Morita equivalence classes of blocks with elementary abelian defect groups of order 32
Cesare Giulio Ardito

TL;DR
This paper develops a classification technique for blocks of finite groups and applies it to classify Morita equivalence classes of blocks with elementary abelian defect groups of order 32, confirming a related conjecture.
Contribution
It introduces a general method for classifying blocks and applies it specifically to blocks with elementary abelian defect groups of order 32, verifying Harada's conjecture.
Findings
Classified Morita equivalence classes for the specified blocks.
Confirmed Harada's conjecture for these blocks.
Provided a new technique for block classification.
Abstract
We describe a general technique to classify blocks of finite groups, and we apply it to determine Morita equivalence classes of blocks with elementary abelian defect groups of order 32 with respect to a complete discrete valuation ring with an algebraically closed residue field of characteristic two. As a consequence we verify that a conjecture of Harada holds on these blocks.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Morita equivalence classes of blocks with elementary abelian defect groups of order
Cesare Giulio Ardito Department of Mathematics, City University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected]
Abstract
We describe a general technique to classify blocks of finite groups, and we apply it to determine Morita equivalence classes of blocks with elementary abelian defect groups of order with respect to a complete discrete valuation ring with an algebraically closed residue field of characteristic two. As a consequence we verify that a conjecture of Harada holds on these blocks.
Keywords: Donovan’s conjecture; Finite groups; Morita equivalence; Block theory; Modular representation theory.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 20C20; Secondary 16D90, 20C05.
1 Introduction
Let be a complete discrete valuation ring, with field of fractions of characteristic [math] and residue field , an algebraically closed field of characteristic . Note that and cannot both be algebraically closed, but we can assume to be large enough for all finite groups considered in this paper. The triple is usually called a -modular system.
We say that two algebras and are Morita equivalent if there is an equivalence between the categories of -modules and -modules. Given a finite group , we consider blocks of the group algebras and . Given a block of , there is a unique correspondent block of via the canonical map . Moreover, a Morita equivalence between blocks of group algebras over implies a Morita equivalence between the same blocks of the group algebras over , while the converse is not known to be true. Hence, classifying blocks over is, in general, harder than classifying blocks over .
For a -block of we consider the defect group , a -subgroup of defined up to conjugation as the unique maximal group among the vertices of the modules in the block . A -subpair is a pair where is a subgroup of and is a block of with Brauer correspondent . When , the -subpairs are all -conjugate and we write , often called a root of . The inertial quotient of is defined as , where denotes the stabilizer of in . is always a -group and, when is abelian, is nilpotent if and only if .
We denote the number of irreducible characters of in the block as , and the number of irreducible Brauer characters of in the block as . Moreover, we denote by the fusion system of given by the block (see [40, 8.1]). For a group algebra , we denote as the principal block, i.e. the one that contains the trivial character.
Donovan’s conjecture states that for each isomorphism class of a -group there is a finite number of Morita equivalence classes of blocks of finite groups with defect group . However, note that defect groups are not known to be invariant under Morita equivalence, and inertial quotients, in general, are not invariant [12]. Donovan’s conjecture has been proved over for elementary abelian -groups in [15], later generalized to abelian -groups in [19] over and in [20] over . However, the proofs do not produce an explicit list of all the classes for each fixed defect group. Our purpose is to describe the Morita equivalence classes of blocks with defect group .
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let be a finite group, and let be a block of with elementary abelian defect group of order . Then one of the following two possibilities occurs:
- )
* is Morita equivalent to the principal block of precisely one of the following groups: *
(i)
(inertial quotient )
(ii)
(i.q. )
(iii)
(i.q. )
(iv)
(i.q. )
(v)
(vi)
(i.q. )
(vii)
(i.q. )
(viii)
(i.q. )
(ix)
(i.q. )
(x)
(i.q. )
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(i.q. )
(xiv)
(i.q. )
(xv)
(i.q. )
(xvi)
(i.q. )
(xvii)
(i.q. )
(xviii)
(i.q. )
(xix)
(i.q. )
(xx)
(i.q. )
(xxi)
(i.q. )
(xxii)
(i.q. )
(xxiii)
(i.q. )
(xxiv)
(i.q. )
(xxv)
(i.q. )
(xxvi)
(i.q. )
(xxvii)
(i.q. )
(xxviii)
(i.q. )
(xxix)
(i.q. )
(xxx)
(i.q. )
(xxxi)
(i.q. )
**
- )
* is Morita equivalent to a nonprincipal block of one of the following groups (there is exactly one such Morita equivalence class for each group): *
* (a)*
(i.q. )
(b)
(i.q. )
(c)
(i.q. )
**
Moreover, if a block of for a finite group is Morita equivalent to , then the defect group of is isomorphic to .
In Section 2, we list preliminary results and some reductions that we use in the proof of the main theorem. In Section 3 we look at perfect isometries between certain blocks, which we use to extend the main theorem of [33] over . This allows us to examine blocks of groups that cover a block of a normal subgroup with index a power of two. In Section 4 we give background on crossed products and Picard groups, which allow us to examine blocks of groups that cover a block of a normal subgroup with index an odd prime, and apply this method to study some cases that arise when proving our main result. In Section 5 we prove our main theorem, list all the classes and investigate their invariants, and then verify a conjecture of Harada for these blocks.
Detailed information about each class of blocks is available on the Block Library [21].
2 Reductions and technical lemmas
Given a normal subgroup , a block of and a block of , we say that covers when . The structures of and are closely related in this case. For instance, as shown in [1, 15.1], a defect group of is the intersection of a defect group of with . This relation is the main tool that we use to obtain our classification.
As we mentioned in the introduction, two blocks and of finite groups are Morita equivalent if their module categories are equivalent. An alternative, more explicit way to define this equivalence is to say that there is a -bimodule and a -bimodule such that as -bimodules and as -bimodules. We say that the Morita equivalence is realised by and . Two blocks are basic Morita equivalent if they are Morita equivalent via an equivalence realised by bimodules with endopermutation source. Two blocks are source algebra equivalent (or Puig equivalent) if they are Morita equivalent via an equivalence realised by bimodules with trivial source. Note that each equivalence is stronger than the ones above it.
Given a finite group , a block of is said to be quasiprimitive if for any normal subgroup there is a unique block of covered by . This is equivalent, by [1, 15.1], to the requirement that is -stable under the action of by conjugation on . We can reduce to quasiprimitive blocks in many situations using the Fong-Reynolds correspondence:
Theorem 2.1** (6.8.3 [40]).**
Let be a finite group, and let be a normal subgroup of . Let be a block of and be a block of that covers . Let be the stabiliser of in acting by conjugation. Then there is a one-to-one correspondence between the blocks of that cover and the blocks of that cover , where each block is source algebra equivalent to its correspondent.
We also use the following version of Fong’s Second Reduction, used whenever covers a nilpotent block, and in particular when has a normal -subgroup.
Theorem 2.2** ([37]).**
Let be a finite group and . Let be a block of with defect group that covers a -stable nilpotent block of . Then there are finite groups such that , , there is a subgroup with and , and there is a central extension of by a -group, and a block of which is Morita equivalent to and has defect group . If is the principal block, then so is .
In particular we can assume that , and hence that is contained in a Schur representation group [29, §11] of , as otherwise we could consider a smaller group that still has a block Morita equivalent to (see also [40, 6.8.13]).
Corollary 2.3** ([17]).**
Let be a finite group, let with . Let be a quasiprimitive -block of covering a nilpotent block of . Then there is a finite group with and a block with isomorphic defect group to the one of , such that is Morita equivalent to .
Given a block of , a normal subgroup and a block of covered by , and given a chain of normal subgroups we define a block chain to be any sequence of blocks of such that covers , and .
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let be a finite group and a quasiprimitive block of with a defect group of order . Let be a normal subgroup of and let be a block of covered by . If is solvable, then is a Sylow -subgroup of .
Proof.
Since is solvable, we can consider the upper -series of [28, §6.3]:
[TABLE]
Every group in the chain is a characteristic subgroup of , and each index is either a power of or prime to . We can take a preimage of this series under and obtain:
[TABLE]
Consider the corresponding block chain given by the unique blocks of covered by , and let be the defect group of . We distinguish two cases:
- •
is prime to . Then and share a defect group, so .
- •
is a power of . Then is stable because it is -stable, and is the unique block of covering [25, 5.3.5]. Then by [1, 15.1] we have that .
Then:
[TABLE]
Since from [1, 15.1] , we are done. ∎
A block of is nilpotent covered if there exists a group and a nilpotent block of such that covers . We say that is inertial if it is basic Morita equivalent to its Brauer correspondent. The following lemma relates these two concepts.
Lemma 2.5** ([51], [63]).**
Let be a finite group and let . Let be a -block of covered by a block of . Then:
- (1)
If is inertial, then is inertial. 2. (2)
If is nilpotent covered, then is inertial. 3. (3)
If does not divide and is inertial, then is inertial. 4. (4)
If is nilpotent covered, then it has abelian inertial quotient.
Proof.
(1), (2) and (4) are respectively Theorem 3.13 and Corollary 4.3 in [51]. (3) is the main theorem of [63]. ∎
Given two finite groups and a block of , we define as the group of elements of acting as inner algebra automorphisms on . We use the following result, extracted from [31], when dealing with automorphisms of products of quasisimple groups.
Lemma 2.6** ([31], [16]).**
Let be a block of with defect group , and let such that , and a -stable block of covered by . Let be a block of covered by . Then is source algebra equivalent to , and is the unique block of that covers . In particular, if for a prime , either is the unique block that covers or is source algebra equivalent to .
Proof.
Proposition 2.2 in [31] gives the source algebra equivalence between and . By Proposition 7.8 in [47], this equivalence lifts to and . The uniqueness of follows from Theorem 3.5 in [44]. ∎
Given two groups and , every block of is of the form , where is a block of . Ordinary representation theory of central products is very similar to that of direct products, a fact that still holds for -blocks as long as the shared center is a -group.
Lemma 2.7** (7.5 [54], 1.5 [14]).**
Let be a central product of finite groups and , and let be a -block of with defect group , and the unique block of covered by , with defect group . Then:
- (1)
* is a defect group of .* 2. (2)
If has order, then is isomorphic to . 3. (3)
* is nilpotent if and only if is nilpotent for each .*
Note that this lemma can be generalized to a central product of any number of groups.
From now on, and . Blocks with cyclic defect group are classified in [1]. The classification for Klein four defect group appears, for instance, in [24], [39], [9]. The classifications for and are the main theorems of [16] and [17] respectively.
Numerical invariants for blocks with defect group have not been completely determined before this work. Nevertheless, using Brauer’s second main theorem and a result from [54] we can obtain a list of possibilities for these values, that we use to deal with certain situations in the proof of the main theorem. At the end of this paper we will know exactly what cases occur (see Proposition 5.3).
Proposition 2.8**.**
Let be a block of where is a finite group, with defect group and inertial quotient . Then one of the following holds:
- (1)
* and , .* 2. (2)
, and , . 3. (3)
, and , . 4. (4)
, and , . 5. (5)
, and , . 6. (6)
, and , or , . 7. (7)
, and , . 8. (8)
, , and , . 9. (9)
* or , , and , or , or , .* 10. (10)
, and , or , or , or , . 11. (11)
, and and or . 12. (12)
, and .
Proof.
Since is abelian, the inertial quotient is a subgroup of . First, we give a classification of the subgroups of odd order of , which gives us all the possibilities for the isomorphism class of and its action on .
An explicit computation (using Magma [6]) gives the following diagram. We write if there is a subgroup such that , acts on in the same way as does, and is a prime. We write if there is a subgroup as above, except that it is not normal.
[TABLE]
We distinguish the two different actions of and (corresponding to two pairs of distinct conjugacy classes in ) as follows: we denote by the action on such that , and we denote by the action such that : the generator of this subgroup is the th power of the Singer cycle in . Similarly, we denote by the action on such that , or equivalently the one such that the subgroup acts as . We denote by the other one, where and acts as . We have shown that can only be as specified in the statement of the theorem.
Whenever , we can use Proposition 16 in [55] and immediately obtain our claims. This proves cases (1)-(8).
From Proposition 21 in [55], we have that . Now we use the same argument as in [38, 2.1]. A subsection is defined as where and is a block of such that is a -subpair. Whenever there is a nontrivial subsection such that then is a sum of odd squares of integers, which implies that . In particular, such a subsection always exists when is abelian [53, 1.2]. Since is abelian, is a controlled block, meaning that the fusion system . So to compute subsections it is enough to consider a set of representatives of the orbits of under the action of in the group . Recall that from Brauer’s second main theorem , so in particular . To determine for various subsections, we use cases (1)-(8). We proceed:
- (9)
If is abelian, then there are four subsections , , , with , , . So and our claim is proved.
If is not abelian, there are four subsections , , , with , , . In particular, there is a subsection of length so . Now and we are done. 2. (10)
In this case is abelian and there are only two subsections, and , with . So and we are done. 3. (11)
In this case there are four subsections , , , with or (we are in case (6) here), , , hence or and we are done. 4. (12)
In this case there are only two subsections, and , with . So and we are done. ∎
The proof of our main theorem is based on studying blocks of chains of normal subgroups, and as the starting case we have blocks of quasisimple groups with an (elementary) abelian defect group, which have been completely classified in [15]. For the reader’s convenience, we extract the quasisimple groups relevant for our case from the main result.
Proposition 2.9** ([15]).**
Let be a quasisimple group, and let be a block of with defect group contained in . Then at least one of the following occurs:
- (1)
* is the principal block, is simple and , , , or with .* 2. (2)
* is the unique nonprincipal block of with defect group .* 3. (3)
* is Morita equivalent to a block with an isomorphic defect group of where is a subgroup of such that is abelian and the block of covered by has defect group . In this case, is of type or .* 4. (4)
* and has defect group .* 5. (5)
* is nilpotent covered. In this case, if is not nilpotent then is of type or where is a power of an odd prime.*
Proof.
With the exception of the second claim of (5), the result follows from Theorem 6.1 and Proposition 5.3 of [15] (see also 4.1 in [19]) and the fact that all the Schur multipliers of the groups listed in (1) and (2) are trivial, and so in those cases is actually simple. The second claim of (5) is implied by Lemma 4.2 and Proposition 5.4 in [15], since in the proof of Theorem 6.1 the only case in which is nilpotent covered but not nilpotent is when the hypotheses of Proposition 5.4 are satisfied.∎
3 -local systems
When classifying Morita equivalence classes of blocks over , the main theorem of [33] is a crucial result. We state it for the reader’s benefit:
Theorem 3.1**.**
Let such that is a power of . Let be a block of and let be the unique block of that covers . If has an abelian defect group that admits a decomposition , then . In particular, is Morita equivalent to the block of .
One of the main obstacles that we face is that this theorem does not immediately generalise to blocks defined over . To circumvent this issue, we use a result of Watanabe. We denote the Broué-Puig construction [7] by :
Lemma 3.2** ([61]).**
Let such that is a power of . Let be a block of that is covered by a block of and also -stable. Suppose that , a defect group of , decomposes as , and let . Let be a root of in , and let . Suppose that there exists a perfect isometry between and , with the following property:
[TABLE]
Then B\cong\mathcal{O}Q\otimes_{\mathcal{O}}b\text{\quad(as \mathcal{O}-algebras)}.
To ascertain the existence of this perfect isometry and replicate Theorem 3.1 for blocks defined over , we use the theory of -local systems, developed in [49] (see also [58]).
Let be a block of with defect group and inertial quotient . Let be its Brauer correspondent in : by the main result of [35], is Morita equivalent to a twisted group algebra of . Following [58, 1.2], we can construct a specific -central extension of (defined explicitly in [49, 2.4]), put and get a twisted group algebra that is in the same Morita equivalence class of . By [58, 1.2], there are a finite subgroup and a block idempotent of such that , so we can consider as a block algebra. This twisted group algebra can also be defined over (and hence over ) [48, 5.12].
Some notation: denotes the generalised character group of (note the asterisk: every time subgroups of appear, we are considering characters in the twisted group algebra, considered as a block). denotes the kernel of the restriction map . We use analogous definitions for , writing instead of .
The precise definition of a -local system [49] is very technical, and we omit it for brevity. We are interested in the fact that, given an upwardly closed -stable set of subgroups of , the existence of a -local system implies the existence of a collection of perfect isometries for each :
[TABLE]
that satisfy for any , . Note that in particular, if (and hence contains all subgroups of ), is a perfect isometry between and that respects the Broué-Puig construction. Then we can apply the same argument to in the context of Lemma 3.2, which determines the same twisted group algebra . Composing the isometries allows to satisfy the hypothesis of Lemma 3.2.
In [49], Puig and Usami define an inductive process that enables us to verify the existence of a -local system defined over the set of all subgroups of . We describe it briefly. Let be an upwardly closed -stable set of subgroups of on which a -local system exists, and consider a maximal subgroup that is not contained in . Note that when there is always a -local system by [49, 3.4.2]. For any such that , let denote the quotient , and for a block of let denote the corresponding block of .
From [49, 3.7], there is a bijective isometry induced by the -local system on :
[TABLE]
We have the following lemma:
Lemma 3.3** (3.11, [49]).**
With the notations above, a -local system on can be extended to a -local system on if and only if can be extended to an -stable bijective isometry:
[TABLE]
To prove Theorem 1.1, we need to show the existence of -local systems for blocks of with defect group and inertial quotient whose action on has at least a fixed point. From Proposition 2.8, this means that we are interested in blocks with inertial quotient that is cyclic, or , or . The cyclic case has been done in [62]. The PhD thesis from which this paper is extracted contains detailed computations of each case, but here we include a shorter proof that uses GAP [26], a method originally described in [2].
Proposition 3.4**.**
Let be a finite group and be a block of with defect group and inertial quotient (as denoted in Proposition 2.8). Then there is a -local system on the set of all subgroups of .
Proof.
The strategy is to proceed with an inductive argument on , an upwardly closed -stable set of subgroups of . As a base case, when , a -local system on exists by [49, 3.4.2]. Now suppose that there is a -local system on , and let be a subgroup of maximal with respect to the property . We consider , and prove that the isometry can always be extended to an -stable isometry. Then Lemma 3.3 proves the result.
Keeping the notation of Lemma 3.3, put and . We can automize the computation of all extensions of a given , as follows: let . We fix a basis of , and define the -matrix , where . Then . Finding an extension of is equivalent to finding a solution of the equation with rows, as each fixed solution determines equations , where , and hence allows to define the extension . Any time the solution is unique up to permutations and signs of rows, -stability will be automatically guaranteed. All solutions can be computed by running the command OrthogonalEmbeddings on in GAP [26].
We summarize: we need to apply Lemma 3.3 at each induction step, so we need to build an -stable extension of a given isometry . For each in which is cyclic we use the main theorem of [62] to say that can be extended. Otherwise, we choose a basis of , compute the matrix and run the command OrthogonalEmbeddings on , and determine an extension of . Then, in each case we need to show that this extension is -stable.
Suppose that . From Proposition 2.8, either , or , . Let where . From Theorem 1 in [60], , and from Theorem 1.22 in [54] . Since is determined locally and , then determines the same group as . Then, from the classification in [17], the central extension is split if and only if . Otherwise, and is not split. Since is a direct factor of , this implies that if and only if splits, and otherwise.
- ()
First we investigate the situation with . In this case, (see [57, 10.4]) where . Then:
- •
Suppose that . Then is nilpotent and there is a unique extension , defined in [49, 4.4].
- •
Suppose that . Then has cyclic inertial quotient, so by the main theorem of [62] there is an extension . if , and hence -stability is automatic. Otherwise, , and acts trivially on . We want to show that also fixes every element in ; equivalently, we need to show that acts trivially on . We use an argument based on [49, 4.9]:
Suppose that does not act trivially: For any the induced character is an irreducible Brauer character. Since , there is just one isomorphism class of simple -modules.
Now suppose that acts trivially. Since is cyclic, then each can be extended to a Brauer character of , and the induced character is the sum of three irreducible Brauer characters: hence, there are exactly nine isomorphism classes of simple -modules. So the number of simple -modules is either or , and this is determined by the action of on .
From Lemma 3.14 in [49], there is a bijection that preserves defect groups and inertial quotients between blocks of and blocks of that cover . In particular, in our case always has three blocks with three simple modules each, so in our situation also has nine simple modules: therefore, acts trivially on . In particular, is -stable.
- •
Suppose that . Then either (in which case ) or . From Theorem 1 in [60], , , and therefore, when , and . The GAP program shows that in each case there is a unique solution with (when ) or (when ) irreducible characters, which defines an extension . Since , it is automatically -stable.
- ()
Suppose that . Then the central extension does not split, and we have , where , and is a nonprincipal block of . Note that it does not matter whether we pick the central extension or nor which nonprincipal block we choose, because all these blocks are all Morita equivalent by the classification in [17].
- •
Suppose that . Then is nilpotent and there is a unique extension , defined in [49, 4.4].
- •
Suppose that . Then has cyclic inertial quotient, so by the main theorem of [62] there is an extension . As in case (A), we need to show -stability whenever . We use an identical strategy, except that in this case we have to consider the situation of not acting trivially on , which determines the number of simple -modules to be . We can always choose the extension in a way that agrees with the action of on and , which implies -stability by Lemma 3.14 in [49].
- •
Suppose that . Then either (in which case ) or . From Theorem 1 in [60], , , and therefore, when , and . GAP shows that in each case there is a unique solution with (when ) or (when ) irreducible characters, which defines an extension . Since , it is automatically -stable.
Suppose that . From Proposition 2.8, and . We have (again from [57, 10.4]) where . Let where . Note that, while a priori , if then . So we only have to consider three possibilities for .
- •
Suppose that . Then is nilpotent and there is a unique extension , defined in [49, 4.4].
- •
Suppose that . Then has cyclic inertial quotient, so by the main theorem of [62] there is an extension . In this case note that , so since does not centralise then , so is automatically -stable.
- •
Suppose that . Then . From Proposition 2.8, . In each case GAP shows that there is a unique solution with the appropriate number of irreducible characters, which defines an extension that is automatically -stable since . ∎
Proposition 3.5**.**
Let be a finite group and let be a block of with defect group and inertial quotient such that . Suppose that there is with and let be the unique block of covered by . Let with . Then is Morita equivalent to the block of .
Proof.
Whenever is cyclic of order , , or , Proposition 2.8 implies that . Then the main theorem of [62] shows that there is a -local system on the set of all subgroups of . When or , there is a local system on as shown in Proposition 3.4.
In particular in each case we have a perfect isometry
[TABLE]
that respects the -construction.
We consider and : this block also has defect group and inertial quotient , and since , and hence , it determines the same twisted group algebra as . Again by the results above, there is a -local system, which gives perfect isometry
[TABLE]
that respects the -construction.
Now is a perfect isometry that respects the -construction, so we can apply Lemma 3.2. We are done. ∎
4 Crossed products and Picard groups
We recall the key concepts from [36]. Given a finite group and a ring with identity , is a -graded ring if there is a decomposition as additive subgroups such that , and is a subring of containing .
A -graded ring is said to be a crossed product of with if for any , contains at least one unit. We call two -graded rings and weakly equivalent if there is an isomorphism of rings such that for all . Moreover, we say they are equivalent if restricts to the identity map on .
A key result from Külshammer’s article is a characterization of all the possible crossed products of a given ring and a group :
Theorem 4.1**.**
The equivalence classes of crossed products of a ring with a group are parametrized by pairs , where is a homomorphism whose corresponding -cocycle in the sense of [36] in vanishes, and where the action of on is induced by . Moreover, weak equivalence classes of crossed products correspond to orbits of on the set of possible .
Given a Morita equivalence class we consider a canonical representative of it: a basic algebra. It is well known that two Morita equivalent algebras have isomorphic basic algebras, and that any algebra is Morita equivalent to its basic algebra. This is compatible with the crossed product structure, as the following lemma shows.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let be a finite group, with a prime . Let . Let a block of that covers a -stable block of , and let be a basic idempotent of , i.e. an idempotent such that is a basic algebra of . Then is a crossed product of with , and is Morita equivalent to .
Proof.
The group algebra is a crossed product of and . Since is -stable, is also a crossed product of with . The first claim now follows from Proposition 4.15 in [23], as for two basic idempotents and of the property holds since basic idempotents are in the same orbit under conjugation by units of .
Recall that for an algebra and an idempotent , and are Morita equivalent if and only if [57, 9.9]. Since and are Morita equivalent, , hence:
[TABLE]
∎
To apply Theorem 4.1, in principle we need to determine for each block . Instead, we adopt a different point of view. We give the relevant definitions:
Recall that two algebras and are Morita equivalent if and only if there is an --bimodule and a --bimodule such that and . The Picard group of a block , denoted by , is the group of --bimodules that induce a self-Morita equivalence of , where the group operation is given by the tensor product. We are interested in the subgroups , where is defined as the subgroup of all the bimodules in with trivial source, and as the subgroup of all bimodules with endopermutation source. By [22], is always a finite group. The following result, extracted from the main theorem of [5], gives an upper bound for the size of these subgroups.
Lemma 4.3** ([5]).**
Let be a finite group, and let be a block of with abelian defect group and inertial quotient . Let be the fusion system on determined by . Let , and be as defined above. Then there are exact sequences:
[TABLE]
where is a source algebra of , is the group of algebra automorphisms of which fix the image of in elementwise, is the quotient of by the subgroup of inner automorphisms induced by elements in , is the subgroup of -stable modules of the Dade group of over and . Moreover, is isomorphic to a subgroup of .
By definition, for two Morita equivalent blocks and , . When we have stronger equivalences, we can say more. By definition, if two blocks and are source algebra equivalent, as defined in Section , then . Similarly, a basic Morita equivalence between and implies that .
In the proof of our result we use the following information about Picard groups.
Proposition 4.4**.**
For a block of with defect group , the following holds:
- (1)
If , then .
- (2)
If , then .
- (3)
If , then , and any maximal odd order subgroup is isomorphic to .
- (4)
If , then , and any maximal odd order subgroup is isomorphic to .
- (5)
If , then , and any maximal odd order subgroup is isomorphic to .
- (6)
The unique maximal odd order subgroup of is isomorphic to .
Moreover, let be a finite abelian -group. Then:
- (7)
.
- (8)
.
Proof.
Cases (1) and (2) follow from Lemma 5.2 and Theorem 4.6 in [18] respectively. From the main theorem on [42], in cases (3) and (5) . Moreover in case (4) , using Corollary 4.5 in [18] and direct inspection of the character table of . Now we use a technique from the proof of Theorem 4.7 of [18], which in turn uses the main theorem of [5], to compute these trivial source Picard groups using the exact sequence from Proposition 4.3.
We compute using Lemma 2.3 in [18] and the information in [18] on the outer automorphism groups of source algebras. Further, by Lemma 2.1 in [18] we have an identification . Then:
- (3)
We have that and . Therefore, by case (e) of Theorem 4.7 in [18] we have a semidirect product of and and we are done.
- (4)
We have that , and . Hence, we are done.
- (5)
We have that and . Hence, we are done.
- (6)
From [13] (see also [27, 5.2]), any finite subgroup of is a -group, so by Proposition 4.3 any subgroup of odd order of is contained in . We compute , and , so we are done.
Cases (7) and (8) are immediate from Theorem 4.6 in [18]. ∎
Method 4.5**.**
We detail our method and the context in which it applies: let be a finite group and be a block of with defect group . Suppose that there is with odd (so is solvable) and that covers a -stable block of . Moreover, suppose that , and that where the map is given by acting by conjugation on . Note that, since is odd, and share a defect group.
Let be a basic idempotent for . From Lemma 4.2, is Morita equivalent to , which is a crossed product of with . Let be the homomorphism that corresponds to the crossed product weak equivalence class of as in Theorem 4.1, obtained as the composition of:
[TABLE]
where we define the elements as follows:
- ()
We define as the subgroup , where we extend linearly to . Since the block idempotent of is central in , each inner automorphism of fixes , so the action of any automorphism in the coset does not depend on the choice of the representative.
- ()
For a coset , we fix a representative . Let be defined as , and let to be the coset of in . If we choose a different representative then, since for some , , so the coset in does not depend on the choice of and is well defined. Note that, since is -stable, in our situation .
- ()
For a coset , choose a representative , and let be the automorphism obtained extending linearly. Since , we define to be the coset in of the restriction of to . Recall that inner automorphisms of induce inner automorphisms of : in fact, for , we can consider the decomposition of into blocks, and hence the element . Then is well defined.
- ()
For , we define the --bimodule as follows: as sets, and for . From [11, 55.11], since inner automorphisms give isomorphic bimodules, the map defined as gives an embedding of in .
Note that and are always injective maps, and since we assumed that so is . Then we can identify with a subgroup of that has odd order.
For any we have an induced action given by conjugation, and a corresponding . Since is a direct summand of the permutation --bimodule , then . Therefore, . Hence, a priori we should examine only the possibilities for that correspond to elements in . However, in most cases we will only know up to Morita equivalence, and therefore will not be well-determined since it is not invariant under Morita equivalences in general (and in fact not even for nilpotent blocks, as seen in [5, 7.2]): when given an arbitrary block Morita equivalent to a block , a priori we can only say that . However, if the equivalence is basic then we can say that , and a source algebra equivalence preserves .
The solvability of allows us to consider a chain of subnormal subgroups:
[TABLE]
such that is prime, and a block chain of such that covers , with . Since is odd, they all share a defect group. We assume that each , as this will hold in all cases that arise in our proof.
From Lemma 4.2, is Morita equivalent to a crossed product of with , and the weak crossed product equivalence class is specified by a pair as in Theorem 4.1. As detailed in [17, §3] (using [36] and [40, 1.2.10]) the group whenever is cyclic, so weak equivalence classes of crossed products of and are classified by just orbits of possible whose induced -cocycle in the sense of [36] vanishes.
In the following we will actually consider each possibility for specified by without checking the additional requirement of the induced -cocycle vanishing: the existence of examples of blocks of finite groups whose crossed product structure induces in each case will imply, post hoc, that the induced -cocycle indeed vanishes.
For each possible , we find an example of groups that realise it, and list all those classes. We then move to the next group extension, . In each case that we will examine, is either cyclic of prime order, , , or : in the last four cases, having classified crossed products of with or is not enough, and we need to proceed further. Since , we know this group up to isomorphism, but we do not know how this quotient acts on , i.e. its embedding in . This is not merely a technical issue, as the interplay between the subgroup identified with a quotient of a subgroup of odd order of and its embedding in is a reason that a cocycle in addition to is needed to identify the crossed product in Theorem 4.1. To examine these cases, we use two different techniques:
- •
When , from [30, 5.5.i] the group , so we can still use the argument in [17, §3] and consider each crossed product of with directly just as we did for the cyclic case.
- •
In each situation in which , or occur among the possibilities for , we are able to compute the maximal odd order subgroups of , and hence to list all possible embeddings. Again we find examples that realise each possibility, and then proceed until the process terminates.
Note that a priori if for a prime , then there are different crossed product weak equivalence classes for : however, once a group with index and a block that realises any of the nontrivial crossed products is found, it is also a realisation of all the other nontrivial crossed products. In fact, if for a fixed generator of , then . If we pick any other homomorphism with then for some it holds that , and since then realises .
In many cases, we use the groups , since the former has a block Morita equivalent to covered by a nilpotent block of the latter. Further, we use the construction in [51, 4.4] to produce examples of blocks covered by a block with a smaller inertial quotient, which consists in taking central extensions by a cyclic group and looking at nonprincipal blocks. For instance, the group has six nilpotent blocks, and each of them covers blocks with inertial quotient of any maximal normal subgroup of index .
In order to prove our main result, we need to examine the possible Morita equivalence classes of blocks that cover specific classes of blocks. Throughout this section, we use the labelling of classes introduced in Theorem 1.1.
Proposition 4.6**.**
Let be a finite group and be a quasiprimitive block of with defect group . Suppose that there is with odd, and that covers a block of . Moreover, suppose that and that .
- (I)
If is Morita equivalent to (ii), then is Morita equivalent to one of (i), (ii), (iv), (vi), (viii), (xiii), (xvii), (xx), (xxiv), (a), (b). 2. (II)
If is Morita equivalent to (iii), then is Morita equivalent to one of (iii), (ix), (xiv), (xxv).
Proof.
We apply Method 4.5. is known in both cases from Proposition 4.4.
- (I)
, and is a maximal subgroup of odd order. Note that from [18] we also know the action of on the modules of , which is invariant by Morita equivalence. Let be the homomorphism given by the action of permuting the three simple modules of . Note that either or .
Consider a chain of normal subgroups of length where , and the corresponding block chain . Note that since is isomorphic to a subgroup of .
The block is Morita equivalent to a crossed product of the basic algebra of with : let be the homomorphism that specifies it in the sense of Theorem 4.1. There are four nontrivial possibilities for , which give the following Morita equivalence classes for :
- (1)
, and is Morita equivalent to (xiii), realised when . 2. (2)
, and is Morita equivalent to (viii), realised when . 3. (3)
, and is Morita equivalent to (i), realised when and . 4. (4)
, and is Morita equivalent to (a), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index .
In cases and the simple modules of are not fixed by the action of , so and hence .
For the other two cases, we consider , and the corresponding :
- (1)
Note that , so . Then . From Proposition 4.4 the image of in is contained in , so there are three possible embeddings of in , which produce the following Morita equivalence classes for :
- •
(xxiv), realised when .
- •
(xvii), realised when .
- •
(b), realised when , and is a maximal subgroup of with index .
In the last two cases the simple modules of are not stabilised by the action of , so and hence and .
In the first case note that since . If , clearly , so . From Proposition 4.4, contains a unique maximal subgroup isomorphic to , so there are again three possible embeddings of in , which determine the following Morita equivalence classes for :
- •
(xiii), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index .
- •
(xvii), realised when .
- •
(xx), realised when .
Note that, actually, the first one cannot occur as then stabilises the simple modules of , but if then . We have exhausted all the possibilities. 2. (2)
From Proposition 4.4 the unique maximal subgroup of odd order of is isomorphic to , so we can assume that , and there are three possible embeddings of in , which determine the following Morita equivalence classes for :
- •
For two distinct embeddings, is Morita equivalent to (ii), realised when . If , we are done. Otherwise and the possibilities for are the same as the ones determined in cases (2)-(4).
- •
is Morita equivalent to (iv), realised as a crossed product111The group does not have a normal subgroup with a block Morita equivalent to , so this group cannot actually appear in our chain. However, we are looking at all possible crossed products between and , and this group provides an example of one class: it possibly not occurring does not hinder our classification purpose. Whenever this happens, we say that the class is realised as a crossed product. when . Moreover, because the simple modules of are not stabilised by the action of . 2. (II)
From Proposition 4.4, , which contains as a maximal subgroup of odd order. We consider as a crossed product of with . For each isomorphism type of there is a unique embedding in , and we have the following possibilities, for the Morita equivalence class of :
- •
If , then is Morita equivalent to (xiv), realised when .
- •
If , then is Morita equivalent to (ix), realised when .
- •
If then is Morita equivalent to (xxv), realised when .
∎
In our proof, we need to look at blocks covering a block of a central product of two quasisimple groups whose Picard group is, at the moment, unknown. In these situations we use the group structure to reduce to a known subgroup of the Picard group, but in the following specific case we can prove a stronger result using Clifford theory. In this situation is a subgroup of odd order of the outer automorphism group of the central product of up to two quasisimple groups, in which case the supersolvability hypothesis is a consequence of the classification of finite simple groups (see [8]).
Proposition 4.7**.**
Let be a finite group and be a quasiprimitive block of with defect group . Suppose that there is with odd, that is supersolvable, and that covers a -stable block of . Suppose that and . If is Morita equivalent to (x), then is source algebra equivalent to .
Proof.
Since is supersolvable, we can consider a chain of normal subgroups , with prime indices, and a corresponding block chain where each block covers the ones below it. Note that they all share a defect group, and that each . Consider the action of on by conjugation.
Let , an odd prime. From Lemma 2.6, either is source algebra equivalent to or is the unique block covering . Suppose the latter: , and from the decomposition matrix of we know that, if we consider the character of each projective cover of the simple modules, there are: one with irreducible constituents, four with and four with . Any automorphism of the block preserves the number of irreducible constituents: hence, if is the unique block covering and then fixes every simple module, which implies that . This is a contradiction to Proposition 2.8 since for any block with defect group . If , since , from Lemma 4.11 in [43] or . First, note that is a contradiction to Proposition 2.8. Now either every simple -module is fixed, so (again a contradiction), or there is one orbit of length and six fixed characters, which gives (again a contradiction), or there are two orbits of length and fixed characters, which gives (again a contradiction). Since we know that there is at least one fixed simple -module, there cannot be three orbits of length .
Therefore, is source algebra equivalent to . Since is quasiprimitive and , is -stable. We can now repeat the argument for any other intermediate block (replacing with , and with ) and compose the equivalences to obtain that is source algebra equivalent to . ∎
Proposition 4.8**.**
Let be a finite group and be a quasiprimitive block of with defect group . Suppose that there are , with and odd, and that covers -stable blocks of (so also covers the block of ). If and , then:
- (I)
If is Morita equivalent to , and is Morita equivalent to where , then is Morita equivalent to one of (i), (ii), (iv), (viii), (a). 2. (II)
If is Morita equivalent to and is Morita equivalent to where , then is Morita equivalent to one of (iii), (ix). 3. (III)
If each is Morita equivalent to where , then can only be Morita equivalent to , i.e. (x). 4. (IV)
If is Morita equivalent to and is Morita equivalent to , then is Morita equivalent to one of (i), (ii), (iv), (vi), (viii), (xiii), (xvii), (xx), (xxiv), (a), (b). 5. (V)
If is Morita equivalent to and is Morita equivalent to , then is Morita equivalent to one of (iii), (ix), (xiv), (xxv). 6. (VI)
If is Morita equivalent to and is Morita equivalent to , then is Morita equivalent to one of (xiii), (xvii), (xxiv), (b). 7. (VII)
If is Morita equivalent to and is Morita equivalent to , then is Morita equivalent to one of (xiv), (xxv).
Proof.
We use Method 4.5, with the following improvement: since the action of by conjugation stabilises both and , the image of through is always contained in the subgroup of , which is then contained in . In each case, we denote the unique maximal subgroup of odd order of this image in as , which controls all the possibilities that can occur for . Let . In each case we pick a chain of normal subgroups and consider the corresponding block chain.
- (I)
In this case , so . Let be the homomorphism given by the action of permuting the three simple modules of . Note that either or . Consider a chain of normal subgroups of length such that if then , and the corresponding block chain . Note that . Then since we have the following possibilities for the Morita equivalence class of :
- (1)
(ii), realised when , and . 2. (2)
(ii), realised when , and . 3. (3)
(iv), realised when and .
In cases (2) and (3) the simple modules of are permuted transitively, so and . In case (1) , we have that , and from Proposition 4.3 there are three possible embeddings of in a subgroup of , which give the same possibilities as in cases (I.2,3,4) in Proposition 4.6. 2. (II)
In this case and , so . Then there is a unique possibility for the Morita equivalence class of : (iii), realised when . 3. (III)
This case is implied by the stronger result in Proposition 4.7. Note that our technique also works in this special situation, since , a -group, hence . 4. (IV)
In this case and . Hence . Let be the homomorphism given by the action of permuting the three simple modules of , and note that if then . Consider a chain of normal subgroups of length where, if , , and the corresponding block chain. Note that . We have the following possibilities for and the Morita equivalence class of :
- (1)
, and is Morita equivalent to (ii), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index . 2. (2)
, and is Morita equivalent to (xxiv), realised when . 3. (3)
, and is Morita equivalent to (xiii), realised when . 4. (4)
, and is Morita equivalent to (xx), realised when .
Note that in cases (3) and (4) the simple modules of are permuted by , so and . For the other two cases, we consider and :
- (a)
In this situation since we have that , and also . In particular the cases that can occur here are a subset of the cases already examined in Proposition 4.6, so we are done. 2. (b)
By inspection of all possible chains of normal subgroups with prime indices, in this case , and hence . From Proposition 4.3 there are three possible embeddings of in , as the image of is contained in the unique maximal subgroup of odd order . So we have the following possibilities for the Morita equivalence class of :
- •
(xvii), realised when .
- •
(xx), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index .
- •
(xiii), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index .
Note that actually the last case cannot occur, as it implies , but then the chain cannot have length two with . 5. (V)
In this case and , so . We have the following possibilities for and the Morita equivalence class of .
- (1)
, and is Morita equivalent to (iii), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of N_{1}\text{ with index 7.} 2. (2)
, and is Morita equivalent to (xxv), realised when . 3. (3)
, and is Morita equivalent to (ix). We are unable to realise this crossed product with a direct example of a chain of three groups, but if we suppose that then is as in case (1) above. Since from Proposition 4.4 admits a unique embedding of then (ix) is the unique possibility for the Morita equivalence class of . 6. (VI)
In this case and , so . As before, let be the homomorphism given by the action of permuting the three simple modules of , and note that either or . Consider a chain of normal subgroups of length where, when , , and consider the corresponding block chain. Note that . We have the following possibilities for and the Morita equivalence class of :
- (1)
(xiii), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index . 2. (2)
(xvii), realised when . 3. (3)
(xx), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index
In cases (2) and (3) the simple modules of are permuted by the action of , so and . In case (1) and clearly . From Proposition 4.3, contains a unique subgroup isomorphic to , and hence there are three possible embeddings of in , which give the following possibilities for the Morita equivalence class of :
- •
(vi), realised when .
- •
(b), realised as a crossed product when .
- •
(xxiv), realised as a crossed product when .
Note that the last case cannot occur, as it implies , in which case the chain cannot have length two with . 7. (VII)
In this case and , so . Then , and is Morita equivalent to (xiv), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index . ∎
The next lemma deals with situations in which the initial block is again a block of the direct product of two normal subgroups, but now one of the groups is fixed up to isomorphism.
Proposition 4.9**.**
*Let be a finite group and be a quasiprimitive block of with defect group . Suppose that there are , with and odd, and suppose that covers -stable blocks of , so also covers the block of . Suppose that and .
Suppose that is isomorphic to or for some , and is the principal block, or that is isomorphic to and is the unique nonprincipal block with defect group . Then either is Morita equivalent to or one of the following occurs:*
- (I)
If and is nilpotent then is Morita equivalent to one of (vii), (xv), (xix), (xxi), (xxviii), (c). 2. (II)
If and is Morita equivalent to , then is Morita equivalent to one of (vii), (xv), (xix), (xxi), (xxviii), (c). 3. (III)
If and is Morita equivalent to , then is Morita equivalent to one of (xvi), (xxix). 4. (IV)
If or and is nilpotent, then is Morita equivalent to one of (xix), (xxviii). 5. (V)
If or , and is Morita equivalent to , then is Morita equivalent to one of (xix), (xxviii). 6. (VI)
If or , and is Morita equivalent to , then is Morita equivalent to (xxix). 7. (VII)
If and is nilpotent then is Morita equivalent to one of (xviii), (xxvi). 8. (VIII)
If and is Morita equivalent to then is Morita equivalent to one of (xviii), (xxvi). 9. (IX)
If and is Morita equivalent to then is Morita equivalent to (xxvii).
Proof.
We use the same method as in Proposition 4.8, plus knowledge of the outer automorphism groups of the various possibilities for .
Some Picard groups are known from [18]: from Proposition 5.3 and 5.4 in [18] , and . From [34, 1.5] and [46, 3.3], the unique nonprincipal block of that has defect group and the principal blocks of and are Morita equivalent.
In each case we consider a chain of normal subgroups of length with and , and the corresponding block chain . Since the first component is known up to isomorphism, it is enough to look at , instead of the Picard group of . The Picard group of in each case controls the number of possibilities for and, hence, for nontrivial crossed products. Again, as in Proposition 4.8, since the action by stabilises both and , we only need to consider the subgroup (see 4.5), which is controlled by . In each case, we denote the unique maximal subgroup of odd order of this subgroup of as .
- (I)
If and is Morita equivalent to then . We distinguish two situations: if , then is a crossed product of with , and there are three possible embeddings in , which identify the following possibilities for :
- •
(xv), realised when .
- •
(xix), realised when .
- •
(xxi), realised when .
Otherwise, . Then we consider the group , where . Now we can repeat the argument above for to obtain that the maximal subgroup of odd order of that we need to consider is , since . Since is a crossed product of with , again we have three possible embeddings of in and the following possibilities:
- •
(vii), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index .
- •
(xxviii), realised when .
- •
(c), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index . 2. (II)
If and is Morita equivalent to then . We repeat the argument as in the previous case, distinguishing two situations: if , then there are three possibilities for :
- •
(xxviii), realised when .
- •
(vii), realised when .
- •
(c), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index .
Otherwise, and we consider , where , and repeat the argument for to obtain that . Hence, there are again three possible embeddings of in , which determine the following possibilities for :
- •
(xv), realised when and is a maximal subgroup of with index .
- •
(xix), realised when .
- •
(xxi), realised when . 3. (III)
If and is Morita equivalent to then . Then , so and there is only one nontrivial possibility for the embedding of in , which corresponds to being Morita equivalent to (xxix).
From [59] , and the degrees of irreducible characters of the principal block occur with multiplicity or , which implies that if then every automorphism of acts as an inner automorphism on . Hence, in our situation . Moreover, , and . So we can limit our analysis to the subgroup in the next cases.
- (IV)
If , for any or , and is nilpotent, then . Then and there is only one nontrivial possibility for the embedding of in , which gives Morita equivalent to (xxviii), realised when . 2. (V)
If , for any or , and is Morita equivalent to , then . Then and there is only one nontrivial possibility for the embedding of in , which gives Morita equivalent to (xix), realised when . 3. (VI)
If , for any or , and is Morita equivalent to , then , so . 4. (VII)
If and is Morita equivalent to then , so . Then , and there is only one nontrivial possibility for the Morita equivalence class of : (xxvi), realised when . 5. (VIII)
If and is Morita equivalent to then , so . Then , and there is only one nontrivial possibility for the Morita equivalence class of : (xviii), realised when . 6. (IX)
If and is Morita equivalent to then , so , so . ∎
In Method 4.5, we assume that , and the reason is that we can always reduce to this situation. Suppose we are in the situation of Method 4.5, except without the hypothesis . Recall the definition of in Section 2: we define as the group of elements acting as inner automorphisms on the block of . Then via the canonical map . We identify with .
From Proposition 2.6 there is a unique block of that is source algebra equivalent to . So in general we can consider and instead of and and apply Method 4.5 (since and ) to obtain all possible Morita equivalence classes for . However, in Proposition 4.8 and 4.9 we have used the group structure to reduce to particular subgroups of : to generalize these arguments we need to show that when the kernel is nontrivial we can still apply the propositions.
Lemma 4.10**.**
Let be a finite group and be a quasiprimitive block of with defect group . Suppose that there are , with and of odd order, and suppose that covers -stable blocks of , so also covers the block of . Suppose that . Then, for each fixed pair of Morita equivalence classes of listed in cases I-VII of Proposition 4.8 and cases I-IX of Proposition 4.9, the Morita equivalence class of is still among the ones listed in that same case in Proposition 4.8 or Proposition 4.9.
Proof.
We use the notation of Method 4.5. Let . Since each is a normal subgroup of , is contained in . We consider the maps defined in the same way as in Method 4.5, and the map , obtained by extending each to such that when . Since , it is immediate that . In particular then can be seen as a subgroup of , via injective maps again defined as in Method 4.5. Note, however, that the map is not injective in general, as now .
If we define to be the unique block of covered by and covering then from Lemma 2.6 is source algebra equivalent to . Then in particular , and . Further, we can define maps , and replacing with in the definitions of . Since , is still injective, and is also injective by definition of . Finally, is injective by definition. Further, repeating the argument above , and this time is injective.
Hence, we can apply Proposition 4.8 or Proposition 4.9 (as appropriate), replacing and with and , and obtain the same possibilities for the Morita equivalence class of since from the discussion above, and hence we can replicate the proofs of both propositions. ∎
Corollary 4.11**.**
The nonprincipal blocks of and are all Morita equivalent. 2. 2.
The nonprincipal blocks of and with simple modules are all Morita equivalent. 3. 3.
The nonprincipal blocks of and with simple modules are all Morita equivalent.
Proof.
This is immediate by considering in each case a maximal subgroup of index and a block covered by of :
The claim immediately follows from [17, 3.3]. 2. 2.
If we consider , it is a normal subgroup of both groups and listed, and it has only three blocks, all Morita equivalent to . Since and satisfy the hypothesis of Proposition 4.8, there is only one possible Morita equivalence class for with simple modules. 3. 3.
If we consider , it is a normal subgroup of both groups and listed, and it has only three blocks with defect group , all Morita equivalent to . Since and satisfy the hypothesis of Proposition 4.9, there is only one possible Morita equivalence class for with simple modules.∎
5 Blocks with defect group
First we classify the blocks with a normal defect group.
Theorem 5.1**.**
Let be a block of where is a finite group, and suppose that has a normal defect group . Then is Morita equivalent to where is a subgroup of of odd order, or to (a) or (b) as in Theorem 1.1.
Proof.
By [35] a block with a normal defect group is Morita equivalent to a twisted group algebra , where is the inertial quotient. Moreover, each possible can be chosen as where (see also [40, 6.14]).
We have listed all possible inertial quotients in Proposition 2.8. Each group algebra is also a block and, therefore, a representative of its class.
It is a standard fact that twisted group algebras can be realised as blocks of the ordinary group algebra of a central extension of by a -group [57, 10.5], so to produce examples of these Morita equivalence classes it is enough to look at odd central extensions of , and hence at the Schur multiplier of . Now is trivial whenever is cyclic (see [40, 1.2.10]) and when or . When or , , giving two nontrivial possibilities for in each case.
When , one of these corresponds to the Morita equivalence class whose representative is one of the nonprincipal blocks of , where the center of the extraspecial group acts trivially.
When , one of these corresponds to the Morita equivalence class whose representative is one of nonprincipal blocks of , where again the center acts trivially.
From Corollary 4.11, in each case choosing the other possibility for (which corresponds to choosing instead of ) gives Morita equivalent blocks.∎
We prove our main result.
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
Let be a block of for a finite group with defect group , such that is not Morita equivalent to any of the blocks in the statement of the theorem and such that is minimised in the lexicographic ordering. First, we show that these hypotheses on imply three important facts:
- (I)
is quasiprimitive, that is, for any normal subgroup any block of covered by is -stable. In fact, let , and let be a block of covered by . We write for the stabiliser of under conjugation by . Then we can consider the Fong-Reynolds correspondent as in Theorem 2.1, the unique block of covering and with Brauer correspondent , that is Morita equivalent to and shares a defect group with it. By minimality, , and the same is true for any block of any normal subgroup of .
- (II)
If there is a normal subgroup such that covers a nilpotent block of , then . This follows from minimality and quasiprimitivity, using Corollary 2.3. In particular, note that this implies .
- (III)
does not have any normal subgroup of index : in fact, suppose by contradiction that there is with index . Let be the unique block of covered by . Then from [25, 5.3.5] is also the unique block covering , so from [1, 15.1] is a defect group of and is a Sylow -subgroup of . Hence, has defect group and from [17] we know all the possibilities for its Morita equivalence class and its inertial quotient. From the main theorem of [33] is Morita equivalent to . Moreover, from Maschke’s theorem (see [28, 3.3.2]) there is an -stable decomposition of as where . In particular then . Then is cyclic of order , , or or it is one of or . Then by Proposition 3.5 is Morita equivalent to , a contradiction since, from [17], all such blocks already appear in the list.
Recall the definition of the generalised Fitting subgroup as in [3]: we write for the layer of , a normal subgroup that is the central product of the components of (the subnormal quasisimple subgroups). We write for the Fitting subgroup. The generalised Fitting subgroup is defined as , and it is a central product of and . A fundamental property is that , so there is an injective group homomorphism from to .
In particular, in our situation, (II) implies that , and (I) implies that there is a unique block of covered by . We call it . By minimality, we can suppose that no subgroup of is a direct factor of .
If , then and since is a defect group . Since is abelian:
[TABLE]
Hence, , a contradiction by Proposition 5.1. So .
Write , where each is a component of . We prove that . Let be the unique block of covered by , and let be its defect group. For each , let be the unique block of covered by (note that , so is -stable). Let be its defect group. The components in are permuted by the action of by conjugation. Consider a -orbit of components , and let be the subgroup generated by them. Note that all the components in the same orbit are isomorphic, with isomorphic blocks and defect groups . Since , it has a unique block covered by , that covers each as determined before. The block cannot be nilpotent because of (II). Hence, from Lemma 2.7, every block of is also not nilpotent, so the inertial quotient of is nontrivial. Then , which implies that . Again from Lemma 2.7 the defect group of , is a central product of all . Then . Write the -orbits of components in as , , each the central product of isomorphic components. Then:
[TABLE]
It follows that either there are two -stable components and , or there is a single orbit of components with . In the latter case would have a normal subgroup of index , the kernel of the homomorphism given by the permutation of the components, a fact that contradicts (III). So , and if then both components are normal in .
If , so that , then . In particular , so if is not trivial then it has order , since for each component .
Consider . Then . Let be the unique block of covered by . Then it has defect group , and since . From [1, 15.1] then is the unique block covering , so in particular is odd since they share a defect group. Since , then , since centralises , so is solvable because of Schreier’s conjecture (since ). Moreover, is solvable since it has odd order. Hence since is solvable and is solvable then is also solvable. From Lemma 2.4, is a Sylow -subgroup of .
Suppose that . In this case is a quasisimple group, so from Proposition 2.9 we know all the possibilities that can occur: can be among blocks of , , , , , , , , or it can be nilpotent covered, or as in case (iv) of the Proposition.
First, note that if is as in case (iv) of Proposition 2.9, then is the block of a central extension by an elementary abelian -group of a block with defect group . In particular, from Proposition 2.7 in [17] is source algebra equivalent to or , so from [54, 1.22] has inertial quotient . From Corollary 1.14 in [50]222Note that whenever a block has an abelian defect group there are no essential pointed groups, the first intermediate central extension by a of is basic Morita equivalent to the principal block of a central extension by of or , and the only central extension with abelian defect groups is the direct product. Now we consider a central extension by another , and repeat the argument. A repeated application of Corollary 1.14 in [50] yields that in this case is Morita equivalent to or for or .
Now we examine each possibility:
If , has defect group , hence and since the only possibilities for are and , which are (xxiii), (xxxi) in the list.
If , then again which has order . In particular if then has a normal subgroup of index , which is a contradiction. So and , which is (xii) in the list.
If , , or , then , and since has odd order in each case we can assume that , so . We can then apply Proposition 4.9 to obtain that the block is already in the list.
In every other case, from Lemma 2.4 there is a chain of normal subgroups and blocks:
[TABLE]
where , are odd numbers and . Note that is a contradiction to (III), and otherwise is nilpotent, contradicting (II).
We consider the corresponding block chain , noting that each block is covered by and, hence, is -stable. From Lemma 3.1 in [19] we know that , and hence since is a Sylow -subgroup of from Lemma 2.4. Further, is source algebra equivalent to by Lemma 2.6. Therefore, is Morita equivalent to , since if then so , and when or , satisfies the hypothesis of Proposition 3.5, with an identical argument as in the proof of (III) above. Again from Lemma 2.6, is source algebra equivalent to . Note that, in light of the discussion preceding Lemma 4.10, the pair satisfies the hypothesis of Method 4.5.
Suppose that , so and . If is nilpotent covered then it is inertial, and hence so is . Hence by Proposition 2.5 is inertial, a contradiction by Theorem 5.1. Otherwise is Morita equivalent to (ii) or (iii), a contradiction by Proposition 4.6.
Now suppose that . If then if is nilpotent covered then by Proposition 2.9 it is of type or , and hence by [8, Table 5] has a normal subgroup of index , which is a contradiction to (III). If instead is Morita equivalent to or , then is as in the hypothesis of Proposition 4.6, which gives a contradiction. If then and is Morita equivalent to or , so is again as in the hypothesis of Proposition 4.6, a contradiction.
Finally, suppose that . Then and , otherwise would be nilpotent contradicting (II). So is Morita equivalent to or , again a contradiction since then satisfies the hypothesis of Proposition 4.6.
Now suppose that , so , where . Suppose that is not contained in . Since , then . Then has a normal subgroup of index , contradicting (III). So we can assume that . We also assume without loss of generality that .
We consider again the chain of normal subgroups and blocks, which now reduces to:
[TABLE]
since . Recall that is source algebra equivalent to (Lemma 2.6).
Let , and note that . In particular the map defined in 4.5 with factors through:
[TABLE]
where the last inclusion holds because each is normal in (see also [4] and then [54, 7.6]).
If , then and , and have odd order. In this situation is source algebra equivalent to or , and so is . Then we can apply Lemma 4.10 and Proposition 4.8 (considering ) to obtain a contradiction.
So without loss of generality we can suppose that .
Suppose that , so is source algebra equivalent to or . Then in particular , and has odd order. If , , or then Lemma 4.10 and Proposition 4.9 give a contradiction.
Otherwise, either is nilpotent covered, so basic Morita equivalent to a block with a normal defect group , or is as in case (iii) of Proposition 2.9. In both cases, Lemma 4.10 and Proposition 4.8 give a contradiction.
Then , and is a central product of such that . From Lemma 2.7 we can suppose without loss of generality that . Note that .
Consider , the unique block of dominated by . Since , the direct product of two simple groups, Lemma 2.7 and [17] imply that is source algebra equivalent to the principal block of one among , or . In particular, both and have inertial quotient isomorphic to . Recall that source algebra equivalences are realised by trivial source bimodules, and hence are in particular basic Morita equivalences. Then the pair satisfies the hypothesis of Corollary 1.14 in [50], so is basic Morita equivalent to the principal block of a central extension by of where : the only possibility for to have an abelian defect group is that the central extension is actually a direct product with . Hence, there are three possibilities:
- (1)
That is basic Morita equivalent to . But then it is inertial, so by Proposition 2.5 the block is also inertial, which is a contradiction.
Since any central product of two perfect groups is perfect, we can use the same argument as in Lemma 7.6 in [54] to show that . Then in particular , since each is normal in . Then by direct inspection of all the possibilities (listed in [8]) is a supersolvable group, as the only non-supersolvable outer automorphism group of a quasisimple group is given by triality in type , which however involves automorphisms with even order.
- (2)
That is basic Morita equivalent to . We can apply Proposition 4.7 to show that is Morita equivalent to and hence to (x), a contradiction.
- (3)
That is basic Morita equivalent to . Then , and since the equivalence is basic, so by Proposition 4.4. So using Method 4.5 there is only one possible Morita equivalence class for , the one of , realised when . Then is Morita equivalent to (iii), a contradiction.
Therefore, in every possible case, we have a contradiction. To see that the classes are distinct it is enough to compute the Cartan matrices for each block, with the exception of (i) and (a) whose Cartan matrices are identical, for which we note that the number of irreducible characters .
The fact that the isomorphism class of an elementary abelian defect group is invariant under Morita equivalences is Corollary 1.6 in [41]. ∎
Remark 5.2**.**
A block Morita equivalent to (a) cannot be a principal block, since principal blocks with one simple module are nilpotent by [45, 6.13], but (a).
Moreover, from the main theorem of [35] together with Lemma 2.5 in [49], if a block of with defect group and inertial quotient is principal then its Brauer correspondent is Morita equivalent to a non-twisted group algebra . Then in particular if Broué’s abelian defect group conjecture holds for blocks Morita equivalent to (b) or (c) then they cannot be principal blocks of any finite group, since the twisted group algebra (b) is distinguished from any non-twisted algebra of type from its pair of values .
We can now improve Proposition 2.8 with the exact values. As a corollary, we can immediately show that in most of our Morita equivalence classes the inertial quotient is preserved, as it is determined by the pair of values . The only exceptions are two pairs of inertial quotients in which the numerical invariants coincide, where we give a partial result.
Corollary 5.3**.**
Let be a block of where is a finite group, with defect group and inertial quotient . Then one of the following holds:
- •
* and , .*
- •
, and , .
- •
, and , .
- •
, and , .
- •
, and , .
- •
, and , or , .
- •
, and , .
- •
, , and , .
- •
, and , .
- •
, and , .
- •
, and , .
- •
, and either , or , .
- •
, and , .
In particular, Morita equivalent blocks have isomorphic inertial quotients with the same action on , except possibly when the Morita equivalence class is (v), (xi) or (xii) in Theorem 1.1.
Proof.
Proposition 2.8 implies that is among the groups listed above, and that moreover for each fixed pair of blocks appearing in Theorem 1.1 there is a single possible isomorphism class for , with two exceptions: the pairs of values that occur in two distinct isomorphism classes for are and :
- •
Let be such that , . Then is Morita equivalent to one of (v), (xx), (xxi) in Theorem 1.1. Suppose that . Then from the main theorem of [62] is perfectly isometric to (v). In particular then is Morita equivalent to (v), since this block is not perfectly isometric to (xx) or (xxi): in fact, a perfect isometry implies an isomorphism of the centers, but the Loewy lengths of the center, computed with Magma [6], is respectively for (v) and for (xx) and (xxi). Then if is Morita equivalent to (xx) or (xxi), , so every block in (xx) and (xxi) has inertial quotient with .
- •
Let be a block of with , . Then is Morita equivalent to one of (xi), (xii), (xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxvii), (xxviii), (xxix) in Theorem 1.1. Suppose that . Then from the main theorem of [62] is perfectly isometric to (xi). In particular then is Morita equivalent to (xi) or (xii), since (xi) is not perfectly isometric to any of the other possibilities for the Morita equivalence class: in fact, as before, a perfect isometry implies an isomorphism of the centers. In this case all the centers have Loewy length but, as computed with Magma [6], the dimension of (xi) is , while it is for each representative between (xxiv)-(xxix). In particular then if is Morita equivalent to any block in (xxiv)-(xxix) then , so every block in (xxiv)-(xxix) has inertial quotient . ∎
At the moment we are unable to show that an arbitrary block with defect group and inertial quotient is not Morita equivalent to (v), and that a block with defect group , inertial quotient and simple modules is not Morita equivalent to (xi) or (xii), so these Morita equivalence classes could contain blocks with different inertial quotients. However, we want to point out that any example of such blocks would provide a counterexample to Broué’s abelian defect group conjecture (hence, in particular, it would need to be a nonprincipal block).
In [17], to show that Broué’s conjecture holds for blocks with defect group the author implicitly uses Proposition 6.10.10 in [40], and the fact that Alperin’s weight conjecture holds for blocks with defect group by Proposition 13.4 in [54]. At the moment, we do not have the analogous result for , so Broué’s abelian defect group conjecture will be dealt with in a subsequent paper.
We highlight, however, that by Proposition and Theorem 4.36 in [10] two principal blocks in the list of Theorem 1.1 are derived equivalent if and only if they have the same inertial quotient with the same action on , and the same number of simple modules . The nonprincipal blocks in that list cannot be derived equivalent to any other block in the list, because they have different values for the pair . We do not prove here that the blocks labeled as (b) and (c) are derived equivalent.
6 Harada’s conjecture
We denote as the set of -regular elements of . Harada’s conjecture states that, for a block of a finite group , if a nonempty is such that:
[TABLE]
then .
Note that if a proper subset of satisfies Harada’s conjecture, then the complement also does. Lemma 1 in [56] shows that the property () above is equivalent to the existence of a vector such that for every row of the decomposition matrix of it holds that if and [math] if . This implies that, if a block satisfies Harada’s conjecture, then any other block Morita equivalent to it also does. Then, in particular, it is enough to prove it for each representative determined in Theorem 1.1.
We have checked each class computationally using Magma [6], computing on all -singular elements for each subset with less than elements, and Harada’s conjecture holds for each of the classes and, hence, for every block with defect group .
Acknowledgements
This paper is part of the work done by the author during his PhD at the University of Manchester, supported by a Manchester Research Scholar Award and a President’s Doctoral Scholar Award.
The author thanks Charles Eaton, his Ph.D supervisor, for his constant support, for many helpful discussions and for his careful reading of the manuscript. The author also thanks Elliot McKernon, Michael Livesey and Claudio Marchi for many helpful discussions, Kai Ino for helping with the translation of [61] from Japanese to English, and Benjamin Sambale for his valuable comments on the proof of Proposition 3.4 and for pointing out a mistake in an earlier draft of Section .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] J.L. Alperin, Local Representation Theory , Cambridge Studies in Advanced mathematics 11 , Cambridge University Press (1986).
- 2[2] C.G. Ardito, B. Sambale, Cartan matrices and Brauer’s k ( B ) 𝑘 𝐵 k(B) -conjecture V , available ar Xiv:1911.10710 v 1 (2019).
- 3[3] M. Aschbacher, Finite Group Theory , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 10 , Cambridge University Press (2000).
- 4[4] J. Bidwell, Automorphisms of direct products of finite groups II , Archiv der Mathematik 91 (2008).
- 5[5] R. Boltje, R. Kessar, M. Linckelmann, On Picard groups of blocks of finite groups , Journal of Algebra 558 (2020), 70-101.
- 6[6] W. Bosma, J. J. Cannon, C. Fieker, A. Steel, Handbook of Magma functions, Edition 2.16 (2010).
- 7[7] M. Broué and L. Puig, Characters and local structure in G 𝐺 G -algebras , Journal of Algebra 63 -2 (1980), 306-317.
- 8[8] J.H. Conway, R.T. Curtis, S.P. Norton, R.A. Parker, R.A. Wilson, Atlas of finite groups. Maximal subgroups and ordinary characters for simple groups , Oxford niversity Press, Eynsham (1985).
