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 a finite group and $k$ a field. In modular representation theory the Brauer correspondence establishes a bijection between the isomorphism classes of indecomposable $kG$-modules with trivial source and vertex $P$ and the isomorphism classes of non-zero projective indecomposable $k[N_G(P)/P]$-modules. This bijection is induced by the Brauer map $$M \mapsto \operatorname{Br}_P(M) := \frac{M^P}{\sum_Q tr_{Q}^P (M^Q)}$$ $(Q < P)$ where $M^P$ are the $P$-invariants and $tr^P_Q: M^Q \to M^P,\;\; m \mapsto \sum_{g \in P/Q}gm$ is the trace map. This was proved in Theorem 3.2 of the paper

M. Broué: On Scott Modules and p-Permutation Modules: An Approach through the Brauer Morphism. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 93(1985), 401-408

and the statement can also be found in this paper of M. Wildon (end of p. 12).

However, to my understanding, Broué's proof doesn't show that if $M_1,M_2$ aren't ismorphic then $\operatorname{Br}_P(M_1), \operatorname{Br}_P(M_2)$ aren't isomorphic as well (as $k[N_G(P)/P]$-modules).

Question: Does someone know, if the Brauer correspondence $[M] \mapsto [\operatorname{Br}_P(M)]$ ($[-]$ denotes isomorphism classes) is injective ? If so, a proof or a reference which contains a proof is also welcome.

Let me just explain why I think Broué's proof doesn't show injectivity in full strenght: He decomposes $kG \otimes_{kP}k = \bigoplus_{i=1}^n M_i$ into indecomposable $kG$-Modules whereby the ones with vertex $P$ are exactly those such that $\operatorname{Br}_P(M_i) \neq 0$. Assume this holds for $i=1,...m$. Then $$k[N_G(P)/P] = \operatorname{Br}_P(kG \otimes_Pk)= \bigoplus_{i=1}^m \operatorname{Br}_P(M_i)$$ and the $\operatorname{Br}_P(M_i),\;(i=1,...m)$ can be shown to be indecomposable. Since every indecomposable projective $k[N_G(P)/P]$-module is isomorphic to a direct summand of $k[N_G(P)/P]$, the Brauer correspondence is surely surjective.

However, to my understanding, it may happen that $M_i,M_j$ aren't isomorphic, but $\operatorname{Br}_P(M_i) \cong \operatorname{Br}_P(M_j)$ (i.e. this summand has multiplicity $>1$ in $k[N_G(P)/P])$.

share|cite|improve this question
I'd also love to know in what context you are studying this paper. – Natalie Jun 9 '12 at 12:27
@Natalie: I learned about Brauer correspondence when looking into Wildon's paper on modular representations of the symmetric group. In order to get some more background for this section I googled for "Brauer correspondence" and found Broué's paper. – Ralph Jun 14 '12 at 19:02
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Actually the answer seems to be in the paper of Wildon you linked. Right after Lemma 1.3.7. he shows that $Br_P$ coincides with the Green correspondence on indecomposable direct summands of $1\uparrow _P^G$ (which are exactly your modules $M_i$). Since Green corrensondence establishes a bijection between isomorphism classes of $kG$-modules with vertex $P$ and isomorphism classes of $kN_G(P)$-modules with vertex $P$, injectivity of $Br_P$ follows (surjectivity doesn't follow immediately from this argument, because we restricted the domain of definition of the Green correspondence to trivial source modules).

share|cite|improve this answer
@Florian: I think Green correspondence can also be used to show surjectivity: We can view an indecomposable projective $k[N_G(P)/P]$-module $N$ as $k[N_G(P)]$-module with vertex $P$ and trivial source. So $N$ is a Green correspondent $g(M)$ of some indecomposable $kG$-module $M$ with vertex $P$. But since Green correspondence respects sources, $M$ has trivial source. Hence we obtain $Br_P(M)=g(M)=N$. – Ralph Jun 14 '12 at 19:04
Since I want to save this html document and it fits here, let me include a proof that an indec. proj. $k[N/P]$-module $F$ with $N=N_G(P)$ has as $kN$-module vertex $P$ and trivial source: Since $F$ is an indec. direct summand of the permutation module $k[N/P]=kN\otimes_{kP}k$ it has trivial source (Benson: Repr. and Coh. I, 3.11.2) and is $kP$-projective. Thus its vertex $Q$ is conjugated to a subgroup of $P$. Moreover, $\operatorname{res}^N_P F$ is a direkt summand of $$\operatorname{res}^N_P \operatorname{ind}^N_Q k = \oplus_g \operatorname{ind}^P_{P\cap gQg^{-1}}k=: \oplus_g L_g.$$ – Ralph Jun 14 '12 at 19:05
(cont.) But $P$ acts trivially on $F$, so $\operatorname{res}^N_P F$ is a direkt sum of copies of $k$. Since $P$ is a $p$-group, $L_g$ is indec. by a theorem of Green. Hence there is a $g \in N$ with $k=L_g$ and from $\dim L_g=(P:P \cap gQg^{-1})$ we conclude $P\le gQg {-1}$ which implies $Q=g^{-1}Pg$. – Ralph Jun 14 '12 at 19:06

As Geoff Robinson's answer makes clear, the Brauer map is injective when restricted to indecomposable $p$-permutation $kG$-modules with vertex $P$, because it agrees with the Green correspondence. This is stated in Theorem 3.4 of the paper by Broué cited in the question. Natalie's answer mentions Thévenaz's book, which also has a proof of this fact.

If we allow non $p$-permutation modules (but still require fixed vertex $P$) then the map is not injective. For example, take $G = P = \langle g \rangle \cong C_8$ and let $k = \mathbf{F}_2$. Let $V_k$ be the unique $k$-dimensional indecomposable representation of $G$, for $1 \le k \le 8$. Then $V_3$ has a basis $v_1,v_2,v_3$ such that $v_i(g+1) = v_{i+1}$ for $i=1,2$ and $v_3(g+1) = 0$. Clearly $V_3^P = v_3$. Since

$$v_2g^2 = v_2 + v_2(1+g^2) = v_2 + v_2(1+g)^2 = v_2$$

and $\mathrm{Tr}_{\langle g^2 \rangle}^P v_2 = v_2(1+g) = v_3$, we have $\mathrm{Br}_P(V_3) = 0$. A similar argument shows that $\mathrm{Br}_P(V_5) = \mathrm{Br}_P(V_7) = 0$. But since $V_3$, $V_5$ and $V_7$ have odd dimension, they all have full vertex $P$.

There is a related example in Example 1.3.6 of the note of mine linked in the question.

share|cite|improve this answer
@Mark: Thanks for the nice example. Also the section on the Brauer correspondence in your paper gives a very good introduction in this topic (and an elegant proof for the bijectivity of the Brauer correspondence). – Ralph Jun 14 '12 at 19:03

I think that Broué was trying to give a different proof of something that was previously know to specialists via Green Correspondence. Green correspondence tells us that if we induce an indecomposable module with vertex $P$ from $N_{G}(P)$ to $G$, then there is a unique indecomposable summand with vertex $P$ (and necessarily with the same source). It also tells us that if we restrict an indecomposable module with vertex $P$ from $G$ to $N_{G}(P)$, then there is a unique indecomposable summand with vertex $P$ (again with the same source). Since the projective indecomposable $kN_{G}(P)/P$-module are precisely the indecomposable $kN_{G}(P)$ modules with vertex $P$ and trivial source, the claimed bijection holds. This accords with what is quoted in Florian's answer from Wildon's book. The projective indecomposable $kN_{G}(P)/P$-modules are the indecomposable summands of ${\rm Ind}_{P}^{N_{G}(P)}(k)$, and if we apply the Brauer map ${\rm Br}_{P}$ to the permutation module ${\rm Ind}_{P}^{G}(k)$, we get precisely ${\rm Ind}_{P}^{N_{G}(P)}(k)$.` Further comment: The point is that when ${\rm Br}_{P}(M_{i})$ is induced from $N_{G}(P)$ back up to $G$, $M_{i}$ occurs as a summand of the induced module, and it is the only summand of the induced module with vertex $P.$ Hence if ${\rm Br}_{P}(M_{i}) \cong {\rm Br}_{P}(M_{j})$, we must have $M_{i} \cong M_{j}.$

share|cite|improve this answer
Is it true that "projective indecomposable $kN_G(P)/P$-module are precisely the indecomposable $kN_G(P)$ modules with vertex $P$" as you say? What about the indecomposable $kN_G(P)$-modules, which do not have $P$ in their kernel? Even though $P$ is normal in $N_G(P)$, we just know that irreducible $kN_G(P)$-modules have $P$ in their kernel (Feit p102) but not indec. modules in general. – Natalie Jun 8 '12 at 20:40
@Natalie: I missed out the important words "with trivial source", which I inteded to be there. I have re-edited- thanks for pointing that out – Geoff Robinson Jun 8 '12 at 20:51
The Brauer morpism as defined by Brou\'e in that paper is only defined for trivial source modules in any case. – Geoff Robinson Jun 8 '12 at 20:57
@Geoff: Thanks for your answer. It was equally helpfull as Florian's answer and because I can't accept both, I accepted the first one. I hope you don't mind. – Ralph Jun 14 '12 at 19:04
@Ralph: Of course I don't mind. – Geoff Robinson Jun 17 '12 at 17:23

I carefully disagree with the above answers.

Take two $kG$-modules with trivial source (i.e. p-permutation) modules $M_1,M_2$ which are not isomorphic and whose vertices are $Q_i$ such that $Q_i$ is a proper subgroup of $P$ for $i=1,2$. Then $Br_P(M_i)=0$ for $i=1,2$ (see (1.3) in Broue's Paper you mentioned or Cor. (27.7) in Thevenaz' book "$G$-algebras and modular representation theory"). So the answer to your question is no. You might also look at M. Cabanes Paper "Brauer Morphisms between Modular Hecke Algebras", Section A.

But I think the above arguments hold if you consider modules with the same vertex (up to conjugation) such that their images under $Br$ are isomorphic (and maybe not zero?).

share|cite|improve this answer
But the question was about modules with vertex $P$ and trivial source wasn't it? It is certainly true that things can go wrong if you move away from indecomposable (trivial source) modules with vertex $P$. – Geoff Robinson Jun 8 '12 at 20:58
In the description of the Brauer correspondence (B.C.) in the question, $M$ is required to have vertex $P$ (as stated by Geoff): "... with trivial source and vertex $P$ ...". Then, of course, $\operatorname{Br}_P(M) \neq 0$, i.e. the B.C. misses $0$ as projective indecomposable $k[N_G(P)/P]$-module. This might have led to confusion. I will edit the question accordingly when I have worked through the answers. Anyway, thanks for the hint and the references. – Ralph Jun 8 '12 at 21:09

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.