MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $G$ be a reductive, affine, algebraic group over $\newcommand{\C}{\mathbb C}\C$. Let $X$ be a $G$-variety. For $x\in X$, we write $$G_x:=\{ g\in G\mid g.x=x\}$$ for its stabilizer and for any subgroup $H\subseteq G$, we write $$X^H:=\{x\in X\mid H.x=x\}$$ for the $H$-invariants of $X$. We say that $x\in X$ is characterized by its stabilizer if $X^{G_x}=\{x\}$. Let $\{V_\lambda\mid \lambda\in\Lambda\}$ be the irreducible $G$-modules.

Given two points $x,y\in X$, then $x\in\overline{G.y}$ implies $\overline{G.x}\subseteq\overline{G.y}$. Hence, $\C[\overline{G.y}]\twoheadrightarrow\C[\overline{G.x}]$ and thus,

$$\DeclareMathOperator{\mult}{mult}\forall \lambda\in\Lambda:\quad \mult\nolimits_\lambda(\C[\overline{G.x}])\le\mult\nolimits_\lambda(\C[\overline{G.y}])$$

Finding $\lambda\in\Lambda$ violating the above is therefore an "obstruction" for the inclusion of orbit closures.

My question now is the following: If $x$ and $y$ are characterized by their respective stabilizers, does the converse hold? I.e., does the above inequality imply that $x\in\overline{G.y}$? I have been trying to come up with a counterexample, but without success so far.

Intuition: If $G$ acts on a variety $Y$ and $y\in Y$ is characterized by its stabilizer, then you can very easily find counterexamples if you give up the condition that both points are characterized by their respective stabilizers: Consider $X:=Y\times\{z_1,z_2\}$ with $G$ acting trivially on $Z=\{z_1,z_2\}$. Now, the points $x_i:=(y,z_i)$ satisfy $x_1\notin\overline{G.x_2}$ and $\C[\overline{G.x_1}]\cong\C[\overline{G.x_2}]$. In the cases of interest to me, however, both points are characterized by their stabilizer and the question arises whether there are counterexamples under this additional condition.

share|cite|improve this question
I do not fully grasp the role of the condition "$x\in X$ is characterized by its stabilizer", but I want to point out that it fails for any linear action of $G$ on a non-zero vector space $V$, because the stabilizer of any non-zero vector fixes all its scalar multiples. This difficulty persists for all $G$-invariant cones in $V$. Of course, it could be avoided by passing to the projectivization $\mathbb{P}(V).$ – Victor Protsak Sep 4 '12 at 21:10
Inclusions of the closures of nilpotent orbits have been studied in various contexts. If my memory serves, for quiver representations, Bobinski and Zwara proved a complete representation-theoretic characterization of the inclusion of the closures of nilpotent orbits, but it involved finer invariants than just the G-multiplicities. – Victor Protsak Sep 4 '12 at 21:21
Concerning your first comment, yes, this is usually dealt with by passing to the projectivization, or by defining "characterized by its stabilizer" different, i.e. requiring $X^{G_x}=\mathbb{C}x$. I have added a paragraph to somewhat explain the origin behind this condition. Thanks also for the reference, I will look into it – Jesko Hüttenhain Sep 5 '12 at 8:04
With the condition $X^{G_x}=\mathbb{C}x$ imposed on $X$ my counterexample below works perfectly for $g=sl_2(\mathbb{C})$ and the adjoint action of $G=SL_2(\mathbb{C})$. In this case $l=1$ and $f_1$ is just the determinant of a $2\times 2$ matrix. One cannot pass to projectivisations either as the regular functons on the orbit closures would then reduce to scalars (for $G$ connected) and all multiplicities would be zero. – Alexander Premet Sep 5 '12 at 11:45
So you mean $X=\mathfrak{sl}_2(\C)$ with $G=\mathrm{SL}_2(\C)$ acting on $X$ by conjugation (i.e. $g.x = gxg^{-1}$) and the points are the semisimple element $h=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{pmatrix}$ and the nilpotent $x=\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\1&0\end{pmatrix}$. Is that correct? I am confused because my calculations yield $\overline{G.x}=X$, while $G.h=\C h$. – Jesko Hüttenhain Sep 5 '12 at 15:23

Take the nilpotent cone $\mathcal N$ in $g={\rm Lie}(G)$ and the $G$-orbit of a regular semisimple element, $h$ say. The categorical quotient $g\rightarrow g//G\cong\mathbb{A}^l$, $l={\rm rk}(G),$ is equidimensional and each of its fibres is an trreducible complete intersection and contains a unique open $G$-orbit. Since the orbit $Gh$ is closed it coincides with one of the fibres and the algebra of regular functions $\mathbb{C}[Gh]$ is just a filtered deformation of the graded algebra $\mathbb{C}[\mathcal{N}]=\mathbb{C}[g]/(f_1,\ldots,f_l)$ whose defining ideal is generated by $f_1-\lambda_1,\ldots, f_l-\lambda_l$ for some $\lambda_i\in\mathbb{C}$ (here $f_1,\ldots, f_l$is a set of free homogeneous generators for $\mathbb{C}[g]^G$). Since $G$ is reductive, we are in characteristic $0$ and the action of $G$ on $\mathbb{C}[Gh]$ is rational, we have that $\mathbb{C}[\mathcal{N}]\cong \mathbb{C}[Gh]$ as $G$-modules. So all multiplicities will be the same in both cases. However, $Gh$ is not contained in $\mathcal N$ (and vice versa).

However this example does not answer the question as the stabilisers $G_x$ of regular elements $x\in g$ are not self-normalising (I have completely overlooked the extra condition on $x$ in the first reading, which implies that $N_G(G_x)=G_x$).

share|cite|improve this answer
Side remark:… - "Are nilpotent orbits degenerations of semisimple ones" – Alexander Chervov Sep 4 '12 at 12:17
Thanks a lot already, but I am having some difficulties understanding the counterexample, mostly for lacking terminology: I assume $G$ acts on $g$ by $\mathrm{Ad}$. What is a filtered deformation? Why does it follow from $Gh$ being closed that $\mathbb C[Gh]$ is a filtered deformation of $\mathbb C[\mathcal N]$? It would probably take a while to clear up all these questions (and their possible follow-ups). Maybe you could, instead, apply your (very general) counterexample to the case $G=Gl_n(\mathbb C)$ and explain what $g$, $\mathcal N$, etc. are, in this case? – Jesko Hüttenhain Sep 4 '12 at 15:45
It is quite problematic that I do not know the definition of a filtered deformation. I really think that making this more concrete would help immensely. – Jesko Hüttenhain Sep 4 '12 at 17:46
I confess that I do not fully grasp the role of the condition "$x$ is characterized by its stabilizer", but it's not fulfilled in the present case. The stabilizer of a regular semisimple element $h$ is its centralizer $H=Z(h)$, which is a Cartan subgroup, so it is commutative and stabilizes each element of $H.$ Similarly, the stabilizer of a regular nilpotent element $e$ is its centralizer $Z(e)$, which is commutative and stabilizes each of its elements. Thus in both cases, $X^{G_x}$ has dimension $\ell.$ – Victor Protsak Sep 4 '12 at 20:58
Hm. In this case, one can construct easier counterexamples, see my edit. The crux is for both points to be characterized by their respective stabilizers. – Jesko Hüttenhain Sep 5 '12 at 7:58

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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