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

Let $k$ be a field, let $G = PGL_2(k)$ be the projective general linear group of $k$, and let $X = k \cup \{ \infty \}$ be one-dimensional projective space over $k$. Then $G$ acts on $X$ (via fractional linear transformations). This action has the following properties:

1) The action of $G$ on $X$ is simply 3-transitive. That is, it acts simply transitively on the set of 3-tuples of distinct elements of $X$. (Edited as indicated in the comments.)

2) Suppose that $x,y \in X$ are distinct elements and that $g \in G$ satisfies $gx = y$, $gy = x$. Then $g$ has order $2$.

Is the converse true? (That is, if we are given an action of a group $G$ on a set $X$ satisfying 1) and 2), does it follow that $G = PGL_2(k)$ for some field $k$, with its natural action on $k \cup \{ \infty \}$?

(This is true at least when $G$ and $X$ are finite: it can be deduced from the theorem of Frobenius on Frobenius groups.)

share|improve this question
2  
Daniel, your silliness can be generalized: $X$ could be empty; and if it is empty or a singleton then $G$ can be arbitrary. –  Tom Goodwillie Jun 4 '11 at 3:19
4  
And the remedy is to redefine $3$-transitive as meaning that the action of $G$ on the set of ordered triples of distinct elements is transitive, i.e. has exactly one orbit. –  Tom Goodwillie Jun 4 '11 at 3:19
2  
Yes, that is what I should have said. –  Jacob Lurie Jun 4 '11 at 5:03
1  
The question reminds me of the theorem that abstract projective planes satisfying Desargues' "theorem" are of the form $DP^2$ for a division ring $D$, and satisfying Pappus' "theorem" are of the form $FP^2$ for a field $F$. The proofs do rather a lot, in that they need to use incidence geometry to build addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division on a set built from the plane. Presumably a couple of the same ideas could be put into play here. –  Allen Knutson Jun 5 '11 at 2:44
1  
...In particular, the first step in that theorem is to work with the group of collineations; Desargues' condition says that this is doubly transitive on the points. Crazy idea: can one build $P^2$ from $P^1$, say as $X^2/S_2$, and reduce your 1-dim question to this known 2-dim result? –  Allen Knutson Jun 5 '11 at 4:47
show 4 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 19 down vote accepted

A KT-field $(F,+,\times,\sigma)$ consists of a neardomain $(F,+,\times)$ together with an involutionary automorphism $\sigma$ satisfying $$\sigma(1 + \sigma(x)) = 1 - \sigma(1 + x)$$ for all $x \in F \setminus \{0,1\}$. (My impression is that neardomains are quite weak entities, e.g. $F^{\times}$ is required to be a group but it may not be commutative, $(F,+)$ is not even necessarily a group. Industrious MO reader adds the definition of a neardomain to this answer if they wish.) Sharply $3$-transitive groups are determined up to isomorphism as permutation groups on $\mathbf{P}^1(F) = F \cup \{ \infty \}$ consisting of maps of the form:

(i): $x \mapsto a + m x, \quad \infty \mapsto \infty$

(ii): $x \mapsto a + \sigma(b + m x), \quad \infty \mapsto a, \quad - m^{-1} b \mapsto \infty$,

where $a,b \in F$ and $m \in F^{\times}$.

Consider the set of elements $\gamma \in G$ such that $\gamma(0) = \infty$ and $\gamma(\infty) = 0$. They are given exactly by mappings of the form: $$\gamma: x \mapsto \sigma( \lambda x)$$ for any $\lambda \in F^{\times}$. If all such $\gamma$ have order two, then $$\sigma(\lambda \sigma(\lambda x)) = x$$ for all $x, \lambda \in F^{\times}$. Setting $x = \lambda^{-1}$, it follows that $\sigma(\lambda) = \lambda^{-1}$ for all $\lambda \in F^{\times}$. Since $\sigma$ is an automorphism, it follows that $F^{\times}$ is commutative. From a Theorem of Kirby (see below), it follows that $(F,+,\times)$ is actually a commutative field, and $G = \mathrm{PGL}_2(F)$.

All the results and definitions of this answer can be gleamed from the math review: MR0997066 (91b:20004a) of a paper by William Kerby. The paper is only $3$-pages long, so I assume that is is relatively elementary - although I can't access it myself, and it may refer to previous results. (Full disclosure, all I did was type "sharply 3-transitive" into mathscinet, I don't actually know what a neardomain actually is.) In case your actual purpose is to generalize this result to $(\infty,\pi)$-whatzit categories with creamy rice pudding centres, you might want to take a glance at the actual paper.

share|improve this answer
    
Sounds like exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks. –  Jacob Lurie Jun 5 '11 at 11:09
add comment

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.