This paper establishes a simple formula to bound the maximum size of Lusztig series in finite groups of Lie type, providing explicit bounds for classical groups based on their Lie rank and characteristic.
Contribution
It introduces a new upper bound formula for Lusztig series sizes and explicitly determines the maximum for large q in classical groups.
Findings
01
Derived a simple upper bound formula for Lusztig series sizes.
02
Explicitly calculated maximum sizes for classical groups when q is large.
03
Connected the bounds to Lie rank and defining characteristic.
Abstract
The paper is concerned with the character theory of finite groups of Lie type. The irreducible characters of a group G of Lie type are partitioned in Lusztig series. We provide a simple formula for an upper bound of the maximal size of a Lusztig series for classical groups with connected center; this is expressed for each group G in terms of its Lie rank and defining characteristic. When G is specified as G(q) and q is large enough, we determine explicitly the maximum of the sizes of the Lusztig series of G.
Equations12
β(k)β(n)β(k+n)=⎩⎨⎧14955153962512112577125539625if k≡0 or n≡0mod4;if k≡1andn≡1mod4;if k≡1andn≡2 or k≡2andn≡1mod4;if k≡1andn≡3 or k≡3andn≡1mod4;if k≡2andn≡2mod4;if k≡2andn≡3 or k≡3andn≡2mod4;if k≡3andn≡3mod4.
β(k)β(n)β(k+n)=⎩⎨⎧14955153962512112577125539625if k≡0 or n≡0mod4;if k≡1andn≡1mod4;if k≡1andn≡2 or k≡2andn≡1mod4;if k≡1andn≡3 or k≡3andn≡1mod4;if k≡2andn≡2mod4;if k≡2andn≡3 or k≡3andn≡2mod4;if k≡3andn≡3mod4.
β′(n)={72⋅5(n−10)/472⋅11⋅5(n−16)/4if n≡2mod4,if n≡0mod4 and n≥16,
β′(n)={72⋅5(n−10)/472⋅11⋅5(n−16)/4if n≡2mod4,if n≡0mod4 and n≥16,
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.
Full text
A sharp upper bound
for the size of Lusztig series
Christine Bessenrodt
and
Alexandre Zalesski
Abstract.
The paper is concerned
with the character theory of finite groups of Lie type. The irreducible characters of a group G of Lie type are partitioned in Lusztig series. We provide a simple formula for an upper bound of the maximal size of a Lusztig series for classical groups with connected center; this is expressed for each group G in terms of its Lie rank and defining characteristic.
When G is specified as G(q) and q is large enough, we determine explicitly the maximum of the sizes of the Lusztig series of G.
Key words and phrases:
Finite groups of Lie type, character theory, Lusztig series
Let G be a reductive connected algebraic group. Let F be a Frobenius (or Steinberg) endomorphism of G and G:=GF={g∈G:F(g)=g}. Then G is called a finite reductive group.
Let G∗ denote the dual group of G, see [4] or [8]. Then there is a Frobenius endomorphism F∗ of G∗ which defines a finite group G∗=G∗F∗={g∈G∗:F∗(g)=g} with ∣G∣=∣G∗∣. The group G∗ is called the dual group of G
and plays an important role in the character theory of G. In particular,
the Deligne-Lusztig theory partitions the set of irreducible characters of G as a disjoint union of the so called Lusztig (geometric) series Es, where s runs through a set of representatives
in G∗ of the geometric conjugacy classes of semisimple elements of G∗, see [8, 13.16]. The characters from E1 (that is, for s=1) are called unipotent.
One of the questions not yet answered in the framework of the character theory of finite reductive groups is how large a Lusztig series can be. This
has already attracted some attention in the literature, in particular, one needs to have a uniform upper bound for ∣Es∣. Liebeck and Shalev [15, Lemma 2.1] obtained the bound ∣Es∣<∣W∣2, where W is the Weyl group of G, and
used this to bound the number of irreducible character degrees of G, as well as for proving some asymptotic results. This bound has been later improved to ∣Es∣≤∣W∣ in [20, Theorem 8.2].
In this paper we obtain a sharp upper bound for
maxs∣Es∣ in terms of the rank of G, where G is a simple algebraic group of classical type with trivial center (and s ranges over the semisimple elements of G∗). In this case ∣Es∣ equals the number of unipotent characters of the group CG∗(s) [8, 13.23]. In fact, we compute the maximum of the number of unipotent characters of CG∗(s) when G∗ is a simple simply connected algebraic group of classical type. More precisely, we compute the maximum of ∣Es∣ for G=G(q) with q large enough (where q is the well known field parameter; usually q>n−9 for q even and q>n−27 for q odd, where n is the rank of G).
To illustrate the nature of the problem, assume that G=GLn(q). Then G≅G∗. If s=1
then CG∗(s)≅G. The number of characters in E1
is well known to equal p(n), the number of partitions of n.
One could expect that ∣Es∣≤p(n) for every s. However, such a conjecture is false, and the question on a sharp uniform upper bound for ∣Es∣ does not have any obvious answer. One can refine this by asking for which s the number of unipotent characters of CG∗(s) is maximal.
In this paper we answer this question by determining the explicit value of the maximum for every classical group (for q large) and describe s for which the maximum is attained. Note that it is not a priori clear at all whether the above question is feasible and can have any precise answer. The content of this paper is in computing the maximum of certain combinatorial functions to which the original problem is reduced. It is interesting and somehow surprising that the formulae we obtain for maxs∣Es∣ are much simpler than those available for the number of unipotent characters of G and G∗ [16, §3].
We expect that our results have a certain conceptual significance and will be useful for applications, in particular, for improving known upper bounds for the sum of the character degrees of G (see [14, Chapter 5] and [20]).
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let G be a simple algebraic group of rank n of adjoint type in defining characteristic p and G=GF, a finite reductive group. Then the size of a Lusztig series of G does not exceed c⋅5n/4 for some constant c bounded as follows (and specified explicitly in the detailed results below):
[TABLE]
We do not deal with the groups G of exceptional Lie type in defining characteristic p,
and with G=3D4(q), as
in these cases the sizes of Lusztig series are bounded by a constant which can be easily computed.
For the other groups the constant c depends on the defining characteristic p of G, on the congruence of n modulo 4 and, in case Dn, from
the choice of the Frobenius endomorphism, which defines the groups Dn+(q) or Dn−(q).
The fact that the above bound is sharp (with specified values of c)
can be seen from Theorem 1.5 below, which provides an explicit value of the maximum size of a Lusztig series for q large enough
and for each type of the group G. In addition, this highlights the nature of the constant c and reveals that the precise
value of c in each case depends on the residue of n modulo 4, a phenomenon which could not be expected in advance.
Our starting point is a result of Bessenrodt and Ono [2]. Let β(n) be the maximal number of the form p(μ):=Πjp(μj), where μ=(μ1,…,μj,…) is a partition of n and
p(μj) is the number of partitions of μj.
Theorem 1.2**.**
[2]**
For n=1,…,7 we have β(n)=p(n)=1,2,3,5,7,11,15, respectively.
Let π(n) denote a partition μ of n such that
β(n)=p(μ). Then the partition π(n) is uniquely determined for n=7,
whereas β(7) is attained only at the two partitions (7) and (4,3).
For all n=1,2,3,7 we have the following values for π(n) and β(n):
Table 1**
[TABLE]
In particular, we always
have β(n)≤5n/4.
Using Theorem 1.2, we obtain the following statements.
Theorem 1.3**.**
If G=GLn(q) or Un(q) then the size of a Lusztig series does not exceed β(n),
and the bound β(n)=5n/4 is attained if 4∣n and q≥(n+1)/4.
Our results for the other classical groups are more complex.
Let G be a simple classical algebraic group of adjoint type and F a Frobenius endomorphism such that G=GF is one of the groups SO2n+1(q), PCSp2n(q), (PSOo)2n±(q) in the notation of [18, Table 22.1]. Let G∗ be the dual group of G; so G∗ is Spin2n+1(q), Sp2n(q) and Spin2n±(q), respectively. For small n our results, stated in Proposition 1.4, are obtained by straightforward computer computations. For large n a sharp upper bound for the number of unipotent characters of CG∗(s), and hence for the size of Lusztig series Es of G, when s ranges over the semisimple elements of G∗, is provided by Theorem 1.5 below.
Let α(m),α+(m),α−(m) denote the number of unipotent characters of Sp2m(q), Spin2m+(q), Spin2m−(q), respectively.
Proposition 1.4**.**
(1)* Suppose that q is even and n<18. Then maxs∣Es∣=α(n),α±(n) for G of type Cn(q), Dn±(q), respectively.*
(2)* Suppose that q is odd and n<32 and n=2,4,6 if G=Dn−(q). Then maxs∣Es∣=maxa{α+(a)α(n−a)}, maxa{α(a)α(n−a)},
maxa{α+(a)α+(n−a)}, maxa{α−(a)α+(n−a)} for G of type Bn(q), Cn(q), Dn+(q), Dn−(q), respectively, where a ranges between [math] and n. The explicit value of the maximum in each case is given by Tables 3,4.*
Theorem 1.5**.**
Let G∗∈{Spin2n+1(q);Sp2n(q);Spin2n±(q)}. For a semisimple element s∈G∗ let Es denote the Lusztig series of irreducible characters of G.
(1)* Let G∗=Sp2n(q), q even, or Spin2n(q), q even.
For n≥18, we have ∣Es∣≤f(n), where*
In addition, the detailed bounds given in (1) - (5) are attained if q>n−9 if q is even, and q>n−27 if q is odd.
Note that Lusztig series were originally defined only for groups with connected center, but later
this notion has been extended to arbitrary connected reductive groups so that, again, the size of a Lusztig series equals the number of unipotent characters of CG∗(s), see [8, Theorem 13.23].
Then the number of unipotent characters of CG∗(s) does not exceed ∣CG∗(s):CG∗(s)0∣⋅ν(CG∗(s)0),
where CG∗(s)0=(CG∗(s)0))F and ν(CG∗(s)0) is the number of unipotent characters of CG∗(s)0. The index ∣CG∗(s):CG∗(s)0∣ does not exceed r+1 for groups of type Ar
and 4 for the other simple groups [21, Ch. II, Corollary 4.4]. So we can replace c by (r+1)c
for the Ar-case and 4c for the other groups (in fact, the latter is needed only for q odd). However,
these bounds may not be sharp.
Our strategy can be outlined as follows. The simplest case is where G=GLn(q) or Un(q); here we show
(Section 3) that ∣Es∣≤β(n) and the bound is attained for q large enough. For the other classical groups this bound is valid only if ±1 are not eigenvalues of s on the natural FqG∗-module V for G∗ (Lemma 4.6).
Suppose first that G∗=Sp2n(q), q odd,
and k,l are the multiplicities of the eigenvalues 1 and −1, respectively, of s on V. Then we show that ∣Es∣≤maxα(k/2)α(l/2)β(m), where 2(k+l)+m=n. This reduces the problem to computing the above maximum, and next we show that the bound is attained for some s if q is large enough. If G∗ is an orthogonal group then we have a similar reduction with α(k/2)α(l/2) to be replaced by α±(k/2)α±(l/2) if dimV is even, and α(k/2)α±(l/2) if dimV is odd, with a certain choice of the signs. If q is even then we argue similarly. The maximum of the products in question is computed in Section 5. The proof of Theorem 1.5 occupies Sections 6,7, for q even and odd, respectively.
Notation.
The size of a finite set S is denoted by ∣S∣. Also, we write ∣g∣ for the order of a group element,
which does not lead to a confusion. For a group G we denote by Z(G) the center of G, and by CG(S) the centralizer of a subset S of G in G. We use this notation also in the situation where V is a set on which G acts by permutations or a vector space on which G acts by linear transformations. So CV(S)={v∈V:sv=v for all s∈S}. For S⊂G we denote by ⟨S⟩ the subgroup generated by S.
Idn is the identity (n×n)-matrix. By diag(x1,…,xn) we denote the diagonal matrix with subsequent diagonal entries x1,…,xn. A similar notation is used for a block-diagonal matrix.
We denote by N the set of natural numbers. For n∈N, p(n) denotes the number of partitions of n;
for a partition μ=(μ1,…,μt) we set p(μ)=Πj=1tp(μj).
We then set β(n)=maxp(μ), where the maximum is taken over all partitions μ of n.
By Fq we denote the field of q elements.
If K is a field then K× denotes the multiplicative group of K
and K an algebraic closure of K.
All vector spaces considered in the paper are of finite dimension.
By GL(V) we denote the group of all invertible linear transformations of a vector space V.
If the ground field K is not algebraically closed, and s∈GL(V) is a semisimple element, then the natural analog of eigenspaces are homogeneous components of s on V; these are the sum of all minimal non-zero K⟨s⟩-submodules of V isomorphic to each other.
If s has a single homogeneous component on V, we say that s is homogeneous.
For an algebraic group G we denote by G0 the connected component of the identity of G.
We use F to denote a Frobenius endomorphism of an algebraic group, and we often use it for different algebraic groups.
We usually write G for GF={g∈G:F(g)=g}. If G
is connected reductive, we call G=GF a finite reductive group. For a finite reductive group G we denote by ν(G) the number of unipotent characters of G.
See Section 2.2 for more details.
As mentioned in the introduction,
α(m),α+(m),α−(m) stands for the number of unipotent characters of Sp2m(q), Spin2m+(q), Spin2m−(q), respectively.
By G∗ and G∗ we denote the dual groups of a reductive algebraic group G
and of a finite reductive group G, respectively.
Our notation for classical groups is standard, except for the special orthogonal groups of even characteristic; following [18], we denote by SO2n±(q) and SO2n(Fq)
with q even the subgroup of index 2 in the full orthogonal group O2n±(q) and O2n(Fq), respectively. (The advantage of this is that certain results can be stated uniformly for q odd and even.) In addition, dealing with the groups SO2n+1(q) we assume that q is odd as SO2n+1(q)≅Sp2n(q) whenever q is even.
We expect a reader to be familiar with the geometry of classical groups; most necessary facts can be found in [13, Ch. 2]. In particular, for the notion of Witt defect of an orthogonal space see [13, p. 28]. Nonetheless we recall a few notions from this area.
An orthogonal space means a vector space V of finite dimension over a field K, say, endowed with a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form f(v1,v2)∈K for v1,v2∈V, and if the characteristic of K equals 2 then the form is additionally assumed to be alternating (that is, f(v,v)=0 for v∈V) and non-defective [7, Ch. I, §16]. The full orthogonal group is denoted by O(V). The spinor group of an orthogonal space V (we call it the full spinor group of V) is defined in terms of the Clifford algebra of V [7, Ch. II, §7]; this yields the notion of spinor norm, which defines the subgroup Ω(V) of O(V) formed by elements of spinor norm 1. In particular, if the ground field is of characteristic 2,
we have Ω(V)=SO(V) by convention. We use Spin(V) to denote the preimage of Ω(V) in the spinor group of V under the natural projection of it onto O(V), see loc.cit.
2. Preliminaries
For later considerations we will need the explicit formulae for β(n) from [2] which we now recall.
2.1. Some properties of the function β(n).
From Theorem 1.2
we deduce a number of properties of the numbers β(n).
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let 0<k≤n be integers. Then β(k)<β(n) for k<n and
β(k)β(n)≤β(k+n). More precisely,
if k=1,2,3,7 then
[TABLE]
For k=1,2,3,7 and n>7 the values of β(k)β(n)β(n+k) are as follows
[TABLE]
Proof. Straightforward computations using Theorem 1.2. □
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let n>2 be an integer.
(1)
If n is even, then β(n/2)≤3β(n−3)
and, for n>4, we have β(n/2)≤7β(n−5).
2. (2)
We have 5(n−3)/4<β(n).
Proof. (1) If n/2≤n−5 then β(n/2)≤β(n−5)<β(n−3) by Lemma 2.1. Otherwise n<10 and the claim follows by inspection.
(2) We have 5(n−3)/4<5(n−2)/4<5(n−1)/4<5n/4, and 5(n−i)/4=β(n−i) if 4∣(n−i) with i=0,1,2,3. If i>0 then β(n−i)<β(n) by Lemma 2.1.
If i=0 then β(n)=5n/4>5(n−3)/4, whence the result. □
For the use in later sections we record the following lemma:
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let n∈N be even and n>6. Set β′(n)=maxaoddβ(a)β(n−a). Then we have β′(n)=β(5)β(n−5). Explicitly, we have
[TABLE]
and β′(8)=7⋅3, β′(12)=7⋅15.
In addition, β′(6)=9, β′(4)=3, β′(2)=1.
Proof. The additional statement follows by inspection (see Table 2). Let i,j∈N be odd with i+j=n, i≤j. Since n≥10 we have j≥5. If j≡3mod4 and j>7, then β(j−5)=β(6)β(j−11) by Theorem 1.2. Hence Theorem 1.2 and Lemma 2.1
imply for j=7: β(i)β(j)=β(i)β(5)β(j−5)≤β(5)β(n−5).
For j=7 and i∈{3,7}, we have β(3)β(7)=3⋅15<72=β(5)2,
and β(7)2=152<7⋅35=β(5)β(9). So in any case β′(n)=β(5)β(n−5).
Hence, applying Theorem 1.2 we obtain the formulae for β′(n) stated above. □
2.2. Unipotent characters
Let G be a connected reductive algebraic group with Frobenius endomorphism F. For a precise definition of it we refer to [4, p. 31] or [18, Section 2.1]. (Some authors use the terms ”Frobenius map” or ”Steinberg endomorphism”.) If G is simple then an algebraic group endomorphism F:G→G is Frobenius if and only if the subgroup GF={g∈G:F(g)=g} is finite [18, Theorem 21.5]. Groups GF are called finite reductive groups [5, p. XIII] or [4, §4.4]. (The term ”finite groups of Lie type” is also in use in the literature, see
[4, p. 31].) Thus, a finite reductive group is determined by the pair (G,F), a connected reductive algebraic group G and a Frobenius endomorphism F of it.
As shortly mentioned in the introduction, for every finite reductive group G=GF the
Deligne-Lusztig theory partitions the set of irreducible characters of G as a disjoint union of the Lusztig (geometric) series Es, where s runs through a set of representatives
of the classes of semisimple elements of G∗ that are conjugate
in G∗, see [8, 13.16]. The characters in E1 (that is, for s=1) are called unipotent. Note that the geometric series can be further refined to rational series parameterized by the conjugacy classes of semisimple elements in G∗; if G has connected center (assumed in this paper) then
the geometric and rational series coincide [8, p. 107].
We emphasize that the Lusztig series (and hence unipotent characters) of a finite reductive group cannot be defined in terms of GF as an abstract group. One observes that a given finite group of Lie type can be obtained as GF from different pairs G,F. A typical example is as follows.
Given a pair (G,F), set H to be the direct product G×⋯×G of m copies of G, and then define a
Frobenius endomorphism F′ of H as a mapping sending an element (g1,…,gm) with g1,…,gm∈G to (F(gm),g1,…,gm−1). Then F′(g1,…,gm)=(g1,…,gm) implies F(gm)=g1=g2=⋯=gm, so
HF′={(g,…,g):g∈GF}≅GF. In fact,
the general case reduces to the above example, see [4, p. 380] where it is stated that one can assume H to be simple (if so is G), that is, m=1.
Lemma 2.4**.**
[8, p. 112]** Let G=GF be a finite reductive group and s∈G∗ a semisimple element. Suppose that CG∗(s) is connected. Then ∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s)), the number of unipotent characters of CG∗(s).
To be rigorous, we emphasize that CG∗(s)=CG∗(s)F is a finite reductive group.
Lemma 2.4 reduces the computation of the sizes of Lusztig series to the computation of the number of unipotent characters, and our results in fact give sharp upper bounds for ν(CG∗(s)) when s ranges over semisimple elements of G∗. (Note that, if CG(s) is not connected, one can extend the notion of a unipotent character so
that Lemma 2.4 remains valid, see [8, p. 112]. However, in full generality the problem of computing sharp upper bounds is more complex.)
For what follows it is essential to decide whether CG(s) is a connected reductive group if so is G
and s∈G is a semisimple element. There are the following criteria
for connectivity:
Lemma 2.5**.**
The group CG(s) is connected for all semisimple elements s of G if one of the following holds:
(1)* The center of G∗ is connected.*
(2)* G is semisimple and simply connected.*
(3)* G=SO(V), where V is an orthogonal space over Fq,
and the multiplicity of the eigenvalue 1 or the eigenvalue −1 of s on V is at most 1.*
Proof. See [8, 13.15] for (1), and [21, Ch. E, 3.9] for (2).
(3) If dimV is even then the multiplicity of the eigenvalue 1 as well as the eigenvalue −1 of s on V is known to be even (see Lemma 4.2 below for a proof), so (3) follows from [24, Lemma 2.2] in this case.
Now suppose that dimV is odd, so, by our convention, q is odd.
Let V1 be the 1-eigenspace of s
on V. Then dimV1=1 (Lemma 4.2), so CG(s) is contained in the stabilizer of V1 in G.
With respect to a suitable basis of V, the latter
can be written as {diag(detg,g):g∈O(V1⊥)}. Then CG(s) is contained in
the group diag(±1,CO(V1⊥)(s′)), where s′ is the restriction of s to V1⊥. As dimV1⊥ is even, CO(V1⊥)(s′) is connected by the above,
and hence is contained in SO(V1⊥) (or see the proof of [24, Lemma 2.1]). Then CG(s)=diag(1,CO(V1⊥)(s′)), whence the result. □
Remark. There is an inaccuracy in the statement of [24, Lemma 2.2], where ”Let G=SO(V)” is to be replaced by ”Let G=SO(V) if q is odd and Ω(V) if q is even” with no change of the proof.
Thus, if Lemma 2.5 applies then CG(s) is a finite reductive group.
For the notion of a simply connected semisimple algebraic group see for instance [18, 9.14] or [4, p. 25];
if G is of adjoint type then G∗ is simply connected.
Classical algebraic groups of adjoint and simply connected type can be described in terms of their
traditional definition, see [18, Table 9.2] or [4, p. 40].
Lemma 2.6**.**
Let H=SO(V), where dimV is even, and let s∈H be a semisimple element.
(1)* Suppose that either 1 or −1 is not an eigenvalue of s on V. Then CH(s) is a finite reductive group. In particular, this is the case if q is even.*
(2)* Suppose that neither 1 nor −1 is an eigenvalue of s on V. Then CO(V)(s)⊂H.*
Proof. (1) Let V=V⊗Fq be an orthogonal space defined with the same Gram matrix as V. It is well known that G=SO(V) is an algebraic group and SO(V)=SO(V)F for some Frobenius morphism F:G→G.
By [24, Lemma 2.2(2)],
the group CG(s) is connected. As CG(s)=CG(s)F, the claim follows.
Let V be an orthogonal space over Fq.
The group SO(V) is a simple algebraic group, however, SO(V) is not simply connected. Slightly abusing notation, we denote the simply connected covering of it by Spin(V); this is the preimage of SO(V) in the full spinor group of V. So Spin(V) is a simply connected simple algebraic group, and there is a surjective algebraic group homomorphism η:Spin(V)→SO(V) (see [5, p. 228]). If q is even then η
is an isomorphism of the underlying abstract groups.
Let h:G→H be a surjective homomorphism of connected algebraic groups with central kernel
(that is, an isogeny), defined over Fq, and let F be a Frobenius endomorphism of G.
If kerh is F-stable, one defines the action of F on H by F(h(g))=h(F(g)) for g∈G.
Set H:=HF. With these notations we have
Lemma 2.7**.**
[8, 13.20]** Let ν(G), ν(H) be the number of unipotent characters of G,H, respectively. Then ν(G)=ν(H).
For instance, if G=GLn(q) and H=PGLn(q), or G=Un(q) and H=PUn(q), then the lemma applies. Moreover, ν(SLn(q))=ν(PGLn(q)) as PSLn(Fq)F=PGLn(q) for n>1, see [4, p. 39].
Lemma 2.7 allows us to ignore the case where G∗=Spin2n+1(Fq) with q
even. Indeed, in this case there exists an isogeny h:Spin2n+1(Fq)→H:=Sp2n(Fq), which also yields an isogeny CG∗(s)→CH(h(s)).
Therefore, by Lemma 2.7, we have ν(CG∗(s))=ν(CH(h(s))), where H=HF=Sp2n(q). So it suffices to compute the maximum of ν(CH(s)) over semisimple elements s∈H.
For the group SO2n(Fq) there are Frobenius endomorphisms for which
SO2n(Fq)F coincides with SO2n+(q) or SO2n−(q). (If n=4 there is one more type of Frobenius endomorphisms which yields the ”triality group” 3D4(q); this is not considered in this paper.) Here SO2n+(q) and SO2n−(q) are special orthogonal groups SO(V), where V is an orthogonal space of Witt defect 0 and 1, respectively, with dimV=2n.
There exists a Frobenius endomorphism F, say, of Spin(V) compatible with the natural mapping η:Spin(V)→SO(V) in the sense that η(F(h))=F(η(h)). Then we set Spin(V)=Spin(V)F. If q is odd, then η(Spin(V))=Ω(V)=SO(V). Nonetheless, by Lemma 2.7, we have
Lemma 2.8**.**
If q is odd, then ν(Spin(V))=ν(SO(V)).
Lemma 2.9**.**
Let G=Spin(V), and
let s∈G be a semisimple element. Let η:G→SO(V)
be the natural projection. Let W1, W2 be the 1- and −1-eigenspaces of η(s) on V,
and W3=(W1+W2)⊥. Then η(CG(s))=SO(W1)×SO(W2)×CSO(W3)(s′), where s′∈SO(W3) is the restriction of η(s) to W3. (If W1=0 or W2=0 then the respective multiple is to be dropped.)
Proof. Clearly, η(CG(s)) stabilizes W1 and W2, and hence also W3. It follows that η(CG(s))⊂O(W1)×O(W2)×O(W3). By Lemma 2.5 and the comments after Lemma 2.6, the group CG(s) is connected, as well as η(CG(s)).
Observe first that η(CG(s)) has finite index in CO(V)(η(s)). Indeed, let M={g∈G:[g,s]∈kerη}, which coincides with {g∈G:[η(g),η(s)]=1}=η−1(CSO(V)(η(s))). Then η(M)=CSO(V)(η(s)). As kerη⊆Z(G), it follows that the mapping g→[g,s](g∈M) is a homomorphism M→Z(G) whose kernel
is CG(s). The group Z(G) is finite, so CG(s) has finite index in M. So η(CG(s)) has finite index in η(M)=CSO(V)(η(s)), and hence in CO(V)(η(s)).
Choose a basis B, say, of V such that B∩Wi is a basis of Wi for i=1,2,3. Then, under this basis, the matrix t of η(s) on V is diag(Id,−Id,s′). Therefore,
CO(V)(t)⊂O(W1)×O(W2)×CO(W3)(s′). Note that s′∈SO(W3) as dimW2 is even (Lemma 4.2).
As ±1 are not eigenvalues of s′, the group
CO(W3)(s′) is connected (Lemma 2.5).
In addition, SO(W1)×SO(W2)×CO(W3)(s′) is connected (as so is CO(W3)(s′))
and has finite index in O(W1)×O(W2)×CO(W3)(s′).
So both η(CG(s)) and SO(W1)×SO(W2)×CSO(W3)(s′) are connected subgroups of finite index in O(W1)×O(W2)×CO(W3)(s′). As the connected component of the identity in an algebraic group is unique, these groups coincide,
as stated. □
Lemma 2.9 implies the following result on unipotent characters which is essential in what follows:
Lemma 2.10**.**
Let G=Spin(V) or Sp(V), where V is an orthogonal or symplectic space over Fq. Let s∈G be a semisimple element and W1,W2 be the 1- and −1-eigenspaces of s on V. Let W3=(W1+W2)⊥. Then ν(CG(s))=ν(SO(W1))⋅ν(SO(W2))⋅ν(CSO(W3)(s′)), where s′ is the restriction of s to W3.
Proof. We omit the proof for Sp(V) as it is straightforward. Let G=Spin(V). Note that ν(CSO(W3)(s′)) is meaningful as CSO(W3)(s′) is a finite reductive group (Lemma 2.6).
We use the notation of Lemma 2.9, assuming that V=V⊗Fq and that the structure of an orthogonal space on V is defined by the same Gram matrix as that of V. Then Wi=Wi⊗Fq for i=1,2,3.
Let F be the Frobenius endomorphism of G such that GF=G; we keep F for the Frobenius endomorphisms of SO(V), SO(Wi)(i=1,2,3) inherited from
that of G. By Lemma 2.9, η(CG(s))=SO(W1)×SO(W2)×CSO(W3)(s′).
By Lemma 2.7, ν((η(CG(s)))F)=ν(CG(s)F), and the left hand side is equal to ν(SO(W1)F×SO(W2)F×CSO(W3)(s′)F)=ν(SO(W1))⋅ν(SO(W2))⋅ν(CSO(W3)(s′)), as claimed. □
Here G∗≅GLn(q) or Un(q). To simplify notation, we deal below with G in place of G∗, that is, we choose a semisimple element s∈G and show that the number of unipotent characters in CG(s) does not exceed β(n).
For our purpose, we quote the following well known result, see [4, p. 465].
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let G=GLn(Fq) and G=GF≅GLn(q) or Un(q) (depending on F). Then the number of unipotent characters of G equals p(n), the number of
partitions of n.
Let G=GLn(q), V the natural FqG-module and s∈G be a semisimple element.
We can write V=⊕Vi, where
Vi are the homogeneous components for s, that is, each Vi is a sum of isomorphic Fq⟨s⟩-modules, and distinct Vi,Vj have no common irreducible constituents. Let si∈GL(Vi) be the restriction of s to Vi. Then CG(s)⊂ΠiGL(Vi), and CG(s)=ΠiCGL(Vi)(si). Let di be the dimension of a minimal Fq⟨s⟩-submodule of Vi. Then CGL(Vi)(si)≅GLdi(qmi), where mi=dimVi/di. One observes that the decomposition V=⊕Vi is unique up to reordering the terms. Let
k be the number of terms and ni=dimVi. Then s determines the string (n1,…,nk)
up to reordering of the n1,…,nk, which is a partition of n, and we denote by π(s) the partition (n1,…,nk). (We can assume n1≥⋯≥nk but we prefer to allow any ordering.)
If s∈Un(q)⊂GLn(q2) then π(s)is defined as the partition obtained for s inGLn(q2). The following lemma is well known.
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let G=GLn(Fq), G=GF≅GLn(q),
and let s∈G be a semisimple element. Then CG(s) is isomorphic to the direct product of groups
GLdi(qmi), where ∑idimi=n.
The following lemma is also well known, but we give a proof for the reader’s convenience and in order to make further discussions more transparent.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let G=GLn(Fq), G=GF≅Un(q),
and let s∈G be a semisimple element. Then CG(s) is isomorphic to the direct product of groups GLdi(q2mi) and Uej(qlj), where li is odd and ∑i2dimi+∑ejlj=n.
Proof. Note that each of the sums ∑i2dimi, ∑ejlj can be absent. It is well known that there is an orthogonal decomposition V=(⊕Vi)⊕(⊕Vj), where each Vj is a non-degenerate homogeneous component for s, and each Vi is the sum of two totally isotropic homogeneous components for s. Let H be the stabilizer in G of this decomposition, that is,
H={g∈G:gVi=Vi,gVj=Vj, for each term Vi,Vj}.
Let ni=dimVi, nj=dimVj and let Hi,Hj be the restriction of H to Vi,Vj, respectively. Then Hj≅Unj(q) and Hi≅GLni/2(q2). Therefore, n=∑ni+∑nj and H≅(ΠiGLni/2(q2))×(ΠjUnj(q)). Let si,sj be the restriction of s to Vi,Vj, respectively. Then si∈Hi, sj∈Hj and
CG(s)=(ΠiCHi(si))×(ΠjCHj(sj)). Using the isomorphism Hi≅GLni/2(q2) we can view a homogeneous component Vi′ of Vi as a natural Fq2GLni/2(q2)-module, and then si is a homogeneous element of GLni/2(q2), that is, Vi′ is a homogeneous Fq⟨si⟩-module.
As in Lemma 3.2, CHi(si)≅GLdi(q2mi), where dimi=ni/2.
It is also known that CHj(sj)≅Uej(q2lj), where ejlj=nj and lj is odd. So the result follows. □
Lemma 3.4**.**
Let G=GLn(q) or Un(q), and let s∈G∗ be a semisimple element. Then ∣Es∣=ν(CG(s))≤β(n).
Furthermore, suppose that equality holds. Then π(s)=π(n),
where π(n) is defined in Theorem 1.3, and if G=GLn(q) then ∣s∣ divides q−1, if G=Un(q) then ∣s∣ divides q+1.
Proof. If G=GLn(q) then, by Lemma 3.2, CG(s)≅ΠiGLdi(qmi), where ∑idimi=n. Recall (Lemma 3.1) that the number of unipotent characters of GLn(q) equals p(n) and hence does not depend on q. So ν(CG∗(s))=Πip(di). Set n′=∑di. Then Πip(di)≤β(n′). By Lemma 2.1,
β(n′)<β(n) for n′<n; if equality holds above, then n=n′, and hence di=ni for every i.
This implies that each Vi is a sum of one-dimensional s-stable subspaces, whence the result.
Let G=Un(q). Then CG(s) is a direct product
of groups isomorphic to GLmi(q2di), i=1,…,k′, and Ulj(qfj), j=1,…,k′′,
for some integers k′,k′′≥0, and n=dimV=2∑i=1k′midi+∑j=1k′′ejfj. (Note that
CG(s) may be a product of GLmi(q2di) or Ulj(qfj) only.)
The number of unipotent characters of GLmi(q2di) equals p(mi) and that of Ulj(qfj) equals p(lj) (Lemma 3.1). Let n′=∑mi, n′′=∑lj.
Then ∣Es∣=ν(CG(s))=∏p(mi)⋅∏p(lj)≤β(n′)⋅β(n′′).
By Lemma 2.1, β(n′)⋅β(n′′)≤β(n′+n′′). If the equality holds then n=n′+n′′, whence n′=0, n=n′′ and fj=1 for all j=1,…,k′′. It follows that ∣s∣ divides q+1 and (l1,…,lk′′)=π(n), so the result follows as above. □
We now show that the bound is attained for every n for q large enough.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let n,i∈N, i∈{0,1,2,3} with i≡nmod4. Assume that n>3 if i=0,1,2, and n>10 for i=3.
Let G=GLn(q), respectively, Un(q). If n≤4(q−1)+i, respectively, n≤4(q+1)+i, then ν(CG(s))=β(n) for a suitable semisimple element s∈G.
Proof. Let n=4k+i. Then k≤q−1, respectively, q+1. Therefore, there exist distinct elements a1,…,ak∈GL1(q), respectively, U1(q). If i=0 then we
set s=diag(a1⋅Id4,a2⋅Id4,…,ak⋅Id4).
If i=1 then we take the last scalar to be ak⋅Id5, if i=2 then we take the last scalar to be ak⋅Id6. If i=3 then we take the last two scalars to be ak−1⋅Id5 and ak⋅Id6. If G=Un(q) then we choose an orthogonal basis of the underlying space, in order to get s∈Un(q). Then CG(s) is the direct product of groups GL4(q) (respectively U4(q)) if n≡0mod4, with obvious adjustments in the other cases. Then ν(CG∗(s))=β(n). So the bound β(n) is attained. □
Proof of Theorem1.3. This follows from Lemmas 3.5 and 3.4. □
Lemma 3.6**.**
Let C be a cyclic group, ∣C∣>2. Set l=(∣C∣−2)/2 if ∣C∣ is even, and l=(∣C∣−1)/2 if ∣C∣ is odd. Then there are l distinct elements a1,…,al∈C such that aiaj=1 for all 1≤i,j≤l.
Proof. Let C=⟨a⟩. Then set ai=ai. As the elements ai(1≤i≤∣C∣−1) are all distinct, and al+1 is of order 2 if ∣C∣ is even, it follows that {aj:1≤j≤l} satisfies the conclusion of the lemma. □
For application to other classical groups we need a slightly different version of Lemma 3.5.
We view GLn(q) as a matrix group over Fq and Un(q) as a matrix group over Fq2 whose subgroup of diagonal matrices is diag(U1(q),…,U1(q)). In Lemma 3.7 below D denotes
the group of diagonal matrices in G. For d∈D the set of distinct diagonal entries of d is denoted by Spec(d).
Lemma 3.7**.**
Let G=GLn(q) or Un(q) and let G2 be the subgroup of G of index 2 if q is odd, and G2=G if q is even. Suppose that q≥n+5. Then there exists a semisimple element
s∈D∩G2 such that Spec(s)∩Spec(s−1)=∅ and ν(CG(s))=β(n).
Proof. Let C=GL1(q) or U1(q) if q is even, and let C be the subgroup of index 2 in these groups if q is odd. Let l be as in Lemma 3.6. Then l=(q−2)/2 if q is even,
(q−3)/2 if q≡3mod4 and (q−5)/2 if q≡1mod4. By Lemma 3.6, for every k≤l there are distinct elements a1,…,ak∈C such that aiaj=1 for all
1≤i,j≤k.
Then we take k=(n−r)/4, where 0≤r<4 and n≡rmod4.
As q≥n+5 by assumption, we have k=(n−r)/4≤(q−5)/4≤l.
Let us choose these elements a1,…,ak for a similar reasoning as in the proof of
Lemma 3.5
to construct suitable elements s∈D.
Then ν(CG(s))=β(n) by Lemma 3.1.
In addition, as s is a diagonal matrix with entries a1,…,ak (with certain multiplicities) the condition aiaj=1 for all
1≤i,j≤k
implies Spec(s)∩Spec(s−1)=∅. As each diagonal entry of s lies in C, it follows that s∈G2. □
4. Other classical groups
4.1. Remarks on classical groups
We start with observations on the centralizers of semisimple elements of classical groups. Let H∈{O2n+1(q),, q odd, Sp2n(q),O2n±(q)} and let V be the underlying space for H. Recall that Ω2n±(q) denotes the subgroup of O2n±(q) formed by elements of spinor norm 1, and in even characteristic Ω2n±(q)=SO2n±(q) by convention.
The following two lemmas are well known.
Lemma 4.1**.**
[13, Prop. 2.5.13]** For q odd, set ε(n)=(−1)(q−1)n/2. The group Ω2n+(q), respectively, Ω2n−(q) contains
−Id if and only if ε(n)=1, respectively, ε(n)=−1. In particular, Ω2n+(q) contains
−Id if n is even or q is a square.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let G∈{SO2n+1(q),qodd,SO2n±(q),Sp2n(q)}, and let V be the natural module for G. Let g∈G be a semisimple element and let V1 and V2 be the 1- and −1-eigenspaces of g on V. (If q is even then V2=0 by convention.) Then
(1)* V1 and V2 are non-degenerate and orthogonal to each other;*
(2)* dimV2 and dim(V1+V2)⊥ are even;*
(3)* dimV1 is even unless G=SO2n+1(q), in which case dimV1 is odd.*
Proof. Let i∈{1,2}. (1) If Vi is degenerate then U:=Vi∩Vi⊥=0 is totally isotropic.
Let 0=u∈U, so dimu⊥=dimV−1 [13, 2.1.5]. As g is semisimple, u⊥ has a g-invariant complement U′, say. Let v∈U′ and let
f be the form on V defining G.
Then 0=f(u,v)=f(gu,gv)=af(u,gv), where a=1 or −1. It follows that gv=av, which is a contradiction as such a v must be in Vi.
If V1,V2=0 then q is odd; choose 0=vi∈Vi; then f(v1,v2)=f(gv1,gv2)=−f(v1,v2), whence f(v1,v2)=0.
(2) It suffices to prove this statement for the respective groups over Fq; in this case
V is the sum of the eigenspaces of g, and ±1 are not eigenvalues of g on W:=(V1+V2)⊥.
Let e be an eigenvalue of g on W, so e=±1, and We be the respective eigenspace. Then for 0=w∈We
we have f(w,w)=f(gw,gw)=e2f(w,w)=0 as e2=1. One easily observes that w⊥=⟨w⟩+W′, where W′ is a g-stable non-degenerate subspace of w⊥. By induction,
dimW′ is even, and hence so is dimW.
Moreover, if v∈/w⊥
then, as in the proof of (1),
gv=e−1v+x
for x∈w⊥. This implies by induction that the determinant of gW, the restriction of g to W,
equals 1. As detg=1 and g acts on V2 as −Id, it follows that dimV2 is even, as claimed.
(3) is obvious as dimV1=dimV−dimV2−dimW. □
Next we describe the structure of centralizers of semisimple elements in H. This is treated in [10, §1] and elsewhere, but we choose to briefly recall the main facts in a form compatible with what follows.
Let h∈H be a semisimple element. Viewing V as ⟨h⟩-space we can write V=V1⊕⋯⊕Vk⊕Vk+1⊕⋯⊕Vk+l, where V1,…,Vk+l
are homogeneous components of V for ⟨h⟩. (In other words, V1,…,Vk+l
are h-stable, for every i∈{1,…,k+l} all irreducible constituents of Vi∣⟨h⟩
are isomorphic to each other and not isomorphic to those of Vj∣⟨h⟩ for every j=i.) Furthermore, each Vi is either non-degenerate or totally isotropic, see for instance [19, Lemma 3.3]. By reordering the terms, we assume that V1,…,Vk are totally isotropic (unless k=0) whereas Vk+1,…,Vk+l are non-degenerate (unless l=0). In the former case for every i≤k there is another totally isotropic homogeneous component
Vj, say, such that Vi∣⟨h⟩ and Vj∣⟨h⟩ are dual to each other and Vi+Vj is non-degenerate [19, Lemma 3.3]. It follows that k=2m is even. We can reorder V1,…,Vk so that Vi,Vk−i+1 are dual as ⟨h⟩-modules, i=1,…,m. Set
hi=h∣Vi and ni=dimVi for i=1,…,k+l. If hi=±Id then Vi is non-degenerate (see Lemma 4.2), and hence i>k in this case.
For i∈{1,…,k} set Hi=GL(Vi) and for i∈{k+1,…,l} set Hi={g∈H:g∣Vj=Id whenever j=i}≅I(Vi). (For uniformity, we use I(Vi) to denote the classical groups defined by the relevant form on Vi.)
Then
[TABLE]
Let di be the dimension of each irreducible constituent of hi, i=1,…,k+l. As Vi is homogeneous, ni is a multiple of di. Write ni=diei. If i≤k then CHi(hi)=CGL(Vi)(hi).
(a) Suppose that H is symplectic. If hi=±Id then CHi(hi)≅Spni(q). If i≤k then CHi(hi)≅GLei(qdi);
if i>k and hi=±Id then CHi(hi)≅Uei(qdi/2). (Here we write
Uei(qdi/2) due to our notation for unitary groups, that is, Uei(qdi/2)⊂GLei(qdi).)
(b) Suppose that H is orthogonal. If hi=±Id then CHi(hi)=Hi≅O(Vi). If hi=±Id and i≤k then CHi(hi)≅GLei(qdi). If hi=±Id and i>k then CHi(hi)≅Uei(qdi/2), where ei is odd
if and only if the Witt defect of Vi is 1.
In case (b) fix some Vi of Witt defect 1 (assuming the existence of it). Then Vi is a direct sum of ei irreducible non-degenerate ⟨hi⟩-modules isomorphic to each
other.
Denote by D one of them, so hi acts irreducibly on D. Here dimD>1 as hi=±1. Therefore the Witt defect of D is 1 because
otherwise O(D) has no irreducible element ([12, Satz 3(c)]). So the assertion on the parity of ei follows from [13, Proposition 2.5.11(ii)].
(Note that di=dimD/2 can be even.)
We state the above information in a uniform way as follows:
Proposition 4.3**.**
Let h∈H be a semisimple element and let V1,V2 be the 1- and −1-eigenspace of h on V. Then CH(h)≅I(V1)×I(V2)×ΠiGLdi(qli)×ΠjUej(qmj), where 21(dimV1+dimV2)+∑idili+∑ejmj=n.
Corollary 4.4**.**
Let G∈{SO2n+1(q),qodd,SO2n±(q),Sp2n(q)}, and let V be the natural module for G. Let s∈G be a semisimple element. Suppose that s does not have eigenvalues −1 on V and the multiplicity of the eigenvalue 1 is at most 1. Then CG(s)≅ΠiGLdi(qli)×ΠjUej(qmj), where ∑idili+∑ejmj=n.
Proof. Suppose that dimV is even. Then, under these assumptions, CG(s)=CH(s) by Lemma 2.6(2), so the result follows from Proposition 4.3. If dimV is odd then O(V)=SO(V)×{±Id}, so CH(s)=CG(s)×{±Id}.
□
Lemma 4.5**.**
Let s∈G=SO2n−(q) be a homogeneous semisimple element, and s=±Id. Then CG(s)≅Ue(qd), where ed=n, e is odd, and ν(CG(s))≤p(n′), where n′ is the greatest odd divisor of n. In addition, if (n′,q)=(n,3) then there exists a (homogeneous) semisimple element s′∈Ω2n−(q) such that CG(s′)≅Un′(qn/n′).
Proof. By the comment prior to Proposition 4.3 and Lemma 2.6(2), we have
CG(s)≅Ue(qd), where e is odd and n=de. By Lemma 3.1,
ν(Ue(qd))=p(e), and p(e)≤p(n′). For the additional claim, decompose
the natural FqG-module V as a direct sum of n′ non-degenerate subspaces of dimension 2n/n′ and of Witt defect 1. Let D be one of them. Then SO(D)≅SO2n/n′−(q), so SO(D) contains an irreducible element t, say, of order qn/n′+1 [12]. Then t2 is still irreducible on D unless n=n′ and q=3. Choose s to be an element of G stabilizing each direct summand (which is isomorphic to D) and
acting on each of them as t2 does. Then s is homogeneous and CG(s)≅Un′(qn/n′) by the above. So the claim follows. □
4.2. Subgroups of classical groups and their unipotent characters
We assume the group G∗ to be simply connected, which in turn
guarantees CG∗(s) to be connected for every semisimple
element s∈G∗, see Lemma 2.5(2). In view of Lemma 2.4 our task is to obtain a sharp upper bound for ν(CG∗(s)).
The information on the number of unipotent characters of G is given in [4, Section 13.8].
If G∗=Spin2n+1(q), q odd, or Spin2n±(q) then the natural module V, say,
for O2n+1(q) or O2n±(q) can be viewed as FqG∗-module under
the natural homomorphism of G∗ into the respective classical group.
So we refer to V as the natural module for G∗.
The function β(n) plays a significant role in this paper. It is not true that ∣Es∣≤β(n), but the following lemma singles out an important special case where this is true.
Lemma 4.6**.**
Let G∗∈{Spin2n+1(q) for q odd, Spin2n±(q), Sp2n(q)}, and let V be the natural module for G∗. Let s∈G∗ be a semisimple element such that
the multiplicity of eigenvalues 1 and −1 of s on V does not exceed 1.
(1)* ∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s))≤β(n).*
(2)* If V=V′⊕V′′ is an orthogonal decomposition, such that sV′=V′,sV′′=V′′ and Homs(V′,V′′)=0
(equivalently, s has no common eigenvalue on V′,V′′) then
ν(CG∗(s))=ν(CSO(V′)(s1))⋅ν(CSO(V′′)(s2)),
where s1,s2 are the restriction of s to V′,V′′, respectively.*
Proof. By Lemma 4.2, the multiplicity of the eigenvalue −1 is always even, as well as of the eigenvalue 1 unless G∗≅Spin2n+1(q), where the multiplicity of the eigenvalue 1 is always odd. Therefore, the assumption implies that −1 is not an eigenvalue of s, as well as 1, provided G∗=Spin2n+1(q). By Lemma 2.5, CG∗(s) is connected; so by Lemma 2.4, ∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s)).
(1) Let H∈{SO2n+1(Fq), q odd, SO2n(Fq),
Sp2n(Fq)}, and η:G∗→H the natural homomorphism. Keep F to denote the Frobenius endomorphism of H inherited from that of G∗, and set H=HF. Then η is surjective and
H is one of the groups SO2n+1(q), q odd, SO2n±(q),
Sp2n(q) (depending on G∗ and F).
As −1 is not an eigenvalue of η(s), by Lemma 2.5(3), the group CH(η(s)) is connected and, by Lemma 2.6,
ν(CG∗(s))=ν(CH(η(s))). By Corollary 4.4, we have CG∗(s)≅ΠiGLdi(qli)×ΠjUej(qmj), where ∑idili+∑ejmj=n. Furthermore,
the number of unipotent characters of each factor is equal to p(di) or p(ej)
(Lemma 3.1), so the total is Πip(di)⋅Πjp(ej).
By [2], this number is not greater than β(n), whence (1).
(2) By Lemma 2.5(3), the group CO(Vi)(si)=CSO(Vi)(si) is connected for i=1,2, so CO(V)(s)=CSO(V)(s)=CSO(V1)(s1)×CSO(V2)(s2). In addition, CSO(Vi)(si)F=CSO(Vi)(si), so CSO(V)(s)=CSO(V1)(s1)×CSO(V2)(s2). This implies (2).
□
The following lemma tells us that the bound in Lemma 4.6(1) is attained if q is large enough and
G∗=SO2n−(q).
Lemma 4.7**.**
Let G∗∈{SO2n+1(q), q odd,
Sp2n(q), SO2n+(q)}, and let V be the natural FqG∗-module.
Suppose that n≤q−5. Then there exists t∈G∗ such that V is the sum of the eigenspaces of t, the multiplicity of the eigenvalues 1 and −1 of t is at most 1 and ν(CG∗(t))=β(n).
In addition, if q is odd and G∗ is orthogonal
then t can be chosen in a subgroup of index 2 of G∗.
Proof. It is well known that
there exist totally singular subspaces V1,V2 of V such that V1∩V2=0,
dimV1=dimV2=n, V1+V2 is non-degenerate, and there are dual bases in V1,V2
in the sense that if g∈G with gVi=Vi(i=1,2) and gi is the matrix of g on Vi, then g2=Tg1−1, where Tg1 is the transpose of g1. Moreover, for H=GL(V1)≅GLn(q) there is an embedding λ:H→G such that λ(h)=diag(h,Th−1) or diag(h,1,Th−1) for h∈H. Let W be the natural module for H. It follows that V1∣H≅W and V2∣H is dual to W.
Let s∈H be as in Lemma 3.7 and t=λ(s). Then the statement on the eigenvalues of t on V is obvious. Since W is the sum of the eigenspaces of s, it follows that V is the sum of the eigenspaces of t. In addition, the choice of s in Lemma 3.7 implies every eigenspace of λ(s) to
lie in V1 or V2. It easily follows that CG∗(t)=λ(CH(s))≅CH(s). Therefore,
the number of unipotent characters of CG∗(t) and CH(s) is the same. By Lemma 3.7, the latter is equal to β(n), whence the result.
However, to be precise, the isomorphism CH(s)→CG∗(t) should be accompanied with an isomorphism of algebraic groups CH(s)→CG∗(t) such that
CH(s)F=CH(s) and CG∗(t)F=CG∗(t). (As above, we use the same letter F for the Frobenius endomorphism of different groups CH(s) and CG∗(t)).
Let G∗=SO2n+1(Fq), Sp2n(Fq) or SO2n(Fq) and H=GLn(Fq). In each case
we choose for F the standard Frobenius endomorphism arising from
raising matrix entries of elements of the above groups to the q-power (see [8, p. 37]). (For this we choose a basis B in V as above, such that B∩V1 and B∩V2 are dual bases, and view it as a basis of the underlying space V of G.) Then
G∗=G∗F and H=HF. The latter holds true when we consider H as GL(V1) or as a subgroup of G∗ stabilizing V1 and V2. Then CH(s) and CG∗(t) are isomorphic, as the eigenvalues of s on V2 are the inverses of those on V1 (see Lemma 3.7).
In addition, we have CH(s)F=CH(s) and CG∗(t)F=CG∗(t).
For the additional statement for q odd let G2 be the subgroup of index 2 in G∗. Then ∣λ(H):(λ(H)∩G2)∣≤2. By Lemma 3.7, s can be chosen in the subgroup of index 2 in H, whence the claim. □
Now we consider the case where G∗=Spin2n−(q). We shall see that the statement of Lemma 4.7 remains true for n odd but fails otherwise. Recall that β′(n)=maxaoddβ(a)β(n−a); by Lemma 2.3, β′(n)=β(5)β(n−5) for n>6.
Lemma 4.8**.**
Let G∗=Spin2n−(q), and let V be the natural module for G∗. Let s∈G∗ be a semisimple element such that 1 and −1 are not eigenvalues of s on V.
(1)* ν(CG∗(s))≤β(n) for n odd, and
ν(CG∗(s))≤β(5)β(n−5) for n>6 even.*
(2)* Suppose that q≥n+5. Then the bounds in (1) are attained for some s.*
(3)* If n=6,4,2 then the maximum of ν(CG∗(s)) equals 9,3,2, respectively.*
Proof. Let η:G∗→SO(V) be the natural homomorphism and t=η(s)∈Ω(V)≅Ω2n−(q). As observed in Lemma 4.6, ν(CG∗(s))=ν(CSO(V)(t)).
If n≤7 the claims follow by inspection, whence (3).
Suppose that n>7.
(2) Let V=V1⊕V2, where V1,V2 are non-degenerate subspaces of V, the Witt defect of V1 is 1, the Witt defect of V2 is 0, and dimV1=10, dimV2=2n−10.
By Lemma 4.7, there is an element s2∈Ω(V2)≅Ω2n−10+(q) such that V2 is the sum of eigenspaces of s2 (whence s2q−1=1) and
ν(CSO(V2)(s2))=β(n−5).
Furthermore, there is a homogeneous element s1∈Ω(V1)≅Ω10−(q) such that ∣s1∣>2 divides q+1 and CSO(V1)(s1)≅U5(q) (see Lemma 4.5).
As s2q−1=1, it follows that s1, s2 have no common eigenvalues over Fq. Let t=diag(s1,s2) and s∈G∗ be such that η(s)=t (such s exists as η(G∗)=Ω(V)). Then CO(V)(t)=CO(V1)(s1)×CO(V2)(s2); it follows from Lemma 2.5(3) that CSO(V)(t)=CSO(V1)(s1)×CSO(V2)(s2), and
also that CSO(V)(t), CSO(V1)(s1) and CSO(V2)(s2) are finite reductive groups.
So ν(CSO(V)(t))=ν(CSO(V1)(s1))⋅ν(CSO(V2)(s2))=β(5)β(n−5).
By Lemma 2.10, ν(CG∗(s))=β(5)β(n−5), so we are done if n is even
and n>6. If n is odd, then n−5≡0 or 2mod4; in both cases
β(5)β(n−5)=β(n) by Lemma 2.1, provided n−5≥4,
whence the result.
(1) If n is odd, this is already proven in Lemma 4.6.
Suppose that n is even. Suppose the contrary, and let s∈G∗ be such that ν(CG∗(s))>β(5)β(n−5).
Choose a decomposition V=(⊕i=1kVi)⊕(⊕j=1lVj) described after Lemma 4.2,
in particular, each term is a minimal non-degenerate s-stable subspace of V, each Vj(j=1,…,l) is minimal and each Vi(i=1,…,k) is the sum of two minimal s-stable subspaces of V. By Corollary 4.4, CG(s)≅Πi=1kGLdi(qli)×Πj=1lUej(qmj), where dimVi=2dili, dimVj=2ejmj, so ∑idili+∑ejmj=n. Note that each Vi has Witt defect 0. By [13, 2.5.11], at least one Vj has Witt defect 1, in particular, l=0.
Observe first that the case k=0,l=1 does not hold. Indeed, otherwise n=ejmj and CG∗(s)≅Uej(qmj). By Lemma 4.5, ν(CG∗(s))≤p(n′), where n′ is the odd part of n. Then p(n′)≤p(n/2), as n is even, and p(n/2)≤β(n/2).
By Lemma 2.2, β(n/2)<7β(n−5) and β(n/2)<3β(n−3).
In the latter case if n−3≡1mod4 then 3β(n−3)=3⋅7⋅5(n−8)/4, and
this is less than β(5)⋅β(n−5)=7⋅77⋅5(n−16)/4 (as n−5≡3mod4). This is a contradiction.
Choose j so that the Witt defect of Vj is 1. Set W=Vj⊥, so W=0 is the sum of all terms in the above decomposition but Vj. Then the Witt defect of W equals 0.
Let sj,s′ be the restriction of s to Vj, W, respectively. We show that nj:=ejmj is odd. Indeed, by Lemma 4.6, ν(CSO(V)(s))=ν(CSO(W)(s′))⋅ν(CSO(W)(s′)), and ν(CSO(W)(s′))≤β(n−nj) by Lemma 4.7. If nj is even then, by Lemma 4.5, ν(CSO(Vj)(sj))=p(nj′), where nj′ is the odd part of nj. By Theorem 1.2,
p(nj′)≤β(nj/2). By Lemma 2.2, β(nj/2)≤3β(nj−3). Then
3β(nj−3)⋅β(n−nj)≤3β(n−3) by Lemma 2.1.
By the above, this is less than β(5)β(n−5).
So nj must be odd, and hence
ν(CG∗(s))≤β′(n)=maxaoddβ(a)β(n−a). If n>6 then β′(n)=β(5)β(n−5) by Lemma 2.3, as required. □
Recall that α(n),α+(n),α−(n) denote the number of unipotent characters of the group
Sp2n(q), Spin2n+(q), Spin2n−(q), respectively. Note that
ν(Spin2n+1(q))=α(n) as well.
An essential role in what follows is played by Lemmas 4.9 and 4.10 which in a sense
generalize Lemma 3.1 to other classical groups.
Lemma 4.9**.**
Let G∗∈{Spin2n+(q),Spin2n−(q),Sp2n(q)}, where q is even. Let a,c≥0 be integers such that a+c=n
and if G∗=Spin2n−(q) then c<n. If q≥n−a+5 then there exists a semisimple element s∈G∗ such that
Proof. Let V be the natural module for G∗.
(Note that Spin(V)≅Ω(V).)
Then V contains a non-degenerate subspace W, say, of dimension 2c and of Witt defect [math].
Set H={g∈G∗:gx=x for every x∈W⊥}. Then H≅Spin2c+(q) or Sp2c(q). By Lemma 4.7, there is an element h∈H such that ν(CH(h))=β(c) and h does not have eigenvalue 1 on W.
Then CG∗(h)≅CH(h)×X, where X≅Sp2a(q) or Spin2a±(q).
By Lemma 4.6,
ν(CG(h))=ν(CH(h))⋅ν(X)=β(c)⋅x, where x=α+(a), α−(a) or α(a) when G∗≅Spin2n+(q),Spin2n−(q),Sp2n(q), respectively. This is recorded in the statement. □
Lemma 4.10**.**
Let G∗∈{Spin2n+1(q),Spin2n+(q),Spin2n−(q),Sp2n(q)}, q odd. Let a,b,c≥0 be integers
such that a+b+c=n, a=1,b=1, and if G∗=Spin2n−(q) then b+c<n.
If G∗=Sp2n(q) then suppose that b(q−1)/2 is even.
Suppose that q≥n−a−b+5. Then there exists a semisimple element s∈G∗ such that
Proof. Let V be the natural module for G∗ and the respective classical group. Consider an orthogonal decomposition V=W1⊕W2⊕W3, where dimW1=2a or 2a+1,
dimW2=2b and W3=(W1+W2)⊥. If V is orthogonal, choose both W2,W3 to be of Witt defect 0. The condition b+c<n makes this possible if G∗=Spin2n−(q), in the other cases
this is well known to be possible.
Choose a basis B={b0,b1,…,b2n} in V, where b0 is dropped unless G∗=Spin2n+1(q).
We can assume that b2n−2c+1,…,b2n∈W3, b2n−2c−2b+1,…,b2n−2c∈W2 and the remaining elements of B are in W1. With respect to this basis consider the matrix t=diag(Id,−Id2b,s′),
where s′ is in Ω2c+(q) or Sp2c(q). (Note that −Id2b∈Ω(W2) by Lemma 4.1.) By Lemma 4.7, we can choose s′ to be such that ±1 are not eigenvalues of s′
and the number of unipotent characters of CSO(W3)(s′) or
CSp(W3)(s′) equals
β(c).
If G∗=Sp2n(q) then CG∗(t)=Sp(W1)×Sp(W2)×CSp(W3)(s′), and the result follows as ν(Sp(W1))=α(a) and ν(Sp(W2))=α(b).
Suppose that G∗ is orthogonal. Then ν(SO(W2))=α+(b) as W2 is of Witt defect 0,
whereas ν(SO(W1))=α(a), α+(a) or α−(a) depending on whether G∗=Spin2n+1(q),Spin2n+(q),Spin2n−(q), respectively. So again the result follows from Lemma 2.10. □
5. Some relations between α(n), α+(n), α−(n) and β(n)
For x∈R let [x] denote the maximum integer that does not exceed x.
The enumeration of unipotent characters in our context has a nice combinatorial description
(see [16, Theorem 8.2] or [4, Section 13.8]); for computing α(n), α+(n)
and α+(n) for small n (see Table 2) we use Lusztig’s formulae [16, §3] expressing
these functions in terms of p(m) with m≤n.
Lemma 5.1**.**
For n∈N odd, α−(n)=α+(n), and
for all n∈Nα−(n)≤α+(n)≤α(n).
Proof. From Lusztig’s generating function [16, (3.4.2)], we have
α+(n)−α−(n)=0 for n odd, and α+(n)−α−(n)=2p(n/2) for n even,
so always α+(n)≥α−(n).
Let p2(n) denote the number of pairs of partitions that sum up to n, hence p2(n)=∑m=0np(m)p(n−m). Again from [16], we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For n≤13 the claim is easily checked directly (see Table 2). For n≥14, the
easy inequality 23p(2n)<p(n−6)+p(n−7)<p2(n−6)
and a comparison of the summands in the sums above gives the claim. □
Proposition 5.2**.**
For n≤43 we have α(n)>β(n).
For all n>43, we have α(n)<β(n).
Proof. For n≤43 the stated inequalities for α(n) hold by computation (see Table 2); these also show that α(n)<β(n) for 44≤n≤300.
For n>43, we use very rough estimates to give an upper bound for α(n).
First, we have p(n)<2[n/2]+1 for all n (for example, use [2]).
Hence, p2(m)=∑i=0mp(i)p(m−i)≤(m+1)2[m/2]+2,
for all m. Applying this, we have for any n≥2:
[TABLE]
One easily checks that α(n)≤(n2−1)2[n/2]+2<5(n−3)/4 for n≥244.
Using Theorem 1.2
we conclude that α(n)<β(n) for all n>43. □
Proposition 5.3**.**
For 2<n≤38, we have β(n)<α−(n)≤α+(n).
For all n≥39, we have α−(n)≤α+(n)<β(n).
Proof. For 2<n≤43 the stated inequalities hold by Table 2, for n>43
these follow from Lemma 5.1 and Proposition 5.2. □
Corollary 5.4**.**
Let n>43. Then for fixed n but varying a, the maximum of each function α(a)β(n−a), α+(a)β(n−a) and α−(a)β(n−a)
is attained for a≤43.
Proof. Suppose on the contrary that the maximum is attained at some a>43. Then
α−(a)β(n−a)≤α+(a)β(n−a)≤α(a)β(n−a)<β(a)β(n−a)≤β(n).
As n>43, by Theorem 1.2, we have β(n)=5β(n−4)<10β(n−4)=α−(4)β(n−4)<α+(4)β(n−4)<α(4)β(n−4), a contradiction. □
5.1. The products α(a)β(n−a), α+(a)β(n−a) and α−(a)β(n−a)
Lemma 5.5**.**
(1)* If 13<a≤43 then α(a+4)<5α(a),
α+(a+4)<5α+(a) and α−(a+4)<5α−(a).*
(1a)* If 0<a≤13, then α(a+4)>5α(a), α+(a+4)>5α+(a) and α−(a+4)>5α−(a).*
(2)* If 13<a≤43 then
α(a+4)β(m)<α(a)β(m+4), α+(a+4)β(m)<α(a)+β(m+4) and α−(a+4)β(m)<α−(a)β(m+4) for every integer m≥0.*
(3)* If a≤13,
m>3,m=5,6,11 then α(a)β(m)<α(a+4)β(m−4), α+(a)β(m)<α+(a+4)β(m−4) and α−(a)β(m)<α−(a+4)β(m−4).*
More precisely, α(a)β(m)<α(a+4)β(m−4) if m=11,a<13 or m=6,a<12 or m=5,a<8.
(4)* If a<n then the maximum of α(a)β(n−a), α+(a)β(n−a) and α−(a)β(n−a) is attained for a≤17. If n>24 then, additionally, a>13.*
Proof. (1), (1a) follows directly by Table 2.
(2) By Theorem 1.2 and Table 1, we have 5β(m)≤β(m+4)
so the claim follows from (1). (Note that 5β(m)=β(m+4) for m=1,2,7.)
(3) If m>3,m=5,6,11 then 5β(m−4)=β(m).
Therefore, α(a+4)β(m)>5α(a)β(m)=α(a)β(m−4) by (1a). Similarly for α+(a),α−(a) in place of α(a).
Let m=11. Then β(11)=77, β(7)=15, so β(11)=1577β(7). So the result follows if α(a+4)>1577α(a).
This is true if a<13.
Let m=6. Then β(6)=11, β(2)=2, so β(6)=211β(2). So
the result follows if α(a+4)>211α(a). This is true for a<12.
Let m=5. Then β(5)=7, β(1)=1, so β(5)=7β(1). So
the result follows if α(a+4)>7α(a). This is true for a<8.
(4) By Corollary 5.4 we may assume that a≤43.
Suppose that a>17. Then, by (2), α(a)β(n−a)<α(a−4)β(n−a+4), a contradiction.
If a≤13 then n>24 implies n−a>11, so α(a)β(n−a)<α(a+4)β(n−a−4) by (3). Similarly for α+(a),α−(a) in place of α(a). □
Proposition 5.6**.**
(1)* For n<18 the maximum of
α(a)β(n−a), α+(a)β(n−a) and α−(a)β(n−a)
is attained for a=n.*
(2)* Let n≥18. Then the maximum of α(a)β(n−a)
is attained for a=16,15,14,15 when n≡0,1,2,3mod4.*
(3)* The maximum of
α+(a)β(n−a) and of α−(a)β(n−a)
is attained for a=16,17,14,15 when n≡0,1,2,3mod4, respectively (in particular, n≡amod4).*
Proof. By computer calculation the claim is easily checked up to n=29.
Let n>29. By Lemma 5.5(4), the maximum of each of these functions is attained for a with 13<a≤17. Then n−a>7. Write n−a=r+4k, where 7<r≤11 and k≥0 is an integer.
By Theorem 1.2, β(n−a)=5kβ(r). So
α(a)β(n−a)=5kα(a)β(r), where a+r<29. By the above, the maximum of
α(a)β(r) is attained for a=16,15,14,15 if a+r is congruent to 0,1,2,3mod4, respectively. Say, if 4∣(a+r) then a=16, and α(a)β(n)=5kα(a)β(r)≤5kα(16)β(r)=α(16)β(n), whence the result. The other cases are similar, as well as the cases with α+(a), α−(a) in place of α(a). □
5.2. The products α(a)α(b)β(n−a−b), and α(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b)
Lemma 5.7**.**
Let
n,a,b≥0 be integers such that a+b≤n. For n fixed, the maximum of
α(a)α(b)β(n−a−b), α(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b), α+(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b)
and α+(a)α−(b)β(n−a−b) is attained for a≤17,b≤17.
Furthermore,
(1)* if n−a−b>11, then a>13, b>13;*
(2)* if n>45, then a>13, b>13.*
Proof. The first statement follows from Corollary 5.4 and Lemma 5.5(4).
Furthermore, n−a>11 and n−b>11. Suppose that a≤13. Then, by Lemma 5.5(2), we have α(a)α(b)β(n−a−b)<α(a+4)α(b)β(n−a−b−4), a contradiction. Similarly, for the other three functions, as well as for b≤13, whence (1).
In addition, if n>45 then n−a−b>11 as a+b≤34, whence (2). □
Proposition 5.8**.**
Let n,a,b≥0 be integers, n≥a+b.
*In the table below, we record for each of the functions
α(a)α(b)β(n−a−b), α(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b), α(a)+α+(b)β(n−a−b),
and α(a)α−(b)β(n−a−b) the pairs (a,b) where the functions attain their maximum, for n≥28 or n≥29; for the first and third function, we list the pairs with a≥b.
(Here we write ≡4 for the congruence modulo 4.)*
[TABLE]
Proof. The assertion was checked to hold for n≤50 by computer, so we may assume n>50.
Lemma 5.7 shows that the values a,b at which all four products in question
attain their maximum satisfy 13<a,b<18. Write n=4k+r, with a+b+7≤r≤a+b+10,
and some integer k≥0.
Then r≤44. Let γn(a,b) stand for any of the functions above. As r>7, by Theorem 1.2 we have β(n−a−b)=β(r−a−b)β(4)k, and hence γn(a,b)=β(4)kγr(a,b). Since 35≤r≤44, the claim holds for r, and the result follows. □
Remarks. (1) For all n<32, the maximum of α(a)α(b)β(n−a−b)
is attained for pairs (a,b) such that a+b=n.
(2) For n≤33 the maxima of the functions γn(a,b) defined in the proof of Proposition 5.8 have been calculated by computer and are shown in Tables 3 and 4 at the end of the paper.
6. Proof of the main results for q even
In this section q is even and G∗∈{Sp2n(q),Spin2n±(q)≅Ω2n±(q)}.
For q large enough, we determine the maximum of ν(CG∗(s)) when s runs over the semisimple elements of G∗.
Let V be a vector space of dimension 2n over Fq viewed as the natural module for G∗,
so V is endowed with a suitable form defining G∗.
Denote by V1 the 1-eigenspace of s on V. By Lemma 4.2, V1 is non-degenerate
and dimV1=2a is even. Set W=V1⊥, so V=V1⊕W. Let s′ denote the restriction of s to W. We keep these notations until the end of this section.
Proof. Suppose that G∗≅Spin2n±(q) (the proof for G∗=Sp2n(q) is similar, and hence omitted).
By Lemma 2.10, ν(CG∗(s))=ν(SO(V1))⋅ν(CSO(W)(s′))=α±(a)⋅ν(CSO(W)(s′)). By Lemma 4.6(1), ν(CSO(W)(s′))≤β(n−a). If n<18 then the maximum of α±(a)β(n−a)
is attained for a=n (Proposition 5.6(1)), which is realized for s=1. □
6.1. Symplectic groups in even characteristic
Let G∗=Sp2n(q). Then CG∗(s)≅Sp2a(q)×CSp2(n−a)(q)(s′),
so ν(CG∗(s))=α(a)⋅ν(CSp2(n−a)(q)(s′)), and we are to determine the maximum of this product. Recall that ν(CSp2(n−a)(q)(s′))≤β(n−a) by Lemma 4.6, as s′ does not have eigenvalue 1.
Proof.
If n is fixed and a varies, the maximum of α(a)β(n−a) is attained for
a=16,15,14,15 for n≡0,1,2,3mod4, respectively,
see Proposition 5.6. So f(n)=α(a)β(n−a) for these values of a.
The values of α(a) for a≤17
are provided by Table 2, and β(n−a) is given by Table 1. Using this, the result follows
by easy computations. (For instance, n≡1mod4
implies n−15≡2mod4, and then β(n−15)=11⋅5n−21 by Table 1.)
Now we turn to the additional statement on the bound being attained for large q.
By Lemma 4.9, if n−a≤q−5 then there exists a semisimple element s∈G∗ such that ν(CG∗(s))=α(a)β(n−a). This holds if n−14≤q−5, that is, q≥n−9. □
6.2. Orthogonal groups in even characteristic
In this case we are to consider the groups G∗=Spin2n±(q)≅SO2n±(q).
By Lemma 2.10, ν(CG∗(s))=ν(SO(V1))⋅ν(CSO(W)(s′)), and
ν(CSO(W)(s′))≤β(n−a) by Lemma 4.6. So ∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s))≤α±(a)β(n−a), where one chooses + if and only if V1 is of Witt defect 0.
Theorem 6.3**.**
Theorem 1.5 is true if G∗=Spin2n±(q), q even. More precisely,
∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s))≤α±(a)β(n−a), where a=16,17,14,15 when n≡0,1,2,3mod4, respectively, and
∣Es∣≤f±(n), where f±(n) are as in Theorem 1.5.
Proof.
Let x,y denote the Witt defect of V1, W, respectively.
(i) (x,y)=(0,0). Then G∗=Spin2n+(q) and ν(CG∗(s))≤α+(a)β(n−a);
(ii) (x,y)=(1,1). Then G∗=Spin2n+(q) and ν(CG∗(s))≤α−(a)β(n−a);
(iii) (x,y)=(1,0). Then G∗=Spin2n−(q) and ν(CG∗(s))≤α−(a)β(n−a);
(iv) (x,y)=(0,1). Then G∗=Spin2n−(q) and ν(CG∗(s))≤α+(a)β(n−a) if n−a is odd, and ν(CG∗(s))≤α+(a)β′(n−a) if n−a is even, see Lemma 4.8
(and Lemma 2.3 for the values of β′).
Assume that s is chosen so that ν(CG∗(s)) is maximal. Then we show that
cases (ii),(iv) can be ignored for our purpose.
In case (ii), α−(a)≤α+(a), and, by Lemma 4.9, ν(CG∗(s))=α+(a)β(n−a) for some s∈G∗. So we do not need to care whether the same maximum can be attained in case (ii). Then, using Proposition 5.6, we obtain the data for f+(n).
For instance, if n≡1mod4 then a=17 and α+(17)β(n−17)=6007⋅5(n−17)/4.
Suppose, on the contrary, that (iv) holds. We first obtain an upper bound for maxa:n−a evenα+(a)β′(n−a) and maxa:n−a oddα+(a)β(n−a), and next show that these are less than maxaα−(a)β(n−a), which will yield the stated claim.
Assume first that n−a is even. By Lemma 2.3, we have
β′(n−a)=539⋅β(n−a−16) if n−a≡0mod4, n−a≥16, and β′(n−a)=49⋅β(n−a−10) if n−a≡2mod4, n−a>6. So α+(a)β′(n−a)=539⋅α+(a)β(n−a−16) and
49⋅α+(a)β(n−a−10) accordingly; by Proposition 5.6, if n−16≥18, respectively, n−10≥18, then the maximum of these is attained when a=16 if n≡n−16≡0mod4, respectively, when a=14 if n−10≡0mod4 equivalently, n≡2mod4. Thus, if n−a is even, then α+(a)β′(n−a) does not exceed
Indeed, here n−i≡0mod4 for i=32,33,30,31 in the last four rows, so β(n−i+6)=β(6)β(n−i)=11β(n−i) for these i by Theorem 1.2, whence the equalities there as 49⋅11=539.
(Note that we do not assert that these bounds are attained.)
Next we assume n−a to be odd in case (iv). Then β(n−a)=7β(n−5−a) if n−a≡1mod4 and β(n−a)=77β(n−11−a) if n−a≡3mod4, see Theorem 1.2.
By Proposition 5.6, applied to α+(a)β(n−a−5) and α+(a)β(n−a−11), if n−11≥18 then α+(a)β(n−a) with n−a odd does not exceed the following values:
Then we conclude that the latter are greater than the former.
So in case (iv) with n≥34 the maximum of ν(CG∗(s)) does not exceed
α−(a)β(n−a). The same trivially holds in case (iii). So the values
for f±(n) for n≥34 follow from the above.
For n<34 we use computer calculations.
Finally, we show that the bound ∣Es∣≤f±(n) is attained for q as stated.
We have 13<a≤17, so n−a≤n−14 above. By Lemma 4.9,
if n−a≤q−5 then there exists a semisimple element s∈G∗ such that ν(CG∗(s))=α±(a)β(n−a).
This holds if n−14≤q−5, that is, q≥n−9. So the result follows. □
7. Proof of the main results for q odd
In this section we assume that q is odd. Let V be the natural FqG∗-module, and
s∈G∗ a semisimple element. Let V1 and V2 denote the 1- and −1-eigenspaces of s on V, respectively. These spaces are non-degenerate (if non-zero), and have even dimensions, except for the case where dimV is odd (see Lemma 4.2).
Set dimV1=2a or 2a+1 and dimV2=2b, where 0≤a,b≤n. Set W=(V1+V2)⊥. Then V=V1⊕V2⊕W. One easily observes that CG∗(s) stabilizes V1,V2 and W. Let s′ be the restriction of s to W. As above, ∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s)).
Proof. Tables 3, 4 at the end of the paper are obtained by computer calculations,
and give us the maximum of the functions in question. So we have to show that these coincide with the maximum of ∣Es∣ in each case.
From a look at the tables, one observes that n≤32 implies n=a+b (in the notation of the tables). Let V be the natural module for G∗. Write V=V1+V2, where V1,V2 are non-degenerate subspaces of V such that dimV1=2a or 2a+1, dimV2=2b and V2 is of Witt defect 0. This is always possible unless G∗=Spin2n−(q) and a=0; this happens only for n=2,4,6
(see Table 4), but these cases are excluded in the statement.
Consider the matrix t=diag(Id2a,−Id2b)∈SO(V) such that V1,V2 are
the 1- and −1-eigenspace of t on V. If b=0 then we set t=Id2a or Id2a+1.
From another look at the tables we conclude that b is always even, and hence −Id∈Ω2b+(q) for b>0 by Lemma 4.1. Then we take s from the preimage of t in G∗. □
Remark. In case of SO2n−(q) and n=2,4,6, one easily checks that the maximum of ∣Es∣ is attained for α−(2)α+(0)=2, α−(4)α+(0)=10 and α−(4)α+(2)=40 respectively. If G∗=Sp64(q) then maxs∈G∗∣Es∣=5α(14)2 by Theorem 7.2.
7.1. G∗ is symplectic
Theorem 7.2**.**
Theorem 1.5 is true if
G∗≅Sp2n(q), q odd.
More precisely, ∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s))≤τ(n)=maxa+b≤nα(a)α(b)β(n−a−b), where
τ(n) is as in Theorem 1.5.
Proof. One easily observes that CG∗(s) stabilizes V1,V2 and W.
So CG∗(s)⊂Sp2a(q)×Sp2b(q)×Sp2(n−a−b)(q), and in fact CG∗(s)=Sp2a(q)×Sp2b(q)×CSp2(n−a−b)(q)(s′). Therefore, ν(CG∗(s))=α(a)α(b)⋅ν(CSp(W)(s′)). By Lemma 4.6, ν(CSp(W)(s′))≤β(n−a−b).
Therefore, if s varies, ∣Es∣
does not exceed the maximum of α(a)α(b)β(n−a−b), where a,b≥0 and a+b≤n.
The values of a,b
for which the function α(a)α(b)β(n−a−b) attains its maximum
are determined in Table 3 for n≤33 and in Proposition 5.8 for n≥28.
This yields the explicit expressions for τ(n)
in Theorem 1.5.
It remains to show the additional statement in Theorem 1.5. By Lemma 4.10
(or Lemma 4.7 applied to Sp2(n−a−b)(q)), if q≥n−a−b+5 with a,b as above, there is a semisimple element s∈G∗ such that
∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s))=α(a)α(b)β(n−a−b). So the bound is attained, whence the result. □
7.2. The case G∗=Spin2n+1(q)
Theorem 7.3**.**
Theorem 1.5 is true for
G∗=Spin2n+1(q), q odd.
More precisely, ∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s))≤θ(n)=maxa+b≤nα(a)α(b)β(n−a−b), where
θ(n) is as in Theorem \reft21(4).
Proof. Suppose for a moment that s is an arbitrary semisimple element in G∗.
Then ∣Es∣=ν(SO(V1))⋅ν(SO(V2))⋅ν(CSO(W)(s′))=α(a)α±(b)ν(CSO(W)(s′)) by Lemma 2.10, where one chooses the sign + if and only if the Witt defect of W is 1. Therefore, ∣Es∣≤maxa,bα(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b).
By Proposition 5.8, if n≥32 then the maximum of α(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b) is attained for (a,b) given in the table there (in particular, with b even). The data α(i)α+(j) for 14≤i,j≤16 follows from Table 3. So the inequality ∣Es∣≤θ(n) follows.
For the additional statement in Theorem 1.5 we note that the existence of s such that ∣Es∣=θ(n) follows from Lemma 4.10 (provided b is even, which is the case here). □
7.3. Orthogonal groups of even dimension
In this subsection we assume that q is odd and G∗=Spin2n±(q).
By Lemma 2.10, ∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s))=ν(SO(V1))⋅ν(SO(V2))⋅ν(CSO(W)(s′)). As α−(a)≤α+(a) and ν(CSO(W)(s′))≤β(n−a−b) (Lemma 4.6(1)), it follows that
∣Es∣≤maxa,bα+(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b). In turn, by Proposition 5.8, if n≥32 then the maximum of α+(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b) is attained for (a,b)=(16,16),(15,14),(16,14),(15,16) for n≡0,1,2,3mod4, respectively. In particular, b∈{14,16} is even and n−a−b≡0mod4.
Theorem 7.4**.**
Theorem 1.5 is true for G∗=Spin2n+(q), q odd.
More precisely, ∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s))≤θ+(n)=maxa+b≤nα+(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b), where
θ+(n) is as in Theorem \reft21(5).
Proof. The comments prior to the theorem show that ∣Es∣≤θ+(n), so we are left to show that the equality holds for some semisimple element s∈G∗. This follows from Lemma 4.10 as now b∈{14,16} and b(q−1)/2 are even, so Lemma 4.10 applies. □
Proof. Let V be the natural module for G∗ and s∈G∗ an arbitrary semisimple element. As above, consider a decomposition
V=V1⊕V2⊕W, where V1 and V2 are the 1- and −1-eigenspaces of s on V and W=(V1+V2)⊥. By Lemma 2.10, ∣Es∣=ν(CG∗(s))=ν(SO(V1))⋅ν(SO(V2))⋅ν(CSO(W)(s′)), where s′ is the restriction of s to W.
As the Witt defect of V∗ equals 1, for the Witt defects of V1,V2 and W we have the following options:
(i) the Witt defect of V1 is 1, the two other are 0;
(ii) the Witt defect of V2 is 1, the two other are 0;
(iii) the Witt defect of W is 1, the two other are 0;
(iv) V1,V2,W are of Witt defect 1.
Suppose that s is chosen so that ∣Es∣ is maximal. Then (iv)
can be ignored. Indeed, in this case ν(CG∗(s))=α−(a)α−(b)⋅ν(CSO(W)(s′)), where ν(CSO(W)(s′))≤β(n−a−b) by Lemma 4.6. One can choose another element s1∈G∗ for which
the −1-eigenspace is the same as for s, the 1-eigenspace U, say, is of dimension 2a and of Witt defect 0,
and for W1=(U+V2)⊥ choose s1′∈Ω(W1) so that ν(CSO(W)(s1′))=β(n−a−b). This is possible as the Witt defect of W1 is 0, so Ω(W1)≅Ω2(n−a−b)+(q), see Lemma 4.7. Then ∣Es1∣=ν(CG∗(s1))=ν(SO(V1))⋅ν(SO(V2))⋅ν(CSO(W)(s1′))=α+(a)α−(b)⋅ν(CSO(W)(s1′))=α+(a)α−(b)β(n−a−b).
As α−(a)≤α+(a), we have ∣Es∣≤∣Es1∣, so we can assume that (iv) does not hold.
Suppose first that W is of Witt defect 0. Then (i) or (ii) holds, and ν(CG∗(s))=α−(a)α+(b)ν(CSO(W)(s′)) in case (i) and
ν(CG∗(s))=α+(a)α−(b)ν(CSO(W)(s′)) in case (ii). By Lemma 4.6(1), ν(CSO(W)(s′))≤β(n−a−b). By Proposition 5.8,
the maximum of the function α−(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b) is attained for (a,b)=(16,16),(15,14),(16,14),(15,16), for n≡0,1,2,3mod4, respectively, and the maximum of α+(a)α−(b)β(n−a−b) is attained for (a,b)=(16,16),(14,15),(14,16), (16,15) for n≡0,1,2,3mod4. By Lemmas 4.6(3) and 4.7, if q>n−a−b+5 then there is s′ such that ν(CSO(W)(s′))=β(n−a−b); for the above values of a,b it suffices to assume q>n−27.
In case (i),
b∈{14,16} is even and the Witt defect of V2 is 0; so −Id2b∈Ω(V2) by Lemma 4.1. It follows that t∈Ω2n−(q), where t=diag(Id2a,−Id2b,s′) and s′∈Ω(W) is such
that ±1 are not eigenvalues of s and ν(CSO(W)(s1′))=β(n−a−b).
Let s∈G∗ be such that t is the matrix of s on V. Then ν(CG∗(s))=α−(a)α+(b)⋅β(n−a−b), where (a,b) are as above. Therefore, in case (i) the maximum of ν(CG∗(s)) is attained for the values of a,b as in the statement, and hence it is left to be shown that the maximum is not greater than this in cases (ii),(iii).
Suppose that n is odd. Then the maximum of α+(a)α−(b)β(n−a−b) in case (ii) and of α+(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b) in case (iii) is attained for (a′,15) or (15,b′) with a′,b′ even; in addition, α−(15)=α+(15). By swapping V1,V2 if necessary, we arrive at the case with a=15 and V1 of Witt defect 1, that is, at case (i). So
the result follows for n odd.
Let n be even. We show that case (ii) can be ignored. Indeed, the maximum of the functions
α+(a)α−(b)β(n−a−b) and α−(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b) is attained for (a,b)=(16,16) if n≡0mod4, and for (a,b)=(16,14) and (14,16),
if n≡2mod4. So the two maxima coincide.
It remains to compare the maxima of ∣Es∣ in cases (i) and (iii) for n even. In case (i), this is α−(16)α+(16)β(n−32) if n≡0mod4, and α−(16)α+(14)⋅β(n−30) if n≡2mod4.
In case (iii), ν(CG∗(s))=α+(a)α+(b)ν(CSO(W)(s′))≤α+(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b).
Suppose first that n−a−b is odd. Then β(n−a−b)=7β(n−5−a−b) if n−a−b≡1mod4 and β′(n−a−b)=77β(n−11−a−b) if n−a−b≡3mod4, see Theorem 1.2.
In the latter case, Proposition 5.8 applied to
α+(a)α+(b)β(n−11−a−b), if n−11≥32,
yields that α+(a)α+(b)β(n−11−a−b)
does not exceed the following values:
A similar statement can be written for α+(a)α+(b)β(n−5−a−b), but one observes from Theorem 1.2 that β(n−5−a−b)=β(6)β(n−11−a−b) provided n−11−a−b≥0 and n−11−a−b≡0mod4. As β(6)=11, we obtain the same values as above for the maximum of α+(a)α+(b)β(n−5−a−b).
Note that β(n−i)=5(n−i)/4 for i=40,42 above as n−i≡0mod4 in each case. (Observe that we do not apply Proposition 5.8 directly to the function α+(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b) as a+b is here odd whereas the maximum of this function with n even is attained with a+b even.)
Let n−a−b be even. Then ν(CSO(W)(s′))≤β′(n−a−b). Recall (Lemma 2.3) that
β′(n−a−b)=539⋅β(n−a−b−16) if n−a−b≡0mod4, n−a−b≥16, and 49⋅β(n−a−b−10) if n−a−b≡2mod4, n−a−b>6. So α+(a)α+(b)β′(n−a−b)=539⋅α+(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b−16) and
49⋅α+(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b−10) accordingly; by Proposition 5.6, if n−16≥18, respectively, n−10≥18 then the maximum of these functions is attained for (a,b)=(16,16) if n≡n−16≡0mod4, respectively, for (a,b)=(16,14) if n−10≡0mod4 (i.e., n≡2mod4). In fact, it suffices to record an upper bound
for the case where n−a≡0mod4 as β(n−a−b−10)=β(6)β(n−a−b−16)=11β(n−a−b−16) provided n−a−b−16≥0 and n−a−b−16≡0mod4.
Thus, if n−a−b is even then α+(a)α+(b)β′(n−a−b) does not exceed the following values:
These must be compared with α−(16)α+(16)β(n−32)=16711260⋅5(n−32)/4 if n≡0mod4, and α−(16)α+(14)β(n−30)=7465176⋅5(n−30)/4 if n≡2mod4.
For n≡0mod4 we have
α−(16)α+(16)β(n−32)=417781500β(n−40)>77α+(15)α+(14)β(n−40)=385945560β(n−40)>539α+(16)α+(16)β(n−48)=364193676β(n−40).
For n≡2mod4 we have
α−(16)α+(14)β(n−30)=933147000β(n−42)>77α+(15)α+(16)β(n−42)=863963100β(n−42)>539α+(16)α+(14)β(n−46)=813454488β(n−42). This completes the proof of the main statement.
Finally, by Lemma 4.10, the bound in Theorem 1.5 is attained, proving the additional assertion. □
Proof of Theorems1.5 and 1.1.
Theorem 1.5 follows from Theorems 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5
for q odd. For q even use Theorems 6.2, 6.3; note that the result for the group G∗=Spin2n+1(q), q even (not considered in Theorems 6.3) are identical to those for G∗=Sp2n(q) due to the comments after Lemma 2.7. Theorem 1.1
follows from Theorem 1.5 by elementary straightforward computations. □
Acknowledgement. We are very grateful to Gunter Malle for his comments on
the original manuscript which were helpful in correcting inaccuracies and improving
upon the presentation.
8. Appendix: The numerical data
Table 2: α(n),α+(n) and α−(n) for 1≤n≤43
[TABLE]
Table 3: Maxima of α(a)α(b)β(n−a−b) and α(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b) for 1≤n≤33
[TABLE]
Remark. For n≤31, the table also implies the maxima of the function α(a)α(b), for a,b such that a+b=n.
For n=32 the maximum is attained at (a,b)=(16,16) with value 80784144;
for n=33 the maximum is attained at (a,b)=(16,17) with value 118767432.
Table 4: Maxima of α+(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b) and α−(a)α+(b)β(n−a−b) for 1≤n≤33
[TABLE]
Bibliography24
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] A. Borel, Linear algebraic groups , 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991.
2[2] C. Bessenrodt and K. Ono, Maximal multiplicative properties of partitions, Annals of Combinatorics 20 (2016), Issue 1, 59–64.
3[3] W. Bosma, J. Cannon and C. Playoust, The Magma algebra system. I. The user language, J. Symbolic Comput. 24 (1997), 235–265.
4[4] R. Carter, Finite groups of Lie type: Conjugacy classes and complex characters , Wiley, Chichester, 1985 1985 1985 .
5[5] M. Cabanes and M. Enguehard, Representation theory of finite reductive groups , Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2004.
6[6] J. Conway, R. Curtis, S. Norton, R. Parker and R. Wilson, Atlas of finite groups , Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1985.
7[7] J. Dieudonné, La géométrie des groupes classiques , 3rd edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971.
8[8] F. Digne and J. Michel, Representations of finite groups of Lie type , London Math. Soc. Student Texts no. 21, Cambridge University Press, 1991.