Unitary representations of finite groups over finite fields The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InClassification of finite complex reflection groupsIrreducible unitary representations of locally compact groups How does one compute induced representations for modular representations?On infinite-dimensional unitary representations of Kazhdan groupsRepresentations of reductive groups over local fields through parahoric inductionIn which fixed-point free representations is the sum of every 3 elements invertible?Decomposing representations of finite groupsWhich finite groups have no irreducible representations other than characters?Good source for representation of GL(n) over finite fields?Outer automorphism action on representations of $S_6$
Unitary representations of finite groups over finite fields
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InClassification of finite complex reflection groupsIrreducible unitary representations of locally compact groups How does one compute induced representations for modular representations?On infinite-dimensional unitary representations of Kazhdan groupsRepresentations of reductive groups over local fields through parahoric inductionIn which fixed-point free representations is the sum of every 3 elements invertible?Decomposing representations of finite groupsWhich finite groups have no irreducible representations other than characters?Good source for representation of GL(n) over finite fields?Outer automorphism action on representations of $S_6$
$begingroup$
I would like to learn the basic theory of unitary representations of finite groups over finite fields.
Here, the unitary group $operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ consists of all invertible transformations of $mathbbF_q^2^n$ that preserve the Hermitian form $langle x, y rangle = sum_i in [n] x_i y_i^q$, and "unitary representation" means a group homomorphism $rho colon G to operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$.
This is a special case of the usual notion of a representation $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$.
Over the complex numbers, every representation $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbC)$ of a finite group $G$ is similar to a unitary representation $rho' colon G to operatornameGU(n,mathbbC)$, in the sense that there is an invertible operator $M$ such that $rho'(g) = Mrho(g) M^-1$ for every $g in G$.
In this sense and others, the theory of unitary representations over $mathbbC$ is essentially the same as that of ordinary representations.
However, over finite fields the notions are distinct.
If $G$ is a finite group and $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ is a representation, there might not be an invertible operator $M$ such that $M rho(g) M^-1 in operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ for every $g in G$.
For example, $mathbbZ_5$ has a faithful 2-dimensional representation over $mathbbF_3^2$ that is not similar to any unitary representation, since 5 divides $|operatornameGL(2,mathbbF_3^2)|$ but not $|operatornameGU(2,mathbbF_3^2)|$.
Question:
Have unitary representations of finite groups over finite fields been systematically studied, and if so where can I learn the basics?
Here is one example of what I want to learn to do:
- Describe all the unitary representations of the dihedral group of order 8 when $q=11$.
At the moment I do not even know how to:
- Describe all the unitary representations of $mathbbZ_2 times mathbbZ_2$ when $q=3$.
Some other things I want to learn include:
Where Maschke's Theorem holds (i.e. $(|G|,q) = 1$ so that $mathbbF_q^2[G]$ is semisimple), does every unitary representation decompose as an orthogonal direct sum of irreducible unitary subrepresentations?
Again where Maschke's Theorem holds, is there any analogue of the Peter-Weyl Theorem to give the space $L^2(G)$ of functions $f colon G to mathbbF_q^2$ an orthogonal basis consisting of matrix elements for irreducible unitary representations?
What are some conditions for a modular representation to be similar to a unitary representation? (i.e. which subgroups of $operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ are conjugate with subgroups of $operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$?)
Bonus for answers understandable to a humble analyst.
reference-request gr.group-theory rt.representation-theory finite-groups harmonic-analysis
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to learn the basic theory of unitary representations of finite groups over finite fields.
Here, the unitary group $operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ consists of all invertible transformations of $mathbbF_q^2^n$ that preserve the Hermitian form $langle x, y rangle = sum_i in [n] x_i y_i^q$, and "unitary representation" means a group homomorphism $rho colon G to operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$.
This is a special case of the usual notion of a representation $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$.
Over the complex numbers, every representation $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbC)$ of a finite group $G$ is similar to a unitary representation $rho' colon G to operatornameGU(n,mathbbC)$, in the sense that there is an invertible operator $M$ such that $rho'(g) = Mrho(g) M^-1$ for every $g in G$.
In this sense and others, the theory of unitary representations over $mathbbC$ is essentially the same as that of ordinary representations.
However, over finite fields the notions are distinct.
If $G$ is a finite group and $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ is a representation, there might not be an invertible operator $M$ such that $M rho(g) M^-1 in operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ for every $g in G$.
For example, $mathbbZ_5$ has a faithful 2-dimensional representation over $mathbbF_3^2$ that is not similar to any unitary representation, since 5 divides $|operatornameGL(2,mathbbF_3^2)|$ but not $|operatornameGU(2,mathbbF_3^2)|$.
Question:
Have unitary representations of finite groups over finite fields been systematically studied, and if so where can I learn the basics?
Here is one example of what I want to learn to do:
- Describe all the unitary representations of the dihedral group of order 8 when $q=11$.
At the moment I do not even know how to:
- Describe all the unitary representations of $mathbbZ_2 times mathbbZ_2$ when $q=3$.
Some other things I want to learn include:
Where Maschke's Theorem holds (i.e. $(|G|,q) = 1$ so that $mathbbF_q^2[G]$ is semisimple), does every unitary representation decompose as an orthogonal direct sum of irreducible unitary subrepresentations?
Again where Maschke's Theorem holds, is there any analogue of the Peter-Weyl Theorem to give the space $L^2(G)$ of functions $f colon G to mathbbF_q^2$ an orthogonal basis consisting of matrix elements for irreducible unitary representations?
What are some conditions for a modular representation to be similar to a unitary representation? (i.e. which subgroups of $operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ are conjugate with subgroups of $operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$?)
Bonus for answers understandable to a humble analyst.
reference-request gr.group-theory rt.representation-theory finite-groups harmonic-analysis
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Notice that finite-dimensional unitary representations are automatically semisimple; a minimal stable non-$0$ subspace is irreducible, and its orthogonal complement has smaller dimension. A similar argument shows that every semisimple unitary representation is an orthogonal direct sum of irreducibles.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think that a subgroup of $operatornameGL(n, mathbb F_q^2)$ is conjugate to a subgroup of $operatornameGU(n, mathbb F_q^2/mathbb F_q)$ if and only if it commutes with a torus of the form $(mathbb F_q^2^times)^n$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
$mathbb F_3[C_2 times C_2]$ is the orthogonal direct sum $mathbb F_3(1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(1, -1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, -1)$, where $(a, b)$ denotes the homomorphism $C_2 times C_2 to mathbb F_3^times$ given by $(m, n) mapsto a^m b^n$. The decomposition of the group algebra is guaranteed to capture all irreducible unitaries since, as usual, for an irreducible unitary representation $V$ of $G$, $V otimes V^*$ embeds in $mathbb F_q^2[G]$ by $v otimes v^* mapsto g mapsto langle v^*, gcdot vrangle$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to learn the basic theory of unitary representations of finite groups over finite fields.
Here, the unitary group $operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ consists of all invertible transformations of $mathbbF_q^2^n$ that preserve the Hermitian form $langle x, y rangle = sum_i in [n] x_i y_i^q$, and "unitary representation" means a group homomorphism $rho colon G to operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$.
This is a special case of the usual notion of a representation $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$.
Over the complex numbers, every representation $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbC)$ of a finite group $G$ is similar to a unitary representation $rho' colon G to operatornameGU(n,mathbbC)$, in the sense that there is an invertible operator $M$ such that $rho'(g) = Mrho(g) M^-1$ for every $g in G$.
In this sense and others, the theory of unitary representations over $mathbbC$ is essentially the same as that of ordinary representations.
However, over finite fields the notions are distinct.
If $G$ is a finite group and $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ is a representation, there might not be an invertible operator $M$ such that $M rho(g) M^-1 in operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ for every $g in G$.
For example, $mathbbZ_5$ has a faithful 2-dimensional representation over $mathbbF_3^2$ that is not similar to any unitary representation, since 5 divides $|operatornameGL(2,mathbbF_3^2)|$ but not $|operatornameGU(2,mathbbF_3^2)|$.
Question:
Have unitary representations of finite groups over finite fields been systematically studied, and if so where can I learn the basics?
Here is one example of what I want to learn to do:
- Describe all the unitary representations of the dihedral group of order 8 when $q=11$.
At the moment I do not even know how to:
- Describe all the unitary representations of $mathbbZ_2 times mathbbZ_2$ when $q=3$.
Some other things I want to learn include:
Where Maschke's Theorem holds (i.e. $(|G|,q) = 1$ so that $mathbbF_q^2[G]$ is semisimple), does every unitary representation decompose as an orthogonal direct sum of irreducible unitary subrepresentations?
Again where Maschke's Theorem holds, is there any analogue of the Peter-Weyl Theorem to give the space $L^2(G)$ of functions $f colon G to mathbbF_q^2$ an orthogonal basis consisting of matrix elements for irreducible unitary representations?
What are some conditions for a modular representation to be similar to a unitary representation? (i.e. which subgroups of $operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ are conjugate with subgroups of $operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$?)
Bonus for answers understandable to a humble analyst.
reference-request gr.group-theory rt.representation-theory finite-groups harmonic-analysis
New contributor
$endgroup$
I would like to learn the basic theory of unitary representations of finite groups over finite fields.
Here, the unitary group $operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ consists of all invertible transformations of $mathbbF_q^2^n$ that preserve the Hermitian form $langle x, y rangle = sum_i in [n] x_i y_i^q$, and "unitary representation" means a group homomorphism $rho colon G to operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$.
This is a special case of the usual notion of a representation $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$.
Over the complex numbers, every representation $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbC)$ of a finite group $G$ is similar to a unitary representation $rho' colon G to operatornameGU(n,mathbbC)$, in the sense that there is an invertible operator $M$ such that $rho'(g) = Mrho(g) M^-1$ for every $g in G$.
In this sense and others, the theory of unitary representations over $mathbbC$ is essentially the same as that of ordinary representations.
However, over finite fields the notions are distinct.
If $G$ is a finite group and $rho colon G to operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ is a representation, there might not be an invertible operator $M$ such that $M rho(g) M^-1 in operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ for every $g in G$.
For example, $mathbbZ_5$ has a faithful 2-dimensional representation over $mathbbF_3^2$ that is not similar to any unitary representation, since 5 divides $|operatornameGL(2,mathbbF_3^2)|$ but not $|operatornameGU(2,mathbbF_3^2)|$.
Question:
Have unitary representations of finite groups over finite fields been systematically studied, and if so where can I learn the basics?
Here is one example of what I want to learn to do:
- Describe all the unitary representations of the dihedral group of order 8 when $q=11$.
At the moment I do not even know how to:
- Describe all the unitary representations of $mathbbZ_2 times mathbbZ_2$ when $q=3$.
Some other things I want to learn include:
Where Maschke's Theorem holds (i.e. $(|G|,q) = 1$ so that $mathbbF_q^2[G]$ is semisimple), does every unitary representation decompose as an orthogonal direct sum of irreducible unitary subrepresentations?
Again where Maschke's Theorem holds, is there any analogue of the Peter-Weyl Theorem to give the space $L^2(G)$ of functions $f colon G to mathbbF_q^2$ an orthogonal basis consisting of matrix elements for irreducible unitary representations?
What are some conditions for a modular representation to be similar to a unitary representation? (i.e. which subgroups of $operatornameGL(n,mathbbF_q^2)$ are conjugate with subgroups of $operatornameGU(n,mathbbF_q^2)$?)
Bonus for answers understandable to a humble analyst.
reference-request gr.group-theory rt.representation-theory finite-groups harmonic-analysis
reference-request gr.group-theory rt.representation-theory finite-groups harmonic-analysis
New contributor
New contributor
edited 5 hours ago
YCor
29.1k486140
29.1k486140
New contributor
asked 5 hours ago
Joey IversonJoey Iverson
312
312
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
Notice that finite-dimensional unitary representations are automatically semisimple; a minimal stable non-$0$ subspace is irreducible, and its orthogonal complement has smaller dimension. A similar argument shows that every semisimple unitary representation is an orthogonal direct sum of irreducibles.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think that a subgroup of $operatornameGL(n, mathbb F_q^2)$ is conjugate to a subgroup of $operatornameGU(n, mathbb F_q^2/mathbb F_q)$ if and only if it commutes with a torus of the form $(mathbb F_q^2^times)^n$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
$mathbb F_3[C_2 times C_2]$ is the orthogonal direct sum $mathbb F_3(1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(1, -1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, -1)$, where $(a, b)$ denotes the homomorphism $C_2 times C_2 to mathbb F_3^times$ given by $(m, n) mapsto a^m b^n$. The decomposition of the group algebra is guaranteed to capture all irreducible unitaries since, as usual, for an irreducible unitary representation $V$ of $G$, $V otimes V^*$ embeds in $mathbb F_q^2[G]$ by $v otimes v^* mapsto g mapsto langle v^*, gcdot vrangle$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Notice that finite-dimensional unitary representations are automatically semisimple; a minimal stable non-$0$ subspace is irreducible, and its orthogonal complement has smaller dimension. A similar argument shows that every semisimple unitary representation is an orthogonal direct sum of irreducibles.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think that a subgroup of $operatornameGL(n, mathbb F_q^2)$ is conjugate to a subgroup of $operatornameGU(n, mathbb F_q^2/mathbb F_q)$ if and only if it commutes with a torus of the form $(mathbb F_q^2^times)^n$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
$mathbb F_3[C_2 times C_2]$ is the orthogonal direct sum $mathbb F_3(1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(1, -1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, -1)$, where $(a, b)$ denotes the homomorphism $C_2 times C_2 to mathbb F_3^times$ given by $(m, n) mapsto a^m b^n$. The decomposition of the group algebra is guaranteed to capture all irreducible unitaries since, as usual, for an irreducible unitary representation $V$ of $G$, $V otimes V^*$ embeds in $mathbb F_q^2[G]$ by $v otimes v^* mapsto g mapsto langle v^*, gcdot vrangle$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Notice that finite-dimensional unitary representations are automatically semisimple; a minimal stable non-$0$ subspace is irreducible, and its orthogonal complement has smaller dimension. A similar argument shows that every semisimple unitary representation is an orthogonal direct sum of irreducibles.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Notice that finite-dimensional unitary representations are automatically semisimple; a minimal stable non-$0$ subspace is irreducible, and its orthogonal complement has smaller dimension. A similar argument shows that every semisimple unitary representation is an orthogonal direct sum of irreducibles.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think that a subgroup of $operatornameGL(n, mathbb F_q^2)$ is conjugate to a subgroup of $operatornameGU(n, mathbb F_q^2/mathbb F_q)$ if and only if it commutes with a torus of the form $(mathbb F_q^2^times)^n$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think that a subgroup of $operatornameGL(n, mathbb F_q^2)$ is conjugate to a subgroup of $operatornameGU(n, mathbb F_q^2/mathbb F_q)$ if and only if it commutes with a torus of the form $(mathbb F_q^2^times)^n$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
$mathbb F_3[C_2 times C_2]$ is the orthogonal direct sum $mathbb F_3(1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(1, -1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, -1)$, where $(a, b)$ denotes the homomorphism $C_2 times C_2 to mathbb F_3^times$ given by $(m, n) mapsto a^m b^n$. The decomposition of the group algebra is guaranteed to capture all irreducible unitaries since, as usual, for an irreducible unitary representation $V$ of $G$, $V otimes V^*$ embeds in $mathbb F_q^2[G]$ by $v otimes v^* mapsto g mapsto langle v^*, gcdot vrangle$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
$mathbb F_3[C_2 times C_2]$ is the orthogonal direct sum $mathbb F_3(1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(1, -1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, -1)$, where $(a, b)$ denotes the homomorphism $C_2 times C_2 to mathbb F_3^times$ given by $(m, n) mapsto a^m b^n$. The decomposition of the group algebra is guaranteed to capture all irreducible unitaries since, as usual, for an irreducible unitary representation $V$ of $G$, $V otimes V^*$ embeds in $mathbb F_q^2[G]$ by $v otimes v^* mapsto g mapsto langle v^*, gcdot vrangle$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
We had to deal with this problem when classifying maximal subgroups of the finite classical groups, which is the aim of our book:
The Maximal Subgroups of the Low-Dimensional Finite Classical Groups, by
John N. Bray,
Derek F. Holt,
Colva M. Roney-Dougal.
The most difficult maximal subgroups to classify, are those in the so-called Aschbacher class $mathscr S$, consisting of absolutely irreducible subgroups that are almost simple mod scalars. Many of these arise as reductions of complex representations over finite fields. Tables of complex representations of groups that are close to simple are available up to dimension about $250$, but we needed to know which classical group the reduction lies in, which means identifying the fixed form.
We generally relied on Lemma 4.4.1 of the book, which says:
For a given absolutely irreducible representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$,
with Frobenius-Schur indicator $circ$, the image of $G$ under the representation consists of
isometries of a unitary form if and only if the action of the field automorphism
$sigma :x to x^q$ on the Brauer character is the same as complex conjugation.
In many cases, such as when $q$ is coprime to the group order, the Brauer character is just the ordinary complex character.
As an example, the reduction of the complex representation of degree $3$ of the $3$-fold cover $3.A_6$ of $A_6$ lies in $rm PSL(3,p)$ for primes $p equiv 1,4 bmod 15$, in $rm PSU(3,p)$ (as a subgroup of $rm PSL(3,p^2)$) when $p equiv 11,14 bmod 15$ (or when $p=5$), and in $rm PSL(3,p^2)$ without preserving a unitary form when $p equiv 2,3 bmod 5$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Unless you think there's no risk of confusion, it may be worth it, for people like me who read "representation of a group over $mathbb F_q^2$" as "representation of (a group $G$ over $mathbb F_q^2$)", seeming to consider representations of algebraic groups, to re-phrase as "representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$", so that it's clear we're specifying the field of definition of the representation and not of the group (the latter meaningless anyway in the abstract setting considered).
$endgroup$
– LSpice
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
OK, I have reworded it, but I was quoting the lemma directly from the book!
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Joey Iverson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327823%2funitary-representations-of-finite-groups-over-finite-fields%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
We had to deal with this problem when classifying maximal subgroups of the finite classical groups, which is the aim of our book:
The Maximal Subgroups of the Low-Dimensional Finite Classical Groups, by
John N. Bray,
Derek F. Holt,
Colva M. Roney-Dougal.
The most difficult maximal subgroups to classify, are those in the so-called Aschbacher class $mathscr S$, consisting of absolutely irreducible subgroups that are almost simple mod scalars. Many of these arise as reductions of complex representations over finite fields. Tables of complex representations of groups that are close to simple are available up to dimension about $250$, but we needed to know which classical group the reduction lies in, which means identifying the fixed form.
We generally relied on Lemma 4.4.1 of the book, which says:
For a given absolutely irreducible representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$,
with Frobenius-Schur indicator $circ$, the image of $G$ under the representation consists of
isometries of a unitary form if and only if the action of the field automorphism
$sigma :x to x^q$ on the Brauer character is the same as complex conjugation.
In many cases, such as when $q$ is coprime to the group order, the Brauer character is just the ordinary complex character.
As an example, the reduction of the complex representation of degree $3$ of the $3$-fold cover $3.A_6$ of $A_6$ lies in $rm PSL(3,p)$ for primes $p equiv 1,4 bmod 15$, in $rm PSU(3,p)$ (as a subgroup of $rm PSL(3,p^2)$) when $p equiv 11,14 bmod 15$ (or when $p=5$), and in $rm PSL(3,p^2)$ without preserving a unitary form when $p equiv 2,3 bmod 5$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Unless you think there's no risk of confusion, it may be worth it, for people like me who read "representation of a group over $mathbb F_q^2$" as "representation of (a group $G$ over $mathbb F_q^2$)", seeming to consider representations of algebraic groups, to re-phrase as "representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$", so that it's clear we're specifying the field of definition of the representation and not of the group (the latter meaningless anyway in the abstract setting considered).
$endgroup$
– LSpice
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
OK, I have reworded it, but I was quoting the lemma directly from the book!
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We had to deal with this problem when classifying maximal subgroups of the finite classical groups, which is the aim of our book:
The Maximal Subgroups of the Low-Dimensional Finite Classical Groups, by
John N. Bray,
Derek F. Holt,
Colva M. Roney-Dougal.
The most difficult maximal subgroups to classify, are those in the so-called Aschbacher class $mathscr S$, consisting of absolutely irreducible subgroups that are almost simple mod scalars. Many of these arise as reductions of complex representations over finite fields. Tables of complex representations of groups that are close to simple are available up to dimension about $250$, but we needed to know which classical group the reduction lies in, which means identifying the fixed form.
We generally relied on Lemma 4.4.1 of the book, which says:
For a given absolutely irreducible representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$,
with Frobenius-Schur indicator $circ$, the image of $G$ under the representation consists of
isometries of a unitary form if and only if the action of the field automorphism
$sigma :x to x^q$ on the Brauer character is the same as complex conjugation.
In many cases, such as when $q$ is coprime to the group order, the Brauer character is just the ordinary complex character.
As an example, the reduction of the complex representation of degree $3$ of the $3$-fold cover $3.A_6$ of $A_6$ lies in $rm PSL(3,p)$ for primes $p equiv 1,4 bmod 15$, in $rm PSU(3,p)$ (as a subgroup of $rm PSL(3,p^2)$) when $p equiv 11,14 bmod 15$ (or when $p=5$), and in $rm PSL(3,p^2)$ without preserving a unitary form when $p equiv 2,3 bmod 5$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Unless you think there's no risk of confusion, it may be worth it, for people like me who read "representation of a group over $mathbb F_q^2$" as "representation of (a group $G$ over $mathbb F_q^2$)", seeming to consider representations of algebraic groups, to re-phrase as "representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$", so that it's clear we're specifying the field of definition of the representation and not of the group (the latter meaningless anyway in the abstract setting considered).
$endgroup$
– LSpice
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
OK, I have reworded it, but I was quoting the lemma directly from the book!
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We had to deal with this problem when classifying maximal subgroups of the finite classical groups, which is the aim of our book:
The Maximal Subgroups of the Low-Dimensional Finite Classical Groups, by
John N. Bray,
Derek F. Holt,
Colva M. Roney-Dougal.
The most difficult maximal subgroups to classify, are those in the so-called Aschbacher class $mathscr S$, consisting of absolutely irreducible subgroups that are almost simple mod scalars. Many of these arise as reductions of complex representations over finite fields. Tables of complex representations of groups that are close to simple are available up to dimension about $250$, but we needed to know which classical group the reduction lies in, which means identifying the fixed form.
We generally relied on Lemma 4.4.1 of the book, which says:
For a given absolutely irreducible representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$,
with Frobenius-Schur indicator $circ$, the image of $G$ under the representation consists of
isometries of a unitary form if and only if the action of the field automorphism
$sigma :x to x^q$ on the Brauer character is the same as complex conjugation.
In many cases, such as when $q$ is coprime to the group order, the Brauer character is just the ordinary complex character.
As an example, the reduction of the complex representation of degree $3$ of the $3$-fold cover $3.A_6$ of $A_6$ lies in $rm PSL(3,p)$ for primes $p equiv 1,4 bmod 15$, in $rm PSU(3,p)$ (as a subgroup of $rm PSL(3,p^2)$) when $p equiv 11,14 bmod 15$ (or when $p=5$), and in $rm PSL(3,p^2)$ without preserving a unitary form when $p equiv 2,3 bmod 5$.
$endgroup$
We had to deal with this problem when classifying maximal subgroups of the finite classical groups, which is the aim of our book:
The Maximal Subgroups of the Low-Dimensional Finite Classical Groups, by
John N. Bray,
Derek F. Holt,
Colva M. Roney-Dougal.
The most difficult maximal subgroups to classify, are those in the so-called Aschbacher class $mathscr S$, consisting of absolutely irreducible subgroups that are almost simple mod scalars. Many of these arise as reductions of complex representations over finite fields. Tables of complex representations of groups that are close to simple are available up to dimension about $250$, but we needed to know which classical group the reduction lies in, which means identifying the fixed form.
We generally relied on Lemma 4.4.1 of the book, which says:
For a given absolutely irreducible representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$,
with Frobenius-Schur indicator $circ$, the image of $G$ under the representation consists of
isometries of a unitary form if and only if the action of the field automorphism
$sigma :x to x^q$ on the Brauer character is the same as complex conjugation.
In many cases, such as when $q$ is coprime to the group order, the Brauer character is just the ordinary complex character.
As an example, the reduction of the complex representation of degree $3$ of the $3$-fold cover $3.A_6$ of $A_6$ lies in $rm PSL(3,p)$ for primes $p equiv 1,4 bmod 15$, in $rm PSU(3,p)$ (as a subgroup of $rm PSL(3,p^2)$) when $p equiv 11,14 bmod 15$ (or when $p=5$), and in $rm PSL(3,p^2)$ without preserving a unitary form when $p equiv 2,3 bmod 5$.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 3 hours ago
Derek HoltDerek Holt
27.4k464112
27.4k464112
1
$begingroup$
Unless you think there's no risk of confusion, it may be worth it, for people like me who read "representation of a group over $mathbb F_q^2$" as "representation of (a group $G$ over $mathbb F_q^2$)", seeming to consider representations of algebraic groups, to re-phrase as "representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$", so that it's clear we're specifying the field of definition of the representation and not of the group (the latter meaningless anyway in the abstract setting considered).
$endgroup$
– LSpice
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
OK, I have reworded it, but I was quoting the lemma directly from the book!
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Unless you think there's no risk of confusion, it may be worth it, for people like me who read "representation of a group over $mathbb F_q^2$" as "representation of (a group $G$ over $mathbb F_q^2$)", seeming to consider representations of algebraic groups, to re-phrase as "representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$", so that it's clear we're specifying the field of definition of the representation and not of the group (the latter meaningless anyway in the abstract setting considered).
$endgroup$
– LSpice
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
OK, I have reworded it, but I was quoting the lemma directly from the book!
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
1 hour ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Unless you think there's no risk of confusion, it may be worth it, for people like me who read "representation of a group over $mathbb F_q^2$" as "representation of (a group $G$ over $mathbb F_q^2$)", seeming to consider representations of algebraic groups, to re-phrase as "representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$", so that it's clear we're specifying the field of definition of the representation and not of the group (the latter meaningless anyway in the abstract setting considered).
$endgroup$
– LSpice
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unless you think there's no risk of confusion, it may be worth it, for people like me who read "representation of a group over $mathbb F_q^2$" as "representation of (a group $G$ over $mathbb F_q^2$)", seeming to consider representations of algebraic groups, to re-phrase as "representation over $mathbb F_q^2$ of a group $G$", so that it's clear we're specifying the field of definition of the representation and not of the group (the latter meaningless anyway in the abstract setting considered).
$endgroup$
– LSpice
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
OK, I have reworded it, but I was quoting the lemma directly from the book!
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
OK, I have reworded it, but I was quoting the lemma directly from the book!
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Joey Iverson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joey Iverson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joey Iverson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joey Iverson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327823%2funitary-representations-of-finite-groups-over-finite-fields%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Notice that finite-dimensional unitary representations are automatically semisimple; a minimal stable non-$0$ subspace is irreducible, and its orthogonal complement has smaller dimension. A similar argument shows that every semisimple unitary representation is an orthogonal direct sum of irreducibles.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think that a subgroup of $operatornameGL(n, mathbb F_q^2)$ is conjugate to a subgroup of $operatornameGU(n, mathbb F_q^2/mathbb F_q)$ if and only if it commutes with a torus of the form $(mathbb F_q^2^times)^n$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
$mathbb F_3[C_2 times C_2]$ is the orthogonal direct sum $mathbb F_3(1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(1, -1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, 1) oplus mathbb F_3(-1, -1)$, where $(a, b)$ denotes the homomorphism $C_2 times C_2 to mathbb F_3^times$ given by $(m, n) mapsto a^m b^n$. The decomposition of the group algebra is guaranteed to capture all irreducible unitaries since, as usual, for an irreducible unitary representation $V$ of $G$, $V otimes V^*$ embeds in $mathbb F_q^2[G]$ by $v otimes v^* mapsto g mapsto langle v^*, gcdot vrangle$.
$endgroup$
– LSpice
4 hours ago