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

If $A$ is an $n\times n$ matrix over a field, and $A^{k} = I$, with $k$ the least positive integer such that this occurs, then must there be some vector $v$ such that $\{v,Av,A^{2}v,\dots,A^{k-1}v\}$ has $k$ distinct elements in it? In other words:

Must every matrix of finite multiplicative order have a regular orbit?

If A has prime power order, $k = p^{m}$, then $A^{p^{m-1}}-I$ is nonzero, so its kernel is proper, and everything outside of that kernel is a vector in a regular orbit. Over a finite field of size $q$, the index of a proper subspace is at least $q$, so we can even just choose (on average) $q$ random vectors to find one in a regular orbit. Over an infinite field, the same idea roughly says any random vector should work, as long as one can make some sort of "uniformly" distributed choice.

If $A$ has order a product of two prime powers, then I am assured this is true by a (special case) of an exercise in Isaacs's Finite Group Theory. I cannot imagine an argument that does not work for arbitrary orders $k$, but I also cannot find a convincing proof even for the product of two prime powers. The sum of vectors in regular orbits of the $p$ - parts of $A$ need not themselves be in regular orbits of $A$. Every matrix (over a finite field) I've tried has a regular orbit.


Assuming this is easy, how does one handle the case where $A$ is an automorphism of a finite group $G$, and the order of $A$ is a product of two prime powers? In other words:

Prove every automorphism of order $p^{a}q^{b}$ of a finite group has a regular orbit.

Assuming the first question's answer is "yes", then what goes wrong for arbitrary orders? Isaacs's book gives an example where the general automorphism can fail to have a regular orbit, but it is impossible to compare this until I have at least some idea of why the two-prime case does work.


A related version of this question is: regular orbits are quite important in permutation and (finite) matrix groups and are a standard technique in several important (solved and unsolved) problems in modular representation theory.

Is there sort of a gentle introduction that puts these techniques in context?

For any individual paper is clear that what they say works, but my picture of this area is incredibly disjointed and I suspect that is not true for everyone. For instance Khukhro has an excellent book on automorphisms of p-groups with few fixed points, and many finite group theory texts have chapters on fixed-point-free automorphisms and the consequences for the group structure of the group being acted upon. However, I haven't found any "textbook" exposition of regular orbits yet.

share|improve this question
    
"Prove every automorphism of order paqb of a finite group has a regular orbit." Isn't this also covered in Isaacs's FGT, exercise 3A.8? –  Steve D Apr 19 '10 at 16:27

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

For your first question, I presume you also wish to insist that $k$ be the least integer such that $A^k=I$. The matrix $A$ is then similar over your field to a direct sum $B_1,\ldots,B_m$ of companion matrices of (over your field $F$) factors of $X^k-1$, say $f_1,\ldots,f_m$. Then $F^n$ decomposes as a direct sum of subspaces where $A$ acts cyclically with generator $v_i$ annihilated by $f_i(A)$.

Let $v=v_1+\cdots +v_m$. Then for a polynomial $g$, $g(A)v=0$ if and only if $g(A)v_i=0$ for all $i$ if and only if $f_i\mid g$ for all $i$. Hence $F\mid g$ where $F=f_1\cdots f_m$. But then $F(A)u=0$ for all $u$ (so that $F$ is the minimum polynomial of $A$). If $A^l=I$ where $l < k$ then $F\mid(X^l-1)$ and then $A^l-I=0$, contrary to hypothesis. So yes, $A$ has a regular orbit.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks, I think this takes care of the first problem, though I am little worried at how close it sounds to my original idea that has counterexamples. In my language your B_i are basically my p-parts of A, and your v_i are representatives of special regular orbits of the B_i. Your sums are "direct", and so everything should work. I tried using kernels of A^(p^i)-1, and somehow this didn't work in an example, but I think it must be equivalent to what you've said. –  Jack Schmidt Apr 15 '10 at 17:30
    
I should add that this is a special case of the fact that if the matrix $A$ has minimum polynomial $g$ then there is a vector $v$ such that $f(A)v=0$ iff $g\mid f$. This fact drops straight out of the theory of the rational canonical form of a matrix. –  Robin Chapman Apr 15 '10 at 20:26

Thanks to Marty Isaacs for reminding me the exercise was supposed to be easy and for giving a reference to my larger question. I'll post it here, since I think some people are following it.


If the order of A is paqb then the subgroup generated by A has two minimal subgroups, generated by P=Apa−1qb and Q=Apaqb−1. If the orbit of g under A is not regular, then the stabilizer is a non-identity subgroup of A, so it contains either P or Q. Hence either P or Q centralize g. Hence g centralizes either P or Q (I am always amazed at the power of noticing "centralize" is symmetric), so g is in the union CG(P) ∪ CG(Q). Both of these subgroups are proper subgroups of G, since A acts faithfully on G itself. However, G is not the union of two proper subgroups, so there is some g in G − ( CG(P) ∪ CG(Q) ), and such a g represents a regular orbit.


An investigation of which groups G must have regular orbits is in:

Horoševskiĭ, M. V. "Automorphisms of finite groups." Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 93(135) (1974), 576–587, 630. (Math. USSR Sbornik 22 (1974) 4, 584–594) MR347979 DOI: 10.1070/SM1974v022n04ABEH001707

and in particular proves that every automorphism of a nilpotent group or a semisimple (that is, Fitting-free) group has a regular orbit. The paper has exercise 3A.8 as a remark after corollary 1 (page 592 in the English translation), and corollary 3.3 as theorem 2. Its lemma 4 fixes my difficulties with dealing with the orbits prime by prime (don't look at the p-parts of A where the obvious statement has obvious counterexamples, look at non-faithful orbits instead).


I could not generalize Robin Chapman's argument to finite abelian groups, since one no longer has that finite Z/nZ[t] modules are direct sums of cyclic modules (for instance, Z[t]/(4,tt-1) has the ideal (2,t+1)/(4,tt-1) of type C2 × C4 with t=A acting as the matrix [1,2;0,1]. This module is non-cyclic and indecomposable. Of course t has a regular orbit, but I could not simply choose a "generator". Marty Isaacs has shown me how to use Horoševskiĭ's argument to reduce to the case where G is indecomposable, where presumably it is easier than I think.


In the other direction, keeping G elementary abelian but letting A be an entire group of automorphisms, one is still quite interested in whether there is a regular orbit. I found this article helpful for getting an idea of how this works:

Fleischmann, Peter. "Finite groups with regular orbits on vector spaces." J. Algebra 103 (1986), no. 1, 211–215. MR860700 DOI: 10.1016/0021-8693(86)90180-8.

In particular, nilpotent groups tend to have regular orbits except when p=2 is involved (either in A or G), and the specific problems with p=2 are addressed. Its methods for abelian groups A give an alternative view of Robin Chapman's answer (basically the paper shows that you can reduce to the algebraically closed/absolutely irreducible case, and then the Bi are all 1x1, and the matrix A is diagonal).

share|improve this answer
    
Note that the same arguments given by Isaacs show that if 4 doesn't divide $|G|$, then we can let $|A|$ be divisible by three primes. –  Steve D Apr 20 '10 at 16:15

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.