DOCSLIB.ORG

3.6. Moduli Spaces and Quotients. Let Us Give One Result About the Construction of Moduli Spaces Using Group Quotients

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3.6. Moduli Spaces and Quotients. Let Us Give One Result About the Construction of Moduli Spaces Using Group Quotients 24 VICTORIA HOSKINS 3.6. Moduli spaces and quotients. Let us give one result about the construction of moduli spaces using group quotients. For a moduli problem , a family over a schemeS has the local universal property if for any other family overM a schemeT Fand for anyk-pointt T, there exists a neighbourhoodU oft inT and a morphismG f:U S such that ∈ f . → G| U ∼U ∗F Proposition 3.35. For a moduli problem , let be a family with the local universal property over a schemeS. Furthermore, suppose thatM thereF is an algebraic groupG acting onS such that twok-points s, t lie in the sameG-orbit if and only if . Then F t ∼F s a) any coarse moduli space is a categorical quotient of theG-action onS; b) a categorical quotient of theG-action onS is a coarse moduli space if and only if it is an orbit space. Proof. For any schemeM, we claim that there is a bijective correspondence natural transformationsη: h G-invariant morphismsf:S M { M→ M } ←→{ → } given byη η S( ), which isG-invariant by our assumptions about theG-action onS. The inverse of this�→ correspondenceF associates to aG-invariant morphismf:S M and a family overT a morphismη ( ):T M by using the local universal property→ of overS. More G T G → F precisely, we can coverT by open subsetsU i such that there is a morphismh i :U i S and h . Foru U U , we have → i∗F∼ Ui G|Ui ∈ i ∩ j (h ∗ ) (h ∗ ) Fhi(u) ∼ i F u ∼G u ∼ j F u ∼F hj (u) and so by assumptionh i(u) andh j(u) lie in the sameG-orbit. Sincef isG-invariant, we can glue the compositionsf h i :U i M glue to a morphismη T ( ):T M. We leave it to the reader to verify that this◦ determines→ a natural transformationη G(that→ is, this is functorial with respect to morphisms) and that these correspondences are inverse to each other. Hence, if (M,η: h M ) is a coarse moduli space, thenη S( ):S M isG-invariant and universal amongstM→ allG-invariant morphisms fromS, by the universalityF → ofη. This proves statement a). Furthermore, theG-invariant morphismη ( ):S M is an orbit space if and S F → only ifη Speck is bijective. This proves statement b). � 4. Affine Geometric Invariant Theory In this section we consider an action of an affine algebraic groupG on an affine schemeX of finite type overk and show that this action has a good quotient whenG is linearly reductive. The main references for this section are [25] and [31] (for further reading, see also [2], [4] and [32]). LetX be an affine scheme offinite type overk; then the ring of regular functions (X) is afinitely generatedk-algebra. Conversely, for anyfinitely generatedk-algebraA, the spectrumO of prime ideals SpecA is an affine scheme offinite type overk. The action of an affine algebraic groupG on an affine schemeX given by a morphism σ:G X X × → corresponds to a homomorphism ofk-algebrasσ ∗ : (X) (G X) ∼= (G) k (X), which gives aG-co-module structure on the (typically infiniteO dimensional)→O × k-vectorO space⊗ O(X). This co-module structure in turn determines a linear representationG GL( (X)). Concretely,O on the level ofk-points, the action ofg G(k) onf (X) is given by → O ∈ ∈O 1 (g f)(x)=f(g − x). · · The ring ofG-invariant regular functions onX is G (X) := f (X):σ ∗(f)=1 f . O { ∈O ⊗ } AnyG-invariant morphismϕ:X Z of schemes induces a homomorphismϕ ∗ : (Z) (X) whose image is contained in the→ subalgebra ofG-invariant regular functions (X)O G.→ ThisO leads us to an interesting problem in invariant theory which wasfirst consideredO by Hilbert. MODULI PROBLEMS AND GEOMETRIC INVARIANT THEORY 25 4.1. Hilbert’s 14th problem. For a rational action of an affine algebraic groupG on afinitely generatedk-algebraA, Hilbert asked whether the algebra ofG-invariantsA G isfinitely gener- ated. The answer to Hilbert’s 14th problem is negative in this level of generality: Nagata gave an example of an action of an affine algebraic group (constructed using copies of the additive groups) for which the ring of invariants is notfinitely generated (see [27] and [29]). However, for reductive groups (which we introduce below), the answer is positive due to a Theorem of Nagata. The proof of this result is beyond the scope of this course. However, we will prove that for a rational action of a ‘linearly reductive’ group on an algebra, the subalgebra of invariants is finitely generated, using a Reynolds operator, which essentially mimics Hilbert’s 19th century proof that, over the complex numbers, a rational action of the general linear group GLn on an algebra has afinitely generated invariant subalgebra. 4.2. Reductive groups. In this section, we will give the definition of a reductive group, a lin- early reductive group and a geometrically reductive group, and explain the relationship between these different notions of reductivity. Our starting point is the Jordan decomposition for affine algebraic groups overk. Wefirst recall the Jordan decomposition for GL : an elementg GL (k) has a decomposition n ∈ n g=g ssgu =g ugss whereg ss is semisimple (or, equivalently, diagonalisable, ask is algebraically closed) andg u is unipotent (that is,g I n is nilpotent). For any affine algebraic− groupG, we would like to have an analogous decomposition, and we can hope to make use of the fact thatG admits a faithful linear representationG� GL n. However, this would require the decomposition to be functorial with respect to closed immersions→ of groups. Definition 4.1. LetG be an affine algebraic group overk. An elementg is semisimple (resp. unipotent) if there is a faithful linear representationρ:G� GL n such thatρ(g) is diagonalisable (resp. unipotent). → Theorem 4.2 (Jordan decomposition, see [23] X Theorem 2.8 and 2.10). LetG be an affine algebraic group overk. For everyg G(k), there exists a unique semisimple elementg and a ∈ ss unique unipotent elementg u such that g=g ssgu =g ugss. Furthermore, this decomposition is functorial with respect to group homomorphisms. In particu- lar, ifg G(k) is semisimple (resp. unipotent), then for all linear representationsρ:G GL n, the element∈ ρ(g) is semisimple (resp. unipotent). → Letρ:G GL(V ) be a linear representation of an affine algebraic groupG on a vector spaceV and→ letρ :V (G) V denote the associated co-module. Then a vector subspace ∗ →O ⊗ k V � V isG-invariant ifρ ∗(V �) (G) k V � and a vectorv V isG-invariant ifρ ∗(v)=1 v. We⊂ letV G denote the subspace⊂ ofOG-invariant⊗ vectors. ∈ ⊗ Definition 4.3. An affine algebraic groupG is unipotent if every non-trivial linear representa- tionρ:G GL(V ) has a non-zeroG-invariant vector. → Proposition 4.4. For an affine algebraic groupG, the following statements are equivalent. i)G is unipotent. ii) For every representationρ:G GL(V) there is a basis ofV such thatρ(G) is contained → in the subgroupU GL(V) consisting of upper triangular matrices with diagonal entries equal to 1. ⊂ iii)G is isomorphic to a subgroup of a standard unipotent groupU n GL n consisting of upper triangular matrices with diagonal entries equal to 1. ⊂ 26 VICTORIA HOSKINS Proof. i) ii): Ife 1, . , en is a basis ofV such thatρ(G) U, thene 1 isfixed byρ. Conversely ⇐⇒ ifρ:G GL(V ) is a representation of a unipotent group⊂ G, then we can proceed by induction on→ the dimension ofV . AsU is unipotent, the linear subspace ofG-fixed points G G G V is non-zero; lete 1, e m be a basis ofV . Then there is a basis em+1,..., en ofV/V such that the induced representation··· has image in the upper triangular matrices with diagonal entries equal to 1. By choosing liftse m+i V of em+i, we get the desired basis ofV. ii) iii): As every affine algebraic∈ groupG has a faithful representationρ:G GL , ⇐⇒ → n we see that ii) implies iii). Conversely, any subgroup ofU n is unipotent (see [23] XV Theorem 2.4). � Remark 4.5. IfG is a unipotent affine algebraic group, then everyg G(k) is unipotent. The converse is true if in additionG is smooth (for example, see [23] XV∈ Corollary 2.6 or SGA3 XVII Corollary 3.8). Example 4.6. (1) The additive groupG a is unipotent, as we have an embeddingG a � U 2 given by → 1c c . �→ 0 1 � � (2) In characteristicp, there is afinite subgroupα p G a where we define the functor of ⊂ points ofα p by associating to ak-algebraR, p αp(R) := c G a(R):c = 0 . { ∈ } p This is represented by the scheme Speck[t]/(t ) and soα p is a unipotent group which is not smooth. Definition 4.7. An algebraic subgroupH of an affine algebraic groupG is normal if the conjugation actionH G G given by (h, g) ghg 1 factors throughH� G. × → �→ − → Definition 4.8. An affine algebraic groupG overk is reductive if it is smooth and every smooth unipotent normal algebraic subgroup ofG is trivial. Remark 4.9. In fact, one can define reductivity by saying that the unipotent radical ofG (which is the maximal connected unipotent normal algebraic subgroup ofG) is trivial; however, to define the unipotent radical carefully, we would need to prove that, for a groupG, the subgroup generated by two smooth algebraic subgroups ofG is also algebraic (see [22] Proposition 2.24). Exercise 4.10. Show that the general linear group GLn and the special linear group SLn are reductive.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Matrix Lie Groups
    Maths Seminar 2007 MATRIX LIE GROUPS Claudiu C Remsing Dept of Mathematics (Pure and Applied) Rhodes University Grahamstown 6140 26 September 2007 RhodesUniv CCR 0 Maths Seminar 2007 TALK OUTLINE 1. What is a matrix Lie group ? 2. Matrices revisited. 3. Examples of matrix Lie groups. 4. Matrix Lie algebras. 5. A glimpse at elementary Lie theory. 6. Life beyond elementary Lie theory. RhodesUniv CCR 1 Maths Seminar 2007 1. What is a matrix Lie group ? Matrix Lie groups are groups of invertible • matrices that have desirable geometric features. So matrix Lie groups are simultaneously algebraic and geometric objects. Matrix Lie groups naturally arise in • – geometry (classical, algebraic, differential) – complex analyis – differential equations – Fourier analysis – algebra (group theory, ring theory) – number theory – combinatorics. RhodesUniv CCR 2 Maths Seminar 2007 Matrix Lie groups are encountered in many • applications in – physics (geometric mechanics, quantum con- trol) – engineering (motion control, robotics) – computational chemistry (molecular mo- tion) – computer science (computer animation, computer vision, quantum computation). “It turns out that matrix [Lie] groups • pop up in virtually any investigation of objects with symmetries, such as molecules in chemistry, particles in physics, and projective spaces in geometry”. (K. Tapp, 2005) RhodesUniv CCR 3 Maths Seminar 2007 EXAMPLE 1 : The Euclidean group E (2). • E (2) = F : R2 R2 F is an isometry . → | n o The vector space R2 is equipped with the standard Euclidean structure (the “dot product”) x y = x y + x y (x, y R2), • 1 1 2 2 ∈ hence with the Euclidean distance d (x, y) = (y x) (y x) (x, y R2).
    [Show full text]
  • 18.700 JORDAN NORMAL FORM NOTES These Are Some Supplementary Notes on How to Find the Jordan Normal Form of a Small Matrix. Firs
    18.700 JORDAN NORMAL FORM NOTES These are some supplementary notes on how to find the Jordan normal form of a small matrix. First we recall some of the facts from lecture, next we give the general algorithm for finding the Jordan normal form of a linear operator, and then we will see how this works for small matrices. 1. Facts Throughout we will work over the field C of complex numbers, but if you like you may replace this with any other algebraically closed field. Suppose that V is a C-vector space of dimension n and suppose that T : V → V is a C-linear operator. Then the characteristic polynomial of T factors into a product of linear terms, and the irreducible factorization has the form m1 m2 mr cT (X) = (X − λ1) (X − λ2) ... (X − λr) , (1) for some distinct numbers λ1, . , λr ∈ C and with each mi an integer m1 ≥ 1 such that m1 + ··· + mr = n. Recall that for each eigenvalue λi, the eigenspace Eλi is the kernel of T − λiIV . We generalized this by defining for each integer k = 1, 2,... the vector subspace k k E(X−λi) = ker(T − λiIV ) . (2) It is clear that we have inclusions 2 e Eλi = EX−λi ⊂ E(X−λi) ⊂ · · · ⊂ E(X−λi) ⊂ .... (3) k k+1 Since dim(V ) = n, it cannot happen that each dim(E(X−λi) ) < dim(E(X−λi) ), for each e e +1 k = 1, . , n. Therefore there is some least integer ei ≤ n such that E(X−λi) i = E(X−λi) i .
    [Show full text]
  • (VI.E) Jordan Normal Form
    (VI.E) Jordan Normal Form Set V = Cn and let T : V ! V be any linear transformation, with distinct eigenvalues s1,..., sm. In the last lecture we showed that V decomposes into stable eigenspaces for T : s s V = W1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Wm = ker (T − s1I) ⊕ · · · ⊕ ker (T − smI). Let B = fB1,..., Bmg be a basis for V subordinate to this direct sum and set B = [T j ] , so that k Wk Bk [T]B = diagfB1,..., Bmg. Each Bk has only sk as eigenvalue. In the event that A = [T]eˆ is s diagonalizable, or equivalently ker (T − skI) = ker(T − skI) for all k , B is an eigenbasis and [T]B is a diagonal matrix diagf s1,..., s1 ;...; sm,..., sm g. | {z } | {z } d1=dim W1 dm=dim Wm Otherwise we must perform further surgery on the Bk ’s separately, in order to transform the blocks Bk (and so the entire matrix for T ) into the “simplest possible” form. The attentive reader will have noticed above that I have written T − skI in place of skI − T . This is a strategic move: when deal- ing with characteristic polynomials it is far more convenient to write det(lI − A) to produce a monic polynomial. On the other hand, as you’ll see now, it is better to work on the individual Wk with the nilpotent transformation T j − s I =: N . Wk k k Decomposition of the Stable Eigenspaces (Take 1). Let’s briefly omit subscripts and consider T : W ! W with one eigenvalue s , dim W = d , B a basis for W and [T]B = B.
    [Show full text]
  • Automorphism Groups of Locally Compact Reductive Groups
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICALSOCIETY Volume 106, Number 2, June 1989 AUTOMORPHISM GROUPS OF LOCALLY COMPACT REDUCTIVE GROUPS T. S. WU (Communicated by David G Ebin) Dedicated to Mr. Chu. Ming-Lun on his seventieth birthday Abstract. A topological group G is reductive if every continuous finite di- mensional G-module is semi-simple. We study the structure of those locally compact reductive groups which are the extension of their identity components by compact groups. We then study the automorphism groups of such groups in connection with the groups of inner automorphisms. Proposition. Let G be a locally compact reductive group such that G/Gq is compact. Then /(Go) is dense in Aq(G) . Let G be a locally compact topological group. Let A(G) be the group of all bi-continuous automorphisms of G. Then A(G) has the natural topology (the so-called Birkhoff topology or ^-topology [1, 3, 4]), so that it becomes a topo- logical group. We shall always adopt such topology in the following discussion. When G is compact, it is well known that the identity component A0(G) of A(G) is the group of all inner automorphisms induced by elements from the identity component G0 of G, i.e., A0(G) = I(G0). This fact is very useful in the study of the structure of locally compact groups. On the other hand, it is also well known that when G is a semi-simple Lie group with finitely many connected components A0(G) - I(G0). The latter fact had been generalized to more general groups ([3]).
    [Show full text]
  • LIE GROUPS and ALGEBRAS NOTES Contents 1. Definitions 2
    LIE GROUPS AND ALGEBRAS NOTES STANISLAV ATANASOV Contents 1. Definitions 2 1.1. Root systems, Weyl groups and Weyl chambers3 1.2. Cartan matrices and Dynkin diagrams4 1.3. Weights 5 1.4. Lie group and Lie algebra correspondence5 2. Basic results about Lie algebras7 2.1. General 7 2.2. Root system 7 2.3. Classification of semisimple Lie algebras8 3. Highest weight modules9 3.1. Universal enveloping algebra9 3.2. Weights and maximal vectors9 4. Compact Lie groups 10 4.1. Peter-Weyl theorem 10 4.2. Maximal tori 11 4.3. Symmetric spaces 11 4.4. Compact Lie algebras 12 4.5. Weyl's theorem 12 5. Semisimple Lie groups 13 5.1. Semisimple Lie algebras 13 5.2. Parabolic subalgebras. 14 5.3. Semisimple Lie groups 14 6. Reductive Lie groups 16 6.1. Reductive Lie algebras 16 6.2. Definition of reductive Lie group 16 6.3. Decompositions 18 6.4. The structure of M = ZK (a0) 18 6.5. Parabolic Subgroups 19 7. Functional analysis on Lie groups 21 7.1. Decomposition of the Haar measure 21 7.2. Reductive groups and parabolic subgroups 21 7.3. Weyl integration formula 22 8. Linear algebraic groups and their representation theory 23 8.1. Linear algebraic groups 23 8.2. Reductive and semisimple groups 24 8.3. Parabolic and Borel subgroups 25 8.4. Decompositions 27 Date: October, 2018. These notes compile results from multiple sources, mostly [1,2]. All mistakes are mine. 1 2 STANISLAV ATANASOV 1. Definitions Let g be a Lie algebra over algebraically closed field F of characteristic 0.
    [Show full text]
  • Your PRINTED Name Is: Please Circle Your Recitation
    18.06 Professor Edelman Quiz 3 December 3, 2012 Grading 1 Your PRINTED name is: 2 3 4 Please circle your recitation: 1 T 9 2-132 Andrey Grinshpun 2-349 3-7578 agrinshp 2 T 10 2-132 Rosalie Belanger-Rioux 2-331 3-5029 robr 3 T 10 2-146 Andrey Grinshpun 2-349 3-7578 agrinshp 4 T 11 2-132 Rosalie Belanger-Rioux 2-331 3-5029 robr 5 T 12 2-132 Georoy Horel 2-490 3-4094 ghorel 6 T 1 2-132 Tiankai Liu 2-491 3-4091 tiankai 7 T 2 2-132 Tiankai Liu 2-491 3-4091 tiankai 1 (16 pts.) a) (4 pts.) Suppose C is n × n and positive denite. If A is n × m and M = AT CA is not positive denite, nd the smallest eigenvalue of M: (Explain briey.) Solution. The smallest eigenvalue of M is 0. The problem only asks for brief explanations, but to help students understand the material better, I will give lengthy ones. First of all, note that M T = AT CT A = AT CA = M, so M is symmetric. That implies that all the eigenvalues of M are real. (Otherwise, the question wouldn't even make sense; what would the smallest of a set of complex numbers mean?) Since we are assuming that M is not positive denite, at least one of its eigenvalues must be nonpositive. So, to solve the problem, we just have to explain why M cannot have any negative eigenvalues. The explanation is that M is positive semidenite.
    [Show full text]
  • 1:34 Pm April 11, 2013 Red.Tex
    1:34 p.m. April 11, 2013 Red.tex The structure of reductive groups Bill Casselman University of British Columbia, Vancouver [email protected] An algebraic group defined over F is an algebraic variety G with group operations specified in algebraic terms. For example, the group GLn is the subvariety of (n + 1) × (n + 1) matrices A 0 0 a with determinant det(A) a = 1. The matrix entries are well behaved functions on the group, here for 1 example a = det− (A). The formulas for matrix multiplication are certainly algebraic, and the inverse of a matrix A is its transpose adjoint times the inverse of its determinant, which are both algebraic. Formally, this means that we are given (a) an F •rational multiplication map G × G −→ G; (b) an F •rational inverse map G −→ G; (c) an identity element—i.e. an F •rational point of G. I’ll look only at affine algebraic groups (as opposed, say, to elliptic curves, which are projective varieties). In this case, the variety G is completely characterized by its affine ring AF [G], and the data above are respectively equivalent to the specification of (a’) an F •homomorphism AF [G] −→ AF [G] ⊗F AF [G]; (b’) an F •involution AF [G] −→ AF [G]; (c’) a distinguished homomorphism AF [G] −→ F . The first map expresses a coordinate in the product in terms of the coordinates of its terms. For example, in the case of GLn it takes xik −→ xij ⊗ xjk . j In addition, these data are subject to the group axioms. I’ll not say anything about the general theory of such groups, but I should say that in practice the specification of an algebraic group is often indirect—as a subgroup or quotient, say, of another simpler one.
    [Show full text]
  • Unipotent Flows and Applications
    Clay Mathematics Proceedings Volume 10, 2010 Unipotent Flows and Applications Alex Eskin 1. General introduction 1.1. Values of indefinite quadratic forms at integral points. The Op- penheim Conjecture. Let X Q(x1; : : : ; xn) = aijxixj 1≤i≤j≤n be a quadratic form in n variables. We always assume that Q is indefinite so that (so that there exists p with 1 ≤ p < n so that after a linear change of variables, Q can be expresses as: Xp Xn ∗ 2 − 2 Qp(y1; : : : ; yn) = yi yi i=1 i=p+1 We should think of the coefficients aij of Q as real numbers (not necessarily rational or integer). One can still ask what will happen if one substitutes integers for the xi. It is easy to see that if Q is a multiple of a form with rational coefficients, then the set of values Q(Zn) is a discrete subset of R. Much deeper is the following conjecture: Conjecture 1.1 (Oppenheim, 1929). Suppose Q is not proportional to a ra- tional form and n ≥ 5. Then Q(Zn) is dense in the real line. This conjecture was extended by Davenport to n ≥ 3. Theorem 1.2 (Margulis, 1986). The Oppenheim Conjecture is true as long as n ≥ 3. Thus, if n ≥ 3 and Q is not proportional to a rational form, then Q(Zn) is dense in R. This theorem is a triumph of ergodic theory. Before Margulis, the Oppenheim Conjecture was attacked by analytic number theory methods. (In particular it was known for n ≥ 21, and for diagonal forms with n ≥ 5).
    [Show full text]
  • Contents 1 Root Systems
    Stefan Dawydiak February 19, 2021 Marginalia about roots These notes are an attempt to maintain a overview collection of facts about and relationships between some situations in which root systems and root data appear. They also serve to track some common identifications and choices. The references include some helpful lecture notes with more examples. The author of these notes learned this material from courses taught by Zinovy Reichstein, Joel Kam- nitzer, James Arthur, and Florian Herzig, as well as many student talks, and lecture notes by Ivan Loseu. These notes are simply collected marginalia for those references. Any errors introduced, especially of viewpoint, are the author's own. The author of these notes would be grateful for their communication to [email protected]. Contents 1 Root systems 1 1.1 Root space decomposition . .2 1.2 Roots, coroots, and reflections . .3 1.2.1 Abstract root systems . .7 1.2.2 Coroots, fundamental weights and Cartan matrices . .7 1.2.3 Roots vs weights . .9 1.2.4 Roots at the group level . .9 1.3 The Weyl group . 10 1.3.1 Weyl Chambers . 11 1.3.2 The Weyl group as a subquotient for compact Lie groups . 13 1.3.3 The Weyl group as a subquotient for noncompact Lie groups . 13 2 Root data 16 2.1 Root data . 16 2.2 The Langlands dual group . 17 2.3 The flag variety . 18 2.3.1 Bruhat decomposition revisited . 18 2.3.2 Schubert cells . 19 3 Adelic groups 20 3.1 Weyl sets . 20 References 21 1 Root systems The following examples are taken mostly from [8] where they are stated without most of the calculations.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Linear Algebra (MA251) Lecture Notes Contents
    Algebra I – Advanced Linear Algebra (MA251) Lecture Notes Derek Holt and Dmitriy Rumynin year 2009 (revised at the end) Contents 1 Review of Some Linear Algebra 3 1.1 The matrix of a linear map with respect to a fixed basis . ........ 3 1.2 Changeofbasis................................... 4 2 The Jordan Canonical Form 4 2.1 Introduction.................................... 4 2.2 TheCayley-Hamiltontheorem . ... 6 2.3 Theminimalpolynomial. 7 2.4 JordanchainsandJordanblocks . .... 9 2.5 Jordan bases and the Jordan canonical form . ....... 10 2.6 The JCF when n =2and3 ............................ 11 2.7 Thegeneralcase .................................. 14 2.8 Examples ...................................... 15 2.9 Proof of Theorem 2.9 (non-examinable) . ...... 16 2.10 Applications to difference equations . ........ 17 2.11 Functions of matrices and applications to differential equations . 19 3 Bilinear Maps and Quadratic Forms 21 3.1 Bilinearmaps:definitions . 21 3.2 Bilinearmaps:changeofbasis . 22 3.3 Quadraticforms: introduction. ...... 22 3.4 Quadraticforms: definitions. ..... 25 3.5 Change of variable under the general linear group . .......... 26 3.6 Change of variable under the orthogonal group . ........ 29 3.7 Applications of quadratic forms to geometry . ......... 33 3.7.1 Reduction of the general second degree equation . ....... 33 3.7.2 The case n =2............................... 34 3.7.3 The case n =3............................... 34 1 3.8 Unitary, hermitian and normal matrices . ....... 35 3.9 Applications to quantum mechanics . ..... 41 4 Finitely Generated Abelian Groups 44 4.1 Definitions...................................... 44 4.2 Subgroups,cosetsandquotientgroups . ....... 45 4.3 Homomorphisms and the first isomorphism theorem . ....... 48 4.4 Freeabeliangroups............................... 50 4.5 Unimodular elementary row and column operations and the Smith normal formforintegralmatrices .
    [Show full text]
  • DECOMPOSITION of SYMPLECTIC MATRICES INTO PRODUCTS of SYMPLECTIC UNIPOTENT MATRICES of INDEX 2∗ 1. Introduction. Decomposition
    Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra, ISSN 1081-3810 A publication of the International Linear Algebra Society Volume 35, pp. 497-502, November 2019. DECOMPOSITION OF SYMPLECTIC MATRICES INTO PRODUCTS OF SYMPLECTIC UNIPOTENT MATRICES OF INDEX 2∗ XIN HOUy , ZHENGYI XIAOz , YAJING HAOz , AND QI YUANz Abstract. In this article, it is proved that every symplectic matrix can be decomposed into a product of three symplectic 0 I unipotent matrices of index 2, i.e., every complex matrix A satisfying AT JA = J with J = n is a product of three −In 0 T 2 matrices Bi satisfying Bi JBi = J and (Bi − I) = 0 (i = 1; 2; 3). Key words. Symplectic matrices, Product of unipotent matrices, Symplectic Jordan Canonical Form. AMS subject classifications. 15A23, 20H20. 1. Introduction. Decomposition of elements in a matrix group into products of matrices with a special nature (such as unipotent matrices, involutions and so on) is a popular topic studied by many scholars. In the n × n matrix k ring Mn(F ) over a field F , a unipotent matrix of index k refers to a matrix A satisfying (A − In) = 0. Fong and Sourour in [4] proved that every matrix in the group SLn(C) (the special linear group over complex field C) is a product of three unipotent matrices (without limitation on the index). Wang and Wu in [6] gave a further result that every matrix in the group SLn(C) is a product of four unipotent matrices of index 2. In particular, decompositions of symplectic matrices have drawn considerable attention from numerous 0 I scholars (see [1, 3]).
    [Show full text]
  • An Effective Lie–Kolchin Theorem for Quasi-Unipotent Matrices
    Linear Algebra and its Applications 581 (2019) 304–323 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Linear Algebra and its Applications www.elsevier.com/locate/laa An effective Lie–Kolchin Theorem for quasi-unipotent matrices Thomas Koberda a, Feng Luo b,∗, Hongbin Sun b a Department of Mathematics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4137, USA b Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, Hill Center – Busch Campus, 110 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA a r t i c l e i n f oa b s t r a c t Article history: We establish an effective version of the classical Lie–Kolchin Received 27 April 2019 Theorem. Namely, let A, B ∈ GLm(C)be quasi-unipotent Accepted 17 July 2019 matrices such that the Jordan Canonical Form of B consists Available online 23 July 2019 of a single block, and suppose that for all k 0the Submitted by V.V. Sergeichuk matrix ABk is also quasi-unipotent. Then A and B have a A, B < C MSC: common eigenvector. In particular, GLm( )is a primary 20H20, 20F38 solvable subgroup. We give applications of this result to the secondary 20F16, 15A15 representation theory of mapping class groups of orientable surfaces. Keywords: © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Lie–Kolchin theorem Unipotent matrices Solvable groups Mapping class groups * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Koberda), fl[email protected] (F. Luo), [email protected] (H. Sun). URLs: http://faculty.virginia.edu/Koberda/ (T. Koberda), http://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~fluo/ (F. Luo), http://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~hs735/ (H.
    [Show full text]