arXiv:2010.16173v2 [math.GR] 16 Jan 2021 acteristic ru ftype of group vr iptn element nilpotent every hr ecniee h odnnra omof form previou normal our Jordan to the analogous considered are we proofs where and results Our respectively. omlfr fad( of form normal d stemi euto hsppr edsrb h odnnra for normal Jordan the describe we paper, this of result main the As Let product p e nti ae,w osdrsm pca ae ftefloigproble following the of cases 1.1. special Problem some consider we paper, this In f REUIL ERSNAIN FCASCLGROUPS CLASSICAL OF REPRESENTATIONS IRREDUCIBLE ∈ is ( soeapiaino h eut nti ae,w e ecito of description a get we paper, this in results the of application one As Let hs reuil ersnain r on scmoiinfacto composition as found are representations irreducible These Let 2010 Date atal upre ySS rn P2ELP2 grant SNSF by supported Partially e g f ODNBOK FNLOETEEET NSOME IN ELEMENTS NILPOTENT OF BLOCKS JORDAN odfor good sanloetlna a o vr ainlrepresentation rational every for map linear nilpotent a is ) • • • eanloeteeet hti h odnnra omof form normal Jordan the is What element. nilpotent a be : G aur 9 2021. 19, January : G G ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics G G G nptn element unipotent aerpeettosaddsrbdteJra omlfr o form con to we normal analogue where Jordan the 4205–4219), in (2019) described are 147 and representations results Soc., same Our Math. Amer. known. (Proc. are formulae recursive odnbokszso h cinof action the of sizes block Jordan Abstract. o l iptn elements nilpotent all for of g reuil representations irreducible V easml leri ru vra lerial lsdfield closed algebraically an over group algebraic simple a be easml lsia ru (SL( group classical simple a be → > p vra lerial lsdfield closed algebraically an over SL( = Sp( = SO( = V ⊗ ⊗ GL( G V V ,wt i algebra Lie with 0, A nohrwrs eassume we words, other In . Let ∗ ∗ V V n V W h xeirsquare exterior the , , and ) and ) ∧ and ) e Rmr .) obnn hsrslsfo h ieaue the literature, the from results this Combining 1.3). (Remark Let eartoa reuil ersnainwt ihs weight highest with representation irreducible rational a be ) f 2 o vr iptn element nilpotent every for ) ( V : G NGO CHARACTERISTIC GOOD IN G ,and ), λ eacasclgopwt aua module natural with group classical a be e u λ λ → ∈ ∈ = = 2 = G g GL( ̟ ̟ S . ntefloigcases: following the in 2 ̟ 2 1 ( e Crlay1.4) (Corollary . f IK KORHONEN MIKKO V 1. + 1 W Crlay1.5) (Corollary . ∈ : ,w ecieteJra omlfr fd of form normal Jordan the describe we ), ̟ G g Introduction ) g ealta nelement an that Recall . n h ecito sgvni em fthe of terms in given is description The . eartoa reuil ersnainadlet and representation irreducible rational a be → − e rmr 20G05. Primary 1 on GL( ∧ K where , 892 n SCgat 1720ad11931005. and 11771200 grants NSFC and 181902, 1 2 ( V V fgo hrceitc o rational For characteristic. good of W V ⊗ ,Sp( ), ,adtesmercsquare symmetric the and ), curn scmoiinfactors composition as occurring ) > p V ∗ f n , e ( ∧ V dim = u if 2 ∈ 2 o nptn elements unipotent for ) ,o SO( or ), ( g V ,and ), when G V Sp( = Term1.2) (Theorem . V S G f V 2 n i algebra Lie and e ( f sasml algebraic simple a is V )adasm that assume and )) V iee these sidered ( ale work earlier ∈ u ,frwhich for ), oki [Kor19], in work s or ) o every for ) f d g f so h tensor the of rs : m. fd of m ( is G e G ) f nilpotent ? → h Jordan the ( K SO( = e ) GL( f fchar- of S u ( e 2 ∈ for ) ( W V V if , G λ ). ), ). . . 2 MIKKO KORHONEN
Jordan normal form of ad(e) is known whenever G is a simple algebraic group in good characteristic (Remark 3.5 and [Ste16]). Before stating our main results, we establish some basic notation that will be used throughout the paper. Let T be an indeterminate. For λ ∈ K and an integer d > 0, denote by Jd(λ) an indecomposable K[T ]-module on which the T acts as a single d × d Jordan block with eigenvalue λ. We set J0(λ) = 0 for all λ ∈ K. For a K-vector space V we denote V 0 = 0 and V n = V ⊕···⊕ V (n copies) for n> 0. Then if we have e acting nilpotently on a K-vector space V , notation such n1 nt as V ↓ K[e]= Jd1 (0) ⊕···⊕ Jdt (0) can be used to say that e acts on V with Jordan blocks of sizes d1, ..., dt, with block size di occurring with multiplicity ni. For a linear map f : V → V which is either unipotent or nilpotent, we denote by rm(f) the number of Jordan blocks of size m in the Jordan decomposition of f. We say that f is regular, if its Jordan normal form consists of a single Jordan block. We denote by νp the p-adic valuation on the integers, so νp(a) is the largest integer k ≥ 0 such that pk divides a. Fix a maximal torus S of G with character group X(S), and a base ∆ for the root system of G. We denote the dominant weights corresponding to ∆ by X(S)+. The ith fundamental dominant weight is denoted by ̟i, using the standard Bourbaki labeling of the simple roots [Hum72, 11.4, p. 58]. We denote the rational irreducible + G-module with highest weight λ ∈ X(S) by LG(λ). The following theorem is our main result for G = SL(V ), and it will be proven in Section 4. It describes the Jordan normal form of each nilpotent element e ∈ g ∗ on LG(̟1 + ̟n−1) in terms of the Jordan normal form of e on V ⊗ V . There is no closed formula for the Jordan block sizes of e on V ⊗ V ∗, but various recursive formulae exist in the literature, which we discuss in Section 3. We state the theorem ∗ by identifying as G-modules V ⊗ V =∼ gl(V ) and LG(̟1 + ̟n−1) =∼ psl(V ) = sl(V )/Z(sl(V )), where n = dim V .
Theorem 1.2. Let G = SL(V ), where dim V = n for some n ≥ 2. Let e ∈ g be a nilpotent element and V ↓ K[e]= Jd1 (0) ⊕···⊕ Jdt (0), where t ≥ 1 and dr ≥ 1 for all 1 ≤ r ≤ t. Set α = νp(gcd(d1,...,dt)). Let e0 be the action of e on gl(V ), let ′ ′′ e0 be the action of e on sl(V ), and let e0 be the action of e on psl(V ). ′ The Jordan block sizes of e0 are determined from those of e0 as follows: ′ ′ (i) If α =0, then r1(e0)= r1(e0) − 1 and rm(e0)= rm(e0) for all m 6=1. ′ ′ ′ (ii) If α> 0, then rpα−1(e0)=1, rpα (e0)= rpα (e0) − 1, and rm(e0)= rm(e0) for all m 6= pα,pα − 1. ′′ The Jordan block sizes of e0 are determined from those of e0 as follows: ′′ ′′ (iii) If p ∤ n, then r1(e0 )= r1(e0) − 1 and rm(e0 )= rm(e0) for all m 6=1. ′′ ′′ (iv) If p | n and α = 0, then r1(e0 ) = r1(e0) − 2 and rm(e0 ) = rm(e0) for all m 6=1. ′′ ′′ ′′ (v) If p | n and α > 0, then rpα (e0 ) = rpα (e0) − 2, rpα−1(e0 )=2 and rm(e0 ) = α α rm(e0) for all m 6= p ,p − 1.
Remark 1.3. As a corollary of Theorem 1.2, we have a description of the Jordan normal form of ad(e): g → g for every nilpotent element e ∈ g when G is a simple algebraic group of type An−1. To see this, let π : Gsc → G be an isogeny, where Gsc = SL(V ) with dim V = n is the simply connected cover of G. Let σ : G → Gad be an isogeny into the group Gad = PGL(V ) of adjoint type An−1. JORDANBLOCKSOFNILPOTENTELEMENTS 3
The structure of g has been described by Hogeweij, and it follows from the results in [Hog82, Table 1, p. 446] that as G-modules we have an isomorphism sl(V ), if π is separable. g =∼ pgl(V ), if σ is separable. psl(V ) ⊕ K, if both π and σ are inseparable. Note that g =∼ psl(V) ⊕ K can only occur if p2 | n. ∗ Let e0 ∈ gsc be nilpotent. As Gsc-modules gl(V ) =∼ V ⊗ V . There are various ∗ recursive formulae for calculating the Jordan normal form of e0 on V ⊗ V which we discuss in Section 3, so we assume that the Jordan block sizes of e0 on gl(V ) are known. Then the Jordan block sizes of the action of e0 on sl(V ) are given by Theorem 1.2 (i) – (ii), and the block sizes are the same on pgl(V ) since pgl(V ) =∼ ∗ sl(V ) as G-modules. Furthermore, the Jordan block sizes of e0 on psl(V ) ⊕ K are given by Theorem 1.2 (iii) – (v). Since for any nilpotent element e ∈ g there exists a unique nilpotent element e0 ∈ gsc such that dπ(e0)= e, we have a description of the Jordan normal form of ad(e) in all cases. With similar arguments, using our previous work in [Kor19], one can describe the Jordan normal form of Ad(u): g → g for every unipotent element u ∈ G when G is simple of type An−1. Note that although [Kor19, Theorem 6.1] does not state the Jordan normal form of a unipotent element u0 ∈ Gsc on sl(V ), this is calculated in the proof [Kor19, p. 4215] — see Corollary 1.6 and its proof in Section 4. Our main results for G = Sp(V ) and G = SO(V ) are given in the following corollaries of Theorem 1.2, which are analogous to [Kor19, Corollary 6.2 – 6.3]. The proofs will be given in Section 4. The results are given in terms of Jordan block sizes of nilpotent elements e ∈ g in their action on ∧2(V ) and S2(V ), we discuss the formulae for these in Section 3. Corollary 1.4. Assume p > 2, and let G = Sp(V ), where dim V = n for some n ≥ 4. Let e ∈ g be a nilpotent element and V ↓ K[e]= Jd1 (0) ⊕···⊕ Jdt (0), where t ≥ 1 and dr ≥ 1 for all 1 ≤ r ≤ t. Set α = νp(gcd(d1,...,dt)). Let e0 be the 2 ′′ action of e on ∧ (V ), and let e0 be the action of e on LG(̟2). Then the Jordan ′′ block sizes of e0 are determined from those of e0 by the rules (iii) – (v) of Theorem 1.2. Corollary 1.5. Assume p > 2, and let G = SO(V ), where dim V = n for some n ≥ 5. Let e ∈ g be a nilpotent element and V ↓ K[e]= Jd1 (0) ⊕···⊕ Jdt (0), where t ≥ 1 and dr ≥ 1 for all 1 ≤ r ≤ t. Set α = νp(gcd(d1,...,dt)). Let e0 be the action 2 ′′ of e on S (V ), and let e0 be the action of e on LG(2̟1). Then the Jordan block ′′ sizes of e0 are determined from those of e0 by the rules (iii) – (v) of Theorem 1.2. We finish this introduction with a few comments about the connection between results for Problem 1.1 and for the analogous problem for unipotent elements [Kor19, Problem 1.1]. In the case where G is simply connected and p is good for G, it was shown by Springer [Spr69, Theorem 3.1] that there exists a G-equivariant isomorphism ε : U(G) → N (g) between the unipotent variety of G and the nilpotent variety of g, called a Springer isomorphism. As a corollary of Springer’s result, an elementary argument shows that more generally ε exists if p is good and the isogeny Gsc → G from the simply connected cover of G is a separable morphism [Sob18, Section 7]. 4 MIKKO KORHONEN
A Springer isomorphism is not unique, but the bijection it induces between the unipotent conjugacy classes of G and the nilpotent orbits in g is unique by a result of Serre [McN05, Appendix]. For example for G = SL(V ) we identify g = sl(V ), and in this case one example of a Springer isomorphism is given by ε(u) = u − 1 for all u ∈ U(G). For other classical groups in characteristic p > 2, an example of a Springer isomorphism is given by the Cayley transform u 7→ (1 − u)(1 + u)−1. It follows that if G is a classical group in good characteristic with natural module V , then u and ε(u) have the same Jordan block sizes on V for all u ∈U(G). This is true more generally in characteristic zero, since in this case it follows from theorems of Jacobson–Morozov and Kostant that for any irreducible G-module W , the Jordan block sizes of u and ε(u) on W are the same for all u ∈U(G). In positive characteristic this is certainly false in general, since it is possible for example that df = 0. It is more interesting to look at the case where df is an irreducible representation of g, which is precisely the case where the highest weight of f is p-restricted [Bor70, Theorem 7.5 (iii)]. For p-restricted irreducible representations one can also find examples where the Jordan block sizes of f(u) and df(ε(u)) differ [Ste16, Corollary 1.2]. As a positive result, when f is the adjoint representation in good characteristic and G is not of type Akp−1, it is known that f(u) and df(ε(u)) have the same Jordan block sizes [PS18, Theorem 4.1]. Thus for a rational irreducible p-restricted representation f : G → GL(W ), it makes sense to compare the Jordan block sizes of f(u) and df(ε(u)) for u ∈U(G) and to examine to what extent they are similar. We proceed to do this for the irreducible representations considered in Theorem 1.2 and [Kor19, Theorem 6.1]. It turns out in these cases that the Jordan block sizes of f(u) and df(ε(u)) are very similar, but not always exactly the same. For example, consider G = SL(V ) with n = dim V and suppose that p | n. Let α = νp(n), and consider a regular unipotent element u ∈ G and a regular nilpotent element e ∈ g. By Proposition 3.1 below, the Jordan block sizes of u and e are the same on gl(V ) =∼ V ⊗V ∗. Furthermore, by [Kor19, Lemma 4.2] the smallest Jordan block size of u on V ⊗ V ∗ is pα, occurring with multiplicity pα. Thus by Theorem 1.2 and [Kor19, Theorem 6.1], we have
α p −1 rd LG(̟1 + ̟n−1) ↓ K[u]= Jpα−2(1) ⊕ Jpα (1) ⊕ Jd(1) , d>pMα α 2 p −2 rd LG(̟1 + ̟n−1) ↓ K[e]= Jpα−1(0) ⊕ Jpα (0) ⊕ Jd(0) d>pMα for some integers rd ≥ 0. More generally, we have the following result, which will be proven in Section 4.
Corollary 1.6. Let G = SL(V ), where dim V = n for some n ≥ 2. Let e ∈ g be a nilpotent element and V ↓ K[e]= Jd1 (0) ⊕···⊕ Jdt (0), where t ≥ 1 and dr ≥ 1 for all 1 ≤ r ≤ t. Set α = νp(gcd(d1,...,dt)). Let u ∈ G be a unipotent element with the same Jordan block sizes on V as e, so V ↓ K[u]= Jd1 (1) ⊕···⊕ Jdt (1). Then (i) u and e have the same Jordan block sizes in their action on gl(V ) and sl(V ), (ii) u and e have the same Jordan block sizes on LG(̟1 + ̟n−1) =∼ psl(V ) if and only if pα+1 | n. JORDANBLOCKSOFNILPOTENTELEMENTS 5
2. Preliminaries In this section, we list some preliminary results, all of which are well known.
pβ −1 t Lemma 2.1. Let p be a prime number and β ≥ 0. Then t ≡ (−1) mod p for all 0 ≤ t ≤ pβ − 1. Proof. Similarly to the proof in [Kor19, Lemma 3.1], one can proceed by induction pβ β on t, using the fact that t ≡ 0 mod p for all 0
(3.1) V ⊗ V =∼ Wi ⊗ Wj , 1≤Mi,j≤t 2 2 (3.2) ∧ (V ) =∼ ∧ (Wi) ⊕ Wi ⊗ Wj , 1M≤i≤t 1≤Mi This reduces the calculation to determining the Jordan normal form of e on Wi⊗Wj, 2 2 and when p> 2, on ∧ (Wi) and S (Wi). Let u ∈ G be a unipotent element such that each Wi is u-invariant and Wi ↓ K[u] = Jdi (1) for all 1 ≤ i ≤ t. By the following proposition, the Jordan block sizes of u and e are the same on Wi ⊗ Wj for all 1 ≤ i, j ≤ t. Proposition 3.1 ([Fos89, Section III], [Nor93, Corollary 5 (a)]). Let V1 and V2 be finite-dimensional vector spaces over K. For i = 1, 2 let ui ∈ SL(Vi) be reg- ular unipotent and let ei ∈ sl(Vi) be regular nilpotent. Then u1 ⊗ u2 and e1 ⊗ idV2 + idV1 ⊗e2 have the same Jordan block sizes on V1 ⊗ V2. The Jordan normal form of the tensor product of unipotent matrices has been extensively studied in the literature [Sri64], [Ral66], [McF79], [Ren79], [Nor95], [Nor08], [Hou03], [Bar11]. There is no easy closed formula in positive characteristic, but there are various recursive formulae involving only calculations with the integers di — see for example [Bar11, Theorem 1]. By Proposition 3.1, such formulae can also be used to calculate the Jordan normal form of e on Wi ⊗ Wj . With this, we have a complete method for calculating the Jordan normal form of d(ρ ⊗ ρ∗)(e). 2 There are also recursive formulae for the Jordan normal form of u on ∧ (Wi) 2 and S (Wi), see [Bar11, Theorem 2] for p> 2. By the next proposition, for p> 2 2 2 the Jordan block sizes of u and e are the same on ∧ (Wi) and S (Wi), so [Bar11, 2 Theorem 2] can be used to describe the Jordan normal form of e on ∧ (Wi) and 2 2 S (Wi). Hence we are able to calculate the Jordan normal form of (d ∧ (ρ))(e) and (dS2(ρ))(e) when p> 2. Proposition 3.2 ([McN02, Theorem 21]). Assume that p > 2. Let u ∈ SL(V ) be a regular unipotent element, and let e ∈ sl(V ) be a regular nilpotent element. Then u and e have the same Jordan block sizes on ∧2(V ) and S2(V ). As an alternative to the more general setting of formal group laws taken in [McN02], Proposition 3.2 can also be proven by adapting the proof of Proposition 3.1 given in [Nor93, Corollary 5 (a)]. Remark 3.3. In characteristic p = 2, Proposition 3.2 fails. For example, let dim V = 4 and consider a regular unipotent element u ∈ SL(V ) and a regular nilpotent 2 element e ∈ sl(V ). A computation shows that ∧ (V ) ↓ K[u] = J2(1) ⊕ J4(1) 2 2 2 2 but ∧ (V ) ↓ K[e] = J3(0) , and similarly S (V ) ↓ K[u] = J2(1) ⊕ J4(1) but 2 2 2 S (V ) ↓ K[e]= J1(0) ⊕ J4(0) . Summarizing the results from the literature described in this section, we get the following proposition from (3.1) – (3.3) and Propositions 3.1 – 3.2. Proposition 3.4 ([McN02, Theorem 24]). Let u ∈ SL(V ) be a unipotent element, and let e ∈ sl(V ) be nilpotent with the same Jordan block sizes on V as u. Then: (i) u and e have the same Jordan block sizes on V ⊗ V ∗. (ii) If p> 2, then u and e have the same Jordan block sizes on ∧2(V ) and S2(V ). Remark 3.5. (cf. Remark 1.3) Suppose that G is of classical type Bn, Cn, or Dn, and assume that p > 2. Using the methods described in this section, one can calculate the Jordan normal form of ad(e) and Ad(u) for all nilpotent e ∈ g and unipotent u ∈ G. Consider for example the case where G is of type Bn or Dn. Let Gsc = Spin(V ) be the simply connected cover of G. In this case g is simple, and as Gsc-modules JORDANBLOCKSOFNILPOTENTELEMENTS 7 g =∼ ∧2(V ) [Sei87, 1.14, 8.1 (a) – (b)]. Thus by using Proposition 3.4 (ii) and the results discussed in this section, we can describe the Jordan normal form of ad(e) and Ad(u) for all nilpotent e ∈ g and unipotent u ∈ G. In the case where G is of type Cn, we can argue similarly, by considering Gsc = Sp(V ) and using the fact 2 that g =∼ S (V ) as Gsc-modules [Sei87, 1.14, 8.1 (c)]. 4. Proof of main results In this section, we will prove our main results: Theorem 1.2 and Corollaries 1.4 - 1.6. At the end we will also give a table of examples illustrating Theorem 1.2. We begin with some calculations concerning the action of a regular nilpotent ∗ ∗ ∗ element of SL(V ) on V ⊗ V . Fix a basis v1, ..., vn of V , and let v1 , ..., vn ∗ ∗ be the corresponding dual basis of V , so vi (vj ) = δij for all 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n. For ∗ convenience, we set vi = 0 and vi = 0 for all i ≤ 0 and i>n. In the following lemmas we consider a regular nilpotent element e ∈ sl(V ) defined by (4.1) evi = vi−1 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Lemma 4.1. Let k ≥ 0. Then k ∗ k k+t ∗ e · (vi ⊗ v )= (−1) vi−t ⊗ v j t j+k−t 0≤Xt≤k for all 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n. ∗ Proof. The action of e on V ⊗ V is given by x ⊗ idV ∗ + idV ⊗y, where x and y are the actions of e on V and V ∗, respectively. Now the lemma follows by computing the action of ek on V ⊗ V ∗ with the binomial theorem. β β Lemma 4.2. Suppose that p | n for some β ≥ 0 and write n = p kβ. Set ′ ∗ δβ = vjpβ ⊗ vjpβ . 1≤Xj≤kβ pβ ′ Then e · δβ =0. Proof. Let W be the subspace of V spanned by vjpβ for all 1 ≤ j ≤ kβ. It is clear β that W is invariant under the action of ep . On the other hand, by Lemma 2.4 the ′ pβ ′ vector δβ is annihilated by the action of sl(W ), so we conclude that e ·δβ = 0. β β Lemma 4.3. Suppose that p | n for some β ≥ 0 and write n = p kβ. Set ∗ δβ = v(j+1)pβ ⊗ vjpβ +1. 0≤jX≤kβ −1 pβ −1 ∗ Then e · δβ = 1≤t≤n vt ⊗ vt . Proof. By LemmaP 4.1 and Lemma 2.1, we have β pβ −1 ∗ p − 1 pβ −1+t ∗ e · (v β ⊗ v β )= (−1) v β ⊗ v β (j+1)p jp +1 t (j+1)p −t (j+1)p −t 0≤tX≤pβ −1 ∗ = vt ⊗ vt jpβ +1≤Xt≤(j+1)pβ for all 0 ≤ j ≤ kβ − 1, from which the lemma follows. 8 MIKKO KORHONEN Proof of Theorem 1.2. We use a strategy similar to the proof of [Kor19, Theorem 6.1]. First we note that if p ∤ n, then gl(V ) = sl(V ) ⊕ Z(gl(V )) and in particular ∼ ′ ′′ psl(V ) = sl(V ) as G-modules. In this case e0 and e0 have the same Jordan block sizes, and statements (i) – (v) of the theorem are clear. Suppose then that p | n. Write V = W1 ⊕···⊕ Wt, where each Wi is e-invariant (r) and Wi ↓ K[e]= Jdi (0). For 1 ≤ r ≤ t, let (vj )1≤j≤dr be a basis of Wr, such that ∗ (r) (r) (r) (r) evj = vj−1 for all 1 ≤ j ≤ dr, where we define v0 = 0. Let (vj ) be the dual ∗ (r) basis of V corresponding to the basis (vj ) of V . For 1 ≤ r ≤ t, we define ∗ (r) (r) γr = vj ⊗ vj . 1≤Xj≤dr By Lemma 2.4, the element γ = 1≤r≤t γr spans the unique 1-dimensional G- submodule of V ⊗ V ∗. P Throughout the proof we will identify gl(V ) =∼ V ⊗ V ∗. Under this isomorphism, the G-submodule corresponding to sl(V ) is Ker ϕ, where ϕ : V ⊗ V ∗ → K is defined by ϕ(v ⊗ f)= f(v) for all v ∈ V and f ∈ V ∗. Furthermore, the G-module ′ corresponding to psl(V ) is Ker ϕ/hγi, here γ ∈ Ker ϕ since p | n. Then e0, e0, and ′′ ∗ e0 are the actions of e on V ⊗ V , Ker ϕ, and Ker ϕ/hγi, respectively. ′ ′′ Next we will apply Lemma 2.2 to describe the Jordan block sizes of e0 and e0 . By Proposition 3.4 (i) and [Kor19, Lemma 4.3], the smallest Jordan block size of α e0 is p . Thus pα−1 (4.2) Ker e0 ⊂ Ker ϕ by Lemma 2.2. We will show that pα (4.3) Ker e0 6⊂ Ker ϕ, ′ which together with (4.2) and Lemma 2.2 proves that the Jordan block sizes of e0 are as described in (i) – (ii) of the theorem. ′ α Let 1 ≤ r ≤ t be such that νp(dr′ )= α, and write dr′ = p kr′ . Consider ′ ′ ∗ (r ) (r ) v = vjpα ⊗ vjpα . 1≤Xj≤kr′ pα We have e ·v = 0 by Lemma 4.2, and v 6∈ Ker ϕ since ϕ(v)= kr′ . This proves (4.3). ′′ Next we consider the Jordan block sizes of e0 . Let f be the action of e on (V ⊗ V ∗)/hγi. By Lemma 2.3 (Ker ϕ)∗ =∼ (V ⊗ V ∗)/hγi as G-modules, so the ′ Jordan block sizes of f are the same as those of e0. Thus to prove that the Jordan ′′ block sizes of e0 are as described in (iv) – (v) of the theorem, by Lemma 2.2 it will suffice to show that α (4.4) Ker f p −1 ⊂ Ker ϕ/hγi, α (4.5) Ker f p 6⊂ Ker ϕ/hγi hold. First we note that (4.5) is immediate from (4.3). For (4.4), for all 1 ≤ r ≤ t α write dr = p kr and let ∗ (r) (r) δr = v(j+1)pα ⊗ vjpα+1. 0≤jX≤kr −1 Since the action of e on Wr is as defined in (4.1), it follows from Lemma 4.3 that pα−1 pα−1 pα−1 e · δr = γr. Hence for δ = 1≤r≤t δr, we have e · δ = γ, so Ker f = P JORDANBLOCKSOFNILPOTENTELEMENTS 9 pα−1 Ker e0 + hδi /hγi. Furthermore δ ∈ Ker ϕ, so we conclude from (4.2) that (4.4) holds, which completes the proof of the theorem. Proof of Corollary 1.4. Similarly to the proof of [Kor19, Corollary 6.2], with Theo- rem 1.2 the corollary follows from the isomorphisms V ⊗ V ∗ =∼ ∧2(V ) ⊕ S2(V ) and ∼ 2 LSL(V )(̟1 + ̟n−1) = LG(̟2) ⊕ S (V ) of G-modules. Proof of Corollary 1.5. As in [Kor19, Corollary 6.3], the corollary follows using Theorem 1.2 and the fact that we have isomorphisms V ⊗ V ∗ =∼ ∧2(V ) ⊕ S2(V ) and ∼ 2 LSL(V )(̟1 + ̟n−1) = ∧ (V ) ⊕ LG(2̟1) of G-modules. Proof of Corollary 1.6. Since V ⊗ V ∗ =∼ gl(V ), the claim in (i) about gl(V ) follows from Proposition 3.4 (i). The Jordan block sizes of the action of u0 on sl(V ) are not explicitly stated in [Kor19, Theorem 6.1], but are described in its proof. Indeed, on [Kor19, p. 4215] the action of u on gl(V ) corresponds to u0, while the action ′ of u on pgl(V ) = gl(V )/Z(gl(V )) corresponds to u0. The arguments on [Kor19, ′ p. 4215] show that the values of rm(u0) are given exactly by the rules (i) – (ii) of Theorem 1.2. Since pgl(V ) =∼ sl(V )∗ as G-modules, we conclude that u and e have the same Jordan block sizes in their action on sl(V ). Since LG(̟1 + ̟n−1) =∼ psl(V ) as G-modules, claim (ii) follows easily by com- paring Theorem 1.2 (iii) – (v) and [Kor19, Theorem 6.1 (i) – (iii)]. Example 4.4. Let G = SL(V ) with dim V = n for n ≥ 2. In Table 1 below, we give for all 2 ≤ n ≤ 5 and all nilpotent elements e ∈ g = sl(V ) the Jordan normal ∗ form of the action of e on V ⊗ V and LG(̟1 + ̟n−1), in the case where p | n. In n1 nt n1 nt the table, we use notation d1 ,...,dt to denote Jd1 (0) ⊕···⊕ Jdt (0) , where 0 < d1 < ··· < dt and ni ≥ 1 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ t. Table 1. Theorem 1.2 in the cases 2 ≤ n ≤ 5, see Example 4.4. ∗ G V ↓ K[e] V ⊗ V ↓ K[e] LG(̟1 + ̟n−1) ↓ K[e] n = 2, p = 2 2 22 12 12 14 12 n = 3, p = 3 3 33 22, 3 1, 2 12, 22, 3 22, 3 13 19 17 n = 4, p = 2 4 44 32, 42 1, 3 12, 32, 42 32, 42 22 28 12, 26 12, 2 14, 26 12, 26 14 116 114 n = 5, p = 5 5 55 42, 53 1, 4 12, 42, 53 42, 53 2, 3 12, 22, 32, 42, 5 22, 32, 42, 5 12, 3 15, 35, 5 13, 35, 5 1, 22 15, 24, 34 13, 24, 34 13, 2 110, 26, 3 18, 26, 3 15 125 123 10 MIKKO KORHONEN References [Bar11] M. J. J. Barry. Decomposing tensor products and exterior and symmetric squares. J. Group Theory, 14(1):59–82, 2011. [Bor70] A. Borel. Properties and linear representations of Chevalley groups. In Seminar on Alge- braic Groups and Related Finite Groups (The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J., 1968/69), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 131, pages 1–55. Springer, Berlin, 1970. [Fos89] R. M. Fossum. One-dimensional formal group actions. In Invariant theory (Denton, TX, 1986), Volume 88 of Contemp. Math., pages 227–397. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1989. [Hog82] G. M. D. Hogeweij. Almost-classical Lie algebras. I, II. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Indag. Math., 44(4):441–452, 453–460, 1982. [Hou03] X. D. Hou. Elementary divisors of tensor products and p-ranks of binomial matrices. Linear Algebra Appl., 374:255–274, 2003. [Hum72] J. E. Humphreys. Introduction to Lie algebras and representation theory. Springer- Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1972. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 9. [Kor19] M. Korhonen. Jordan blocks of unipotent elements in some irreducible representations of classical groups in good characteristic. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 147(10):4205–4219, 2019. [McF79] J. D. McFall. How to compute the elementary divisors of the tensor product of two matrices. Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 7(3):193–201, 1979. [McN98] G. J. McNinch. Dimensional criteria for semisimplicity of representations. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 76(1):95–149, 1998. [McN02] G. J. McNinch. Adjoint jordan blocks, 2002. arXiv:math/0207001. [McN05] G. J. McNinch. Optimal SL(2)-homomorphisms. Comment. Math. Helv., 80(2):391–426, 2005. [Nor93] C. W. Norman. On Jordan bases for two related linear mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 175(1):96–104, 1993. [Nor95] C. W. Norman. On the Jordan form of the tensor product over fields of prime charac- teristic. Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 38(4):351–371, 1995. [Nor08] C. W. Norman. On Jordan bases for the tensor product and Kronecker sum and their elementary divisors over fields of prime characteristic. Linear Multilinear Algebra, 56(4):415–451, 2008. [PS18] A. Premet and D. I. Stewart. Rigid orbits and sheets in reductive Lie algebras over fields of prime characteristic. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu, 17(3):583–613, 2018. [Ral66] T. Ralley. Decomposition of products of modular representations. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 72:1012–1013, 1966. [Ren79] J.-C. Renaud. The decomposition of products in the modular representation ring of a cyclic group of prime power order. J. Algebra, 58(1):1–11, 1979. [Sei87] G. M. Seitz. The maximal subgroups of classical algebraic groups. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 67(365):iv+286, 1987. [Sob18] P. Sobaje. Unipotent elements and generalized exponential maps. Adv. Math., 333:463– 496, 2018. [Spr69] T. A. Springer. The unipotent variety of a semi-simple group. In Algebraic Geometry (Internat. Colloq., Tata Inst. Fund. Res., Bombay, 1968), pages 373–391. Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1969. [Sri64] B. Srinivasan. The modular representation ring of a cyclic p-group. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 14:677–688, 1964. [Ste16] D. I. Stewart. On the minimal modules for exceptional Lie algebras: Jordan blocks and stabilizers. LMS J. Comput. Math., 19(1):235–258, 2016. Corrected version in arXiv:1508.02918. Department of Mathematics, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, Guangdong, P. R. China Email address: korhonen [email protected]