3
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a connected split reductive group over $\mathbb{Z}$. Let $n$ be a positive integer. Let $i_n(q)$ be the number of elements of $G(\mathbb{F}_q)$ satisfying $x^n=1$.

Question: Is there a "nice" case-free formula for $i_n(q)$? Is it always a polynomial in $q$?

The "best hope" is a formula akin to Steinberg's formula for the number of elements of $G(\mathbb{F}_q)$ (cf. Section 7.3 of these notes). Can this best hope be realised?

For instance, suppose $n=2$. Then we are considering the number of involutions in finite reductive groups. A case by case analysis shows that there exists polynomials $P, R\in \mathbb{Z}[t]$ such that $i_2(q)=P(q)$ for all even $q$ and $i_2(q)=R(q)$ for all odd $q$, cf. this paper. However, I do not know a case-free proof of this fact. Nor do I know a case free expression for these polynomials.

Remark 1. If it helps, we can assume that the characteristic is large enough.

Remark 2. Aforementioned result of Steinberg amounts to giving an expression for $|\mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}, G(\mathbb{F}_q)|$. The above question asks for an expression for $|\mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}/n, G(\mathbb{F}_q)|$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ For $G$ simple over an algebraically closed field, papers by Lawther ("Elements of specified order in simple algebraic groups") and Marion ("Varieties of elements of given order in simple algebraic groups") calculate dimension $d$ of the variety $G_n = \{x \in G : x^n = 1\}$. Then I guess that $i_n(q) \approx q^d$, but this would need to be justified somehow. $\endgroup$
    – spin
    Jul 13, 2021 at 5:10
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much @spin. One sees from these papers that there is not even a uniform formula known for the dimension of these varieties. So it seems that a uniform formula for i_n(q) is currently beyond reach. Nonetheless, it may be possible to say if it is a polynomial or not. $\endgroup$
    – Dr. Evil
    Jul 13, 2021 at 9:17
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding involutions: Have you seen the recent paper by Fulman, Guralnick and Stanton on this topic? $\endgroup$ Jul 15, 2021 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Geoff...Yes, I have seen the FGS paper which addresses interesting related topics, but not exactly the above question. $\endgroup$
    – Dr. Evil
    Jul 16, 2021 at 4:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For $n>2$ it is not a polynomial because it shows periodic behavior, at least for $q$ mod $n$, e.g for $GL_1$ it is $\gcd(q-1,n)$. For $n=2$, one can try the following: write the number of elements as a sum over conjugacy classes of the size of the conjugacy class, and then write the size of each conjugacy class as the numbre of elements of the group (polynomial in $q$) over the size of the centralizer (also polynomial as long as that group is also split reductive) and try to check divisibility of polynomials. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Jul 23, 2021 at 14:27

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

Let's assume $q$ is odd. If $G={\rm GL}_n({\mathbb F}_q)$, then any involution in $G$ has minimal polynomial $t^2-1$, so is diagonalizable over ${\mathbb F}_q$ and is therefore conjugate to (exactly) one of the matrices of the form $$D_{r,n-r}=\begin{pmatrix} I_r & 0 \\ 0 & -I_{n-r} \end{pmatrix}.$$ Now it's easy to determine the order of the conjugacy class of $D_{r,n-r}$: it's $\frac{p_n(q)}{p_r(q)p_{n-r}(q)}$ where $p_n(q)=|{\rm GL}_n({\mathbb F}_q)|$. This is obviously a rational function; to show it's a polynomial you need to know that $(q-1)\cdots (q^r-1)$ divides $(q^{n-r+1}-1)\cdots (q^n-1)$.

Summing up the orders of all these conjugacy classes will give you the number of elements of order 2 (or order $\leq 2$ if you add 1 for the identity). You can certainly modify this argument for ${\rm SL}_n({\mathbb F}_q)$. A similar argument probably also works for the other split simple algebraic groups, e.g. in ${\rm Sp}_{4}({\mathbb F}_q)$ there are two classes of involutions, with characteristic polynomials $(t+1)^4$ and $(t-1)^2(t+1)^2$. The former has just one element, while the latter has $|{\rm Sp}_4({\mathbb F}_q)|/|{\rm Sp}_2({\mathbb F}_q)|^2 = q^4+q^2$ elements. So we get $q^4+q^2+2$ elements of ${\rm Sp}_4({\mathbb F}_q)$ satisfying $x^2=I$.

For the case $q$ even, you aren't dealing with diagonalizable elements any more. These are (a subset of the) unipotent elements. This is more complicated because (a) while the unipotent conjugacy classes over algebraically closed fields are known, I don't think the intersection of any such conjugacy class with $G({\mathbb F}_q)$ has to be a single conjugacy class; (b) 2 is a bad prime for simple groups other than ${\rm SL}_n$ (and the classification of unipotent orbits in $G(\overline{{\mathbb F}_q})$ is rather a niche topic). But in principal I think you could find a conceptual argument in this case too.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The set of involutions in $Sp(n,\mathbb F_q)$ is determined in Pantoja, Soto Andrade, Vargas, Journal of Lie Theory Vol 25 (2015) page 1069. We also determine the set of anti-involutions.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ This is not an easy reference to find, particularly as Heldermann's website is down. Is it arxiv.org/abs/1405.6252 ? $\endgroup$ Aug 26, 2021 at 20:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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