=γ(δ)=δ−1, it follows that A≅Aut(S)/Inn(S). Therefore A~≅Aut(X)/Inn(X) and hence CX⋊A~(X)=Z(X).
Proposition 5.4**.**
Let S=L3(4) and let X be the universal cover of S. Then for any positive integer m such that (m,∣X∣)=1, there exists a fake mth Galois action on IBr(X) with respect to X⊲X⋊Aut(X).
Proof.
Since ℓ divides the order of S and p=ℓ, we can assume that ℓ∈{3,5,7}. If ℓ∈{3,5} we fix a pair of integers (k1,k2):=(3,4) and if ℓ=7 we fix (k1,k2):=(4,3). Define a map fm:IBr(X)→IBr(X) by
[TABLE]
This is clearly an Aut(X)-invariant bijection.
Let θ∈IBr(X). Since (X⋊A~)/A~≅A~≅Out(S)≅S3×C2, it follows from Lemma 2.7 that there exists a projective representation P of (X⋊A~)θ associated to θ with factor set α such that α2=1. The projective representations Pσ, P and Pσ associated to θσ, θ and θσ respectively, then also have factor set α, and hence the second condition of Definition 2.1 is satisfied. Now since CX⋊A~(X)=Z(X)≅C3×C42, one can check, as in the previous proposition, that if ν∈IBr(Z(X)∣θ) then νm∈IBr(Z(X)∣fm(θ)) and hence the first condition of Definition 2.1 is also satisfied. Thus, for every θ∈IBr(X),
[TABLE]
Since there exists a surjective map X⋊A~↠X⋊Aut(X) such that (X⋊A~)/CX⋊A~(X)≅Out(X), [16, Corollary 4.12] implies that
[TABLE]
for all θ∈IBr(X). Hence there exists a fake mth Galois action on IBr(X) with respect to X⊲X⋊Aut(X).
∎
6. Proof of Theorem A
Theorem A**.**
Let S be a non-abelian simple group and let X be the universal covering group of S. Then for all non-negative integers m such that (∣X∣,m)=1, there exists a fake mth Galois action on IBr(X) with respect to X⊲X⋊Aut(X).
Proof.
First suppose that S has cyclic outer automorphism group. Then the result follows from [14, Theorem 4.4]. Now suppose that S:=GF/Z(GF) is a simple group for some simple simply connected algebraic group G and a Frobenius endomorphism F as defined in Section 2.5. Then if p=ℓ, the result follows from [14, Theorem 5.1]. If p=ℓ and X=GF, then the result follows from Corollary 3.7 and Proposition 4.13. If p=ℓ and X=GF, then the result follows from Propositions 5.3 and 5.4.
∎