Hubbry Logo
Reductive groupReductive groupMain
Open search
Reductive group
Community hub
Reductive group
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Reductive group
Reductive group
from Wikipedia

In mathematics, a reductive group is a type of linear algebraic group over a field. One definition is that a connected linear algebraic group G over a perfect field is reductive if it has a representation that has a finite kernel and is a direct sum of irreducible representations. Reductive groups include some of the most important groups in mathematics, such as the general linear group GL(n) of invertible matrices, the special orthogonal group SO(n), and the symplectic group Sp(2n). Simple algebraic groups and (more generally) semisimple algebraic groups are reductive.

Claude Chevalley showed that the classification of reductive groups is the same over any algebraically closed field. In particular, the simple algebraic groups are classified by Dynkin diagrams, as in the theory of compact Lie groups or complex semisimple Lie algebras. Reductive groups over an arbitrary field are harder to classify, but for many fields such as the real numbers R or a number field, the classification is well understood. The classification of finite simple groups says that most finite simple groups arise as the group G(k) of k-rational points of a simple algebraic group G over a finite field k, or as minor variants of that construction.

Reductive groups have a rich representation theory in various contexts. First, one can study the representations of a reductive group G over a field k as an algebraic group, which are actions of G on k-vector spaces. But also, one can study the complex representations of the group G(k) when k is a finite field, or the infinite-dimensional unitary representations of a real reductive group, or the automorphic representations of an adelic algebraic group. The structure theory of reductive groups is used in all these areas.

Definitions

[edit]

A linear algebraic group over a field k is defined as a smooth closed subgroup scheme of GL(n) over k, for some positive integer n. Equivalently, a linear algebraic group over k is a smooth affine group scheme over k.

With the unipotent radical

[edit]

A connected linear algebraic group over an algebraically closed field is called semisimple if every smooth connected solvable normal subgroup of is trivial. More generally, a connected linear algebraic group over an algebraically closed field is called reductive if the largest smooth connected unipotent normal subgroup of is trivial.[1] This normal subgroup is called the unipotent radical and is denoted . (Some authors do not require reductive groups to be connected.) A group over an arbitrary field k is called semisimple or reductive if the base change is semisimple or reductive, where is an algebraic closure of k. (This is equivalent to the definition of reductive groups in the introduction when k is perfect.[2]) Any torus over k, such as the multiplicative group Gm, is reductive.

With representation theory

[edit]

Over fields of characteristic zero another equivalent definition of a reductive group is a connected group admitting a faithful semisimple representation which remains semisimple over its algebraic closure [3] page 424.

Simple reductive groups

[edit]

A linear algebraic group G over a field k is called simple (or k-simple) if it is semisimple, nontrivial, and every smooth connected normal subgroup of G over k is trivial or equal to G.[4] (Some authors call this property "almost simple".) This differs slightly from the terminology for abstract groups, in that a simple algebraic group may have nontrivial center (although the center must be finite). For example, for any integer n at least 2 and any field k, the group SL(n) over k is simple, and its center is the group scheme μn of nth roots of unity.

A central isogeny of reductive groups is a surjective homomorphism with kernel a finite central subgroup scheme. Every reductive group over a field admits a central isogeny from the product of a torus and some simple groups. For example, over any field k,

It is slightly awkward that the definition of a reductive group over a field involves passage to the algebraic closure. For a perfect field k, that can be avoided: a linear algebraic group G over k is reductive if and only if every smooth connected unipotent normal k-subgroup of G is trivial. For an arbitrary field, the latter property defines a pseudo-reductive group, which is somewhat more general.

Split-reductive groups

[edit]

A reductive group G over a field k is called split if it contains a split maximal torus T over k (that is, a split torus in G whose base change to is a maximal torus in ). It is equivalent to say that T is a split torus in G that is maximal among all k-tori in G.[5] These kinds of groups are useful because their classification can be described through combinatorical data called root data.

Examples

[edit]

GLn and SLn

[edit]

A fundamental example of a reductive group is the general linear group of invertible n × n matrices over a field k, for a natural number n. In particular, the multiplicative group Gm is the group GL(1), and so its group Gm(k) of k-rational points is the group k* of nonzero elements of k under multiplication. Another reductive group is the special linear group SL(n) over a field k, the subgroup of matrices with determinant 1. In fact, SL(n) is a simple algebraic group for n at least 2.

O(n), SO(n), and Sp(n)

[edit]

An important simple group is the symplectic group Sp(2n) over a field k, the subgroup of GL(2n) that preserves a nondegenerate alternating bilinear form on the vector space k2n. Likewise, the orthogonal group O(q) is the subgroup of the general linear group that preserves a nondegenerate quadratic form q on a vector space over a field k. The algebraic group O(q) has two connected components, and its identity component SO(q) is reductive, in fact simple for q of dimension n at least 3. (For k of characteristic 2 and n odd, the group scheme O(q) is in fact connected but not smooth over k. The simple group SO(q) can always be defined as the maximal smooth connected subgroup of O(q) over k.) When k is algebraically closed, any two (nondegenerate) quadratic forms of the same dimension are isomorphic, and so it is reasonable to call this group SO(n). For a general field k, different quadratic forms of dimension n can yield non-isomorphic simple groups SO(q) over k, although they all have the same base change to the algebraic closure .

Tori

[edit]

The group and products of it are called the algebraic tori. They are examples of reductive groups since they embed in through the diagonal, and from this representation, their unipotent radical is trivial. For example, embeds in from the map

Non-examples

[edit]
  • Any unipotent group is not reductive since its unipotent radical is itself. This includes the additive group .
  • The Borel group of has a non-trivial unipotent radical of upper-triangular matrices with on the diagonal. This is an example of a non-reductive group which is not unipotent.

Associated reductive group

[edit]

Note that the normality of the unipotent radical implies that the quotient group is reductive. For example,

Other characterizations of reductive groups

[edit]

Every compact connected Lie group has a complexification, which is a complex reductive algebraic group. In fact, this construction gives a one-to-one correspondence between compact connected Lie groups and complex reductive groups, up to isomorphism. For a compact Lie group K with complexification G, the inclusion from K into the complex reductive group G(C) is a homotopy equivalence, with respect to the classical topology on G(C). For example, the inclusion from the unitary group U(n) to GL(n,C) is a homotopy equivalence.

For a reductive group G over a field of characteristic zero, all finite-dimensional representations of G (as an algebraic group) are completely reducible, that is, they are direct sums of irreducible representations.[6] That is the source of the name "reductive". Note, however, that complete reducibility fails for reductive groups in positive characteristic (apart from tori). In more detail: an affine group scheme G of finite type over a field k is called linearly reductive if its finite-dimensional representations are completely reducible. For k of characteristic zero, G is linearly reductive if and only if the identity component Go of G is reductive.[7] For k of characteristic p>0, however, Masayoshi Nagata showed that G is linearly reductive if and only if Go is of multiplicative type and G/Go has order prime to p.[8]

Roots

[edit]

The classification of reductive algebraic groups is in terms of the associated root system, as in the theories of complex semisimple Lie algebras or compact Lie groups. Here is the way roots appear for reductive groups.

Let G be a split reductive group over a field k, and let T be a split maximal torus in G; so T is isomorphic to (Gm)n for some n, with n called the rank of G. Every representation of T (as an algebraic group) is a direct sum of 1-dimensional representations.[9] A weight for G means an isomorphism class of 1-dimensional representations of T, or equivalently a homomorphism TGm. The weights form a group X(T) under tensor product of representations, with X(T) isomorphic to the product of n copies of the integers, Zn.

The adjoint representation is the action of G by conjugation on its Lie algebra . A root of G means a nonzero weight that occurs in the action of TG on . The subspace of corresponding to each root is 1-dimensional, and the subspace of fixed by T is exactly the Lie algebra of T.[10] Therefore, the Lie algebra of G decomposes into together with 1-dimensional subspaces indexed by the set Φ of roots:

For example, when G is the group GL(n), its Lie algebra is the vector space of all n × n matrices over k. Let T be the subgroup of diagonal matrices in G. Then the root-space decomposition expresses as the direct sum of the diagonal matrices and the 1-dimensional subspaces indexed by the off-diagonal positions (i, j). Writing L1,...,Ln for the standard basis for the weight lattice X(T) ≅ Zn, the roots are the elements LiLj for all ij from 1 to n.

The roots of a semisimple group form a root system; this is a combinatorial structure which can be completely classified. More generally, the roots of a reductive group form a root datum, a slight variation.[11] The Weyl group of a reductive group G means the quotient group of the normalizer of a maximal torus by the torus, W = NG(T)/T. The Weyl group is in fact a finite group generated by reflections. For example, for the group GL(n) (or SL(n)), the Weyl group is the symmetric group Sn.

There are finitely many Borel subgroups containing a given maximal torus, and they are permuted simply transitively by the Weyl group (acting by conjugation).[12] A choice of Borel subgroup determines a set of positive roots Φ+ ⊂ Φ, with the property that Φ is the disjoint union of Φ+ and −Φ+. Explicitly, the Lie algebra of B is the direct sum of the Lie algebra of T and the positive root spaces:

For example, if B is the Borel subgroup of upper-triangular matrices in GL(n), then this is the obvious decomposition of the subspace of upper-triangular matrices in . The positive roots are LiLj for 1 ≤ i < jn.

A simple root means a positive root that is not a sum of two other positive roots. Write Δ for the set of simple roots. The number r of simple roots is equal to the rank of the commutator subgroup of G, called the semisimple rank of G (which is simply the rank of G if G is semisimple). For example, the simple roots for GL(n) (or SL(n)) are LiLi+1 for 1 ≤ in − 1.

Root systems are classified by the corresponding Dynkin diagram, which is a finite graph (with some edges directed or multiple). The set of vertices of the Dynkin diagram is the set of simple roots. In short, the Dynkin diagram describes the angles between the simple roots and their relative lengths, with respect to a Weyl group-invariant inner product on the weight lattice. The connected Dynkin diagrams (corresponding to simple groups) are pictured below.

For a split reductive group G over a field k, an important point is that a root α determines not just a 1-dimensional subspace of the Lie algebra of G, but also a copy of the additive group Ga in G with the given Lie algebra, called a root subgroup Uα. The root subgroup is the unique copy of the additive group in G which is normalized by T and which has the given Lie algebra.[10] The whole group G is generated (as an algebraic group) by T and the root subgroups, while the Borel subgroup B is generated by T and the positive root subgroups. In fact, a split semisimple group G is generated by the root subgroups alone.

Parabolic subgroups

[edit]

For a split reductive group G over a field k, the smooth connected subgroups of G that contain a given Borel subgroup B of G are in one-to-one correspondence with the subsets of the set Δ of simple roots (or equivalently, the subsets of the set of vertices of the Dynkin diagram). Let r be the order of Δ, the semisimple rank of G. Every parabolic subgroup of G is conjugate to a subgroup containing B by some element of G(k). As a result, there are exactly 2r conjugacy classes of parabolic subgroups in G over k.[13] Explicitly, the parabolic subgroup corresponding to a given subset S of Δ is the group generated by B together with the root subgroups U−α for α in S. For example, the parabolic subgroups of GL(n) that contain the Borel subgroup B above are the groups of invertible matrices with zero entries below a given set of squares along the diagonal, such as:

By definition, a parabolic subgroup P of a reductive group G over a field k is a smooth k-subgroup such that the quotient variety G/P is proper over k, or equivalently projective over k. Thus the classification of parabolic subgroups amounts to a classification of the projective homogeneous varieties for G (with smooth stabilizer group; that is no restriction for k of characteristic zero). For GL(n), these are the flag varieties, parametrizing sequences of linear subspaces of given dimensions a1,...,ai contained in a fixed vector space V of dimension n:

For the orthogonal group or the symplectic group, the projective homogeneous varieties have a similar description as varieties of isotropic flags with respect to a given quadratic form or symplectic form. For any reductive group G with a Borel subgroup B, G/B is called the flag variety or flag manifold of G.

Classification of split reductive groups

[edit]
The connected Dynkin diagrams

Chevalley showed in 1958 that the reductive groups over any algebraically closed field are classified up to isomorphism by root data.[14] In particular, the semisimple groups over an algebraically closed field are classified up to central isogenies by their Dynkin diagram, and the simple groups correspond to the connected diagrams. Thus there are simple groups of types An, Bn, Cn, Dn, E6, E7, E8, F4, G2. This result is essentially identical to the classifications of compact Lie groups or complex semisimple Lie algebras, by Wilhelm Killing and Élie Cartan in the 1880s and 1890s. In particular, the dimensions, centers, and other properties of the simple algebraic groups can be read from the list of simple Lie groups. It is remarkable that the classification of reductive groups is independent of the characteristic. For comparison, there are many more simple Lie algebras in positive characteristic than in characteristic zero.

The exceptional groups G of type G2 and E6 had been constructed earlier, at least in the form of the abstract group G(k), by L. E. Dickson. For example, the group G2 is the automorphism group of an octonion algebra over k. By contrast, the Chevalley groups of type F4, E7, E8 over a field of positive characteristic were completely new.

More generally, the classification of split reductive groups is the same over any field.[15] A semisimple group G over a field k is called simply connected if every central isogeny from a semisimple group to G is an isomorphism. (For G semisimple over the complex numbers, being simply connected in this sense is equivalent to G(C) being simply connected in the classical topology.) Chevalley's classification gives that, over any field k, there is a unique simply connected split semisimple group G with a given Dynkin diagram, with simple groups corresponding to the connected diagrams. At the other extreme, a semisimple group is of adjoint type if its center is trivial. The split semisimple groups over k with given Dynkin diagram are exactly the groups G/A, where G is the simply connected group and A is a k-subgroup scheme of the center of G.

For example, the simply connected split simple groups over a field k corresponding to the "classical" Dynkin diagrams are as follows:

  • An: SL(n+1) over k;
  • Bn: the spin group Spin(2n+1) associated to a quadratic form of dimension 2n+1 over k with Witt index n, for example the form
  • Cn: the symplectic group Sp(2n) over k;
  • Dn: the spin group Spin(2n) associated to a quadratic form of dimension 2n over k with Witt index n, which can be written as:

The outer automorphism group of a split reductive group G over a field k is isomorphic to the automorphism group of the root datum of G. Moreover, the automorphism group of G splits as a semidirect product:

where Z is the center of G.[16] For a split semisimple simply connected group G over a field, the outer automorphism group of G has a simpler description: it is the automorphism group of the Dynkin diagram of G.

Reductive group schemes

[edit]

A group scheme G over a scheme S is called reductive if the morphism GS is smooth and affine, and every geometric fiber is reductive. (For a point p in S, the corresponding geometric fiber means the base change of G to an algebraic closure of the residue field of p.) Extending Chevalley's work, Michel Demazure and Grothendieck showed that pinned reductive group schemes over any nonempty scheme S are classified by root data.[17] This statement includes the existence of Chevalley groups as group schemes over Z, and it says that every pinned reductive group over a scheme S is isomorphic to the base change of a Chevalley group from Z to S. A pinning of a split reductive group is a choice of root basis and also a choice of trivialisation of the one-dimensional additive group corresponding to each simple root. This statement is false without the pinning; for example, suppose that A is a Dedekind domain and that I is an ideal in A whose class in the class group of A is not a square. Then SL(A + I) and SL_2(A) are split and reductive over Spec A and have the same root data but they are not isomorphic: the flag scheme (the quotient by a Borel subgroup scheme) of the first is the projective line bundle P(A + I) and has no section with trivial normal bundle (a section corresponds to a short exact sequence 0 → J → A + I → K → 0 where J, K are ideal classes and the normal bundle is then J^{-1}K, which is not trivial since JK is isomorphic to I) while the flag scheme of the second is P^1_A and does possess sections with trivial normal bundle.

Real reductive groups

[edit]

In the context of Lie groups rather than algebraic groups, a real reductive group is a Lie group G such that there is a linear algebraic group L over R whose identity component (in the Zariski topology) is reductive, and a homomorphism GL(R) whose kernel is finite and whose image is open in L(R) (in the classical topology). It is also standard to assume that the image of the adjoint representation Ad(G) is contained in Int(gC) = Ad(L0(C)) (which is automatic for G connected).[18]

In particular, every connected semisimple Lie group (meaning that its Lie algebra is semisimple) is reductive. Also, the Lie group R is reductive in this sense, since it can be viewed as the identity component of GL(1,R) ≅ R*. The problem of classifying the real reductive groups largely reduces to classifying the simple Lie groups. These are classified by their Satake diagram; or one can just refer to the list of simple Lie groups (up to finite coverings).

Useful theories of admissible representations and unitary representations have been developed for real reductive groups in this generality. The main differences between this definition and the definition of a reductive algebraic group have to do with the fact that an algebraic group G over R may be connected as an algebraic group while the Lie group G(R) is not connected, and likewise for simply connected groups.

For example, the projective linear group PGL(2) is connected as an algebraic group over any field, but its group of real points PGL(2,R) has two connected components. The identity component of PGL(2,R) (sometimes called PSL(2,R)) is a real reductive group that cannot be viewed as an algebraic group. Similarly, SL(2) is simply connected as an algebraic group over any field, but the Lie group SL(2,R) has fundamental group isomorphic to the integers Z, and so SL(2,R) has nontrivial covering spaces. By definition, all finite coverings of SL(2,R) (such as the metaplectic group) are real reductive groups. On the other hand, the universal cover of SL(2,R) is not a real reductive group, even though its Lie algebra is reductive, that is, the product of a semisimple Lie algebra and an abelian Lie algebra.

For a connected real reductive group G, the quotient manifold G/K of G by a maximal compact subgroup K is a symmetric space of non-compact type. In fact, every symmetric space of non-compact type arises this way. These are central examples in Riemannian geometry of manifolds with nonpositive sectional curvature. For example, SL(2,R)/SO(2) is the hyperbolic plane, and SL(2,C)/SU(2) is hyperbolic 3-space.

For a reductive group G over a field k that is complete with respect to a discrete valuation (such as the p-adic numbers Qp), the affine building X of G plays the role of the symmetric space. Namely, X is a simplicial complex with an action of G(k), and G(k) preserves a CAT(0) metric on X, the analog of a metric with nonpositive curvature. The dimension of the affine building is the k-rank of G. For example, the building of SL(2,Qp) is a tree.

Representations of reductive groups

[edit]

For a split reductive group G over a field k, the irreducible representations of G (as an algebraic group) are parametrized by the dominant weights, which are defined as the intersection of the weight lattice X(T) ≅ Zn with a convex cone (a Weyl chamber) in Rn. In particular, this parametrization is independent of the characteristic of k. In more detail, fix a split maximal torus and a Borel subgroup, TBG. Then B is the semidirect product of T with a smooth connected unipotent subgroup U. Define a highest weight vector in a representation V of G over k to be a nonzero vector v such that B maps the line spanned by v into itself. Then B acts on that line through its quotient group T, by some element λ of the weight lattice X(T). Chevalley showed that every irreducible representation of G has a unique highest weight vector up to scalars; the corresponding "highest weight" λ is dominant; and every dominant weight λ is the highest weight of a unique irreducible representation L(λ) of G, up to isomorphism.[19]

There remains the problem of describing the irreducible representation with given highest weight. For k of characteristic zero, there are essentially complete answers. For a dominant weight λ, define the Schur module ∇(λ) as the k-vector space of sections of the G-equivariant line bundle on the flag manifold G/B associated to λ; this is a representation of G. For k of characteristic zero, the Borel–Weil theorem says that the irreducible representation L(λ) is isomorphic to the Schur module ∇(λ). Furthermore, the Weyl character formula gives the character (and in particular the dimension) of this representation.

For a split reductive group G over a field k of positive characteristic, the situation is far more subtle, because representations of G are typically not direct sums of irreducibles. For a dominant weight λ, the irreducible representation L(λ) is the unique simple submodule (the socle) of the Schur module ∇(λ), but it need not be equal to the Schur module. The dimension and character of the Schur module are given by the Weyl character formula (as in characteristic zero), by George Kempf.[20] The dimensions and characters of the irreducible representations L(λ) are in general unknown, although a large body of theory has been developed to analyze these representations. One important result is that the dimension and character of L(λ) are known when the characteristic p of k is much bigger than the Coxeter number of G, by Henning Andersen, Jens Jantzen, and Wolfgang Soergel (proving Lusztig's conjecture in that case). Their character formula for p large is based on the Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials, which are combinatorially complex.[21] For any prime p, Simon Riche and Geordie Williamson conjectured the irreducible characters of a reductive group in terms of the p-Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials, which are even more complex, but at least are computable.[22]

Non-split reductive groups

[edit]

As discussed above, the classification of split reductive groups is the same over any field. By contrast, the classification of arbitrary reductive groups can be hard, depending on the base field. Some examples among the classical groups are:

  • Every nondegenerate quadratic form q over a field k determines a reductive group G = SO(q). Here G is simple if q has dimension n at least 3, since is isomorphic to SO(n) over an algebraic closure . The k-rank of G is equal to the Witt index of q (the maximum dimension of an isotropic subspace over k).[23] So the simple group G is split over k if and only if q has the maximum possible Witt index, .
  • Every central simple algebra A over k determines a reductive group G = SL(1,A), the kernel of the reduced norm on the group of units A* (as an algebraic group over k). The degree of A means the square root of the dimension of A as a k-vector space. Here G is simple if A has degree n at least 2, since is isomorphic to SL(n) over . If A has index r (meaning that A is isomorphic to the matrix algebra Mn/r(D) for a division algebra D of degree r over k), then the k-rank of G is (n/r) − 1.[24] So the simple group G is split over k if and only if A is a matrix algebra over k.

As a result, the problem of classifying reductive groups over k essentially includes the problem of classifying all quadratic forms over k or all central simple algebras over k. These problems are easy for k algebraically closed, and they are understood for some other fields such as number fields, but for arbitrary fields there are many open questions.

A reductive group over a field k is called isotropic if it has k-rank greater than 0 (that is, if it contains a nontrivial split torus), and otherwise anisotropic. For a semisimple group G over a field k, the following conditions are equivalent:

  • G is isotropic (that is, G contains a copy of the multiplicative group Gm over k);
  • G contains a parabolic subgroup over k not equal to G;
  • G contains a copy of the additive group Ga over k.

For k perfect, it is also equivalent to say that G(k) contains a unipotent element other than 1.[25]

For a connected linear algebraic group G over a local field k of characteristic zero (such as the real numbers), the group G(k) is compact in the classical topology (based on the topology of k) if and only if G is reductive and anisotropic.[26] Example: the orthogonal group SO(p,q) over R has real rank min(p,q), and so it is anisotropic if and only if p or q is zero.[23]

A reductive group G over a field k is called quasi-split if it contains a Borel subgroup over k. A split reductive group is quasi-split. If G is quasi-split over k, then any two Borel subgroups of G are conjugate by some element of G(k).[27] Example: the orthogonal group SO(p,q) over R is split if and only if |pq| ≤ 1, and it is quasi-split if and only if |pq| ≤ 2.[23]

Structure of semisimple groups as abstract groups

[edit]

For a simply connected split semisimple group G over a field k, Robert Steinberg gave an explicit presentation of the abstract group G(k).[28] It is generated by copies of the additive group of k indexed by the roots of G (the root subgroups), with relations determined by the Dynkin diagram of G.

For a simply connected split semisimple group G over a perfect field k, Steinberg also determined the automorphism group of the abstract group G(k). Every automorphism is the product of an inner automorphism, a diagonal automorphism (meaning conjugation by a suitable -point of a maximal torus), a graph automorphism (corresponding to an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram), and a field automorphism (coming from an automorphism of the field k).[29]

For a k-simple algebraic group G, Tits's simplicity theorem says that the abstract group G(k) is close to being simple, under mild assumptions. Namely, suppose that G is isotropic over k, and suppose that the field k has at least 4 elements. Let G(k)+ be the subgroup of the abstract group G(k) generated by k-points of copies of the additive group Ga over k contained in G. (By the assumption that G is isotropic over k, the group G(k)+ is nontrivial, and even Zariski dense in G if k is infinite.) Then the quotient group of G(k)+ by its center is simple (as an abstract group).[30] The proof uses Jacques Tits's machinery of BN-pairs.

The exceptions for fields of order 2 or 3 are well understood. For k = F2, Tits's simplicity theorem remains valid except when G is split of type A1, B2, or G2, or non-split (that is, unitary) of type A2. For k = F3, the theorem holds except for G of type A1.[31]

For a k-simple group G, in order to understand the whole group G(k), one can consider the Whitehead group W(k,G)=G(k)/G(k)+. For G simply connected and quasi-split, the Whitehead group is trivial, and so the whole group G(k) is simple modulo its center.[32] More generally, the Kneser–Tits problem asks for which isotropic k-simple groups the Whitehead group is trivial. In all known examples, W(k,G) is abelian.

For an anisotropic k-simple group G, the abstract group G(k) can be far from simple. For example, let D be a division algebra with center a p-adic field k. Suppose that the dimension of D over k is finite and greater than 1. Then G = SL(1,D) is an anisotropic k-simple group. As mentioned above, G(k) is compact in the classical topology. Since it is also totally disconnected, G(k) is a profinite group (but not finite). As a result, G(k) contains infinitely many normal subgroups of finite index.[33]

Lattices and arithmetic groups

[edit]

Let G be a linear algebraic group over the rational numbers Q. Then G can be extended to an affine group scheme G over Z, and this determines an abstract group G(Z). An arithmetic group means any subgroup of G(Q) that is commensurable with G(Z). (Arithmeticity of a subgroup of G(Q) is independent of the choice of Z-structure.) For example, SL(n,Z) is an arithmetic subgroup of SL(n,Q).

For a Lie group G, a lattice in G means a discrete subgroup Γ of G such that the manifold G/Γ has finite volume (with respect to a G-invariant measure). For example, a discrete subgroup Γ is a lattice if G/Γ is compact. The Margulis arithmeticity theorem says, in particular: for a simple Lie group G of real rank at least 2, every lattice in G is an arithmetic group.

The Galois action on the Dynkin diagram

[edit]

In seeking to classify reductive groups which need not be split, one step is the Tits index, which reduces the problem to the case of anisotropic groups. This reduction generalizes several fundamental theorems in algebra. For example, Witt's decomposition theorem says that a nondegenerate quadratic form over a field is determined up to isomorphism by its Witt index together with its anisotropic kernel. Likewise, the Artin–Wedderburn theorem reduces the classification of central simple algebras over a field to the case of division algebras. Generalizing these results, Tits showed that a reductive group over a field k is determined up to isomorphism by its Tits index together with its anisotropic kernel, an associated anisotropic semisimple k-group.

For a reductive group G over a field k, the absolute Galois group Gal(ks/k) acts (continuously) on the "absolute" Dynkin diagram of G, that is, the Dynkin diagram of G over a separable closure ks (which is also the Dynkin diagram of G over an algebraic closure ). The Tits index of G consists of the root datum of Gks, the Galois action on its Dynkin diagram, and a Galois-invariant subset of the vertices of the Dynkin diagram. Traditionally, the Tits index is drawn by circling the Galois orbits in the given subset.

There is a full classification of quasi-split groups in these terms. Namely, for each action of the absolute Galois group of a field k on a Dynkin diagram, there is a unique simply connected semisimple quasi-split group H over k with the given action. (For a quasi-split group, every Galois orbit in the Dynkin diagram is circled.) Moreover, any other simply connected semisimple group G over k with the given action is an inner form of the quasi-split group H, meaning that G is the group associated to an element of the Galois cohomology set H1(k,H/Z), where Z is the center of H. In other words, G is the twist of H associated to some H/Z-torsor over k, as discussed in the next section.

Example: Let q be a nondegenerate quadratic form of even dimension 2n over a field k of characteristic not 2, with n ≥ 5. (These restrictions can be avoided.) Let G be the simple group SO(q) over k. The absolute Dynkin diagram of G is of type Dn, and so its automorphism group is of order 2, switching the two "legs" of the Dn diagram. The action of the absolute Galois group of k on the Dynkin diagram is trivial if and only if the signed discriminant d of q in k*/(k*)2 is trivial. If d is nontrivial, then it is encoded in the Galois action on the Dynkin diagram: the index-2 subgroup of the Galois group that acts as the identity is . The group G is split if and only if q has Witt index n, the maximum possible, and G is quasi-split if and only if q has Witt index at least n − 1.[23]

Torsors and the Hasse principle

[edit]

A torsor for an affine group scheme G over a field k means an affine scheme X over k with an action of G such that is isomorphic to with the action of on itself by left translation. A torsor can also be viewed as a principal G-bundle over k with respect to the fppf topology on k, or the étale topology if G is smooth over k. The pointed set of isomorphism classes of G-torsors over k is called H1(k,G), in the language of Galois cohomology.

Torsors arise whenever one seeks to classify forms of a given algebraic object Y over a field k, meaning objects X over k which become isomorphic to Y over the algebraic closure of k. Namely, such forms (up to isomorphism) are in one-to-one correspondence with the set H1(k,Aut(Y)). For example, (nondegenerate) quadratic forms of dimension n over k are classified by H1(k,O(n)), and central simple algebras of degree n over k are classified by H1(k,PGL(n)). Also, k-forms of a given algebraic group G (sometimes called "twists" of G) are classified by H1(k,Aut(G)). These problems motivate the systematic study of G-torsors, especially for reductive groups G.

When possible, one hopes to classify G-torsors using cohomological invariants, which are invariants taking values in Galois cohomology with abelian coefficient groups M, Ha(k,M). In this direction, Steinberg proved Serre's "Conjecture I": for a connected linear algebraic group G over a perfect field of cohomological dimension at most 1, H1(k,G) = 1.[34] (The case of a finite field was known earlier, as Lang's theorem.) It follows, for example, that every reductive group over a finite field is quasi-split.

Serre's Conjecture II predicts that for a simply connected semisimple group G over a field of cohomological dimension at most 2, H1(k,G) = 1. The conjecture is known for a totally imaginary number field (which has cohomological dimension 2). More generally, for any number field k, Martin Kneser, Günter Harder and Vladimir Chernousov (1989) proved the Hasse principle: for a simply connected semisimple group G over k, the map

is bijective.[35] Here v runs over all places of k, and kv is the corresponding local field (possibly R or C). Moreover, the pointed set H1(kv,G) is trivial for every nonarchimidean local field kv, and so only the real places of k matter. The analogous result for a global field k of positive characteristic was proved earlier by Harder (1975): for every simply connected semisimple group G over k, H1(k,G) is trivial (since k has no real places).[36]

In the slightly different case of an adjoint group G over a number field k, the Hasse principle holds in a weaker form: the natural map

is injective.[37] For G = PGL(n), this amounts to the Albert–Brauer–Hasse–Noether theorem, saying that a central simple algebra over a number field is determined by its local invariants.

Building on the Hasse principle, the classification of semisimple groups over number fields is well understood. For example, there are exactly three Q-forms of the exceptional group E8, corresponding to the three real forms of E8.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
In , particularly in the field of algebraic groups, a reductive group over a field kk is defined as a smooth affine group scheme GG that is linear algebraic over kk and whose geometric unipotent radical Ru(Gkˉ)R_u(G_{\bar{k}}) is trivial, meaning it contains no nontrivial connected unipotent normal subgroups when base-changed to the kˉ\bar{k}. This condition ensures that GG is an extension of a (a group of multiplicative type) by a semisimple group, providing a that generalizes classical groups while avoiding "unipotent complications" in their geometry and representations. Reductive groups are central to and , underpinning the study of symmetries in varieties, automorphic forms, and the through their rich combinatorial framework of root systems and Weyl groups. The structure of a connected reductive group GG over kk decomposes via a central into a of its maximal central ZZ and its derived D(G)D(G), where D(G)D(G) is perfect and semisimple, often further breaking into kk-simple factors. Key structural elements include maximal tori TT, which are smooth connected subgroups of multiplicative type, and Borel subgroups BB, which are maximal connected solvable subgroups containing TT and self-normalizing in GG. The Φ(G,T)\Phi(G, T) relative to a maximal TT encodes the group's decomposition g=taΦga\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{t} \oplus \bigoplus_{a \in \Phi} \mathfrak{g}_a, where each root space ga\mathfrak{g}_a is one-dimensional, and the W(G,T)=NG(T)/TW(G, T) = N_G(T)/T acts simply transitively on the Weyl chambers associated to positive root systems. Parabolic subgroups PP, which contain Borel subgroups and correspond to subsets of the , play a crucial role; they are connected, self-normalizing, and admit Levi decompositions P=LUP = L \ltimes U into a reductive Levi LL and unipotent radical UU. In the scheme-theoretic setting, reductive group schemes over a base scheme SS extend this theory, requiring smooth affine fibers that are connected reductive groups over residue fields, with applications to moduli spaces and . For real reductive groups, defined as the real points G(R)G(\mathbb{R}) of a complex connected reductive algebraic group GG defined over R\mathbb{R}, additional arises from a Cartan involution θ\theta, linking to compact real forms and the study of unitary representations. Representations of reductive groups are completely reducible over fields of characteristic zero, facilitating their classification via highest weights and Weyl's character formula, with profound implications for on groups like SLn\mathrm{SL}_n or orthogonal groups. Classifications, such as the Tits-Selbach theorem for semisimple groups over local fields, use root data, Galois actions, and anisotropic kernels to parametrize isomorphism classes, highlighting the interplay between arithmetic and .

Definitions and Basic Concepts

Definition via unipotent radical

Over an arbitrary field kk, a GG is reductive if its geometric unipotent radical Ru(Gkˉ)R_u(G_{\bar{k}}) (after base change to the kˉ\bar{k}) is trivial. Over an kk, this simplifies to the unipotent radical Ru(G)R_u(G) being trivial, that is, Ru(G)={e}R_u(G) = \{e\}. This condition ensures that GG contains no nontrivial connected normal unipotent subgroups, distinguishing it from more general solvable or unipotent groups. The unipotent radical Ru(G)R_u(G) is the unique maximal connected normal unipotent of GG. A is unipotent if every one of its elements is unipotent. An element gg is unipotent if, in every rational representation, all eigenvalues of the image of gg are 1 (or equivalently, via Jordan-Chevalley decomposition, gg equals its unipotent part). Over fields of characteristic zero, unipotent elements arise from the Jordan decomposition of elements in the g=Lie(G)\mathfrak{g} = \mathrm{Lie}(G), where every XgX \in \mathfrak{g} decomposes uniquely as X=s+nX = s + n with ss semisimple, nn , and [s,n]=0[s, n] = 0; the unipotent radical then corresponds to the case where the radical n(g)\mathfrak{n}(\mathfrak{g})—the maximal ideal of g\mathfrak{g}—is zero. In general characteristics, the connection persists via the , with Ru(G)R_u(G) having Lie algebra equal to the nilradical of g\mathfrak{g}. This definition originates in the foundational work of on algebraic groups during the 1950s, particularly in his seminar notes where he developed the structure theory linking Lie algebras to algebraic groups over arbitrary fields. Reductive groups are smooth varieties of finite type over kk, and a key structural theorem states that every algebraic group GG admits a G=Ru(G)LG = R_u(G) \rtimes L, where LL is a reductive serving as the Levi factor. This decomposition highlights how reductive groups capture the "nonsolvable" core of any algebraic group.

Equivalent characterizations

A linear algebraic group GG over a field kk of characteristic zero is reductive if and only if every finite-dimensional rational representation of GG is completely reducible, meaning that for every such representation on a VV, every GG-invariant subspace has a GG-invariant complement, or equivalently, there are no infinite ascending chains of proper GG-invariant subspaces. This representation-theoretic characterization highlights the absence of non-trivial extensions in the category of rational representations, distinguishing reductive groups from those with unipotent radicals that induce indecomposable representations. An equivalent criterion, often attributed to foundational work in the structure theory of algebraic groups, states that GG is reductive if and only if, for every faithful rational representation ρ:GGL(V)\rho: G \to \mathrm{GL}(V), the unipotent radical of the Zariski closure of the image ρ(G)\rho(G) is trivial. This condition ensures that no non-trivial unipotent normal subgroups arise in faithful embeddings, directly tying back to the triviality of the unipotent radical of GG itself. In the presence of a maximal torus TGT \subset G, the Lie algebra g=Lie(G)\mathfrak{g} = \mathrm{Lie}(G) admits a weight space decomposition g=tαΦgα\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{t} \oplus \bigoplus_{\alpha \in \Phi} \mathfrak{g}_\alpha, where t=Lie(T)\mathfrak{t} = \mathrm{Lie}(T) is the toral part, the gα\mathfrak{g}_\alpha are the root spaces (one-dimensional over algebraically closed fields), and Φ\Phi is the set of roots; GG is reductive precisely when this decomposition holds with no non-zero nilpotent ideals in g\mathfrak{g}. Such ideals would correspond to unipotent structure not captured by the semisimple and toral components. Reductive groups are precisely the central extensions of semisimple groups by tori: for a connected reductive GG, there exists a central torus ZZ and a semisimple group D(G)D(G) (the derived subgroup) such that GG fits in an exact sequence 1ZGD(G)11 \to Z \to G \to D(G) \to 1, with Z(Gm)rZ \cong (G_m)^r for some rr. Cohomologically, over fields of characteristic zero, GG is reductive if and only if H1(G,V)=0H^1(G, V) = 0 for every finite-dimensional rational GG-module VV, as this vanishing implies the absence of non-trivial extensions and thus complete reducibility of representations.

Simple and semisimple reductive groups

In the context of algebraic groups over an of characteristic zero, a connected reductive group GG is called semisimple if its Z(G)Z(G) is finite, or equivalently, if the derived GG' coincides with GG and the maximal central is trivial. This condition ensures that GG has no nontrivial unipotent normal subgroups and no positive-dimensional central , distinguishing it from more general reductive groups that may include a nontrivial in their . Semisimple groups thus capture the "non-abelian core" of reductive groups, where the structure is determined entirely by semisimple components without abelian extensions. A semisimple group GG is simple if it has no nontrivial proper connected normal algebraic subgroups. In this case, GG is indecomposable in the sense that its is irreducible, providing a direct correspondence between simple algebraic groups and irreducible root systems. Every semisimple group admits a central decomposition into a product of simple factors, reflecting its structure as a up to finite central kernels. Conversely, reductive groups are central extensions of semisimple groups by , where the torus accounts for any abelian central factors. Semisimple groups possess the property that they admit no nontrivial algebraic characters, meaning the homomorphism group Hom(G,Gm)\mathrm{Hom}(G, \mathbb{G}_m) is trivial, as their trivial center prevents any surjective maps onto the . For the associated g\mathfrak{g} of a semisimple group, the ideal [g,g]=g[\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{g}] = \mathfrak{g} and the Z(g)=0Z(\mathfrak{g}) = 0, emphasizing the perfect and centerless nature of the . The of simple algebraic groups over algebraically closed fields traces back to the foundational work of Killing and Cartan in the early on root systems and , later extended by Chevalley to algebraic groups.

Split reductive groups

A reductive algebraic group GG over a field kk is called split if it admits a maximal torus TT that is split over kk, meaning T(Gm,k)rT \cong (\mathbb{G}_{m,k})^r for some positive integer rr, and such that the root system Φ(G,T)\Phi(G,T) associated to TT is defined over kk. For a split torus TT, the character group X(T)=\Hom(T,Gm,k)X(T) = \Hom(T, \mathbb{G}_{m,k}) is a free Z\mathbb{Z}-module of rank rr, and the induced Galois action of \Gal(kˉ/k)\Gal(\bar{k}/k) on X(T)ZRX(T) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{R} is trivial, so that X(T)ZRRrX(T) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{R} \cong \mathbb{R}^r as R\mathbb{R}-vector spaces with trivial action. Equivalently, GG is split it possesses a BB defined over [k](/page/K)[k](/page/K), which contains a split TT and whose unipotent radical is generated by root groups corresponding to a set of positive in Φ(G,T)\Phi(G,T). Split reductive groups are maximally compatible with the base field [k](/page/K)[k](/page/K) in the sense that their structure— including , root systems, and —can be described entirely over [k](/page/K)[k](/page/K) without extension. These groups provide the standard models for the of reductive groups over arbitrary fields, as every reductive group over kk becomes split after base change to an kˉ\bar{k}. Non-split reductive groups arise as Galois twists of split ones, parametrized by elements of the set H1(k,\Aut(Gkˉ))H^1(k, \Aut(G_{\bar{k}})), where GkˉG_{\bar{k}} is the split form. Split simple reductive groups, such as \SLn\SL_n or \Sp2n\Sp_{2n}, serve as the basic building blocks for decomposing general split reductive groups into direct products of such simples times a central .

Examples

Classical reductive groups

The classical reductive groups are fundamental examples of reductive algebraic groups over a field kk, typically realized as closed subgroups of the general linear group GLn(k)\mathrm{GL}_n(k) that preserve specific bilinear or quadratic forms on the vector space knk^n or k2nk^{2n}. These groups illustrate the abstract definition of reductivity through concrete matrix descriptions, where the unipotent radical is explicitly trivial, and they possess maximal tori that split over suitable extensions of kk. Their structures highlight the interplay between semisimple and toroidal components, with the former dominating in non-abelian cases. The general linear group GLn(k)\mathrm{GL}_n(k) consists of all invertible n×nn \times n matrices with entries in kk. It is reductive, as its unipotent radical Ru(GLn)R_u(\mathrm{GL}_n) is trivial; this follows from the explicit observation that any unipotent normal subgroup must centralize GLn\mathrm{GL}_n and hence consist solely of the identity element, since unipotent scalars beyond the identity do not exist in GLn\mathrm{GL}_n. The dimension of GLn\mathrm{GL}_n is n2n^2, matching that of its Lie algebra gln\mathfrak{gl}_n, the space of all n×nn \times n matrices over kk. A maximal torus in GLn\mathrm{GL}_n is the diagonal subgroup, isomorphic to (k)n(k^*)^n. The SLn(k)\mathrm{SL}_n(k) is the closed of GLn(k)\mathrm{GL}_n(k) defined by matrices of 1. For n2n \geq 2, SLn\mathrm{SL}_n is semisimple, with isomorphic to the μn\mu_n of nn-th roots of unity in kk^* (assuming char(k)\mathrm{char}(k) does not divide nn); its unipotent radical is trivial, verified by the same centralization argument as for GLn\mathrm{GL}_n, combined with the derived group structure SLn=[GLn,GLn]\mathrm{SL}_n = [\mathrm{GL}_n, \mathrm{GL}_n]. The sln\mathfrak{sl}_n consists of all trace-zero n×nn \times n matrices over kk, and satisfies [sln,sln]=sln[\mathfrak{sl}_n, \mathfrak{sl}_n] = \mathfrak{sl}_n, confirming the semisimplicity at the level; its dimension is n21n^2 - 1. A in SLn\mathrm{SL}_n is the of diagonal matrices with product of entries equal to 1, a in the of GLn\mathrm{GL}_n. The orthogonal groups On(k)\mathrm{O}_n(k) and SOn(k)\mathrm{SO}_n(k) preserve a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form (or equivalently, a quadratic form qq) on the vector space knk^n. Specifically, On(k)={gGLn(k)gtQg=Q}\mathrm{O}_n(k) = \{ g \in \mathrm{GL}_n(k) \mid g^t Q g = Q \}, where QQ is the Gram matrix of the form, and SOn(k)\mathrm{SO}_n(k) is the kernel of the determinant map On(k){±1}\mathrm{O}_n(k) \to \{\pm 1\}. Both are reductive, with trivial unipotent radical for non-degenerate qq, as explicit computation shows no non-trivial unipotent elements normalize the form while being normal in the group; this holds particularly for split forms where the Witt index is maximal. A maximal split torus in these groups is isomorphic to (k)n/2(k^*)^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}, arising from orthogonal decompositions of the space into hyperbolic planes paired with possible anisotropic factors. For even n=2mn = 2m, the root system is of type DmD_m; for odd n=2m+1n = 2m+1, it is of type BmB_m. The Sp2n(k)\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(k) (also denoted Spn(k)\mathrm{Sp}_n(k) in some conventions) is the closed of GL2n(k)\mathrm{GL}_{2n}(k) preserving a non-degenerate ω\omega on k2nk^{2n}, given explicitly by Sp2n(k)={gGL2n(k)gtJg=J}\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(k) = \{ g \in \mathrm{GL}_{2n}(k) \mid g^t J g = J \}, where JJ is the standard with 1's on the anti-diagonal blocks. It is semisimple, with trivial unipotent radical verified by direct computation: any unipotent normal would preserve ω\omega and centralize the group, but no such non-trivial elements exist due to the form's non-degeneracy. The dimension of Sp2n(k)\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(k) is n(2n+1)n(2n+1), and a is the diagonal isomorphic to (k)n(k^*)^n, acting via pairs (ti,ti1)(t_i, t_i^{-1}) on the standard symplectic basis. Its is of type CnC_n. In each case, the triviality of the unipotent radical is confirmed via explicit matrix computations over algebraically closed fields, where semisimple elements diagonalize and unipotent ones Jordan-form, revealing no non-trivial normal unipotent subgroups compatible with the preserved forms. These groups often contain as central components in their Levi decompositions, underscoring their reductive nature.

Tori as reductive groups

A in the context of algebraic groups over a field kk is defined as a connected reductive group that is isomorphic to (Gm)r(\mathbb{G}_m)^r for some r0r \geq 0, where Gm\mathbb{G}_m denotes the multiplicative group Speck[t,t1]\operatorname{Spec} k[t, t^{-1}]. Over an algebraically closed field, every is split and thus isomorphic to (k)r(k^*)^r. Split tori exist over any base field kk and serve as the abelian building blocks within more general reductive groups. In a connected reductive group GG, a maximal torus is a torus TT that is not properly contained in any larger torus, and all such maximal tori are conjugate under the action of GG. The dimension rr of any maximal torus equals the rank of GG, which is invariant across conjugates. For a maximal torus TT in a semisimple reductive group, the centralizer CG(T)C_G(T) coincides with TT itself, reflecting the absence of nontrivial central elements beyond the torus. Split maximal tori are conjugate via elements of G(k)G(k). Tori play a pivotal role in the structure of reductive groups, as every connected reductive group GG is generated by a TT together with unipotent subgroups, such as root groups in the semisimple case; notably, the unipotent radical of a torus is trivial, underscoring its reductive purity. The of a split TT, defined as X(T)=Hom(T,Gm)X(T) = \operatorname{Hom}(T, \mathbb{G}_m), is a free Z\mathbb{Z}-module isomorphic to Zr\mathbb{Z}^r, providing a lattice that encodes the group's representations and diagonalizability.

Non-examples and associated reductive groups

Unipotent algebraic groups serve as fundamental non-examples of reductive groups, as their unipotent radical coincides with the group itself, rendering it nontrivial unless the group is trivial. A prototypical instance is the subgroup UnU_n of GLn\mathrm{GL}_n consisting of upper triangular matrices with 1's on the diagonal; this group is unipotent and hence non-reductive, with every element satisfying (gI)n=0(g - I)^n = 0 for the identity matrix II. Borel subgroups provide another class of non-reductive groups. In GLn\mathrm{GL}_n, the standard BnB_n comprises all upper triangular matrices, which is solvable but not reductive due to its nontrivial unipotent radical Ru(Bn)=UnR_u(B_n) = U_n. For any GG, the G/Ru(G)G / R_u(G) is reductive and termed the reductive , effectively isolating the reductive structure by modding out the unipotent contributions. In the specific case of the BnB_n in GLn\mathrm{GL}_n, the reductive Bn/Ru(Bn)B_n / R_u(B_n) is isomorphic to the TnT_n of diagonal matrices, illustrating how the captures the toral component. More generally, connected solvable algebraic groups admit a G=LRu(G)G = L \ltimes R_u(G), where the LL is reductive—often a —and serves as a reductive complement to the unipotent radical. This decomposition underscores that the reductive quotient encodes the semisimple and central toral elements of GG modulo its unipotent part, providing a canonical path to reductivity.

Structure and Subgroups

Root systems

In a reductive algebraic group GG defined over an , with a TT, the roots are the nontrivial characters αX(T)\alpha \in X^*(T) such that the root group UαU_\alpha, the unique connected unipotent of GG that is normalized by TT and on which TT acts via the character α\alpha, and which is isomorphic to the additive group Ga\mathbb{G}_a, is nontrivial (i.e., Uα{e}U_\alpha \neq \{e\}). These roots form the set Δ=Φ(G,T)X(T)\Delta = \Phi(G,T) \subset X^*(T), which encodes the of GG relative to TT. The Lie algebra g\mathfrak{g} of GG decomposes under the adjoint action of TT as g=tαΔgα\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{t} \oplus \bigoplus_{\alpha \in \Delta} \mathfrak{g}_\alpha, where t=\Lie(T)\mathfrak{t} = \Lie(T) is the Lie algebra of TT, and each root space gα\mathfrak{g}_\alpha is the 1-dimensional eigenspace on which TT acts via the character α\alpha. Moreover, gα=\Lie(Uα)\mathfrak{g}_\alpha = \Lie(U_\alpha), and the root groups UαU_\alpha are isomorphic to the additive group Ga\mathbb{G}_a. The set of roots Δ\Delta forms a reduced root system in the real vector space V=X(T)ZRV = X^*(T) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{R}, meaning that Δ\Delta is finite, spans VV, contains no nonzero scalar multiples of its elements except ±α\pm \alpha for each αΔ\alpha \in \Delta, and is invariant under reflections sα(x)=xx,ααs_\alpha(x) = x - \langle x, \alpha^\vee \rangle \alpha across hyperplanes orthogonal to roots, where α\alpha^\vee is the coroot. Additionally, Δ\Delta is crystallographic, lying in a Z\mathbb{Z}-lattice (the character lattice X(T)X^*(T)) such that the reflections sαs_\alpha preserve this lattice and the inner products α,β\langle \alpha, \beta^\vee \rangle are integers for all roots α,β\alpha, \beta. A choice of Borel subgroup BB containing TT induces a notion of positive roots Δ+Δ\Delta^+ \subset \Delta, consisting of those α\alpha for which gα\Lie(Ru(B))\mathfrak{g}_\alpha \subset \Lie(R_u(B)), the Lie algebra of the unipotent radical of BB. This set Δ+\Delta^+ admits a unique basis of simple roots ΠΔ+\Pi \subset \Delta^+ such that every positive root is a nonnegative integer combination of elements of Π\Pi, and Δ=Δ+Δ+\Delta = \Delta^+ \sqcup -\Delta^+. The W=W(G,T)=NG(T)/TW = W(G,T) = N_G(T)/T is the generated by the reflections sαs_\alpha for αΔ\alpha \in \Delta, acting faithfully on X(T)X^*(T) and on VV. It normalizes TT and plays a key role in the symmetry of the . For root spaces, the Lie bracket satisfies [gα,gβ]gα+β[\mathfrak{g}_\alpha, \mathfrak{g}_\beta] \subset \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha + \beta} if α+βΔ\alpha + \beta \in \Delta, and otherwise [gα,gβ]=0[\mathfrak{g}_\alpha, \mathfrak{g}_\beta] = 0; more precisely, for XαgαX_\alpha \in \mathfrak{g}_\alpha and XβgβX_\beta \in \mathfrak{g}_\beta, we have [Xα,Xβ]=Nα,βXα+β[X_\alpha, X_\beta] = N_{\alpha,\beta} X_{\alpha + \beta} where Nα,βkN_{\alpha,\beta} \in k is a structure constant (possibly zero). A key property is the existence of root strings: for α,βΔ\alpha, \beta \in \Delta, the set {β+mαmZ,β+mαΔ}\{\beta + m\alpha \mid m \in \mathbb{Z}, \beta + m\alpha \in \Delta\} forms a finite string of consecutive integer multiples, unbroken except possibly at the ends, with length determined by the integer 2β,α/α,α2 \langle \beta, \alpha^\vee \rangle / \langle \alpha, \alpha^\vee \rangle. This reflects the crystallographic nature and ensures the integrality of the root system.

Parabolic subgroups

In the theory of reductive algebraic groups, a parabolic subgroup PP of a connected reductive group GG over an is defined as a closed connected that contains a BB of GG. Equivalently, PP is the stabilizer in GG of a nontrivial partial in some finite-dimensional rational representation of GG, where the partial flag consists of a chain of GG-stable subspaces. This geometric characterization underscores the role of parabolic subgroups in the study of flag varieties G/PG/P, which are projective algebraic varieties. Every parabolic subgroup PP admits a unique Levi decomposition P=LUP = L \ltimes U, where LL is a reductive Levi subgroup (centralizing a Levi torus) and U=Ru(P)U = R_u(P) is the unipotent radical of PP, a normal connected unipotent subgroup. The Levi subgroup LL intersects every Borel subgroup of PP in a maximal torus of LL, and UU is generated by the root groups corresponding to a certain set of positive roots relative to that torus. This semidirect product structure is canonical up to conjugation within PP, and it generalizes the Borel case where L=TL = T (a maximal torus) and UU is the unipotent radical of the Borel. Parabolic subgroups are parametrized by the root system of GG: fixing a Borel BB with associated set Δ\Delta of simple roots, each parabolic PP containing BB corresponds bijectively to a IΔI \subseteq \Delta. The Levi subgroup LIL_I has root system consisting of the roots spanned by II, while the unipotent radical UIU_I is generated by the root groups for positive roots in Φ+ΦI\Phi^+ \setminus \Phi_I, where ΦI\Phi_I denotes the roots generated by II and Φ+\Phi^+ are the positive roots for BB. Thus, the roots associated to PIP_I are Φ+ΦI\Phi^+ \cup \Phi_I. This correspondence relies on the root datum and ensures that all parabolics containing a fixed Borel are standard, with conjugates filling out the full set of parabolics in GG. The minimal parabolic subgroups are precisely the Borel subgroups, which stabilize complete flags and correspond to I=I = \emptyset. Maximal parabolic subgroups, on the other hand, arise when II omits exactly one simple root from Δ\Delta, stabilizing flags of codimension equal to the multiplicity of that root; for example, in the standard representation of SLn\mathrm{SL}_n, a maximal parabolic stabilizes a line (projective space stabilizer) or a hyperplane. For each parabolic PP, there exists a unique opposite parabolic PP^- such that PP=LP \cap P^- = L (the Levi subgroup) and the unipotent radicals UU and UU^- generate their product as a , with UU={1}U \cap U^- = \{1\}. This pair facilitates the Bruhat decomposition relative to parabolics: G=wWBwPG = \bigcup_{w \in W} B w P, where WW is the of GG (or more precisely, a set of coset representatives for W/WLW/W_L, with WLW_L the of LL), providing a cell decomposition of the flag variety G/PG/P into BB-orbits. The opposite parabolic corresponds to replacing Φ+\Phi^+ with Φ\Phi^- in the root description, ensuring symmetry in the theory.

Borel subgroups

In the theory of reductive algebraic groups, a Borel subgroup BB of a connected reductive group GG over a field kk is defined as a maximal connected solvable . Equivalently, it is a minimal parabolic subgroup, meaning it is a proper parabolic subgroup that does not properly contain any other parabolic subgroup. These subgroups play a central role in the structure theory of reductive groups, as they encode choices of positive roots relative to a maximal torus. All Borel subgroups of GG are conjugate under the action of G(k)G(k), provided kk is algebraically closed or GG is quasi-split over kk. For a fixed maximal torus TGT \subset G, the Weyl group W=NG(T)/TW = N_G(T)/T acts simply and transitively by conjugation on the set of Borel subgroups containing TT. Every Borel subgroup BB contains a unique maximal torus up to conjugation within BB, and it admits a Levi decomposition B=TUB = T \ltimes U, where TT is a maximal torus and UU is the unipotent radical of BB, a connected unipotent subgroup normal in BB. The unipotent radical UU is generated by the root subgroups UαU_\alpha corresponding to a system of positive roots Δ+Δ\Delta^+ \subset \Delta in the root system Δ\Delta of GG with respect to TT, and explicitly, U=αΔ+UαU = \prod_{\alpha \in \Delta^+} U_\alpha. In the case of a split reductive group over kk, there exist Borel subgroups defined over kk, and the positive roots Δ+\Delta^+ can be chosen compatibly with the split torus. This splitting property ensures that the structure of BB aligns with the base field, facilitating computations in and . A fundamental application of Borel subgroups is the Bruhat decomposition, which expresses GG as a of double cosets: G=wWBwBG = \bigsqcup_{w \in W} B w B, where WW is the . Each double coset BwBB w B is an of dimension equal to the length (w)\ell(w) of ww in WW, and this decomposition parametrizes the geometry of the flag variety G/BG/B. The choice of Δ+\Delta^+ determines the Borel BB uniquely among those containing TT, establishing a bijection between Borel subgroups containing TT and systems of positive roots.

Classification

Classification of split reductive groups

Split reductive groups over an are classified up to by their rank and the type of their , which determines the and the structure of the group. The is a finite reduced in the character lattice of a maximal split torus, and two such groups are isomorphic if and only if their root data—consisting of the character lattice, the , and the pairing with coroots—are isomorphic. This classification extends the earlier work on semisimple Lie algebras to the group setting over arbitrary fields when the group is split. Simple split reductive groups correspond precisely to irreducible root systems, which fall into four infinite families of classical types—An_n (n1n \geq 1), Bn_n (n2n \geq 2), Cn_n (n3n \geq 3), and Dn_n (n4n \geq 4)—along with five exceptional types: E6_6, E7_7, E8_8, F4_4, and G2_2. Each type determines the group uniquely up to isogeny, with examples including SLn+1_{n+1} for type An_n, Spin2n+1_{2n+1} for Bn_n, Sp2n_{2n} for Cn_n, and Spin2n_{2n} for Dn_n, while the exceptional groups arise from structures like octonions (G2_2) or Jordan algebras (F4_4, E series). Semisimple split reductive groups are then direct products of simple ones, corresponding to decomposable root systems as orthogonal direct sums of irreducibles. In the general reductive case, the group is a central extension of a semisimple group by a , where the is the connected component of the , and the semisimple quotient is determined by the as above. classes within each type are parameterized by finite central subgroups, leading to simply connected forms (universal covers) and forms (quotients by the full ), with intermediate corresponding to subgroups of the of the . For instance, in type An_n, the simply connected form is SLn+1_{n+1} and the is PGLn+1_{n+1}, connected by the determinant map. The full classification of split forms over arbitrary fields was established by Borel and Tits in the , building on Chevalley's earlier work for algebraically closed fields and extending it via the existence of split maximal tori and root data over the base field. For a simply connected semisimple split reductive group GG with maximal torus TT, the dimension is given by dimG=\rankG+2Φ+\dim G = \rank G + 2 |\Phi^+|, where Φ+\Phi^+ is the set of positive roots relative to a choice of containing TT. This formula reflects the decomposition of the into the (dimension \rankG\rank G) and the root spaces (two per positive root).

Dynkin diagrams and root data

Dynkin diagrams provide a graphical classification of the root systems associated to split reductive groups over algebraically closed fields of characteristic zero. They encode the structure of a basis of simple Δ={α1,,αr}\Delta = \{\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_r\} for the root system Φ\Phi of the group, where rr is the semisimple rank. Each diagram consists of nodes representing the simple roots, connected by edges that indicate the angles between them: a single edge denotes an angle of 120 degrees, a double edge 135 degrees, and a triple edge 150 degrees, with arrows pointing from longer to shorter when lengths differ. The irreducible Dynkin diagrams, corresponding to simple root systems, fall into classical and exceptional types. The classical series include:
  • AnA_n (for n1n \geq 1): A linear chain of nn nodes connected by single edges, associated to the special linear group SLn+1\mathrm{SL}_{n+1}.
  • BnB_n (for n2n \geq 2): A linear chain of n1n-1 single edges ending in a double edge with arrow pointing to the end node, reflecting short roots at the end, linked to odd orthogonal groups SO2n+1\mathrm{SO}_{2n+1}.
  • CnC_n (for n3n \geq 3): A linear chain of nn nodes with the double edge between the first two nodes and the arrow pointing toward the first node (short root), corresponding to symplectic groups Sp2n\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}.
  • DnD_n (for n4n \geq 4): A linear chain of n2n-2 nodes connected by single edges, with the (n2)(n-2)th node forking into two additional nodes connected by single edges, tied to even orthogonal groups SO2n\mathrm{SO}_{2n}.
The exceptional types are:
  • E6,E7,E8E_6, E_7, E_8: Extended branched structures with 6, 7, and 8 nodes, respectively, featuring a linear with an additional branch of two or three nodes.
  • F4F_4: Four nodes with single, double, and single edges in sequence, including an .
  • G2G_2: Two nodes connected by a triple edge with an .
These diagrams determine the WW of the , which acts as a finite on the dual . Specifically, WW is the generated by simple reflections sis_i corresponding to the simple , with relations dictated by the : commuting generators for disconnected nodes, and relations based on edge multiplicities (order 3 for single edges, 4 for double, 6 for triple). For split reductive groups over C\mathbb{C}, the directly classifies the semisimple part, while Satake diagrams serve as a variant for non-split real forms by incorporating Galois action, though the split case uses the unadorned . The also encodes the A=(aij)A = (a_{ij}), which captures the root datum essential for constructing the and group. The entries are given by aij=2αi,αj/αj,αj=αi,αja_{ij} = 2 \langle \alpha_i, \alpha_j \rangle / \langle \alpha_j, \alpha_j \rangle = \langle \alpha_i, \alpha_j^\vee \rangle, where αj=2αj/αj,αj\alpha_j^\vee = 2 \alpha_j / \langle \alpha_j, \alpha_j \rangle is the coroot and ,\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle is the invariant . Diagonal entries are 2, off-diagonals are 0, -1, -2, or -3 based on connections: no edge gives 0, single edge -1 (symmetric if equal lengths), double edge -1 and -2 (with indicating direction), and triple -1 and -3 for G2G_2. This matrix is used to realize the and classify the split reductive group up to isomorphism.

Galois action on Dynkin diagrams

The Galois group Γ=\Gal(k/k)\Gamma = \Gal(\overline{k}/k) of a field kk acts on the Dynkin diagram of the split form associated to a connected reductive group defined over kk, providing a combinatorial classification of its inner forms over non-algebraically closed fields. This action arises from the Γ\Gamma-action on the root datum of GkG_{\overline{k}}, specifically permuting the vertices of the Dynkin diagram, which correspond to a basis Δ\Delta of simple roots relative to a split maximal torus. The permutation respects the edge multiplicities and orientations of the diagram, preserving its isomorphism type via the associated Cartan matrix. For quasi-split forms, the action stabilizes of defined over kk, making Δ\Delta Γ\Gamma-stable and ensuring the of a minimal parabolic subgroup over kk. Inner twists are then k\overline{k}-isomorphisms between GG and another form HH that commute with this Γ\Gamma-action on the root datum, classifying isogenous reductive groups up to inner automorphisms. Such twists are governed by the group H1(Γ,\Inn(Gk))H^1(\Gamma, \Inn(G_{\overline{k}})), where inner forms share the same Γ\Gamma-action on the of the root datum. In the case of \SLn\SL_n, the Dynkin diagram is the chain of type An1A_{n-1}, and the trivial Γ\Gamma-action yields the split form \SLn/k\SL_n/k; non-trivial actions over quadratic extensions produce quasi-split inner forms like special unitary groups preserving a suitable form. For orthogonal groups such as \SO2n+1\SO_{2n+1} of type BnB_n, the action permutes simple roots according to field symmetries, distinguishing split and quasi-split inner forms combinatorially without altering the underlying diagram structure. This Galois action relates to Satake diagrams, which encode the Γ\Gamma-orbits on the vertices of the , highlighting fixed points and symmetries to classify reductive groups over local fields. The action on simple is given by the γα=wγ(γ(α))\gamma \cdot \alpha = w_\gamma (\gamma(\alpha)) for γΓ\gamma \in \Gamma and αΔ\alpha \in \Delta, where wγ[W](/page/W)(Φ)w_\gamma \in [W](/page/W)(\Phi) (the ) normalizes the γ(Δ)\gamma(\Delta) back to Δ\Delta, ensuring well-definedness up to conjugation.

Advanced Topics and Variants

Reductive group schemes

A reductive group scheme over a base scheme SS is defined as a smooth affine group scheme GSG \to S that is of finite type with connected geometric fibers, where each fiber GsˉG_{\bar{s}} over a geometric point sˉ\bar{s} of SS is a connected reductive algebraic group, and the unipotent radical Ru(G)R_u(G) is the trivial group scheme. This definition ensures that GG has no nontrivial unipotent normal connected subgroup schemes, generalizing the classical notion of reductive groups from fields to arbitrary bases while preserving key structural features like the existence of maximal tori and root systems relative to the base. The center ZGZ_G of GG is a smooth group scheme of multiplicative type, and the derived subgroup GderG^\mathrm{der} is semisimple with trivial unipotent radical. These schemes provide a relative version of the theory of algebraic groups, allowing the study of families of reductive groups parametrized by SS, with properties such as the Bruhat decomposition and the existence of parabolic subgroups extending fiberwise. For instance, Chevalley groups, which classify simple reductive groups up to isogeny, admit split models over SpecZ\mathrm{Spec} \mathbb{Z}, enabling integral structures that descend to characteristic zero and positive characteristic fibers simultaneously. Examples include the general linear group scheme GLn\mathrm{GL}_n over Z\mathbb{Z}, representing invertible n×nn \times n matrices with determinant in Z×\mathbb{Z}^\times, and the special linear group scheme SLn\mathrm{SL}_n over Z\mathbb{Z}, both of which are reductive with split maximal tori given by diagonal matrices. In p-adic contexts, reductive group schemes over rings of Witt vectors, such as W2(Fq)W_2(\mathbb{F}_q) for a finite field Fq\mathbb{F}_q of characteristic pp, provide integral models for representations and quotients of groups like SLn\mathrm{SL}_n, facilitating descent from characteristic zero to mixed-characteristic settings. The fibers of a reductive group scheme GSG \to S over a field kk (i.e., G×SSpeckG \times_S \mathrm{Spec} k) are precisely connected reductive algebraic groups over kk, linking the scheme-theoretic framework directly to classical algebraic group theory. For split reductive group schemes, the geometric fibers are split reductive groups, characterized by root data relative to a split maximal torus. The foundational development of reductive group schemes stems from the work of Michel Demazure and in the 1960s, with key results published in Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique (SGA 3) around 1970, where Demazure extended Chevalley's of split reductive groups over algebraically closed fields to arbitrary base schemes using root data. Post-1970s advancements, including Demazure's further contributions on quotients and normalizers of parabolic subgroups in the scheme setting, refined the by establishing representability and of such quotients as algebraic spaces. In the fppf (faithfully flat and quasi-compact) topology on SS, the first cohomology group H1(S,G)H^1(S, G) parametrizes the isomorphism classes of principal GG-torsors over SS, providing a scheme-theoretic analogue of for classifying forms and inner twists of reductive groups. For example, when G=PGLnG = \mathrm{PGL}_n, this classifies central simple algebras up to isomorphism.

Real reductive groups

A real reductive Lie group is defined as the group of real points G(R)G(\mathbb{R}) of a reductive algebraic group GG defined over R\mathbb{R}, such that the complexification G(C)G(\mathbb{C}) is reductive. Equivalently, it is a connected with a reductive g\mathfrak{g}, admitting a Cartan decomposition g=kp\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{k} \oplus \mathfrak{p} where k\mathfrak{k} is the Lie algebra of a maximal compact KK, and G=Kexp(p)G = K \cdot \exp(\mathfrak{p}). This perspective aligns with Harish-Chandra's characterization, which further requires the connected component of each semisimple factor to have finite center. Real reductive groups arise as real forms of complex reductive groups and are classified into compact, split, and anisotropic types based on their structure relative to the complexification. Compact forms, such as the special orthogonal group SO(n)\mathrm{SO}(n), have the property that the entire group is compact, with the Killing form negative definite on the Lie algebra. Split forms, exemplified by SLn(R)\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{R}), contain a maximal split torus that is isomorphic to Rr\mathbb{R}^r for some rank rr, allowing a full set of real hyperbolic elements. Anisotropic forms, like SU(2)\mathrm{SU}(2) as the compact real form of SL2(C)\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{C}), lack non-trivial split tori and are characterized by bounded orbits under the adjoint action. The Cartan decomposition provides a fundamental splitting of the g=kp\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{k} \oplus \mathfrak{p}, where k\mathfrak{k} is the Lie algebra of the maximal compact subgroup KK and p\mathfrak{p} is the with respect to the Killing form B(X,Y)=tr(adXadY)B(X,Y) = \mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{ad}_X \mathrm{ad}_Y). On k\mathfrak{k}, the Killing form is negative definite, ensuring the of KK, while it is positive definite on p\mathfrak{p}. This decomposition extends to the group level as G=Kexp(p)G = K \exp(\mathfrak{p}), facilitating the study of symmetric spaces associated to GG. The further refines the structure as G=KANG = K A N, where AA is a maximal solvable abelian (the split part of a Cartan ), and NN is a normalizing AA. This decomposition is unique up to conjugation and is crucial for on G/KG/K. Real forms of a given complex reductive group are classified via the action of the Gal(C/R)\mathrm{Gal}(\mathbb{C}/\mathbb{R}) on the of the .

Non-split reductive groups

A reductive group GG over a field kk is called non-split if it does not admit a that is split over kk. In contrast to split reductive groups, which contain such a isomorphic to a product of copies of the Gm\mathbb{G}_m, non-split groups exhibit more restricted structure over kk. Within this category, a group is anisotropic if it contains no non-trivial split subtorus, meaning the connected component of the identity in any has no split part over kk. Quasi-split groups represent an intermediate case, where GG contains a defined over kk, but lacks a fully split . Non-split reductive groups arise as twists of split reductive groups via the action of the Γk=Gal(kˉ/k)\Gamma_k = \mathrm{Gal}(\bar{k}/k). Specifically, the isomorphism classes of such forms of a split group GG over kk are classified by the non-abelian pointed set H1(k,G)H^1(k, G), which parametrizes the Γk\Gamma_k-cocycles modulo coboundaries. This construction, developed in the foundational work on reductive groups, shows that every connected reductive group over kk is a form of a unique split group over kˉ\bar{k}, with non-trivial elements of H1(k,G)H^1(k, G) yielding the non-split ones. More refined classifications distinguish inner forms, obtained from non-trivial cocycles in H1(k,Gad)H^1(k, G^\mathrm{ad}) where GadG^\mathrm{ad} is the adjoint form (corresponding to inner automorphisms), and outer forms from H1(k,Out(G))H^1(k, \mathrm{Out}(G)), reflecting automorphisms not inner to GG. Prominent examples include groups associated to quaternion algebras. For the split group SL2\mathrm{SL}_2, non-split inner forms over kk correspond bijectively to central simple algebras of degree 2 (quaternion algebras) over kk, with the group realized as SL1(D)={xD×Nrd(x)=1}\mathrm{SL}_1(D) = \{ x \in D^\times \mid \mathrm{Nrd}(x) = 1 \}, where DD is a quaternion division algebra and Nrd\mathrm{Nrd} is the reduced norm. This group is anisotropic when DD is division. Over pp-adic fields, simply connected anisotropic reductive groups are precisely of the form SL1(D)\mathrm{SL}_1(D) for a central division algebra DD over the field. The anisotropic kernel of a non-split reductive group GG with a TT over kˉ\bar{k} is the TΓT^\Gamma of TT consisting of points fixed by the Galois action of Γk\Gamma_k. This kernel captures the anisotropic part, and by the structure theorem for reductive groups, GG is determined up to by its kk-rank (dimension of the ) and this anisotropic kernel.

Representations of reductive groups

Finite-dimensional rational representations of reductive algebraic groups over fields of characteristic zero form a rich and well-understood category, analogous to those of compact groups but adapted to the algebraic setting. These representations are completely reducible, meaning every finite-dimensional representation decomposes uniquely into a of irreducible ones. The irreducible representations are parameterized by dominant weights in the character lattice of a , providing a precise via highest weight theory. Highest weight modules play a central in this theory. For a connected reductive group GG over an of characteristic zero, fix a BB containing a TT. The irreducible finite-dimensional rational representations of GG are precisely the simple highest modules VΛV_\Lambda, where ΛX(T)+\Lambda \in X(T)^+ is a dominant relative to the positive roots defined by BB. Each such VΛV_\Lambda has a unique highest vector annihilated by the unipotent radical of BB, and the weights lie in the of the orbit of Λ\Lambda. This extends the semisimple case by incorporating the center of GG. The characters of these representations are given by the Weyl character formula. For the irreducible representation VΛV_\Lambda with highest weight Λ\Lambda, the character is ch(VΛ)=wWε(w)ew(Λ+ρ)wWε(w)ewρ,\ch(V_\Lambda) = \frac{\sum_{w \in W} \varepsilon(w) e^{w(\Lambda + \rho)}}{\sum_{w \in W} \varepsilon(w) e^{w \rho}}, where WW is the Weyl group, ε(w)=(1)(w)\varepsilon(w) = (-1)^{\ell(w)} is the sign of ww with length (w)\ell(w), and ρ\rho is the half-sum of the positive roots. This formula computes the multiplicity of each weight in VΛV_\Lambda as a formal power series in the exponentials eμe^\mu for weights μ\mu. A key consequence is Weyl's dimension formula, which gives the of VΛV_\Lambda by evaluating the character at the identity: dimVΛ=αΔ+(Λ+ρ,α)(ρ,α),\dim V_\Lambda = \prod_{\alpha \in \Delta^+} \frac{(\Lambda + \rho, \alpha)}{(\rho, \alpha)}, where Δ+\Delta^+ is the set of simple , and (,)(\cdot, \cdot) is the invariant on the dual of the of TT normalized so that short have length squared 2. This product highlights how the dimension grows with the dominance of Λ\Lambda relative to the . Complete reducibility holds for all finite-dimensional rational representations of reductive groups over characteristic zero. Specifically, every such representation is a of irreducible highest weight modules, and the category is semisimple with applying to endomorphisms. This property fails in positive characteristic but is fundamental in the classical setting. Parabolic induction provides a method to construct representations from those of . For a parabolic subgroup P=LUP = LU with component LL and unipotent radical UU, inducing a finite-dimensional representation of LL to GG yields a parabolically induced module \IndPG(V)\Ind_P^G(V), which admits a whose quotients are irreducible highest weight modules. This process generalizes Borel induction (when P=BP = B) and is crucial for decomposing representations via the Langlands classification in broader contexts.

Applications and Further Structure

Structure of semisimple groups as abstract groups

Semisimple algebraic groups over fields of characteristic zero are perfect as abstract groups, meaning that the derived subgroup equals the group itself: [G,G]=G[G, G] = G. This property implies that GG is generated by commutators, with no nontrivial abelian quotients, and follows from the absence of nonzero characters on the group, as the character group X(G)X(G) vanishes for semisimple GG. In the topological realization as complex semisimple Lie groups, this perfectness persists, ensuring that the abstract group structure lacks solvable normal subgroups beyond . The finite Chevalley groups provide abstract finite analogues of semisimple groups, arising as points over finite fields and exhibiting simple or almost simple structures generated by root subgroups via the Chevalley commutator formula. In characteristic zero, the of semisimple groups mirrors this generation: the group is generated by one-parameter unipotent subgroups corresponding to , with relations analogous to the finite case but extended infinitely. For simply connected semisimple groups, the is almost simple, meaning the by the finite is simple, with no nontrivial normal subgroups outside the . The universal central extension of such a group covers it centrally by the , providing the stem extension that classifies all central extensions. Many semisimple s possess Kazhdan's property (T), a rigidity property implying that unitary representations without invariant vectors have no almost invariant vectors, which holds for higher-rank groups like SLn(R)\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{R}) for n3n \geq 3. This property underscores the abstract compactness and non-amenability of these groups. The H2(G,Z)H_2(G, \mathbb{Z}) of a semisimple GG is finite and related to the π1(G)\pi_1(G) via the of cover: for the form, it dualizes aspects of π1\pi_1 of the simply connected cover, capturing central extensions and projective representations.

Lattices and arithmetic groups

In the context of a reductive algebraic group GG defined over R\mathbb{R}, a lattice Γ\Gamma in G(R)G(\mathbb{R}) is a discrete such that the G(R)/ΓG(\mathbb{R})/\Gamma admits a finite G(R)G(\mathbb{R})-invariant measure. This finite-volume condition ensures that Γ\Gamma acts cocompactly or with finite covolume on the associated symmetric , providing a geometric framework for studying discrete within the structure of G(R)G(\mathbb{R}). Lattices play a central role in rigidity phenomena, as their finite covolume implies bounded fundamental domains that tile the under the . Arithmetic groups arise as specific lattices within reductive groups over number fields, particularly when GG is defined over Q\mathbb{Q}. An arithmetic subgroup Γ\Gamma of G(Q)G(\mathbb{Q}) is one that is commensurable with G(Z)G(\mathbb{Z}), meaning ΓG(Z)\Gamma \cap G(\mathbb{Z}) has finite index in both Γ\Gamma and G(Z)G(\mathbb{Z}). For example, the SLn(Z)\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{Z}) forms an arithmetic lattice in SLn(R)\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{R}) for n2n \geq 2. These groups are finitely generated and discrete in G(R)G(\mathbb{R}), inheriting the lattice property from the arithmetic structure over Z\mathbb{Z}. A key property of arithmetic lattices is their Zariski density, as established by the Borel density theorem: for a connected semisimple R\mathbb{R}-algebraic group GG without compact factors, any lattice ΓG(R)\Gamma \subset G(\mathbb{R}) is Zariski dense in GG. In particular, arithmetic lattices in such groups are Zariski dense, meaning their Zariski closure is the entire group GG, which underscores their algebraic richness and prevents them from being contained in proper algebraic subvarieties. This density has profound implications for representation theory and equidistribution on homogeneous spaces. For higher-rank semisimple s, lattices exhibit exceptional rigidity through Margulis superrigidity: if GG is a connected semisimple with R\mathbb{R}-rank at least 2 and no compact factors, then any irreducible lattice ΓG\Gamma \subset G has the property that every ρ:ΓGLn(C)\rho: \Gamma \to \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{C}) extends to a from GG to GLn(C)\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{C}), up to finite kernel and image conjugation. This theorem implies that arithmetic lattices in higher rank are "superrigid," meaning their representations are essentially algebraic and determined by the ambient group structure, contrasting with the flexibility observed in rank-1 cases like hyperbolic groups. Arithmetic groups and their lattices find applications in the study of moduli spaces and automorphic forms. The quotient G(R)/ΓKG(\mathbb{R})/\Gamma K, where KK is a maximal compact subgroup, often parametrizes moduli spaces of geometric objects, such as principally polarized abelian varieties in the modular case for Sp2g(R)/Sp2g(Z)\mathrm{Sp}_{2g}(\mathbb{R})/\mathrm{Sp}_{2g}(\mathbb{Z}). Automorphic forms on G(A)G(\mathbb{A}), where A\mathbb{A} is the adele ring, are functions invariant under arithmetic subgroups Γ\Gamma that transform appropriately under the , enabling the construction of L-functions and their arithmetic applications, including the . A concrete quantitative aspect is the volume of the fundamental domain for SL2(Z)\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z}) in SL2(R)\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{R}), given by Siegel's formula as π3\frac{\pi}{3}. This volume, computed via the invariant measure on the upper half-plane, reflects the cusp structure and contributes to the analytic theory of modular forms on this arithmetic group.

Torsors and the Hasse principle

A G-torsor over a field k is a geometrically integral k-variety P equipped with a free and transitive action of a reductive algebraic group G defined over k, such that the quotient morphism P → Spec(k) is a G-principal bundle. Such torsors are principal homogeneous spaces under G, and they are classified up to k-isomorphism by the pointed set H¹(k, G), the first set of G with respect to the of k. A G-torsor is trivial (isomorphic to G as a G-variety over k) if and only if it admits a k-rational point, which occurs precisely when its class in H¹(k, G is the trivial element. Non-split forms of a split reductive group G over k arise precisely as twists of G by non-trivial torsors under the of G, particularly under the adjoint form Gad for inner forms. In particular, inner twists correspond to non-trivial classes in H¹(k, Gad), realizing non-split reductive groups as torsors under their split counterparts. Over a number field k, the Hasse principle for G-torsors asserts that local solvability implies global solvability: if a G-torsor has a point over every completion kv of k at a place v, then it has a point over k. This holds for G semisimple and simply connected, as the natural map *H¹(k, G) → ∏v *H¹(kv, G) is injective. The result follows from the vanishing of the Tate-Shafarevich group *Sha¹(k, G) = ker(*H¹(k, G) → ∏v H¹(kv, G)), which is trivial in this case. This principle was established by Harder using cohomological methods involving the structure of semisimple groups and their over global fields. For non-simply connected semisimple groups, the Hasse principle can fail, with counterexamples arising from non-trivial elements in the Brauer group obstructing the descent of local solutions to global ones. The Brauer-Manin obstruction provides a cohomological explanation for such failures: a G-torsor violates the Hasse principle if its class lies in the kernel of the map H¹(k, G) → Homcont(Gal(ks/k), Br(k)), where Br(k) is the Brauer group of k. This obstruction is the only one for principal homogeneous spaces under connected reductive groups under certain finiteness assumptions on the Tate-Shafarevich groups of abelian varieties. To relate local and global cohomology, Shapiro's lemma plays a key role in computing H¹(kv, G) for completions kv. For a quasi-split reductive group G over a kv with maximal T, Shapiro's lemma yields an isomorphism H¹(kv, G) ≅ H¹(Γv, X(T))NG(T)/W , where Γv = Gal(\bar kv / kv), X(T) is the character lattice of T, NG(T) is the normalizer of T in G, and W is the ; this reduces the computation to of the torus.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.