MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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 an adjoint group over an algebraically closed field $k$ and $s\in G$ a semisimple element.

Let $H=C_{G}(s)^{0}$ the neutral component of the centralizer of $s$. Do we have that the center of $H$ is itself connected?

share|cite|improve this question
No, we do not have that. Take $G=PSO_8$, take for $s$ the image of ${\rm diag}(1,1,1,1,-1,-1,-1,-1)\in SO_8$, then $H=(SO_4\times SO_4)/\mu_2$, and the center of $H$ is isomorphic to $\mu_2$, hence not connected. – Mikhail Borovoi Jan 8 '13 at 20:30
The general study of this and related phenomena is "Borel-de Siebenthal theory". – Allen Knutson Jan 8 '13 at 20:47

{EDIT] Since I was discussing a slightly different question than the one actually asked, I'll start over with your connected group $H$ and look at its center.

The question illustrates some of the fine points in the Borel-Tits structure theory of reductive groups, which are worth considering beyond Mikhail's counterexample (which I guess has to require good characteristic, here different from 2.) In the formulation of the question, I'm assuming that $G$ is meant to be connected as well as semisimple of adjoint type over an arbitrary algebraically closed field. Here the general result for a semisimple element $s \in G$ is that the centralizer is reductive but not necessarily connected. In particular, your group $H$ is both connected and reductive.

More precisely, Borel-Tits show (in greater generality) that the centralizer $C_G(s)$ of $s$ is generated by some connected subgroups of $G$ (including a maximal torus) along with perhaps part of the Weyl group. Moreover, those connected subgroups are enough to generate the identity component $H$, which contains all unipotent elements of the centralizer (a relevant issue in characteristic $p>0$).

I think the basic problem you encounter is that while $G$ itself is of adjoint type, there is no reason why the connected semisimple derived group of $H$ should also be of adjoint type. So the center of $H$ might well be the direct product of the nontrivial finite center of this derived group and a torus. Beyond Mikhail's proposed example, I expect that a transparent example might be seen when $G$ has type $G_2$: this group is both simply connected and of adjoint type, but will contain subgroups isomorphic to $\mathrm{SL}_2$ that aren't of adjoint type. This might arise as the derived group of a larger connected centralizer in which it's a direct factor. (But whether this configuration actually occurs I'd have to check more carefully.)

A concrete example in rank 2 comes from the Carter-Deriziotis theory discussed at the end of Chapter 2 in my book on conjugacy classes. For $G$ still of type $G_2$, there is a connected reductive (actually semisimple) subgroup $H$ isomorphic to $\mathrm{SL}_3$ which by their criterion (in good characteristic) is the centralizer of some semisimple element. (Here $G$ is simply connected, so in fact all centralizers of semisimple elements are connected, by Springer-Steinberg.) So the center of $H$ is disconnected. (In Deriziotis' version the field has prime characteristic, but the result is similar to that of Borel and deSiebenthal in characteristic 0 mentioned by Allen: it relies on the extended Dynkin diagram.)

P.S. Extending this general theory, John Kurtzke looked more closely at the centers of centralizers; his second paper corrects some points in the first. He showed for instance that when $s$ is irregular, its centralizer is typically disconnected. He also bounded the dimensions of centers of centralizers, but didn't discuss their connectedness directly.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.