5
$\begingroup$

Cross-posted from MSE

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4272017/finite-maximal-closed-subgroups-of-lie-groups

$\newcommand{\G}{\mathcal{G}} \newcommand{\K}{\mathcal{K}} \DeclareMathOperator\SU{SU}\DeclareMathOperator\PSU{PSU}\DeclareMathOperator\SO{SO}$Let $\G$ be a Lie group.

I am interested in finite maximal closed subgroups of $ G $.

I'm guessing that $ \G $ has a finite maximal closed subgroup if and only if $ \G $ is simple and compact. Does anyone have other examples of finite maximal closed subgroups?

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd rather guess a compact Lie group has a finite "almost dense" subgroup iff it's semisimple. It's not hard to check it's a necessary condition. But producing such subgroups can require a case-by-case study (esp. in the non-connected case) and there might be exceptions. For a connected Lie group, it can be shown that being compact is a necessary condition. But not for a virtually connected Lie group: if $C_5$ is cyclic of order 5 acting by rotation on the plane, then $C_5$ is "almost dense" in $C_5\ltimes\mathbf{R}^2$. Also among discrete groups (these are Lie) this happens (Tarski monsters). $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Oct 11, 2021 at 7:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ycor I don't think semi simple is sufficient for a compact group to have an almost dense subgroup. Here is my logic. Let G be a compact simple group. Then $ G \times G $ is semi simple. However for any finite $ \Gamma $ in $ G \times G $ then the projection onto the second factor say $ \pi_2(\Gamma) $ is finite so $G \times \pi_2(\Gamma) $ is a closed subgroup properly containing $\Gamma $ but is not all of $G $. So $G \times G$ has no almost dense finite subgroups $\endgroup$ Oct 11, 2021 at 13:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh, indeed, you're right: if $G$ is a compact Lie group with a finite almost dense subgroup, then the action of $G/G_0$ in the set of simple factors of $G$ is transitive. In particular, if $G$ is connected, then it has to be simple. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Oct 11, 2021 at 13:55
  • $\begingroup$ In fact I think in general by passing to a simply connected cover this proves that simplicity is a necessary condition for having an almost dense finite subgroup (assuming connectedness) $\endgroup$ Oct 11, 2021 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Ycor also can you explain your example more. I don't really get it. Why did you pick $C_5$ not $C_3$? And you are just thinking of this as a subgroup of isometries of the plane? Oh wait is it because C_2 and C_4 act on the square lattice and C_3 acts on triangular/ hexagonal lattice? $\endgroup$ Oct 11, 2021 at 14:07

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\G}{\mathcal{G}} \newcommand{\K}{\mathcal{K}} $Question: When does $ \G $ admit a finite maximal closed subgroup?

Answer : Must be one of the following two cases

  1. $ \G $ is compact and simple
  2. $ \G $ is not compact in which case $ \G $ cannot be connected and moreover the component group $ \G/\G^\circ $ does not preserve any nontrivial proper closed subgroup (see comment from YCor about $ C_5 \ltimes \mathbb{R}^2 $).

From now on I will confine myself to the case that $ \G $ is connected.

In other words I will consider the statement "A connected Lie group $ \G $ has a finite maximal closed subgroup $ G $ if and only if $ \G $ is compact and simple."

The first implication is true.

Claim 1: If a connected Lie group $ \G $ has a finite maximal closed subgroup $ G $ then $ \G $ must be compact and simple.

Proof: Let $ \G $ be a connected Lie group and $ G $ a finite maximal closed subgroup. Since $ G $ is finite then $ G $ is a compact subgroup of $ \G $ so must be contained in a maximal compact subgroup, call it $ \K $. But $ G $ is a maximal closed subgroup thus we must have that $ \K=\G $ (note that $ \K $ cannot equal $ G $ since $ \K $ is connected (the maximal compact of a connected group is always connected)). So $ \G $ must be compact. If $ \G $ is not simple then there exists some morphism $$ \pi: \G \to \G_i $$ with positive dimensional kernel (here $ \G_i $ is basically one of the semisimple factors of $ \G $). Then $$ \pi^{-1}(\pi(G)) $$ is a closed positive dimensional subgroup containing $ G $, contradicting the fact that $ G $ is a finite maximal closed subgroup. Thus if a connected Lie group $ \G $ has a finite maximal closed subgroup then we can conclude that $ \G $ is simple.

However the reverse implication does not hold: $ SU_{15} $ is an example of a compact connected simple Lie group with no finite maximal closed subgroups.

To see why this is the case it is important to note that

Claim 2: For a compact connected simple Lie group $ \G $, $ G $ is a finite maximal closed subgroup of $ \G $ if and only if $ G $ is Ad-irreducible and $ G $ is a maximal finite subgroup of $ \G $.

this follows from Corollary 3.5 of Sawicki and Karnas - Universality of single qudit gates.

Since a finite subgroup of $ SU_n $ is Ad-irreducible if and only if it is a unitary 2-design we have

Claim 3: $ G $ is a finite maximal closed subgroup of $ SU_n $ if and only if $ G $ is a maximal unitary 2-group in $ SU_n $.

By inspecting Theorem 3 of Bannai, Navarro, Rizo, and Pham Huu Tiep - Unitary $t$-groups one immediately determines that $ SU_{15} $ has no finite maximal closed subgroups.

Some of the main examples of finite maximal closed subgroups of $ SU_n $ include the normalizer in $ SU_{p^n} $ of an extra-special group $ p^{2n+1} $. Here $ p $ is an odd prime. There is also a similar construction $ p=2 $. These are known as (complex) Clifford groups. Then there are infinite families of examples relating to the Weil module for $ \operatorname{PSp}_{2n}(3) $ and another family related to $ U_n(2) $. Plus many exceptional cases.

A similar normalizer construction to the above gives finite maximal closed subgroups of all the $ \operatorname{SO}(2^n) $ as normalizers of an extra-special group $ 2^{2n+1} $. This is known as the real Clifford group. For details about real and complex Clifford groups see Nebe, Rains, and Sloane - Self-Dual Codes and Invariant Theory.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Why, if compact, must $G$ be simple or finite? Wouldn't arbitrary finite product of groups of this type also work? $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jun 16, 2022 at 20:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Wojowu no see my comment above "I don't think semi simple is sufficient for a compact group to have an almost dense subgroup. Here is my logic..." For example a product like $ A_5 \times A_5 $ in $ SO_3 \times SO_3 $ won't be a maximal closed subgroup since it is contained in $ A_5 \times SO_3 $ (here $ A_5 $ is the icosahedral subgroup of $ SO_3 $). $\endgroup$ Jun 16, 2022 at 21:19
  • $\begingroup$ Ah apologies, I misread the claim, I thought it asked for maximal (closed and finite). In hindsight that makes little sense to state like that since finite groups are always closed... $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jun 17, 2022 at 7:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Wojowu No problem! Thanks for your interest. If you want to know some examples of these finite maximal closed groups it turns out that for $ SU_n $ they are exactly the finite subgroups of $ SU_n $ listed here arxiv.org/abs/1810.02507 $\endgroup$ Jun 17, 2022 at 11:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The integers form a zero dimensional Lie group containing a maximal closed subgroup which is finite, the origin, but the integers are noncompact and they have an infinite group of components. $\endgroup$
    – Ben McKay
    Jun 21, 2022 at 9:46

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.