Here is a problem I have been grappling with all day. I started out thinking it might be true but am now inclined to believe it is false, and would like to see a counterexample.

Suppose $G$ is a finite group and $p$ a rational prime, such that $G$ has a unique (normal) sylow $p$-subgroup $P.$ If you want, assume that $G/P$ is cyclic of prime power order.

Let $R$ be either the ring $\mathbb{Z}$ or $\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}.$ By an $R$-representation of $G$ I mean a finitely generated $R[G]$-module which is free as an $R$-module.

Suppose $V$ is such an $R$-representation. Let $\bar{\mathbb{F}_p}$ denote the algebraic closure of the finite field with $p$ elements. By the Krull-Schmidt theorem, the $\bar{\mathbb{F}_p}[G]$-module $V \otimes_R \bar{\mathbb{F}_p}$ can be written as a sum of indecomposables, uniquely so up to reordering. Now in general $\bar{\mathbb{F}_p}[G]$ admits many indecomposable modules, but a particularly nice class is obtained by decomposing $\bar{\mathbb{F}_p}[G/P]$ into one-dimensional constituents (which works because $|G/P|$ is coprime to $p$), and indeed these are precisely the one-dimensional indecomposable $\bar{\mathbb{F}_p}[G]$-modules.

Let me write $\chi(V)$ for the tensor products of all the one-dimensional indecomposables occurring in $V \otimes_R \bar{\mathbb{F}_p}$. I shall say $V$ is good if $\chi(V)^{\otimes 2}$ is the trivial one-dimensional module.

Question: Suppose $V$ is a good $R$-representation and $V = W \oplus W'$ (decomposition as $R$-representations). Does it follow that $W$ is good?

Why one might think this is true: the point is that the representation is integral, so its ordinary character is real. In ordinary representation theory, the number of times a constituent occurs is determined by taking the inner product of characters; it follows that (over $\mathbb{C}$) every one-dimensional constituent with a non-real character occurs precisely as many times as its inverse. Thus multiplying together the one-dimensionals only leaves a real character, which has order two. That is to say, if we do decomposition over $\mathbb{C}$ instead of $\bar{\mathbb{F}_p},$ every $R$-representation is good.

Why one might think this is false: I offer two explanations. For one, the crux of the above argument is the complex conjugation action on a suitable ring of integers, which can be used to identify dual representations. However, this action does not (in general) descend to the finite field. Indeed it may happen that $\mathbb{F}_p$ already contains enough roots of unity to split $\mathbb{F}_p[G/P],$ and so it does not seem possible to use Galois actions like this.

A more direct reason why this proof breaks down is as follows. Instead of trying to decompose over $\bar{\mathbb{F}_p}$ one might try to decompose over the completion $\mathbb{Z}_p$ (this ring of characteristic zero also has Krull-Schmidt). But the problem then is that there can be indecomposable $\mathbb{Z}_p$-modules of dimension $\ge 2$ which have the simple one-dimensional modules as decomposition factors. (And somehow the decomposition factors are the only thing I know how to control via character methods.) Also again note that $\mathbb{Q}_p$ may already contain all the roots of unity we need, so it does not seem possible to use Galois actions.

  • $\begingroup$ quick clarification: is W' the dual to W, or just another factor? $\endgroup$ – Phil Tosteson Jun 30 '14 at 3:36
  • $\begingroup$ Just some random factor. I want to know if "being good" is stable under summands. $\endgroup$ – Tom Bachmann Jun 30 '14 at 8:47

For any finite group $G$ and finite-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_p[G]$-module $M$, I'll denote by $\Omega M$ the kernel of an $\mathbb{F}_p[G]$-projective cover $P(M)\to M$.

Let $F(M)$ be a free $\mathbb{Z}[G]$-module with a surjection $F(M)\to M$, and complete to a short exact sequence $$0\to K(M)\to F(M)\to M\to0$$ of $\mathbb{Z}[G]$-modules. Then $K(M)$ is $\mathbb{Z}$-free.

Since $pK(M)\leq pF(M)\leq K(M)$, we get a short exact sequence $$0\to pF(M)/pK(M)\to K(M)/pK(M)\to K(M)/pF(M)\to 0$$ of $\mathbb{F}_p[G]$-modules, where it's easy to check that $pF(M)/pK(M)\cong M$ and $K(M)/pF(M)$, since it's the kernel of a surjection $F(M)/pF(M)\to M$ from a projective $\mathbb{F}_p[G]$-module to $M$, is isomorphic to the direct sum $\Omega M\oplus P$ for some projective $\mathbb{F}_p[G]$-module $P$.

This sequence must certainly split if $\operatorname{Ext}^1_{\mathbb{F}_p[G]}(\Omega M, M)=0$ (or equivalently $\operatorname{Ext}^2_{\mathbb{F}_p[G]}(M,M)=0$), and so in this case $K(M)$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-free $\mathbb{Z}[G]$-module whose reduction mod $p$ is $M\oplus\Omega M\oplus P$.

Alternatively, it's not hard to see that whether the sequence splits is independent of the choice of $F(M)$, and depends only on the restriction of $M$ to a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$. Also, if $M$ lifts to a $\mathbb{Z}$-free $\mathbb{Z}[G]$-module $\tilde{M}$ then one can take $F(M)$ to be a free module that maps onto $\tilde{M}$, and if $\tilde{K}(M)$ is the kernel of $F(M)\to\tilde{M}$ then $K(M)/pK(M)=pF(M)/pK(M)\oplus \tilde{K}(M)/p\tilde{K}(M)$, so there is an explicit splitting. So if the restriction of $M$ to a Sylow $p$-subgroup lifts (which will always be the case if $G$ has a normal Sylow $p$-subgroup and $M$ is simple) then the sequence splits.

Now take, for example, $G=C_7\rtimes C_3$, and $p=7$, and let $M$ be any of the three one-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_p[G]$-modules. Then all of the above applies, and so there is a $\mathbb{Z}$-free $\mathbb{Z}[G]$-module $V$ whose reduction mod $p$ has only one one-dimensional summand, which is isomorphic to $M$ (since $\Omega M$ is indecomposable and $6$-dimensional, and the indecomposable projectives are $7$-dimensional). By taking direct sums of such modules, you can construct a $V$ whose reduction mod $p$ has an arbitrary collection of one-dimensional summands, which shows that the answer to your question is "no".


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.