5
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a finite group, $k$ the field of complex numbers.

Are there (cohomologically nontrivial) group 2-cocycles $\sigma\in Z^2(G,k^\times)$ such that for all $g,h\in G$: $$\sigma(g,h)=\sigma(ghg^{-1},g)$$

I would like to rule out nontrivial $\sigma$ with that property for any nonabelian group or get hands on a counterexample. They are directly related to possible additional automorphisms in nonabelian Dijkgraaf-Witten theory resp. additional braided autoequivalences of the Drinfel'd double representations.

A conjugacy class $[g]$ is called $\sigma$-regular iff $\sigma(g,h)=\sigma(h,g)$ for all $h\in Cent(g)$ (this does not depend on the representing $g$ or $\sigma$). Hence a symmetric cocycle in the sense above would especially imply that all conjugacy classes $[g]$ are $\sigma$-regular. We can hence reformulate the question:

Can a nontrivial $k_\sigma[G]$ have the same number of irreducible representations as $k[G]$?

Thank you!

Added: The converse is also true! It seems standard (e.g. Ofir's reference [Higgs89] Lm. 1.2i) that in any class $[\sigma]$ there is a representative such that for any $\sigma$-regular $x$ and any $g$ $$\frac{\sigma(g,x)\sigma(gx,g^{-1})}{\sigma(g,g^{-1})}=1$$ An easy cohomology calculation shows indeed $$\frac{\sigma(g,x)}{\sigma(gxg^{-1},g)} =\frac{\sigma(g,x)}{\sigma(gxg^{-1},g)} \cdot \frac{\sigma(gx,g^{-1})\sigma(gxg^{-1},g)}{\sigma(gx,1)\sigma(g,g^{-1})}=1$$ hance if all $x$ are $\sigma$-regular (second question) then this equation holds for all $g,x$ (first question).

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ This is a comment (haven't enough reps to comment directly). Why are there no nonrivial symmetric 2-cocycles for abelian $G$ ? Note that for $G$ abelian, each 2-cocyle is symmetric (trivial coefficients!). Then, since $H^2(G,\mathbb{C}^\times)=H^2(G,S^1)= H^3(G,\mathbb{Z})$, there is, for instance, a nontrivial symmetric 2-cocycle for $G=C_2 \times C_2$, Or am I missing something ? $\endgroup$
    – user63850
    Commented Feb 4, 2015 at 22:41
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure what worries you. The Klein $4$-group certainly has proper central extensions ( either quaternion of order $8$ or dihedral of order $8$), but in either case, there is only one irreducible representation for the non-trivial associated twisted group algebra, compared to $4$ irreducible representations for the untwisted group algebra, $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 4, 2015 at 23:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Geoff: The question is concerned with central extensions $\mathbb{C}^\times \to E \to G$. So $E$ quaternion or dihedral doesn't fit here. What worries me is: The OP said there is no nontrivial symmetric 2-cocycle for $G$ abelian. To my understanding such a symmetric 2-cocycle corresponds to an extension with $E$ abelian. And my comment shows that there is such an abelian extension for $G=C_2 \times C_2$ (and many other groups) that dosn't split. So I wonder if this statement from the OP is really true. $\endgroup$
    – user63850
    Commented Feb 4, 2015 at 23:47
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I think the point is (at least the way I look at it) that a $2$-cocycle for a finite group can be normalized to take values which are finite order roots of unity ( basically, each finite group has a finite Schur multiplier). I agree that the Klein 4-group has a non-split central extension (by all of $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$ if you like), that's what I said above. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 4, 2015 at 23:58
  • $\begingroup$ I understand you wonder about the 2-cocycle without extension interpretation: In case $C_2\times C_2=\langle g,h\rangle$ there is indeed a unique nontrivial cohomology class. Say the 2-cocycle $\sigma(g,g)=\sigma(h,h)=1, \sigma(g,h)=1,\sigma(h,g)=-1$; any other $\sigma$ in this class will have $\sigma(g,h)\sigma(h,g)=-1$, so all are nonsymmetric. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 0:09

2 Answers 2

3
+100
$\begingroup$

I will answer your second question. By generalized Maschke theorem the twisted group algebras $\mathbb{C}^fG$ are all semi-simple and the number of simple components is the number of the irreducible projective $f$-representations of $G$, ($|Irr_f(G)|$). Hence, $$|Irr_f(G)|=dim (Z(\mathbb{C}^fG)).$$ Now, an element $g\in G$ is called $f$-regular if for any $x\in C_G(g)$ $$f(g,x)=f(x,g).$$ It is also known that $Z(\mathbb{C}^fG)$ has a basis consisting of $f$-regular conjugacy classes. Clearly for trivial cocycle any conjugacy class is regular, hence I formulte your second question as follows:

Is there exist a group $G$ and a $f\in Z^2(G,\mathbb{C}^*)$ which is not cohomogaclly trivial such that any $g\in G$ is $f$-regular.

This elements are sometimes called "distinguish" and they may exist as in the example gave by R.J.Higgs in his paper from 1987: "projective characters of degree one and the inflation-restriction sequence".

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much, that was the right paper! And with little effort (above) I could show both questions are equivalent, hence you earned definitely your bounty ;-) BUT I would aprechiate another reference, since googling "distinguished cocycle" was not very successful. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 14, 2015 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ @SimonLentner you are welcome. You should check for Bogomolov multiplier, as in "The Brauer group of quotient spaces by linear group actions" by Bogomolov himself. Also, there was an interesting question asking if a group $G$ can admit both distigushed cocycles and non-degenerate cocycles. I know that someone found an example of such group but I don't remember who or where. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 8:30
3
$\begingroup$

Not a complete answer: I prefer to think of this question as a question about central extensions: it is equivalent to the following: Let $H$ be a finite group with $Z(H) \leq H^{\prime}$, and let $\lambda$ be a linear character of $Z(H)$. Is it possible that the number of complex irreducible characters of $H$ which lie over $\lambda$ (ie, have restrictions to $Z(H)$ which are multiples of $\lambda$) is the same as the number of complex irreducible characters of $H/Z(H)$? The former number is always less that or equal to the latter. When $Z(H)$ has prime order $p,$ we have the desired equality exactly when some non-identity element of $Z(H)$ is not a commutator (and, in fact, in that case, no non-identity element of $Z(H)$ is a commutator). Here, by a commutator, I mean an element of the form $[x,y] = x^{-1}y^{-1}xy.$ There are finite quasi-simple groups $H$ which contain central elements which are not commutators, and all such occurences were listed by H. Blau ( with later tables by M. Liebeck giving all non-commutators, central or not, in quasisimple groups). If I am reading these lists correctly, there are no quasisimple groups $H$ with $Z(H)$ of prime order with a central element which is not a commutator. However, I do not not know whether there are any perfect groups $H$ with $Z(H)$ of prime order in which non-identity elements of $Z(H)$ are non-commutators. In general, if there were a finite perfect group $H$ in which no non-identity element of $Z(H)$ was a commutator, then $G$ would have $|Z(H)|k(H/Z(H))$ complex irreducible characters, where $k(X)$ denotes the number of conjugacy classes of a finite group $X$, and furthermore, there would be $k(H/Z(H))$ irreducible characters of $H$ lying over each linear character of $Z(H)$. However, I do not know if there is such a perfect group $H$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, that was already very helpful. I started to check explicitly in the Atlas, that the statement still holds for the exceptions in the list $\mathbb{A}_6,\mathbb{A}_7,A_3(4),{^2}A_3(3^2),{^2}E_6(2^2),M_{22},Fi_{22}$, which is not so hard given the explicit projective character table given there....However still no counterexamples $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 8:23
  • $\begingroup$ No, I think there are no quasisimple exceptions, but there are other perfect finite groups. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 10:08
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, got it, thanx! (I thought it was in the non-prime case just not sufficient...anyway the quick check was instructive) $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 10:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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