9
$\begingroup$

I am studying a GIT quotient and I have a question that may be very silly.

Let $G$ be a connected reductive group and $\mathfrak{g}$ its Lie algebra. Then are there some differences between $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G$ and $G/\!/G$?

I started this question since I want to find each dimension when $G=U_I$, which is the maximal unipotent radical of a parabolic subgroup in $\operatorname{GL}_n$. Maybe I am wrong, I guess that $\dim(U_I/\!/U_I)=n-1$, but Sevostyanova - The algebra of invariants for the adjoint action of the unitriangular group says that $\dim( \mathfrak{u}_I /\!/ U_I)$ is larger than $n-1$.

In summary, the followings are my questions:

  1. Are there some well-known differences between $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G$ and $G/\!/G$?
  2. Is there a formula or theorem between dimensions of $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G$ and $G/\!/G$?
  3. $\dim U_I/\!/U_i$ is not $n-1$?

I appreciate any comments for these!

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is your question about reductive groups $G$, or about unipotent radicals $U$ of parabolic subgroups of reductive groups? The latter are unipotent, hence never reductive (unless they are trivial). Even for reductive groups $G$, one should expect that, though $\mathfrak g//G$ and $G//G$ are related, they will differ; consider the case where $G$ is a torus! $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Aug 3, 2022 at 21:33
  • $\begingroup$ @LSpice Thank you for your comment! Actually, I want to ask both cases all, any reductive $G$ and unipotent radicals $U$. So I appreciate any comments at least one of them and so your comment is very helpful for me. I will think about the case when $G$ is a torus. Thank you very much. $\endgroup$
    – lafes
    Aug 3, 2022 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ The notation $\mathfrak{g}//G$ looks typographically weird and I changed it to $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G,$ coded as \mathfrak{g}/\!/G, but I notice that "skd" in an answer posted below was even more extreme and wrote $\mathfrak{g}/\!\!/G,$ coded as \mathfrak{g}/\!\!/G. (In URLs in LaTeX documents I've been known to write $\text{http:}/\!/\text{whatever.net}$ in preference to $\text{http:}//\text{whatever.net}$ $\qquad$ $\endgroup$ Aug 4, 2022 at 22:05

2 Answers 2

15
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\mmod}{/\!\!/}\newcommand{\fr}[1]{\mathfrak{#1}}$If $G$ is a torus, then $G$ acts trivially on $\fr{g}$, so that $\fr{g}\mmod G \cong \fr{g}$. Similarly, the adjoint action of $G$ on $G$ is trivial, so that $G\mmod G \cong G$, which is of course not isomorphic to $\fr{g}$. Suppose instead that $G$ is semisimple and simply-connected (everything over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic zero, to be safe), and let $W$ be the Weyl group. Then $\fr{g}\mmod G \cong \fr{t}\mmod W$ by Chevalley restriction, and $G\mmod G \cong T\mmod W$ by the Pittie–Steinberg theorem. Both $\fr{t}\mmod W$ and $T\mmod W$ are both isomorphic to an affine space of dimension $\operatorname{rank}(G)$; for $\fr{t}\mmod W$, this is Chevalley–Shepard–Todd, and for $T\mmod W$, this is Theorem 6.1 of Steinberg's "Regular elements of semisimple algebraic groups". So they are indeed isomorphic. For example, say $G = \operatorname{SL}_2$; then $\fr{t}\mmod W \cong \operatorname{Spec}(k[x^2])$ and $T\mmod W \cong \operatorname{Spec}(k[y + y^{-1}])$, and the isomorphism sends $x^2\mapsto y + y^{-1}$.

I don't know what happens if $G$ is instead unipotent, but going through the references of the paper you linked, I found Sevostyanova - The field of invariants of the adjoint action of the unitriangular group in the nilradical of a parabolic subalgebra. In the introduction, the author writes that if $N$ is the subgroup of $\mathrm{GL}_n(k)$ of upper triangular matrices with $1$s on the diagonal and $\fr{n}$ is its Lie algebra, then $k[\fr{n}]^N$ is a polynomial algebra on $n-1$ variables. (So $\fr{n}\mmod N$ is an affine space of dimension $n-1$.)

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ TeX note: It is usually better to use \operatorname rather than \mathrm for things that are semantically operators. Compare, for instance, $\mathrm{rank} G$ \mathrm{rank} G to $\operatorname{rank} G$ \operatorname{rank} G (although you used parentheses). MathJax note: Unlike in TeX, a preamble line $\newcommand\mmod{…}…$ followed by a newline will force a space in the text. Unfortunately, as ugly as it is in the source, the only way to get rid of the space is to put the closing $ directly next to the first line of the post, with no intervening whitespace. I have edited accordingly. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Aug 4, 2022 at 0:54
  • $\begingroup$ I appreciate this answer, because I didn't know the name of the result in the group case. I can easily imagine that things go wrong, even on the Lie-algebra side, for bad primes (in the technical sense of Springer–Steinberg). I don't know much about the behaviour of geometric quotients, even in characteristic $0$. What, if anything, is known about the effect on $G//G$ of replacing $G$ by an isogenous reductive group? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Aug 4, 2022 at 0:59
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice It will still be true that $G//G$ will be $T//W$, but $T//W$ need not be affine space, if $G$ is a non-simply connected reductive group. For example, let's compare the cases of $SL_3$ and $PSL_3$. The coordinate ring of the torus in $SL_3$ is $k[x_1, x_2, x_3]/(x_1 x_2 x_3-1)$, with $W = S_3$ acting by permuting the variables. The invariant ring is generated by $e_1 := x_1+x_2+x_3$ and $e_2 := x_1 x_2 + x_1 x_3 +x_2 x_3$ (we don't need $e_3$ because $x_1 x_2 x_3 = 1$). $\endgroup$ Aug 4, 2022 at 1:49
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ The coordinate ring of the torus in $PSL_3$ is the subring of $k[x_1, x_2, x_3]/(x_1 x_2 x_3-1)$ consisting of polynomials which have total degree $0 \bmod 3$ in the $x$'s. Taking invariants by $S_3$, we get the subring of $k[e_1, e_2]$ generated by $e_1^3$, $e_1 e_2$ and $e_2^3$: an $A_2$-singularity. $\endgroup$ Aug 4, 2022 at 1:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is only fro simply connected simisimple groups that $G//G$ is smooth and even an affine space. As free generators of $\mathcal{O}(T)^W$ one can take the orbit sums of the fundamental weights. $\endgroup$ Aug 4, 2022 at 12:24
4
$\begingroup$

If you are in characteristic zero and $G$ is unipotent, then the exponential map is a $G$-equivariant isomorphism of algebraic varieties $\mathfrak{g} \longrightarrow G$, and therefore $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G \cong G/\!/G$ in this case.

Also, in characteristic zero but now letting $G$ be any algebraic group, the exponential map is a $G$-equivariant isomorphism from the completion of $\mathfrak{g}$ at $0$ to the completion of $G$ at $e$. I think the completions of $\mathfrak{g}/\!/G$ and $G/\!/G$ at the corresponding maximal ideals should be isomorphic, but Friedrich Knop has left a skeptical comment below, so I'll think about it more.

$\DeclareMathOperator\PSL{PSL}$In comments (1 2) to skd's answer, I pointed out that $\PSL_3/\!/\PSL_3$ is the singular variety $\operatorname{Spec} k[x,y,z]/\langle xy=z^3 \rangle$. Here we have $x=e_1^3$, $y=e_2^3$ and $z=e_1 e_2$ where $e_1$ and $e_2$ are the first and second elementary symmetric functions of the eigenvalues of a matrix in $SL_3$. Note that the identity corresponds to $e_1=e_2=3$, $(x,y,z) = (27,27,9)$, which is a smooth point of $\operatorname{Spec} k[x,y,z]/\langle xy=z^3 \rangle$; the singularity is at $e_1=e_2=0$, $(x,y,z)=0$, which corresponds to a matrix with eigenvalues $(1,\omega, \omega^2)$ for a primitive root of unity $\omega$. So the completion is just a power series ring in two variables.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am very skeptical that for arbitrary groups completion commutes with taking invariants. Is there a reference? For reductive groups it follows easily from complete reducibility. $\endgroup$ Aug 4, 2022 at 12:20
  • $\begingroup$ @FriedrichKnop, re, for reductive groups in characteristic 0 (which I agree is what we seem to be discussing!), right? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Aug 4, 2022 at 13:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice Right, should be characteristic zero. $\endgroup$ Aug 4, 2022 at 13:46
  • $\begingroup$ At least if $G$ is reductive (over $\mathbf{C}$), the isomorphism between the completions of $\mathfrak{g}/\!\!/G$ and $G/\!\!/G$ can be viewed as a manifestation of the Chern character from complex K-theory of $BG$ tensored with $\mathbf{C}$ to the 2-periodified $\mathbf{C}$-cohomology of $BG$. Note that if $G$ is simply-connnected, $BG$ is not homotopy equivalent to a finite CW-complex (but it is an increasing union of such), so the completions really are necessary. $\endgroup$
    – skd
    Aug 4, 2022 at 14:13

Your Answer

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

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