The starting point of this question is the (presumably) well-known theorem (the proof I know is from Abelian $\ell$-adic representations and elliptic curves from J-P.Serre in which it is a lemma for $n=2$ and an exercise for $n>2$; which suggests that the result was already classical in the 60s).

Theorem I: If $G$ is a closed subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(\mathbb Z_{p})$ which surjects on $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(\mathbb F_{p})$ and if $p≥5$, then $G=\operatorname{SL}_{n}(\mathbb Z_{p})$.

The theorem is optimal with respect to all hypotheses in the sense that there exists proper subgroups of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\mathbb Z_{p})$ mapping onto $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\mathbb F_{p})$ when $p=2,3$ (a fact that played a role in the original proof of the modularity of semi-stable elliptic curves by A.Wiles, if I am not mistaken) and in the sense that for all $n≥2$ and all prime $p$, there exist discrete valuation rings $A$ of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$ such that $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A)$ contains proper subgroups mapping onto $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A/\mathfrak m)$ (just take a completely ramified $A$ over $\mathbb Z_{p}$ and consider $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\mathbb Z_{p})$ inside $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(A)$).

A slightly less well-known fact is that the theorem admits the following generalization, due to N.Boston.

Theorem II: Let $A$ be a complete local noetherian ring with finite residual characteristic $p\neq 2$. If $G$ is a closed subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A)$ which surjects on $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A/\mathfrak m^2)$, then $G=\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A)$.

This is in the appendix of On p-adic analytic families of Galois representations. Compositio Math. 59 (1986), no. 2, 231–264 by B.Mazur and A.Wiles and again, this theorem is optimal in the sense that there exists a proper subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\mathbb Z_{2})$ surjecting on $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z)$.

Now my actual question. Let $A$ be a complete local noetherian ring (UPDATE: domain, actually) of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$ with $p≠2$ UPDATE: which one can assume to be a discrete valuation ring if necessary. Suppose $G$ is a closed subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A)$ which surjects on $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A/\mathfrak m)$.

Among the pre-images in $G$ of non-identity unipotents elements in $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A/\mathfrak m)$, is it true that there exists a unipotent element (that is to say an element $\sigma$ such that $\sigma-1$ is nilpotent)?

Granted theorem II, this is obviously true if $G$ maps onto $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A/\mathfrak m^2)$. Without this hypothesis, it looks dubious to me but nevertheless, the obvious counterexamples to theorem I coming from ramified rings do not provide counterexamples to this claim and I confess that I don't quite know how to construct other counter-examples. Taking this into account, another more general point of view on the question would be the following.

What are the subgroups of $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A)$ which do not map onto $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A/\mathfrak m^2)$ but which do map onto $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(A/\mathfrak m)$?

Perhaps group cohomology of $\operatorname{SL}_{n}$ would help then. Any positive result, even in the case $n=2$ and $p>3$ would already be of interest to me.

UPDATE: Jim Humphreys asks in comments what I mean by a unipotent element in a matrix group. I meant an element $\sigma$ such that $\sigma-1$ is nilpotent, but I realize now that this might not be so great a definition when the ring of coefficients is not a domain, or at least reduced. So perhaps it is better to take $A$ a domain in the above, or even a discrete valuation ring. Also, even though Tim Dokchister answered the first question in the negative, I would be interested to know if someone has something to say for infinite closed subgroup $G$.

  • $\begingroup$ could you provide a link or reference to Boston's result? $\endgroup$ – YCor Nov 21 '13 at 21:50
  • $\begingroup$ @YvesCornulier Cher Yves, bien sûr. J'ai aussi pris la liberté de t'envoyer l'article par mail. $\endgroup$ – Olivier Nov 22 '13 at 8:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems there are counterexamples to the first question, at least for $p=5$. The group $\text{SL}_2({\mathbb F}_5)$ has a 2-dimensional symplectic representation with character in ${\mathbb Q}(\sqrt 5)$ and Schur index 2, so it looks like it is realizable over $A={\mathbb Z}_5(\zeta_5)$. So $\text{SL}_2({\mathbb F}_5)$ injects in $\text{SL}_2(A)$ and reduces, I suppose, onto $\text{SL}_2(A/{\mathfrak m})$. But it is just a finite group, so it has no unipotent elements. $\endgroup$ – Tim Dokchitser Nov 22 '13 at 9:09
  • $\begingroup$ @TimDokchitser Dear Tim, thanks a lot for this great counterexample. Any idea about non-finite subgroups? Also, will you consider posting this as an answer? After all, it does completely answer the most general version of question I. $\endgroup$ – Olivier Nov 22 '13 at 9:21
  • $\begingroup$ A simple example for the second question is $A=\mathbf{Z}_p[[t]]$ (with $\mathbf{Z}_p$ the ring of $p$-adic integers), $G=\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbf{Z}_p)$. In general, I don't think you expect better than a result assuming surjectivity of the reduction modulo $pA+\mathfrak{m}^2$. $\endgroup$ – YCor Nov 22 '13 at 9:23

For the first question, at least for $p=5, n=2$ there is a counterexample.:

The group $\text{SL}_2({\mathbb F}_5)$ has a 2-dimensional symplectic representation with character in ${\mathbb Q}(\sqrt 5)$ and Schur index 2, so it is realizable over $A={\mathbb Z}_5(\zeta_5)$. So $\text{SL}_2({\mathbb F}_5)$ injects in $\text{SL}_2(A)$ and reduces onto $\text{SL}_2(A/{\mathfrak m})$. But it is just a finite group, so it has no non-identity unipotent elements.

I don't know whether it generalizes to higher $p$ and $n$ though, and whether there are examples with `interesting' infinite closed subgroups of $\text{SL}_2(A)$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you say more explicitly what you mean by "unipotent" element in a matrix group? $\endgroup$ – Jim Humphreys Nov 23 '13 at 17:21
  • $\begingroup$ Just to indicate why this is not in contradiction with my answer: in Tim's example, $A=\mathbf{Z}_5[\zeta_5]$, and $\mathfrak{m}$ is generated by $\{5,\zeta_5-1\}$. In his examples, lifts of elements of order 5 are conjugate (at least over an extension) to the matrix $\begin{pmatrix}\zeta_5 & 1\\0 & \zeta_5^{-1}\end{pmatrix}$, which is not unipotent. $\endgroup$ – YCor Nov 25 '13 at 14:26

In view of Boston's result it is enough to deal with an Artinian commutative local ring $(B,\mathfrak{m})$ such that $\mathfrak{m}^2=0$ and $p\in\mathfrak{m}$. In this setting, I think the best you can expect is to deal with an assumption of surjectivity of the map to $SL_n(B/(\mathfrak{m}^2+pB)$. Indeed it is hopeless to expect that surjectivity of the map to $SL_n(A/\mathfrak{m})$ is enough, in view of the case of $G=SL_n(\mathbf{Z}_p)$ for $A=\mathbf{Z}_p[[t]]$.

Here is a proof that if $p\ge 5$, if $n\ge 2$ and $G\subset SL_n(B)$, and $G$ has a surjective projection to $SL_n(B/pB)$, then $G$ has a surjective projection to $SL_n(B)$. Let $N$ be an elementary matrix (with 0 on the diagonal), and let us show that $1+pN\in G$. By hypothesis, there exists a matrix $X$ such that $1+N+pX\in G$. Hence $(1+N+pX)^p\in G$. Now since $p\ge 3$, modulo $p^2$, we have the formal equality $(1+x)^p=1+px+px^{p-1}+1$ (we have to be careful still that the similar formula $(a+b)^p=\dots$ is valid only if $a$ and $b$ commute).

$$(1+N+pX)^p=(1+(N+pX))^p=1+p(N+pX)+p(N+pX)^{p-1}+(N+pX)^p$$ $$=1+pN+pN^{p-1}+N^p+p(N^{p-1}X+N^{p-2}XN+\dots+ NXN^{p-2}+XN^{p-1})$$ now since $N^2=0$ and $p\ge 5$, this gives $(1+N+pX)^p=1+pN$.

On the other hand, the mapping $X\mapsto 1+pX$ induces a surjective homomorphism of the additive group $\mathfrak{sl}_n(B/pB)$ (the matrices with trace 0) to the kernel of the reduction $SL_n(B)\to SL_n(B/pB)$. Now as a normal subgroup, this kernel is generated as a normal subgroup by the image of elementary matrices, just noticing that $e_{ij}(1)e_{ji}(x)e_{ij}(-1)e_{ji}(-x)e_{ij}(-x)=d_{ij}(x)$, where $d_{ij}(x)-1$ is the matrix with 0 every where, except $x$ at $ii$ and $-x$ at $jj$.

We can do probably do something by hand for $p=2,3$ if we exclude a few small values of $n$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot. But in some sense this answers a dual question to mine: it provides a criteria for the group $G$ to be as large as it can be whereas I wonder if it has non-trivial unipotent elements even when it is not as large as it can be (while still surjecting on $\operatorname{SL}_2(k)$). $\endgroup$ – Olivier Nov 26 '13 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Olivier: I don't guess what you want exactly (I don't understand your sentence in the comment). This answer provides an example answering your second question, and the sequel also shows it's generic in a sense. Tim provided another example, which unlike mine is a finite group (and the domain being 1-dimensional) and hence does not even have unipotent elements. $\endgroup$ – YCor Nov 26 '13 at 12:57
  • $\begingroup$ Cher Yves, what I want is not a criteria for a group to be the whole of $\textrm{SL}_n$, what I want is a criteria to know if there are non-trivial unipotent elements in a group even if it is not $\textrm{SL}_n$. Tim did answer this question, but his example is a finite group and though I'm glad to know it, I care about infinite subgroups much more. $\endgroup$ – Olivier Nov 26 '13 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Olivier: OK, I sort of see your new question (which is not the one you initially asked), but it's still vague: you want a criterion for a subgroup of $SL_n(A)$ ($A$ complete local noetherian domain) to contain a nontrivial unipotent element? a criterion in terms of the reduction modulo $\mathfrak{m}$?... $\endgroup$ – YCor Nov 26 '13 at 20:42
  • $\begingroup$ It is also probably possible to artificially convert Tim's example into an infinite one: replace his ring $A$ by $A[[t]]$ (or a bigger one if helpful). Then consider Tim's finite subgroup $F$ whose reduction modulo the maximal ideal is onto, and replace it by the subgroup generated by $F$ and a ``generic enough" matrix whose reduction modulo $t$ is the identity. Then I don't expect such a group to have nontrivial unipotent elements (a careful check should take some effort)... $\endgroup$ – YCor Nov 26 '13 at 20:52

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.