6
$\begingroup$

Let $B$ be a symmetric (or antisymmetric) non-degenerate bilinear form on $\mathbb{C}^n$ and let $G$ be the associated group of automorphisms $O(n)$ (resp. $Sp(n)$). What can we say about the Zariski-closed $G$-orbits on the variety of complete flags in $\mathbb{C}^n$ for these two cases?

I believe the whole flag variety is an $O(n)$-orbit for the symmetric case, but I'm not sure about the antisymmetric case. My apologies if this is basic; I posted this over at math.se earlier this month, but received no replies.

$\endgroup$

3 Answers 3

9
$\begingroup$

The whole flag variety is definitely not a single $O(n)$-orbit. You can see this already in the case of $n=2$, where the flag variety is just $\mathbb P^1$, and there are two orbits: $\{\pm i\}$ and everything else. More generally, by Witt's theorem, the $O(n)$-orbit on the grassmannian of $r$-planes through any given totally isotropic subspace of dimension $r$ is the (closed!) subvariety of all totally isotropic subspaces of dimension $r$. So you will have 'the' variety of isotropic flags as a closed $O(n)$-orbit on the flag variety. What's going on here is that a closed $O(n)$-orbit in the flag variety will be projective, hence will look like $O(n)/P$ for some parabolic, i.e. it will be a partial flag variety for $O(n)$. The same kind of thing will be true for $Sp(n)$, with Lagrangian subspaces taking the place of isotropic subspaces.

Anyway, there is a unified framework for dealing with these types of questions. The key observation is that $O(n)$ and $Sp(n)$ (if $n$ is even) are symmetric subgroups of $GL(n)$, i.e., each can be realized as the set of fixed points of an algebraic involution $\theta \colon GL(n) \to GL(n)$, namely $\theta(g)=g^{-t}$ and $\theta(g)=Jg^{-t}J^{-1}$, resp., where $J$ is the matrix of the symplectic form defining $Sp(n)$. Your question is thus a special case of the following:

If $K=G^\theta$ is a symmetric subgroup of $G$, what can we say about the $K$-orbits on $G/B$?

The answer is: lots! A good starting point is the set of notes to Allen Knutson's course on the topic. Be sure to also take a look at the Richardson--Springer paper linked to on that page.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ In the case of P1 the action is transitive, no? $\endgroup$ Mar 24, 2014 at 4:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Mariano: No, it's not: if $g$ is in $O(2)$ then $g \cdot i = (\det g) i = \pm i$. $\endgroup$
    – Faisal
    Mar 24, 2014 at 4:09
  • $\begingroup$ There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Do you actually mean $O(n)$? How does it act? Should it not be $U(n)$ instead? $\endgroup$ Mar 24, 2014 at 6:15
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexDegtyarev: I think that the question is being asked in the algebraic category, so that $G$ is a complex algebraic group. The notation $O(n)$ is unclear, but means $O(n,\mathbb{C})$. $\endgroup$
    – Ben McKay
    Mar 24, 2014 at 7:51
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, $O(n)$ here is really $O(\mathbb C^n, B)$, as stated in the OP. $\endgroup$
    – Faisal
    Mar 24, 2014 at 13:56
4
$\begingroup$

$O(n)$, by definition preserves the bilinear forms. Consider a subspace $W_r$ of dimension $r$ where the form is zero for any pair of vectors. Put it as the $r$th term of a complete flag $F$. Now consider another complete flag where for the $r$th term $W_r'$ the bilinear form is not identically zero. A form-preserving automorphism of the full vector space cannot take $W_r$ to $W_r'$, so there is no transitive action.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

In Bull American Math Soc, you will find a paper of Joseph Wolf which provides an answer to your question. best jorge

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Would you mind adding a more precise reference and possibly a link? I could not find the paper based on the information you gave... $\endgroup$ Apr 1, 2014 at 20:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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