Given a semisimple Lie group G, let T be a maximal torus, W be the Weyl group defined as the quotient N(T)/C(T), where N(T) denotes the normalizer of T and C(T) denotes the centralizer.

Two questions are:

  1. How many ways are there we can realize W as a subset of G?

  2. Can we always realize W as a subgroup of G?

  • $\begingroup$ This question (the second, more interesting question) will probably need some clarification before it can be cleanly answered. Is $G$ a semisimple real Lie group? Is $T$ a maximal split torus? $\endgroup$ – Marty Jan 27 '10 at 15:21
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's worth noting that the questions here make equal sense and have mostly the same answers when the group is assumed to be a (connected) semisimple algebraic group over an arbitrary algebraically closed field. In any case, smaller fields need more discussion. $\endgroup$ – Jim Humphreys Apr 16 '10 at 18:45

In general it is not possible to embed the Weyl group $W$ in the group $G$: already you can see this for $SL_2(\mathbb C)$, where the Weyl group has order $2$: if the torus fixes the lines spanned by $e_1$ and $e_2$ respectively, you want to pick the linear map taking $e_1$ to $e_2$ and $e_2$ to $e_1$, but this has determinant $-1$. A lift of $W$ to $N(T)$ must be an element of order $4$ not $2$, say $e_1 \mapsto -e_2$ and $e_2 \mapsto e_1$.

In fact, Tits has shown (Normalisateurs de Tores I. Groupes de Coxeter Étendus (Journ. Alg. 4, 1966, pp. 96-116) that this is essentially the only obstruction: the Weyl group can always be lifted to a group $\tilde{W}$ inside $G$ which is an extension of $W$ by an elementary abelian $2$-group of order $2^l$ where $l$ is the number of simple roots. If I recall correctly, this lift is then unique up to conjugation.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ One should point out that Tits' result is for G simply connected. If we use a smaller Lie group, then the rank of the $2$-group drops. I think I recall that, if G is the adjoint form of its Lie algebra, then W always lifts. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Jan 27 '10 at 16:37
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You're right I meant to take $G$ simply connected, but are you sure about the adjoint form case? For $E_8$ for example, the adjoint form is simply connected, so the Tits group can't get any smaller. $\endgroup$ – Kevin McGerty Jan 27 '10 at 17:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ My recollection was incorrect. As Kevin McGerty points out, the adjoint and simply connected forms match for E_8; Allen Knutson points out (via e-mail) that SO_5 is another counter-example. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Jan 28 '10 at 18:47
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ There is interesting later work on this kind of question for compact Lie groups and analogues, for example by Dwyer and Wilkerson. A follow-up to the paper by Tits ("part I" still searching for its "part II"), with useful references: MR2174268 (2006f:55015) Dwyer, W. G.; Wilkerson, C. W. Normalizers of tori. Geom. Topol. 9 (2005), 1337--1380 $\endgroup$ – Jim Humphreys Mar 17 '10 at 14:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For a bigger picture still, look at: MR2373153 (2009a:55012) 55R35 (20F55 22E40 55P35 57S15) Andersen, K. K. S. (DK-ARHS); Grodal, J. (1-CHI); Møller, J. M. (DK-CPNH); Viruel, A. (E-MAL) The classification of p-compact groups for p odd. Ann. of Math. (2) 167 (2008), no. 1, 95–210 $\endgroup$ – Jim Humphreys Mar 17 '10 at 14:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.