10
$\begingroup$

I came across this preprint that claims in Lemma 1.1 that Gelfand's trick (also known as Gelfand's lemma) only works in characteristic zero:

Let $H < G$ be finite groups. Suppose we have an anti-involution $\sigma : G \rightarrow G$ that preserves all H double-cosets. Then over algebraically closed fields of characteristic zero (G, H) is a Gelfand pair.

It is not obvious to me where the characteristic of the ground field being zero is used in the proofs from Lang's $SL_2(\mathbb{R})$ book (Theorem 1 and Theorem 3 in Chapter IV), the introduction in this preprint, the last slides in these slides, or anything else that I've seen.

What causes Gelfand's trick to fail in positive characteristic? In this setting, the groups are finite but I would also like to know the answer for the more general versions of Gelfand's trick (i.e. also for locally compact groups with compact subgroups or even reductive groups over local fields with closed subgroups).

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The proof of Lemma 1 in math.toronto.edu/murnaghan/courses/mat445/GelfandPairs.pdf uses that the group algebra $\mathbb{C}G$ is semisimple. I guess, thatGelfand's lemma works over alg. closed fields those characteristic do not divide the order of $G$ $\endgroup$
    – tj_
    Commented Jun 26, 2019 at 3:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, so it is actually in the equivalence between the Hecke algebra being commutative and the multiplicity one statement? Indeed, the use of semisimplicity (Maschke's theorem) is also present in Theorem 2 in Chapter IV of Lang's $SL_2(\mathbb{R})$ and in Proposition 6 here: mathematics.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/…. $\endgroup$
    – ferrari
    Commented Jun 26, 2019 at 9:45
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In the case of finite groups in characteristic zero or coprime to |G|, it is Frobenius reciprocity which makes the Gelfand pair condition equivalenet to the Hecke algebra being commutative. In other characteristics, Frobenius reciprocity is replaced with Nakayama reciprocity, which is more subtle. $\endgroup$
    – Geoff Robinson
    Commented Jun 26, 2019 at 9:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I assume that by Nakayama reciprocity, you mean the statement of Frobenius reciprocity for the induction and restriction functors? Then, is the Gelfand pair condition is equivalent to the Hecke algebra being commutative over any characteristic when G is a compact (or locally compact) group? $\endgroup$
    – ferrari
    Commented Jun 26, 2019 at 10:59
  • $\begingroup$ It (the last quesstion) is not immediate ( if even true) as far as I can see. Yes, that is what I mean by Nakayama reciprocity. $\endgroup$
    – Geoff Robinson
    Commented Jun 26, 2019 at 11:23

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

Let me try to muddle my way through. In positive characteristic the Gelfand trick will still tell you that the Hecke algebra of $H$-biinvariant functions $A=Func(H\backslash G/H,k)$ is commutative.

Then, by general nonsense, the Hecke algebra is isomorphic to $End_G(P)$, where $P=k(G/H)=Ind_H^G (k_{triv})$ is the permutation representation.

Since $P$ is not semisimple, its structure can still be complicated. The sort of information you need to conclude that it is a Gelfand pair is that $Soc(P)$ or $P/Rad(P)$ is multiplicity-free. There is no way you can conclude that about $Soc(P)$.

But, here, Doc, is a happy ending for your opera: it follows from Nakayama Lemma that $$End(P/Rad(P))\cong A/Rad(A),$$ forcing the semisimple module $P/Rad(P)$ to be multiplicity free.

Let $V$ be an irreducible $G$-module. By Frobenius-Nakayama-Fudd Reciprocity, $$ Hom_H(k_{triv},V)=Hom_G(P,V)=Hom_G(P/Rad(P),V) $$ must be at most one-dimensional! And so is $$ Hom_H(V,k_{triv})=Hom_H(k_{triv},V^\ast). $$

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, what is $\text{Soc}(P)$? $\endgroup$
    – ferrari
    Commented Jul 9, 2019 at 15:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ sets? I will change to Func $\endgroup$
    – Bugs Bunny
    Commented May 27, 2020 at 6:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The isomorphism claim involving the Nakayama Lemma is not true for all $P$. It's still not clear how the isomorphism for $P = \mathrm{Ind}_H^G (k_{\mathrm{triv}})$ (or all finitely generated $P$?) in particular should follow from the Nakayama Lemma. $\endgroup$
    – preamble
    Commented Sep 5, 2020 at 13:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See this thread for a finite-dimensional counterexample where $End(P/Rad(P))\not\cong A/Rad(A)$. There must be some other special circumstance or condition on $P$ for the isomorphism to hold? $\endgroup$
    – preamble
    Commented Sep 5, 2020 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Googling around, I found this paper that looks like it does the problem, at least for finite groups. $\endgroup$
    – preamble
    Commented Sep 14, 2020 at 13:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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