9
$\begingroup$

I am studying a GIT quotient and I have a question that may be very silly.

Let $G$ be a connected reductive group and $\mathfrak{g}$ its Lie algebra. Then are there some differences between $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G$ and $G/\!/G$?

I started this question since I want to find each dimension when $G=U_I$, which is the maximal unipotent radical of a parabolic subgroup in $\operatorname{GL}_n$. Maybe I am wrong, I guess that $\dim(U_I/\!/U_I)=n-1$, but Sevostyanova - The algebra of invariants for the adjoint action of the unitriangular group says that $\dim( \mathfrak{u}_I /\!/ U_I)$ is larger than $n-1$.

In summary, the followings are my questions:

  1. Are there some well-known differences between $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G$ and $G/\!/G$?
  2. Is there a formula or theorem between dimensions of $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G$ and $G/\!/G$?
  3. $\dim U_I/\!/U_i$ is not $n-1$?

I appreciate any comments for these!

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is your question about reductive groups $G$, or about unipotent radicals $U$ of parabolic subgroups of reductive groups? The latter are unipotent, hence never reductive (unless they are trivial). Even for reductive groups $G$, one should expect that, though $\mathfrak g//G$ and $G//G$ are related, they will differ; consider the case where $G$ is a torus! $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Aug 3, 2022 at 21:33
  • $\begingroup$ @LSpice Thank you for your comment! Actually, I want to ask both cases all, any reductive $G$ and unipotent radicals $U$. So I appreciate any comments at least one of them and so your comment is very helpful for me. I will think about the case when $G$ is a torus. Thank you very much. $\endgroup$
    – lafes
    Commented Aug 3, 2022 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ The notation $\mathfrak{g}//G$ looks typographically weird and I changed it to $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G,$ coded as \mathfrak{g}/\!/G, but I notice that "skd" in an answer posted below was even more extreme and wrote $\mathfrak{g}/\!\!/G,$ coded as \mathfrak{g}/\!\!/G. (In URLs in LaTeX documents I've been known to write $\text{http:}/\!/\text{whatever.net}$ in preference to $\text{http:}//\text{whatever.net}$ $\qquad$ $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 22:05

2 Answers 2

16
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\mmod}{/\!\!/}\newcommand{\fr}[1]{\mathfrak{#1}}$If $G$ is a torus, then $G$ acts trivially on $\fr{g}$, so that $\fr{g}\mmod G \cong \fr{g}$. Similarly, the adjoint action of $G$ on $G$ is trivial, so that $G\mmod G \cong G$, which is of course not isomorphic to $\fr{g}$. Suppose instead that $G$ is semisimple and simply-connected (everything over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic zero, to be safe), and let $W$ be the Weyl group. Then $\fr{g}\mmod G \cong \fr{t}\mmod W$ by Chevalley restriction, and $G\mmod G \cong T\mmod W$ by the Pittie–Steinberg theorem. Both $\fr{t}\mmod W$ and $T\mmod W$ are both isomorphic to an affine space of dimension $\operatorname{rank}(G)$; for $\fr{t}\mmod W$, this is Chevalley–Shepard–Todd, and for $T\mmod W$, this is Theorem 6.1 of Steinberg's "Regular elements of semisimple algebraic groups". So they are indeed isomorphic. For example, say $G = \operatorname{SL}_2$; then $\fr{t}\mmod W \cong \operatorname{Spec}(k[x^2])$ and $T\mmod W \cong \operatorname{Spec}(k[y + y^{-1}])$, and the isomorphism sends $x^2\mapsto y + y^{-1}$.

I don't know what happens if $G$ is instead unipotent, but going through the references of the paper you linked, I found Sevostyanova - The field of invariants of the adjoint action of the unitriangular group in the nilradical of a parabolic subalgebra. In the introduction, the author writes that if $N$ is the subgroup of $\mathrm{GL}_n(k)$ of upper triangular matrices with $1$s on the diagonal and $\fr{n}$ is its Lie algebra, then $k[\fr{n}]^N$ is a polynomial algebra on $n-1$ variables. (So $\fr{n}\mmod N$ is an affine space of dimension $n-1$.)

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ TeX note: It is usually better to use \operatorname rather than \mathrm for things that are semantically operators. Compare, for instance, $\mathrm{rank} G$ \mathrm{rank} G to $\operatorname{rank} G$ \operatorname{rank} G (although you used parentheses). MathJax note: Unlike in TeX, a preamble line $\newcommand\mmod{…}…$ followed by a newline will force a space in the text. Unfortunately, as ugly as it is in the source, the only way to get rid of the space is to put the closing $ directly next to the first line of the post, with no intervening whitespace. I have edited accordingly. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 0:54
  • $\begingroup$ I appreciate this answer, because I didn't know the name of the result in the group case. I can easily imagine that things go wrong, even on the Lie-algebra side, for bad primes (in the technical sense of Springer–Steinberg). I don't know much about the behaviour of geometric quotients, even in characteristic $0$. What, if anything, is known about the effect on $G//G$ of replacing $G$ by an isogenous reductive group? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 0:59
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice It will still be true that $G//G$ will be $T//W$, but $T//W$ need not be affine space, if $G$ is a non-simply connected reductive group. For example, let's compare the cases of $SL_3$ and $PSL_3$. The coordinate ring of the torus in $SL_3$ is $k[x_1, x_2, x_3]/(x_1 x_2 x_3-1)$, with $W = S_3$ acting by permuting the variables. The invariant ring is generated by $e_1 := x_1+x_2+x_3$ and $e_2 := x_1 x_2 + x_1 x_3 +x_2 x_3$ (we don't need $e_3$ because $x_1 x_2 x_3 = 1$). $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 1:49
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ The coordinate ring of the torus in $PSL_3$ is the subring of $k[x_1, x_2, x_3]/(x_1 x_2 x_3-1)$ consisting of polynomials which have total degree $0 \bmod 3$ in the $x$'s. Taking invariants by $S_3$, we get the subring of $k[e_1, e_2]$ generated by $e_1^3$, $e_1 e_2$ and $e_2^3$: an $A_2$-singularity. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 1:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is only fro simply connected simisimple groups that $G//G$ is smooth and even an affine space. As free generators of $\mathcal{O}(T)^W$ one can take the orbit sums of the fundamental weights. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 12:24
4
$\begingroup$

If you are in characteristic zero and $G$ is unipotent, then the exponential map is a $G$-equivariant isomorphism of algebraic varieties $\mathfrak{g} \longrightarrow G$, and therefore $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G \cong G/\!/G$ in this case.

Also, in characteristic zero but now letting $G$ be any algebraic group, the exponential map is a $G$-equivariant isomorphism from the completion of $\mathfrak{g}$ at $0$ to the completion of $G$ at $e$. I think the completions of $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G$ and $G/\!/G$ at the corresponding maximal ideals should be isomorphic, but Friedrich Knop has left a skeptical comment below, so I'll think about it more.

$\DeclareMathOperator\PSL{PSL}$In comments (1 2) to skd's answer, I pointed out that $\PSL_3/\!/\PSL_3$ is the singular variety $\operatorname{Spec} k[x,y,z]/\langle xy=z^3 \rangle$. Here we have $x=e_1^3$, $y=e_2^3$ and $z=e_1 e_2$ where $e_1$ and $e_2$ are the first and second elementary symmetric functions of the eigenvalues of a matrix in $SL_3$. Note that the identity corresponds to $e_1=e_2=3$, $(x,y,z) = (27,27,9)$, which is a smooth point of $\operatorname{Spec} k[x,y,z]/\langle xy=z^3 \rangle$; the singularity is at $e_1=e_2=0$, $(x,y,z)=0$, which corresponds to a matrix with eigenvalues $(1,\omega, \omega^2)$ for a primitive root of unity $\omega$. So the completion is just a power series ring in two variables.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am very skeptical that for arbitrary groups completion commutes with taking invariants. Is there a reference? For reductive groups it follows easily from complete reducibility. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 12:20
  • $\begingroup$ @FriedrichKnop, re, for reductive groups in characteristic 0 (which I agree is what we seem to be discussing!), right? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 13:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice Right, should be characteristic zero. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 13:46
  • $\begingroup$ At least if $G$ is reductive (over $\mathbf{C}$), the isomorphism between the completions of $\mathfrak{g}/\!\!/G$ and $G/\!\!/G$ can be viewed as a manifestation of the Chern character from complex K-theory of $BG$ tensored with $\mathbf{C}$ to the 2-periodified $\mathbf{C}$-cohomology of $BG$. Note that if $G$ is simply-connnected, $BG$ is not homotopy equivalent to a finite CW-complex (but it is an increasing union of such), so the completions really are necessary. $\endgroup$
    – skd
    Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 14:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .