Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The context for this question is from page 284 - 287 of Berger's paper: http://pdn.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=272332&_user=209810&_pii=S0021869398976785&_check=y&_origin=article&_zone=toolbar&_coverDate=1999--01&view=c&originContentFamily=serial&wchp=dGLbVlS-zSkzS&md5=2dd8e0d714d264cf7c4acdd9ec58ac84&pid=1-s2.0-S0021869398976785-main.pdf

Particularly, in his assumption at the top of page 287, he says that "From now on, assume that our map $\pi_\mathfrak{p}$ surjects onto $\text{PU}_2(\zeta,\mathcal{O}_K/\mathfrak{p})\cong \text{PSL}_2(\mathbb{F}_q)$, that $q$ is odd, and that $(6,k) = 1$, where $k = \sharp\langle -\zeta\rangle$."

I'm guessing that he's assuming the conditions in proposition 2 (from the previous page) to be true, so that $\pi_\mathfrak{p}$ surjects onto $\text{PU}_2(\zeta,\mathcal{O}_K/\mathfrak{p}) = \text{PSU}_2(\mathcal{O}_K/\mathfrak{p})$, and that he's claiming that the latter group is isomorphic to $\text{PSL}_2(\mathbb{F}_q)$.

Is this generally true?

Also, on page 284, where he gives the matrix $H$ for the hermitian form, he claims that $H\in GL_{n-1}(\mathbb{Z}[t,t^{-1}])$, but the matrix he gives obviously does not lie in that group.

Where might I find a good book on unitary matrices over finite fields?

thanks,

  • will
share|improve this question
    
There are various questions mixed into your text, but it would help to clarify what you actually mean by $\mathrm{PSU}_2$ in the header. From the finite group perspective, there is only one family of type $A_1$ simple groups, usually denoted $\mathrm{PSL}_2$. (Though in higher ranks there are different split and non-split simple groups of type $A_\ell$.) –  Jim Humphreys Jan 29 '13 at 20:23

2 Answers 2

Here is a more bare hands explanation. Let $\phi$ be the field automorphism of ${\rm SL}_n(q^2)$ that acts by applying $x \mapsto x^q$ to the matrix entries. Let $\gamma$ be the graph automorphism that maps matrices $A$ to their inverse-tranpose $A^{- \mathrm{T}}$. Then ${\rm SL}_n(q)$ is the subgroup of ${\rm SL}_n(q^2)$ that is centralized by $\phi$, whereas the group ${\rm SU}_n(q^2)$ (which is confusingly often denoted by ${\rm SU}_n(q)$) that fixes the identity matrix as unitary form is the subgroup of ${\rm SL}_n(q^2)$ that is centralized by $\phi\gamma$.

The automorphism $\gamma$ is outer for $n>2$, but when $n=2$ it is inner and acts in the same way as conjugation by the matrix $\left( \begin{array}{rr}0&1\\ -1&0\end{array} \right)$. It turns out in this case that $\phi$ and $\phi\gamma$ are conjugate in the automorphism group of ${\rm SL}_2(q^2)$ by (the projective image of) an element $g \in {\rm GL}_2(q^2)$, and hence that ${\rm SL}_2(q)$ is conjugate to ${\rm SU}_2(q^2)$ in ${\rm GL}_2(q^2)$. With a bit of calculation on the back of an envelope, we find that $g = \left( \begin{array}{rr}a&b\\ c&d\end{array} \right)$, where $b = -t^qa^q$ and $d= -t^qc^q$ for some field element $t$ with $t^{q+1} = -1$.

share|improve this answer
    
What do you mean "centralized by $\phi$"? Do you mean "fixed by $\phi$"? –  Will Chen Jan 30 '13 at 21:24
    
I mean the subgroup consisting of those elements that are fixed by $\phi$. I prefer to call it centralized because that makes it clear that I mean fixed element-wise rather than fixed as a set. –  Derek Holt Jan 30 '13 at 22:31

It is a fairly standard result that $SU(2,q^2)$ and $SL(2,q)$ are isomorphic, see e.g. II.8.8. in Huppert's Endliche Gruppen. I would expect that it is also in the third volume of The Classification of the Finite Simple Groups by Gorenstein-Lyons-Solomon, but I don't have the volume at hand right now.

share|improve this answer
    
@Peter: In the G-L-S book, pages 68-69 summarize special linear and special unitary groups, noting the degenerate 2-dimensional case $m=1$ (first full paragraph on page 69). Labels get complicated for the classical groups, but I guess the moral is that in dimension 2 there is no real need to worry about unitary matrices over finite fields. –  Jim Humphreys Jan 30 '13 at 1:31

Your Answer

 
discard

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.