2
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a connected linear algebraic group, $T$ a maximal torus of $G$, and $\alpha$ a weight of $T$ such that $G_{\alpha} = Z_G(S)$ is not solvable, where $S = (\textrm{Ker } \alpha)^0$. I have been really confused about a few things concerning the Weyl group $W(G,T) = N_G(T)/Z_G(T)$, which injects into the group of automorphisms of the group of characters of $T$, as $(nZ_G(T) \cdot \chi)(t) = \chi(ntn^{-1})$.

I had asked a question earlier (Why is $s_{\alpha}$ a Euclidean reflection?) and user yisishoujo had given me a detailed answer. Unfortunately I was not able to understand all of his answer, although most of it was very helpful. I feel like there is something very subtle about this topic which everyone else realizes but that I am not aware of. So I want to break this question into several questions in the hope someone can point out to me what it is I'm missing.

Notation: $X, Y$ are the groups of characters/cocharacters of $T$.

$V = \mathbb{R} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} X$

$V ^\wedge{} = \mathbb{R} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} Y$.

We can identify $X$ as an additive subgroup of $V$ as $\chi \mapsto 1 \otimes \chi$. Similarly for $Y$ and $V^{\wedge}$.

Relevant facts:

1 . There is a canonical pairing $\langle -, -\rangle:X \times Y \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$, where for $\chi \in X, \gamma \in Y$, $\langle \chi, \gamma \rangle$ is the unique integer for which $\chi \circ \gamma(x) = x^{\langle \chi, \gamma \rangle}$ for all $x \in k^{\ast}$.

2 . If $\gamma \in Y$, $\gamma$ induces an abelian group homomorphism of $X$ into $\mathbb{Z}$ by $\chi \mapsto \langle \chi, \gamma \rangle$. The assignment $\gamma \mapsto \langle -, \gamma \rangle$ is an isomorphism of abelian groups $Y \rightarrow \textrm{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}(X,\mathbb{Z})$. We identify $Y$ with $\textrm{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}(X,\mathbb{Z})$.

3 . Identifying $Y$ as above, there is a canonical isomorphism of real vector spaces from $V^{\wedge}$ onto the dual of $V$, where to any generator $\lambda \otimes \gamma$, we associate the map $V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ defined on generators by $r \otimes \chi \mapsto r \lambda \langle \chi, \gamma \rangle$.

4 . Any abelian group automorphism of $X$ extends to a linear isomorphism of $V$, the same for $Y$ and $V^{\wedge}$. The subgroup of the Weyl group, $W_{\alpha} := Z_G(S) \cap N_G(T)/Z_G(T)$, can be shown to have order exactly two. Choosing an $n \in Z_G(S) \cap N_G(T)$ which is not in $Z_G(T)$, we obtain an automorphism $s$ of $V$ which has order exactly $2$.

5 . The Weyl group also injects into the group of automorphisms of $Y$, as $(nZ_G(T) \cdot \gamma)(x) = n^{-1}\gamma(x)n$. Under this action, we have $\langle \chi, \gamma \rangle = \langle w \cdot \chi, w \cdot \gamma \rangle$ for any $w$ in the Weyl group, $\chi \in X, \gamma \in Y$. The actions of the Weyl group on $X, Y$ extend respectively to actions on $V, V^{\wedge}$. The pairing $\langle -, - \rangle$ extends to a Weyl group-invariant pairing $V \times V^{\wedge} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$

Questions:

1 . Why does $s(\alpha) \neq \alpha$? I know it is not the case that $s(\chi) = \chi$ for all characters $\chi$, but it is not clear what happens to $\alpha$. If I can show that $s(\alpha) \neq \alpha$, yisishoujo explained why we must have $s(\alpha) =- \alpha$. Indeed, conjugation by $n$ (the $n$ as in Fact 4) induces an automorphism of algebraic groups $T/S$. But $T/S$ is isomorphic to $k^{\ast}$, so there are only two such automorphisms, the identity map and the inverse map. If $\textrm{Int } n$ induced the identity, then we would have $ntn^{-1}S = tS$ for all $t \in T$, i.e. $\alpha(ntn^{-1}) = \alpha(t)$ for all $t$, which implies $s \alpha = \alpha$, contradiction. It follows that $ntn^{-1}S = t^{-1}S$ for all $t$, whence $s(\alpha) = - \alpha$.

2 . Take $s, n$ as in Fact 4. We can think of $s$ as an automorphism on $Y$, even of $V^{\wedge}$, as in Fact 5. Why does there exist a cocharacter $\gamma$ such that $s \cdot \gamma = - \gamma$? Here is my attempt at a proof. We know $s$ extends to an automorphism of $V^{\wedge}$, and still $s^2 = 1_{V^{\wedge}}$. Choosing a basis for $Y$, we can think of $s$ as a matrix with entries in $\mathbb{Z}$. It follows that the only eigenvalues of $s$ as $\pm 1$. If I could show $-1$ was an eigenvalue, then the nullspace of $s + 1_{V^{\wedge}}$ would be nontrivial. Since solving a system of linear equations doesn't depend on the ambient field, we would find a solution with entries in $\mathbb{Z}$, i.e. a solution $\gamma \in Y$ with $s \cdot \gamma = - \gamma$. But why must $-1$ be an eigenvalue?

3 . Take $s, n$ as in Question 2. Supposing that Question 2 has been answered, is it possible to choose $\gamma \in Y$ such that $s \cdot \gamma = -\gamma$ as well as such that $\langle \alpha, \gamma \rangle \neq 0$? yisishoujo explains, given such a cocharacter, how to show the following:

($\ast$) If $\chi$ is a character of $T$, and $\langle \chi, \lambda \rangle = 0$, then $s \cdot \chi = \chi$.

4 . The Weyl group acts as a group of automorphisms of $V$ (Fact 5). By the standard averaging process, one can show there exists a symmetric, positive define bilinear form on $V$ which is invariant under the action of the Weyl group $(s \cdot v, s \cdot w) = (v,w)$ for $s$ in the Weyl group, $v, w \in V$. Is such a bilinear form unique up to a scalar?

5 . Similar to question 4, we identified a canonical Weyl group-invariant pairing $V \times V^{\wedge} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as in Facts 1, 5. Is such a pairing unique up to scalar?

6 . What is the relationship between a Weyl group-invariant form on $V$ and the canonical pairing $V \times V^{\wedge}$? Can they in any sense be 'identified?' If so, does any possible nonuniqueness of the form on $V$ (as in Question 4) come into play? I know that GIVEN a Weyl group invariant form $(-,-)$ on $V$, there is a isomorphism of $V$ into its dual by sending $v$ to the functional $(v,-)$. Composing that with the isomorphism identified in Fact 3, we get an isomorphism $V \rightarrow V^{\wedge}$. This isomorphism induces an action of the Weyl group on $V^{\wedge}$ (which I do not believe is necessarily the canonical action as in Fact 5, however). Letting $\Phi$ be the inverse map $V^{\wedge} \rightarrow V$, we get a Weyl group invariant pairing $\langle -,-\rangle_1 V \times V^{\wedge} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ by setting $\langle v, \eta \rangle_1 = (v, \Phi(\eta))$.

And finally, the main question which all of this is intended to be put together to answer: given any Weyl group invariant bilinear form $(-,-)$ on $V$, and given $n,s$ as in Fact 4, why is it the case that $s$ is a Euclidean reflection of $V$ on $\alpha$? In other words, why is it the case that $s(\alpha) =- \alpha$? And if $v$ is any element of $V$ with $(\alpha, v) = 0$, why is it the case that $s \cdot v = v$?

This main question which has been so difficult for me is an offhand comment in Springer, Linear Algebraic Groups, 7.17. User yisishoujo indicated that the result $s \cdot v = v$ for all $v$ satisfying $(\alpha, v) = 0$ is a result of the statement $(\ast$) given in Fact 3, but I do not understand why. Maybe I need to understand the relationship between the bilinear form and the pairing (Fact 6) better. Thank you for your time.

$\endgroup$
2
+500
$\begingroup$
  1. Since $s$ has finite order (and acts on a characteristic-0 vector space), its action on $V$ is semisimple. Since the element $s$ of $G$ preserves $S$, the linear transformation $s$ of $X$ preserves $X^*(T/S)$; so there is an $s$-stable complement $V'$ to $\mathbb R\alpha = X^*(T/S) \otimes_{\mathbb Z} \mathbb R$ in $V$. The composition $V \to X^*(S) \otimes_{\mathbb Z} \mathbb R$ is surjective and trivial on $\alpha$, hence induces a surjection $V' \to X^*(S) \otimes_{\mathbb Z} \mathbb R$, which, by dimension-counting, is an isomorphism. It is clearly $s$-equivariant, and $s$ acts trivially on the codomain, so it also acts trivially on the domain $V'$. Since $s^2 = 1$ and $s$ preserves $\mathbb R\alpha$, we have that $s\alpha = \pm\alpha$. If $s\alpha = \alpha$, then $s$ acts trivially on $V' \oplus \mathbb R\alpha = V$, which you have agreed that it does not.

  2. As in (1), $s$ is semisimple; so, if 1 were its only eigenvalue, then we would have that $s = 1$ (on $\hat V$, but equivalently on $V$), which is a contradiction.

  3. If the ($-1$)-eigenspace of $s$ acting on $\hat V$ were contained in $\ker \alpha$, then $s$ would act trivially on $\hat V/\ker \alpha$, hence on its dual $\mathbb R\alpha$ in $V$.

  4. Yes in case $G$ is semisimple (EDIT: I meant ‘(absolutely) simple’, so that the root system is irreducible), in which case $V$ is spanned by the roots of $T$ in $G$ and we may use the fact that the reflection representation of an irreducible root system is irreducible, but not in general. For example, if $G$ is Abelian, then $W = 1$ and any inner product on $V$ is Weyl-invariant.

  5. See (4) and (6).

  6. Since $V$ and $\hat V$ are isomorphic as representations of $W$, the space of $W$-invariant pairings $V \otimes \hat V \to \mathbb R$ may be identified with the space of $W$-invariant pairings $V \otimes V \to \mathbb R$. The $W$-invariant isomorphism of $V$ with $\hat V$, hence the identification of these two spaces that it determines, is unique up to scalars if $G$ is semisimple, but not in general.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so much for answering. I am gonna spend the next couple of hours thinking about this $\endgroup$ – D_S Jun 1 '16 at 2:41
0
$\begingroup$

Thanks very much to L Spice for explaining this to me. Here is what I wanted to originally find out in my own words:

Let $n \in Z_G(S) \cap N_G(T) \setminus Z_G(T)$, and let $s$ be the corresponding element in the Weyl group $W(G,T)$. Then with respect to any Weyl-group invariant, symmetric, positive definite bilinear form $(-,-)$, $s$ is a Euclidean reflection.

The character group $X(T/S)$ injects into $X = X(T)$; a character $\chi \in X$ lies in the image of $X(T/S)$ if and only if it is trivial on $S$. In particular, $\alpha$ lies in the image. Identifying $X(T/S)$ as a subgroup of $X(T)$, we can identify $\mathbb{R} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} X(T/S)$ as a subspace of $V$. This subspace is one dimensional, because the torus $T/S$ is isomorphic to $k^{\ast}$.

Now $\alpha$ is not the trivial character of $T$, hence it is nontrivial as a character of $T/S$. Hence $\alpha$ is generates the subspace $\mathbb{R} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} X(T/S)$, i.e. $\mathbb{R} \alpha = \mathbb{R} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} X(T/S)$.

Since $n \in Z_G(S)$, we see that $\mathbb{R} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} X(T/S)$ is stable under the action of $s$.

Now we know $s^2 = 1_V$ and, $V$ being a vector space over a field with characteristic $0$, we conclude that $s$ is semisimple, in the sense that any $s$-stable subspace of $V$ has an $s$-stable complement (write $V$ as a representation of the group $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$). Let $V'$ be any $s$-stable complement of $\mathbb{R}\alpha$.

Every character of the torus $S$ extends to a character of $T$, i.e. the restriction homomorphism $X \rightarrow X(S)$ is surjective. Hence the induced linear transformation $\varphi: V \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} X(S)$ is surjective. Now $V = V' \oplus \mathbb{R} \alpha$. The restriction of $\alpha$ to $S$ is the trivial character, so $\varphi(\alpha) = 0$. Thus, the surjectivity of $\varphi$ must be accomplished by $V'$ alone, i.e. the restriction of $\varphi$ to $V'$ is still surjective. But $V'$ and $\mathbb{R} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} X(S)$ have the same dimension, so $\varphi|V'$ is an isomorphism.

Also, it is clear that $\varphi(s \cdot v) = s \cdot \varphi(v)$ for all $v \in V$. But the action of $s$ on $\mathbb{R} \otimes_{\mathbb Z} X(S)$ is trivial, as $n \in Z_G(S)$. Thus the action of $s$ on $V'$ is also trivial. So $s$ is fixes $V'$ pointwise, stablizes $\mathbb{R} \alpha$, satisfies $s^2 = 1_V$, and is not the identity map. We must conclude that $s \cdot \alpha = -\alpha$.

Now let $(-,-)$ be any Weyl group invariant bilinear form on $V$. Let $V'$ be the orthogonal complement of $\alpha$ with respect to $(-,-)$. Then $V'$ is stable under $s$, because for any $v \in V'$, $$(s \cdot v, \alpha) = (s^2 \cdot v, s \cdot \alpha) = (v,-\alpha) = -(v,\alpha) = 0$$ By the argument above, $V'$ must be fixed pointwise by $s$. Since $s$ sends $\alpha$ to $-\alpha$ and fixes pointwise the orthogonal complement to $\alpha$, it must be a Euclidean reflection. $\blacksquare$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.