4
$\begingroup$

I'm currently trying to prove or disprove the following claim. First let me set up some notation.

Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over a field $K$, let $S \leq Z \leq N \leq G$ be respectively a maximal split torus, its centralizer and its normalizer. Let $\Phi$ be the root system of the pair $(G,S)$, and for $\alpha \in \Phi$ let $U_\alpha \leq G$ be the associated root subgroup (possibly noncommutative, when $G$ is not split). Given $u \in U_\alpha(K)-\{1\}$, there exist unique elements $m(u) \in N(K)$ and $v,v' \in U_{-\alpha}(K)$ such that $vuv' = m(u)$. The image of the element $m(u)$ in the Weyl group $W_0 = N(K)/Z(K)$ is the reflection $s_\alpha$ associated to the root $\alpha$, where $W_0$ is naturally identified with the Weyl group of $\Phi$ via the action of $N(K)$ on $X^\ast(S)$.

Now for the claim: For any two roots $\alpha, \beta \in \Phi$ with $\alpha,\beta$ not parallel (an obvious necessary condition), and any $u \in U_\alpha(K)-\{1\}$ and $v \in U_\beta(K)-\{1\}$ the braid relation

$n_\alpha n_\beta n_\alpha \ldots = n_\beta n_\alpha n_\beta \ldots$

in $N(K)$ holds true, where the number of factors on both sides equal the order of $s_\alpha s_\beta$, and $n_\alpha = m(u)$ and $n_\beta = m(v)$.

I think I have a proof of this in the case when $\Phi$ is reduced. So a counterexample should involve non-reduced root systems. I tried to disprove the claim using the example $G = SU(h)$ of a quasi-split unitary group (example 1.15 in Tits Corvallis article), but unfortunately (or fortunately) the claim seems to hold in this case. (edit: Even for unitary groups over division algebras the claim seems to hold true.)

So if you either have a counterexample to the above claim or a proof (with or without reference), it would help me a lot.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Despite what I wrote earlier the claim is not true, despite Proposition 6.1.8 of Bruhat-Tits (first volume). Said proposition states that

Proposition 6.1.8: Let $\Phi$ be a root system of rank $2$ and let $(T, (U_a,M_a)_{a \in \Phi})$ be a generative root datum. Order the set $\Phi^{\text{red}} = \{ a \in \Phi : \frac{1}{2}a \not\in \Phi\}$ of reduced roots in a circular order, i.e. write $\Phi^{\text{red}} = \{a_1,\ldots{},a_{2k}\}$ with $\Phi \cap (\mathbb{R}_{> 0} a_{i-1} + \mathbb{R}_{> 0} a_{i+1}) = \{a_{i-1},a_i,a_{i+1}\}$. Then $\Delta = \{a_1, a_k\}$ is a basis of $\Phi^{\text{red}}$ with $\{a_1,\ldots,a_k\}$ being the set of positive roots. Let $a = a_1$ and $b = a_k$.

For any $u \in U_a$, $u' \in U_b$ with $u,u' \neq 1$ the relation $mm'm\ldots = m'mm'\ldots$ holds true, where the number of factors on both sides is $k$, and $m = m(u)$, $m' = m(u')$.

I thought that my claim would follow from this by constructing for two given non-parallel roots $\alpha,\beta$ a rank two root subsystem $\Psi \subseteq \Phi$ for which $\{\alpha, \beta\}$ forms a basis. Although it is possible to do so, one cannot restrict the root datum $(T,(U_a,M_a)_{a \in \Phi})$ defined by the reductive group in question to a root datum $(T, (U_a,M_a)_{a \in \Psi})$ in general, since the condition, that for $a,b \in \Psi$ the commutator subgroup $(U_a, U_b)$ lies in the subgroup generated by the $U_{pa+qb}$ with $p,q \in \mathbb{N}_{\geq 1}$, might be violated, unless $\Psi = \Phi \cap \mathbb{Z}\Psi$. Hence the proposition implies the claim only for roots $\alpha, \beta$ which are (up to a multiple) part of a root basis.

To see that the claim is false in general, consider the following example of a special unitary group over a division algebra (which I had already considered, but the roots $\alpha, \beta$ I chose formed part of a basis). Let $D$ be a central division algebra over a field $K$ which is equipped with an involution $\sigma: D \rightarrow D$ (i.e. $\sigma(ab) = \sigma(b)\sigma(a)$ and $\sigma^2 = \text{id}$) which is the identity on $K$. Let $n \geq 1$, $I = \{\pm 1,\ldots{},\pm n\}$ and let $V$ be the free right-$D$-module with basis $e_{-n},\ldots{},e_n$. Consider the hermitian form $h$ on $V$ given in terms of coordinates by $h(x,y) = \sum_{i \in I} \sigma(x_i)y_{-i} + \sigma(x_0)y_0$. Let $G$ be the algebraic group $\mathbf{SU}(V,h)$ considered naturally as a subgroup of $\mathbf{GL}_D(V)$. Let $S$ be the 'obvious' maximal split subtorus of $G$, i.e. on rational points we have

$S(K) = \{ \text{diag}(d_{-n},\ldots{},d_n) : d_i \in K^\times \text{ for }i \in I \cup \{0\}, d_{-i}d_i = d_0 = 1\text{ for } i \in I \}$

The root system $\Phi = \Phi(G,S)$ is then given as follows. Let $\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_n$ be the 'obvious' $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of $X^\ast(S)$, i.e. $\chi_i(\text{diag}(d_{-n},\ldots{},d_n)) = d_i$. Then we have

$\Phi = \{ \chi_i - \chi_j : i,j \in I,\ i \neq \pm j\} \cup \{ \chi_i, 2\chi_i : i \in I \}$

(type $\text{BC}_n$) or

$\Phi = \{ \chi_i - \chi_j : i,j \in I,\ i \neq \pm j\} \cup \{ \chi : i \in I \}$

(type $\text{B}_n$), according to whether or not $D$ contains an element $x$ with $\sigma(x) = -x$. In either case, the root subgroups are given as follows. For $i,j \in I$, $i \neq \pm j$ we have

$U_{\chi_i - \chi_j}(K) = \{ u_{i,j}(d) : d \in D \}$

Here $u_{i,j}(d) = 1 + d e_{i,j} - \sigma(d)e_{-j,-i}$ as a sum in the matrix ring $\text{End}_D(V)$ and $e_{i,j}$ denotes the matrix which has a one in the $i$-th row and $j$-th column, and zeroes everywhere else. For $i \in I$

$U_{\chi_i}(K) = \{ u_i(c,d) : c,d \in D,\ \sigma(c)c + d + \sigma(d) = 0 \}$

where $u_i(c,d) = 1 + ce_{0,-i} - \sigma(c)e_{i,0} + de_{i,-i}$. The elements $m(u)$ are then given as follows.

$m(u_{i,j}(d)) = \tau \text{diag}(d_{-n},\ldots{},d_n)$

Here $\tau$ is the permutation $(i\ j)(-i\ -j)$ of $I\cup \{0\}$ considered as a monomial matrix in $\text{GL}_D(V)$, and $d_i = d$, $d_{-i} = \sigma(d)^{-1}$, $d_j = -d^{-1}$, $d_{-j} = -\sigma(d)$ and $d_k = 1$ for all other $k$. For the other roots we have

$m(u_i(c,d)) = \tau \text{diag}(d_{-n},\ldots{},d_n)$

where $\tau = (i\ -i)$ and $d_i = d$, $d_{-i} = \sigma(d)^{-1}$, $d_0 = cd^{-1}\sigma(c) + 1$ and $d_k = 1$ for all other $k$.

Now let $i \neq \pm j$, $\alpha = \chi_i$, $\beta = \chi_j$ and $n_\alpha = m(u_i(c,d))$, $n_\beta = m(u_j(\tilde{c},\tilde{d}))$. Since $s_\alpha s_\beta$ is of order two, the braid relations reduces to the commutativity $n_\alpha n_\beta = n_\beta n_\alpha$. But an easy computation shows that $n_\alpha, n_\beta$ commute if and only if $cd^{-1}\sigma(c)+1$ and $\tilde{c}\tilde{d}^{-1}\sigma(\tilde{c}) + 1$ commute, which is easily seen to be false in general. For instance take $K = \mathbb{R}$, $D$ the quaternions and let $c = \tilde{c} = 1$, $d = -\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}i$, $\tilde{d} = -\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}j$. Then $cd^{-1}\sigma(c) + 1 = -\frac{1}{2}i$ and $\tilde{c}\tilde{d}^{-1}\sigma(\tilde{c}) + 1 = -\frac{1}{2}j$.

$\endgroup$

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.