For simplicity, work over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$. Let $$\begin{aligned} X &= \text{a smooth projective variety,} \\ G &= \text{a reductive group acting linearly on $X$,} \\ H &= \text{a finite subgroup of $G$,}\\ N(H) &= \text{the normalizer of $H$ in $G$.}\\ \end{aligned}$$ For $x \in X$, let $$\begin{aligned} \text{Stab}(x) &= \{ g \in G : g \cdot x = x \},\\ X_H &= \{ x \in X : \text{Stab$(x)$ contains $H$ }\} \end{aligned}$$

Then $G$ doesn't necessarily act on $X_H$, but $N(H)$ does, so we can look at the $N(H)$-stable and semi-stable points of $X_H$ in the sense of GIT.

Questions (1) Are the $N(H)$-semi-stable points of $X_H$ automatically $G$-semi-stable points of $X$? Ditto for stable points. (This seems unlikely, but I don't know a counterexample.)

(2) If not, is there some simple criterion for determining the points $x\in X_H$ such that $x$ is $G$-stable when viewed as a point of $X$?

If it helps, the specific situation I have is: $$\begin{aligned} X &= \mathbb P^N \\ G &= \text{PGL}_k~\text{or SL}_k \\ N(H) &= \text{group of diagonal matrices in $G$.}\\ \end{aligned}$$ In particular, $N(H)$ is a maximal torus.


The answer to (1) is affirmative for semistable points. This is basically a result of Luna in his paper "Adhérences d'orbite et invariants. Invent. Math. 29 (1975), 231–238". More precisely:

We only assume that $H$ is reductive (not necessarily finite). Let $\tilde X$ be the affine cone over $X$. For any $x\in X^H$ ($=X_H$ in the Op's notation) let $\tilde x\in\tilde X$ be a lift. Then, by definition, $x$ is semistable for $G$ (or $N$) if the orbit $G\tilde x$ (or $N\tilde x$) does not contain the vertex $0$ in its closure. This already shows that $\tilde x$ is $N$-semistable if it is $G$-semistable.

Conversely assume that $x$ is $N$-semistable. By replacing $\tilde x$ by a point in the (unique) closed $N$-orbit of $\overline{N\tilde x}$ we may assume that $N\tilde x$ closed and $\ne\{0\}$.

The group $H$ acts on the line $k\tilde x$ by a character $\chi$. If $\chi$ is of infinite order then $x$ is not $N$-semistable. Thus, $S:=\chi(H)\subseteq\mathbf G_m$ is a finite group. Put $\tilde G:=G\times S$ and $\tilde H:=\Delta(H)$ where $\Delta(h):=(h,\chi(h)^{-1})$. The point is that $\tilde G$ acts on $\tilde X$ and $\tilde x$ is an $\tilde H$-fixed point. Observe that the normalizer $\tilde N$ of $\tilde H$ in $\tilde G$ is of finite index in $N\times S$. In particular, $\tilde N\tilde x$ is closed and $\ne\{0\}$.

Now we invoke Luna's result, Cor. 1 in op.cit., which says that "$\tilde N\tilde x$ closed" implies "$\tilde G\tilde x$ closed". In particular $0\not\in \overline{G\tilde x}$, i.e. $\tilde x$ is $G$-semistable. qed.

Preservation of stability cannot be expected, in general. For example assume assume $H$ is contained in an infinite reductive subgroup $F$ of $G$ such that $N_F(H)$ is finite. Then $x=eF\in X=G/F$ has a finite $N$-stabilizer but the $G$-stablizer is $F$.

On the positive side, Luna proves something different which might be useful: the morphism $X^H/\!/N\to X/\!/G$ is always finite.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for. When you say that "$\tilde G$ acts on $X$ and $\tilde x$ is an $\tilde H$-fixed point", did you mean to say that $\tilde G$ acts on $\tilde X$? Also, probably a minor point, but I don't see why $\tilde N$ isn't exactly equal to $N\times S$, rather than simply being of finite index. $\endgroup$ – Joe Silverman Jul 5 '16 at 17:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The $X$ is a typo. I fixed it. Moreover, $\tilde N$ is basically the stabilizer of the character $\chi$ in $N$. One more remark: the whole thing works only in characteristic zero. $\endgroup$ – Friedrich Knop Jul 5 '16 at 18:08

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.