Return to Answer

Maybe I can comment on Question 2. To me the essential point is that this kind of result belongs to elementary linear algebra and basic group theory rather than to geometric algebra. Generation of special linear groups (or slightly larger groups) by involutions probably goes back a long way and may have multiple origins, though I don't have a definitive reference handy. (I'd probably try to ask someone like Gustafson or Djokovic rather than search the scattered literature.)

From a semi-modern viewpoint, for instance, generation of a general linear group over an arbitrary field focuses on the traditional building blocks: elementary, permutation, and diagonal matrices. Since a one-parameter group of elementary matrices along with a suitable permutation matrix will generate a copy of SL$_2$, generation of a special linear group just requires these two kinds of ingredients. Here a permutation matrix is obviously a product of involutions. On the other hand, SL$_2$ is almost simple, while its subgroup generated by involutions is obviously normal and too big to be the center. (To include matrices of determinant $-1$ is a further step.)

Books like those by Dieudonne (and Artin) mix in further ideas arising from the geometry of a bilinear form, along with consideration of exact upper bounds on the number of involutions needed to generate any group element. Such upper bounds for products of involutions in general linear groups may have come along later.

P.S. I used SL$_2$ subgroups in the rough sketch above just to emphasize some elementary steps for showing that the big groups in question are generated by involutions; of course, simplicity of SL$_n$ modulo its center for most fields could be used directly here, plus ad hoc arguments for the few nonsimple cases. Then multiplying any matrix of det $-1$ by a diagonal involution reduces to the det 1 case. Anyway, none of this older theory deals with an explicit upper bound on number of involutions required.

FURTHER UPDATE: Sorry to have confused matters with my offhand remarks here. While my "essential point" is unchanged, a quick look at the paper quoted (along with other comments here) indicates that the statement of the theorem is true: Each matrix of determinant 1 or -1 is the product of at most four involutions (exactly four if you follow their convention that an involution is an element of square 1). I managed to make a copy of the bound journal article at the library this morning, where the methods used rely just on linear algebra. The authors are following in a tradition where products of 2 or 3 matrix involutions have been characterized.

The point seems to be that you work exclusively in the larger group of all matrices having determinant 1 or -1 (leaving special linear groups aside). Here the argument involves rational canonical forms and permutation matrices having either determinant. With this flexibility, the argument in the paper seems OK but is written down a bit loosely. It would help to state their theorem by giving the group in question a name (there seems not to be a standard one). Since I think first in terms of connected algebraic or Lie groups, I was too quick to interpret the theorem as applying to special linear groups. (Like Brian I am also tempted to consider other Lie types, relying on Bruhat decomposition and the like.)

Maybe I can comment on Question 2. To me the essential point is that this kind of result belongs to elementary linear algebra and basic group theory rather than to geometric algebra. Generation of special linear groups (or slightly larger groups) by involutions probably goes back a long way and may have multiple origins, though I don't have a definitive reference handy. (I'd probably try to ask someone like Gustafson or Djokovic rather than search the scattered literature.)

From a semi-modern viewpoint, for instance, generation of a general linear group over an arbitrary field focuses on the traditional building blocks: elementary, permutation, and diagonal matrices. Since a one-parameter group of elementary matrices along with a suitable permutation matrix will generate a copy of SL$_2$, generation of a special linear group just requires these two kinds of ingredients. Here a permutation matrix is obviously a product of involutions. On the other hand, SL$_2$ is almost simple, while its subgroup generated by involutions is obviously normal. (To include matrices of determinant -1 is a further step.)

Books like those by Dieudonne (and Artin) mix in further ideas arising from the geometry of a bilinear form, along with consideration of exact upper bounds on the number of involutions needed to generate any group element. Such upper bounds for products of involutions in general linear groups may have come along later.

P.S. I used SL$_2$ subgroups in the rough sketch above just to emphasize some elementary steps for showing that the big groups in question are generated by involutions; of course, simplicity of SL$_n$ modulo its center for most fields could be used directly here, plus ad hoc arguments for the few nonsimple cases. Then multiplying any matrix of det -1 by a diagonal involution reduces to the det 1 case. Anyway, none of this older theory deals with an explicit upper bound on number of involutions required.

FURTHER UPDATE: Sorry to have confused matters with my offhand remarks here. While my "essential point" is unchanged, a quick look at the paper quoted (along with other comments here) indicates that the statement of the theorem is true: Each matrix of determinant 1 or -1 is the product of at most four involutions (exactly four if you follow their convention that an involution is an element of square 1). I managed to make a copy of the bound journal article at the library this morning, where the methods used rely just on linear algebra. The authors are following in a tradition where products of 2 or 3 matrix involutions have been characterized.

The point seems to be that you work exclusively in the larger group of all matrices having determinant 1 or -1 (leaving special linear groups aside). Here the argument involves rational canonical forms and permutation matrices having either determinant. With this flexibility, the argument in the paper seems OK but is written down a bit loosely. It would help to state their theorem by giving the group in question a name (there seems not to be a standard one). Since I think first in terms of connected algebraic or Lie groups, I was too quick to interpret the theorem as applying to special linear groups. (Like Brian I am also tempted to consider other Lie types, relying on Bruhat decomposition and the like.)

Maybe I can comment on Question 2. To me the essential point is that this kind of result belongs to elementary linear algebra and basic group theory rather than to geometric algebra. Generation of special linear groups (or slightly larger groups) by involutions probably goes back a long way and may have multiple origins, though I don't have a definitive reference handy. (I'd probably try to ask someone like Gustafson or Djokovic rather than search the scattered literature.)

From a semi-modern viewpoint, for instance, generation of a general linear group over an arbitrary field focuses on the traditional building blocks: elementary, permutation, and diagonal matrices. Since a one-parameter group of elementary matrices along with a suitable permutation matrix will generate a copy of SL$_2$, generation of a special linear group just requires these two kinds of ingredients. Here a permutation matrix is obviously a product of involutions. On the other hand, SL$_2$ is almost simple, while its subgroup generated by involutions is obviously normal and too big to be the center. (To include matrices of determinant $-1$ is a further step.)

Books like those by Dieudonne (and Artin) mix in further ideas arising from the geometry of a bilinear form, along with consideration of exact upper bounds on the number of involutions needed to generate any group element. Such upper bounds for products of involutions in general linear groups may have come along later.

P.S. I used SL$_2$ subgroups in the rough sketch above just to emphasize some elementary steps for showing that the big groups in question are generated by involutions; of course, simplicity of SL$_n$ modulo its center for most fields could be used directly here, plus ad hoc arguments for the few nonsimple cases. Then multiplying any matrix of det $-1$ by a diagonal involution reduces to the det 1 case. Anyway, none of this older theory deals with an explicit upper bound on number of involutions required.

UPDATE: Sorry to have confused matters further with my offhand remarks here. While my "essential point" is unchanged, a quick look at the paper quoted (along with other comments here) indicates that the theorem is false as stated. Instead the authors seem to be proving that in the matrix subgroup generated by all involutions, each matrix is the product of at most four involutions (exactly four if you follow their convention that an involution is an element of square 1). I managed to make a copy of the bound journal at the library this morning and will look at it more closely, but the methods used rely just on linear algebra. The authors are following in a tradition where products of 2 or 3 matrix involutions have been characterized.

MORE: The point seems to be that you work exclusively in the larger group of all matrices having determinant 1 or -1 (leaving special linear groups aside). Here the argument involves rational canonical forms and permutation matrices having either determinant. With this flexibility, the argument in the paper seems OK but is written down a bit loosely. It would help to state their theorem by giving the group in question a name (there seems not to be a standard one). Since I think first in terms of connected algebraic or Lie groups, I was too quick to interpret the theorem as applying to special linear groups. (Like Brian I am also tempted to consider other Lie types, relying on Bruhat decomposition and the like.)

Maybe I can comment on Question 2. To me the essential point is that this kind of result belongs to elementary linear algebra and basic group theory rather than to geometric algebra. Generation of special linear groups (or slightly larger groups) by involutions probably goes back a long way and may have multiple origins, though I don't have a definitive reference handy. (I'd probably try to ask someone like Gustafson or Djokovic rather than search the scattered literature.)

From a semi-modern viewpoint, for instance, generation of a general linear group over an arbitrary field focuses on the traditional building blocks: elementary, permutation, and diagonal matrices. Since a one-parameter group of elementary matrices along with a suitable permutation matrix will generate a copy of SL$_2$, generation of a special linear group just requires these two kinds of ingredients. Here a permutation matrix is obviously a product of involutions. On the other hand, SL$_2$ is almost simple, while its subgroup generated by involutions is obviously normal and too big to be the center. (To include matrices of determinant $-1$ is a further step.)

Books like those by Dieudonne (and Artin) mix in further ideas arising from the geometry of a bilinear form, along with consideration of exact upper bounds on the number of involutions needed to generate any group element. Such upper bounds for products of involutions in general linear groups may have come along later.

P.S. I used SL$_2$ subgroups in the rough sketch above just to emphasize some elementary steps for showing that the big groups in question are generated by involutions; of course, simplicity of SL$_n$ modulo its center for most fields could be used directly here, plus ad hoc arguments for the few nonsimple cases. Then multiplying any matrix of det $-1$ by a diagonal involution reduces to the det 1 case. Anyway, none of this older theory deals with an explicit upper bound on number of involutions required.

FURTHER UPDATE: Sorry to have confused matters with my offhand remarks here. While my "essential point" is unchanged, a quick look at the paper quoted (along with other comments here) indicates that the statement of the theorem is true: Each matrix of determinant 1 or -1 is the product of at most four involutions (exactly four if you follow their convention that an involution is an element of square 1). I managed to make a copy of the bound journal article at the library this morning, where the methods used rely just on linear algebra. The authors are following in a tradition where products of 2 or 3 matrix involutions have been characterized.

The point seems to be that you work exclusively in the larger group of all matrices having determinant 1 or -1 (leaving special linear groups aside). Here the argument involves rational canonical forms and permutation matrices having either determinant. With this flexibility, the argument in the paper seems OK but is written down a bit loosely. It would help to state their theorem by giving the group in question a name (there seems not to be a standard one). Since I think first in terms of connected algebraic or Lie groups, I was too quick to interpret the theorem as applying to special linear groups. (Like Brian I am also tempted to consider other Lie types, relying on Bruhat decomposition and the like.)

Maybe I can comment on Question 2. To me the essential point is that this kind of result belongs to elementary linear algebra and basic group theory rather than to geometric algebra. Generation of special linear groups (or slightly larger groups) by involutions probably goes back a long way and may have multiple origins, though I don't have a definitive reference handy. (I'd probably try to ask someone like Gustafson or Djokovic rather than search the scattered literature.)

From a semi-modern viewpoint, for instance, generation of a general linear group over an arbitrary field focuses on the traditional building blocks: elementary, permutation, and diagonal matrices. Since a one-parameter group of elementary matrices along with a suitable permutation matrix will generate a copy of SL$_2$, generation of a special linear group just requires these two kinds of ingredients. Here a permutation matrix is obviously a product of involutions. On the other hand, SL$_2$ is almost simple, while its subgroup generated by involutions is obviously normal and too big to be the center. (To include matrices of determinant $-1$ is a further step.)

Books like those by Dieudonne (and Artin) mix in further ideas arising from the geometry of a bilinear form, along with consideration of exact upper bounds on the number of involutions needed to generate any group element. Such upper bounds for products of involutions in general linear groups may have come along later.

P.S. I used SL$_2$ subgroups in the rough sketch above just to emphasize some elementary steps for showing that the big groups in question are generated by involutions; of course, simplicity of SL$_n$ modulo its center for most fields could be used directly here, plus ad hoc arguments for the few nonsimple cases. Then multiplying any matrix of det $-1$ by a diagonal involution reduces to the det 1 case. Anyway, none of this older theory deals with an explicit upper bound on number of involutions required.

UPDATE: Sorry to have confused matters further with my offhand remarks here. While my "essential point" is unchanged, a quick look at the paper quoted (along with other comments here) indicates that the theorem is false as stated. Instead the authors seem to be proving that in the matrix subgroup generated by all involutions, each matrix is the product of at most four involutions (exactly four if you follow their convention that an involution is an element of square 1). I managed to make a copy of the bound journal at the library this morning and will look at it more closely, but the methods used rely just on linear algebra. The authors are following in a tradition where products of 2 or 3 matrix involutions have been characterized.

Maybe I can comment on Question 2. To me the essential point is that this kind of result belongs to elementary linear algebra and basic group theory rather than to geometric algebra. Generation of special linear groups (or slightly larger groups) by involutions probably goes back a long way and may have multiple origins, though I don't have a definitive reference handy. (I'd probably try to ask someone like Gustafson or Djokovic rather than search the scattered literature.)

From a semi-modern viewpoint, for instance, generation of a general linear group over an arbitrary field focuses on the traditional building blocks: elementary, permutation, and diagonal matrices. Since a one-parameter group of elementary matrices along with a suitable permutation matrix will generate a copy of SL$_2$, generation of a special linear group just requires these two kinds of ingredients. Here a permutation matrix is obviously a product of involutions. On the other hand, SL$_2$ is almost simple, while its subgroup generated by involutions is obviously normal and too big to be the center. (To include matrices of determinant $-1$ is a further step.)

Books like those by Dieudonne (and Artin) mix in further ideas arising from the geometry of a bilinear form, along with consideration of exact upper bounds on the number of involutions needed to generate any group element. Such upper bounds for products of involutions in general linear groups may have come along later.

P.S. I used SL$_2$ subgroups in the rough sketch above just to emphasize some elementary steps for showing that the big groups in question are generated by involutions; of course, simplicity of SL$_n$ modulo its center for most fields could be used directly here, plus ad hoc arguments for the few nonsimple cases. Then multiplying any matrix of det $-1$ by a diagonal involution reduces to the det 1 case. Anyway, none of this older theory deals with an explicit upper bound on number of involutions required.

UPDATE: Sorry to have confused matters further with my offhand remarks here. While my "essential point" is unchanged, a quick look at the paper quoted (along with other comments here) indicates that the theorem is false as stated. Instead the authors seem to be proving that in the matrix subgroup generated by all involutions, each matrix is the product of at most four involutions (exactly four if you follow their convention that an involution is an element of square 1). I managed to make a copy of the bound journal at the library this morning and will look at it more closely, but the methods used rely just on linear algebra. The authors are following in a tradition where products of 2 or 3 matrix involutions have been characterized.

MORE: The point seems to be that you work exclusively in the larger group of all matrices having determinant 1 or -1 (leaving special linear groups aside). Here the argument involves rational canonical forms and permutation matrices having either determinant. With this flexibility, the argument in the paper seems OK but is written down a bit loosely. It would help to state their theorem by giving the group in question a name (there seems not to be a standard one). Since I think first in terms of connected algebraic or Lie groups, I was too quick to interpret the theorem as applying to special linear groups. (Like Brian I am also tempted to consider other Lie types, relying on Bruhat decomposition and the like.)