The essential dimension is a numerical invariant of an algebraic group G which may be thought of as a measure of complexity of G-torsors over fields. A recent theorem of N. Karpenko and A. Merkurjev gives a simple formula for the essential dimension of a finite p-group. We obtain similar formulas for the essential p-dimension of a broader class of groups, which includes all algebraic tori.
Let G be a constant p-group and k be a field containing a primitive pth root of unity. Then
where the minimum is taken over all faithful k-representations G \hookrightarrow \operatorname{GL}(V).
Assume that k is a field of characteristic \ne p containing a primitive pth root of unity. Suppose a sequence of k-groups of the form (?) satisfies the following condition:
for every character \chi \colon C \to \mu_p. (Here, as usual, \gcd stands for the greatest common divisor.) Then
where the minimum is taken over all finite-dimensional k-representations \rho of G such that \rho_{| \, C} is faithful.
Let G be an extension of a (twisted) finite p-group F by an algebraic torus T defined over a field k (of characteristic not p). In other words, we have an exact sequence
Denote a p-closure of k by k^{(p)} (see Definition 3.1).
Then
(a) \operatorname{ed}_k(G;p) \ge \min \dim (\rho) - \dim G, where the minimum is taken over all p-faithful linear representations \rho of G_{k^{(p)}} over k^{(p)}.
Now assume that G is the direct product of T and F. Then
(b) equality holds in (a), and
(c) over k^{(p)} the absolute essential dimension of G and the essential p-dimension coincide:
The equality \operatorname{ed}_{k^{(p)}}(G_{k^{(p)}};p)=\operatorname{ed}_k(G;p) follows from Lemma 3.3. Now we are assuming G=T \times F for a torus T and a p-group F over k, which is p-closed. Notice that a minimal p-faithful representation of F from Theorem 1.3(a) is also faithful, and therefore \operatorname{ed}_k(F;p)=\operatorname{ed}_k(F). Combining this with Corollary 10.2 and the additivity Theorem 8.1, we see
This completes the proof.
Let T be an algebraic torus defined over a p-closed field k = k^{(p)} of characteristic \ne p. Suppose \Gamma = \operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{sep}}/k) acts on the character lattice X(T) via a finite quotient \overline{\Gamma}. Then
where the minimum is taken over all exact sequences of \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}\overline{\Gamma}-lattices of the form
where P is permutation and X(T)_{(p)} stands for X(T) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}.
Let G be an extension of a p-group by a torus, defined over a field k of characteristic \ne p. Then
where the minimum is taken over all p-generically free representations \rho of G_{k^{(p)}} over k^{(p)}.
We call the field
a p-closure of K. A field K will be called p-closed if K=K^{(p)}.
K^{(p)} is a direct limit of finite extensions K_i/K of degree prime to p.
Every finite extension of K^{(p)} is separable of degree a power of p; in particular, K^{(p)} is perfect.
The cohomological dimension of \Psi=\operatorname{Gal}(K_{\operatorname{alg}}/K^{(p)}) is {\rm cd}_q(\Psi)=0 for any prime q\ne p.
? First note that K_{\operatorname{sep}} is the limit of the directed set \{K_{\operatorname{sep}}^N\} over all normal subgroups N \subset \Gamma of finite index. Let
This is a directed set, and since \Phi is Sylow, the index of N \Phi in \Gamma is prime to p. Therefore \mathcal{L} consists of finite separable extensions of K of degree prime to p. Moreover, K_{\operatorname{sep}}^{\Phi} is the direct limit of fields L in \mathcal{L}.
If \operatorname{char} k=0, K^{(p)}=K_{\operatorname{sep}}^{\Phi} and we are done. Otherwise suppose \operatorname{char} k=q\ne p. Let
\mathcal{E} consists of finite extensions of K of degree prime to p, because a purely inseparable extension has degree a power of q. One can check that \mathcal{E} forms a directed set.
Finally note that if a is purely inseparable over K_{\operatorname{sep}}^{\Phi} with minimal polynomial x^{q^{n}}-l (so that l\in K_{\operatorname{sep}}^{\Phi}), then l is already in some L\in \mathcal{L} since K_{\operatorname{sep}}^{\Phi} is the limit of \mathcal{L}. Thus a\in E=L(a) which is in \mathcal{E} and we conclude that K^{(p)} is the direct limit of \mathcal{E}.
? K^{(p)} is the purely inseparable closure of K_{\operatorname{sep}}^{\Phi} in K_{\operatorname{alg}} and K_{\operatorname{alg}}/K^{(p)} is separable, see [Win, 2.2.20]. Moreover, \operatorname{Gal}(K_{\operatorname{alg}}/K^{(p)})\simeq \operatorname{Gal}(K_{\operatorname{sep}}/K_{\operatorname{sep}}^{\Phi})=\Phi is a pro-p group and so every finite extension of K^{(p)} is separable of degree a power of p.
? See [serre-gc, Cor. 2, I. 3].
Let \mathcal{F} be limit-preserving and \alpha \in \mathcal{F}(K) an object. Denote the image of \alpha in \mathcal{F}(K^{(p)}) by \alpha_{K^{(p)}}.
\operatorname{ed}_k(\alpha;p)=\operatorname{ed}_k(\alpha_{K^{(p)}};p)= \operatorname{ed}_k(\alpha_{K^{(p)}}).
\operatorname{ed}_k(\mathcal{F};p)=\operatorname{ed}_{k^{(p)}}(\mathcal{F};p).
? The inequalities \operatorname{ed}(\alpha;p)\ge\operatorname{ed}(\alpha_{K^{(p)}};p)=\operatorname{ed}(\alpha_{K^{(p)}}) are clear from the definition and Proposition 3.2(b) since K^{(p)} has no finite extensions of degree prime to p. It remains to prove \operatorname{ed}(\alpha;p)\le\operatorname{ed}(\alpha_{K^{(p)}}). If L/K is finite of degree prime to p,
cf. [Me1, Proposition 1.5] and its proof. For the p-closure K^{(p)} this is similar and uses (Proof) repeatedly:
Suppose there is a subfield K_0\subset K^{(p)} and \alpha_{K^{(p)}} comes from an element \beta\in \mathcal{F}(K_0), so that \beta_{K^{(p)}}=\alpha_{K^{(p)}}. Write K^{(p)}=\lim\mathcal{L}, where \mathcal{L} is a direct system of finite prime to p extensions of K. Then K_0=\lim\mathcal{L}_0 with \mathcal{L}_0=\{L\cap K_0|L\in\mathcal{L}\} and by assumption on \mathcal{F}, \displaystyle{\mathcal{F}(K_0)=\lim_{L^\prime\in\mathcal{L}_0}\mathcal{F}(L^\prime)}. Thus there is a field L^\prime=L\cap K_0 (L\in \mathcal{L}) and \gamma\in\mathcal{F}(L^\prime) such that \gamma_{K_0}=\beta. Since \alpha_L and \gamma_L become equal over K^{(p)}, after possibly passing to a finite extension, we may assume they are equal over L which is finite of degree prime to p over K. Combining these constructions with (Proof) we see that
? This follows immediately from ?, taking \alpha of maximal essential p-dimension.
Let \mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}\colon \operatorname{Fields}/k \to \operatorname{Sets} be limit-preserving functors and \mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{G} a natural transformation. If the map
is bijective (resp. surjective) for any p-closed field extension K/k then
Assume the maps are surjective. By Proposition 3.2?, the natural transformation is p-surjective, in the terminology of [Me1], so we can apply [Me1, Prop. 1.5] to conclude \operatorname{ed}(\mathcal{F};p)\geq\operatorname{ed}(\mathcal{G};p).
Now assume the maps are bijective. Let \alpha be in \mathcal{F}(K) for some K/k and \beta its image in \mathcal{G}(K). We claim that
\operatorname{ed}(\alpha; p)=\operatorname{ed}(\beta; p).
First, by Lemma 3.3 we can assume that K is p-closed and it is enough to prove that \operatorname{ed}(\alpha)=\operatorname{ed}(\beta).
Assume that \beta comes from \beta_0\in \mathcal{G}(K_0) for some field K_0\subset K. Any finite prime to p extension of K_0 is isomorphic to a subfield of K (cf. [Me1, Lemma 6.1]) and so also any p-closure of K_0 (which has the same transcendence degree over k). We may therefore assume that K_0 is p-closed. By assumption \mathcal{F}(K_0)\rightarrow \mathcal{G}(K_0) and \mathcal{F}(K)\rightarrow \mathcal{G}(K) are bijective. The unique element \alpha_0\in\mathcal{F}(K_0) which maps to \beta_0 must therefore map to \alpha under the natural restriction map. This shows that \operatorname{ed}(\alpha)\le\operatorname{ed}(\beta). The other inequality always holds and the claim follows.
Taking \alpha maximal with respect to its essential dimension, we obtain \operatorname{ed}(\mathcal{F};p)=\operatorname{ed}(\alpha;p)=\operatorname{ed}(\beta;p)\le\operatorname{ed}(\mathcal{G};p).
Let A be an algebraic group of multiplicative type over k. Let \Delta(A) be the \Gamma-invariant subgroup of X(A) generated by elements of the form x - \gamma(x), as x ranges over X(A) and \gamma ranges over \Gamma. Define
Let G be an extension of a finite p-group by a torus, defined over a field k, as in (?). Then
where Z(G) denotes the centre of G.
Let A be an algebraic group of multiplicative type over k.
\operatorname{Split}_k(A) is split over k,
\operatorname{Split}_k(A) = A if and only if A is split over k,
If B is a k-subgroup of A then \operatorname{Split}_k(B) \subset \operatorname{Split}_k(A).
For A=A_1 \times A_2, \operatorname{Split}_k(A_1 \times A_2) = \operatorname{Split}_k(A_1) \times \operatorname{Split}_k(A_2),
If A[p] \ne \{ 1 \} and A is split over a Galois extension l/k, such that \overline{\Gamma}=\operatorname{Gal}(l/k) is a p-group, then \operatorname{Split}_k(A) \ne \{ 1 \}.
Parts ?, ?, ? and ? easily follow from the definition.
Proof of ?: By part ?, it suffices to show that \operatorname{Split}_k(A[p]) \ne \{ 1 \}. Hence, we may assume that A = A[p] or equivalently, that X(A) is a finite-dimensional \mathbb{F}_p-vector space on which the p-group \overline{\Gamma} acts. Any such action is upper-triangular, relative to some \mathbb{F}_p-basis e_1, \dots, e_n of X(A); see, e.g., [serre-rep, Proposition 26, p.64]. That is,
for every i = 1, \dots, n and every \gamma \in \overline{\Gamma}. Our goal is to show that \Delta(A) \ne X(A). Indeed, every element of the form x - \gamma(x) is contained in the \Gamma-invariant submodule \operatorname{Span}(e_2, \dots, e_n). Hence, these elements cannot generate all of X(A).
Suppose G is an extension of a p-group by a torus, defined over a p-closed field k. Suppose N is a normal subgroup of G defined over k. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) N is finite of order prime to p,
(ii) N \cap C(G) = \{ 1 \},
(iii) N \cap Z(G)[p] = \{ 1 \},
(i) \Longrightarrow (ii) is obvious, since C(G) is a p-group.
(ii) \Longrightarrow (iii). Assume the contrary: A \colonequals N \cap Z(G)[p] \neq \{ 1 \}. By Lemma 4.3
contradicting (ii).
Our proof of the implication (iii) \Longrightarrow (i), will rely on the following
Claim: Let M be a non-trivial normal finite p-subgroup of G such that the commutator (G^0,M)=\{1\}. Then M \cap Z(G)[p] \neq \{1\}.
To prove the claim, note that M(k_{\operatorname{sep}}) is non-trivial and the conjugation action of G(k_{\operatorname{sep}}) on M(k_{\operatorname{sep}}) factors through an action of the p-group (G/G^0)(k_{\operatorname{sep}}). Thus each orbit has p^n elements for some n \ge 0; consequently, the number of fixed points is divisible by p. The intersection (M \cap Z(G))(k_{\operatorname{sep}}) is precisely the fixed point set for this action; hence, M \cap Z(G)[p] \neq \{ 1 \}. This proves the claim.
We now continue with the proof of the implication (iii) \Longrightarrow (i). For notational convenience, set T \colonequals G^0. Assume that N\triangleleft G and N \cap Z(G)[p] = \{ 1 \}. Applying the claim to the normal subgroup M \colonequals (N \cap T)[p] of G, we see that (N\cap T)[p] = \{ 1 \}, i.e., N \cap T is a finite group of order prime to p. The exact sequence
where \overline{N} is the image of N in G/T, shows that N is finite. Now observe that for every r \ge 1, the commutator (N, T[p^r]) is a p-subgroup of N \cap T. Thus (N, T[p^r]) = \{ 1 \} for every r \ge 1. We claim that this implies (N, T) = \{ 1 \} by Zariski density. If N is smooth, this is straightforward; see [Bo, Proposition 2.4, p. 59]. If N is not smooth, note that the map c \colon N \times T \to G sending (n, t) to the commutator n t n^{-1} t^{-1} descends to \overline{c} \colon \overline{N} \times T \to G (indeed, N \cap T clearly commutes with T). Since |\overline{N}| is a power of p and \operatorname{char}(k) \ne p, \overline{N} is smooth over k, and we can pass to the separable closure k_{\operatorname{sep}} and apply the usual Zariski density argument to show that the image of \overline{c} is trivial.
We thus conclude that N \cap T is central in N. Since \gcd(|N\cap T|, \overline{N})=1, by [Sch, Corollary 5.4] the extension (?) splits, i.e., N \simeq (N \cap T) \times \overline{N}. This turns \overline{N} into a subgroup of G satisfying the conditions of the claim. Therefore \overline{N} is trivial and N=N\cap T is a finite group of order prime to p, as claimed.
Let k = k^{(p)} be a p-closed field and G be an extension of a p-group by a torus, defined over k, as in (?). A finite-dimensional representation \rho of G defined over k is p-faithful if and only \rho_{| \, C(G)} is faithful.
Let k be a p-closed field, and G be an extension of a p-group by a torus, as in (?).
Then the dimension of every irreducible representation of G over k is a power of p.
Proposition 5.1 holds if G is a finite p-group.
Choose a finite Galois field extension l/k such that (i) G is constant over l and (ii) every irreducible linear representation of G over l is absolutely irreducible. Since k is assumed to be p-closed, [l:k] is a power of p.
Let A\colonequals k[G]^\ast be the dual Hopf algebra of the coordinate algebra of G. By [Ja, Section 8.6] a G-module structure on a k-vector space V is equivalent to an A-module structure on V. Now assume that V is an irreducible A-module and let W\subseteq V\otimes_k l be an irreducible A\otimes_k l-submodule. Then by [Ka, Theorem 5.22] there exists a divisor e of [l:k] such that
where \sigma_i \in \operatorname{Gal}(l/k) and \{{}^{\sigma_i}W \mid 1 \leq i \leq r\} are the pairwise non-isomorphic Galois conjugates of W. By our assumption on k, e and r are powers of p and by our choice of l, \dim_l W = \dim_l({}^{\sigma_1}W) = \ldots = \dim_l({}^{\sigma_r}W) is also a power of p, since it divides the order of G_l.
Hence, so is \dim_k(V) = \dim_l V\otimes l = e(\dim_l {}^{\sigma_1}W+ \dotsb + \dim_l {}^{\sigma_r}W).
Let G be an algebraic group defined over a field k and
be an ascending sequence of finite k-subgroups whose union \cup_{n \ge 1} F_n is Zariski dense in G. If \rho \colon G \to \operatorname{GL}(V) is an irreducible representation of G defined over k then \rho_{| \, F_i} is irreducible for sufficiently large integers i.
For each d = 1, ..., \dim(V) - 1 consider the G-action on the Grassmannian \operatorname{Gr}(d, V) of d-dimensional subspaces of V. Let X^{(d)} = \operatorname{Gr}(d, V)^G and X_i^{(d)} = \operatorname{Gr}(d, V)^{F_i} be the subvariety of d-dimensional G- (resp. F_i-)invariant subspaces of V. Then X_1^{(d)} \supseteq X_2^{(d)} \supseteq \ldots and since the union of the groups F_i is dense in G,
By the Noetherian property of \operatorname{Gr}(d, V), we have X^{(d)} = X_{m_d}^{(d)} for some m_d \ge 0.
Since V does not have any G-invariant d-dimensional k-subspaces, we know that X^{(d)}(k) = \emptyset. Thus, X_{m_d}^{(d)} (k) = \emptyset, i.e., V does not have any F_{m_d}-invariant d-dimensional k-subspaces. Setting m \colonequals \max \{ m_1, \dots, m_{\dim(V) - 1} \}, we see that \rho_{| \, F_m} is irreducible.
Let 1 \to T \to G \xrightarrow{\pi} F \to 1 be an extension of a p-group F by a torus T over k. Then G has a finite p-subgroup F' with \pi(F')= F.
Denote by \widetilde{\operatorname{Ex}}^1(F,T) the group of equivalence classes of extensions of F by T. We claim that \widetilde{\operatorname{Ex}}^1(F,T) is torsion. Let \operatorname{Ex}^1(F,T)\subset\widetilde{\operatorname{Ex}}^1(F,T) be the classes of extensions which have a scheme-theoretic section (i.e. G(K)\to F(K) is surjective for all K/k). There is a natural isomorphism \operatorname{Ex}^1(F,T)\simeq H^2(F,T), where the latter one denotes Hochschild cohomology, see [DG, III. 6.2, Proposition]. By [Sc2] the usual restriction-corestriction arguments can be applied in Hochschild cohomology and in particular, m\cdot H^2(F,T)=0 where m is the order of F. Now recall that M\mapsto\widetilde{\operatorname{Ex}}^i(F,M) and M\mapsto\operatorname{Ex}^i(F,M) are both derived functors of the crossed homomorphisms M\mapsto\operatorname{Ex}^0(F,M), where in the first case M is in the category of F-module sheaves and in the second, F-module functors, cf. [DG, III. 6.2]. Since F is finite and T an affine scheme, by [Sc1, Satz 1.2 & Satz 3.3] there is an exact sequence of F-module schemes 1\to T \to M_1 \to M_2 \to 1 and an exact sequence \operatorname{Ex}^0(F,M_1)\to\operatorname{Ex}^0(F,M_2)\to\widetilde{\operatorname{Ex}}^1(F,T)\to H^2(F,M_1)\simeq\operatorname{Ex}^1(F,M_1). The F-module sequence also induces a long exact sequence on \operatorname{Ex}(F,*) and we have a diagram
An element in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ex}}^1(F,T) can thus be killed first in \operatorname{Ex}^1(F,M_1) so it comes from \operatorname{Ex}^0(F,M_2). Then kill its image in \operatorname{Ex}^1(F,T)\simeq H^2(F,T), so it comes from \operatorname{Ex}^0(F,M_1), hence is 0 in \widetilde{\operatorname{Ex}}^1(F,T). In particular we see that multiplying twice by the order m of F, m^2\cdot\widetilde{\operatorname{Ex}}^1(F,T)=0. This proves the claim.
Now let us consider the exact sequence 1\to N\to T\xrightarrow{\times m^2} T\to 1, where N is the kernel of multiplication by m^2. Clearly N is finite and we have an induced exact sequence
which shows that the given extension G comes from an extension F' of F by N. Then G is the pushout of F' by N\to T and we can identify F' with a subgroup of G.
Suppose G \to Q is a p-isogeny of algebraic groups over k. Then
For any p-closed field K containing k the natural map H^1(K,G) \to H^1(K,Q) is bijective.
\operatorname{ed}_k (G;p) = \operatorname{ed}_k (Q;p).
? Let N be the kernel of G\to Q and K=K^{(p)} be a p-closed field over k. Since K_{\operatorname{sep}}=K_{\operatorname{alg}} (see Proposition 3.2(b)), the sequence of K_{\operatorname{sep}}-points 1\to N(K_{\operatorname{sep}})\to G(K_{\operatorname{sep}})\to Q(K_{\operatorname{sep}})\to 1 is exact. By Lemma 6.3, the order of N(K_{\operatorname{sep}}) is not divisible by p and therefore coprime to the order of \Psi=\operatorname{Gal}(K_{\operatorname{sep}}/K). Thus H^1(K,N)=\{1\} (Lemma 6.5). Similarly, if _cN is the group N twisted by a cocycle c:\Psi\to G, _cN(K_{\operatorname{sep}})=N(K_{\operatorname{sep}}) is of order prime to p and H^1(K,\,_cN)=\{1\}. It follows that H^1(K,G)\to H^1(K,Q) is injective, cf. [serre-gc, I.5.5].
Surjectivity is a consequence of [serre-gc, I. Proposition 46] and the fact that the q-cohomological dimension of \Psi is 0 for any divisor q of |N(K_{\operatorname{sep}})| (Proposition 3.2).
This concludes the proof of part ?. Part ? immediately follows from (a) and Proposition 3.4.
Let E_6^{sc}, E_7^{sc} be simply connected simple groups of type E_6, E_7 respectively. In [GR, 9.4, 9.6] it is shown that if k is an algebraically closed field of characteristic \ne 2 and 3 respectively, then
For the adjoint groups E_6^{ad}=E_6^{sc}/\mu_3, E_7^{ad}=E_7^{sc}/\mu_2 we therefore have
Let N be a finite algebraic group over k (\operatorname{char} k\ne p). The following are equivalent:
p does not divide the order of N.
p does not divide the order of N(k_{\operatorname{alg}}).
If N is also assumed to be abelian, denote by N[p] the p-torsion subgroup of N. The following are equivalent to the above conditions.
N[p](k_{\operatorname{alg}})=\{1\}.
N[p](k^{(p)})=\{1\}.
?\iff?: Let N^\circ be the connected component of N and N^{et}=N/N^\circ the étale quotient. Recall that the order of a finite algebraic group N over k is defined as |N|=\dim_kk[N] and |N|=|N^\circ||N^{et}|, see for example [Ta]. If \operatorname{char} k=0, N^\circ is trivial, if \operatorname{char} k=q\ne p is positive, |N^\circ| is a power of q. Hence N is of order prime to p if and only if the étale algebraic group N^{et} is. Since N^\circ is connected and finite, N^\circ(k_{\operatorname{alg}})=\{1\} and so N(k_{\operatorname{alg}}) is of order prime to p if and only if the group N^{et}(k_{\operatorname{alg}}) is. Then |N^{et}|=\dim_k k[N^{et}]=|N^{et}(k_{\operatorname{alg}})|, cf. [Bou, V.29 Corollary].
?\iff6.3 \Rightarrow 6.3 are clear.
6.3 \Leftarrow 6.3: Suppose N[p](k_{\operatorname{alg}}) is nontrivial. The Galois group \Gamma=\operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{alg}}/k^{(p)}) is a pro-p group and acts on the p-group N[p](k_{\operatorname{alg}}). The image of \Gamma in \operatorname{Aut}(N[p](k_{\operatorname{alg}})) is again a (finite) p-group and the size of every \Gamma-orbit in N[p](k_{\operatorname{alg}}) is a power of p. Since \Gamma fixes the identity in N[p](k_{\operatorname{alg}}), this is only possible if it also fixes at least p-1 more elements. It follows that N[p](k^{(p)}) contains at least p elements, a contradiction.
Part 6.3 could be replaced by the slightly stronger statement that N[p](k^{(p)}\capk_{\operatorname{sep}})=\{1\}, but we won’t need this in the sequel.
Let \Gamma be a profinite group, G an (abstract) finite \Gamma-group and |\Gamma|, |G| coprime. Then H^1(\Gamma,G)=\{1\}.
If a representation \rho \colon G \to \operatorname{GL} (V) is p-faithful, then G/\ker(\rho) \to \operatorname{GL}(V) is generically free. In other words, \rho is p-generically free.
Since \ker(\rho) has order prime to p, its image under the projection map G = T\times F \to F is trivial. Hence \ker(\rho) \subset T and T/N is again a torus. So without loss of generality, we may assume \rho is faithful.
Let V_1\subsetneq V be a closed subset of V such that T acts freely on V \setminus V_1. Let n = p^r be the order of F and V_2 be the (finite) union of the fixed point sets of 1 \ne g \in T[n] \times F. Here as usual, T[n] denotes the n-torsion subgroup of T. Since \rho is faithful none of these fixed point sets are all of V, hence U\colonequals V \setminus (V_1\cup V_2) is a dense open subset of V.
We claim that \operatorname{Stab}_G(v) = \{ 1 \} for every v \in U. Indeed, assume 1 \ne g = (t, f) \in \operatorname{Stab}_G(v). Since v \not \in V_2, t^n \ne 1. Then 1 \ne g^n = (t^n, 1) lies in both T and \operatorname{Stab}_G(v). Since v \not \in V_1, this is a contradiction.
Let G be a finite algebraic group over a p-closed field k=k^{(p)}. Then G has a Sylow-p subgroup G_p defined over k and
where the minimum is taken over all faithful representations of G_p over k.
By assumption, \Gamma=\operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{sep}}/k) is a pro-p group. It acts on the set of Sylow-p subgroups of G(k_{\operatorname{sep}}). Since the number of such subgroups is prime to p, \Gamma fixes at least one of them and by Galois descent one obtains a subgroup G_p of G. By Lemma 6.3, G_p is a Sylow-p subgroup of G. The first equality \operatorname{ed}_k(G;p)=\operatorname{ed}_k(G_p;p) is shown in [mr1, 4.1] (the reference is for smooth groups but can be generalized to the non-smooth case as well). The minimal G_p-representation \rho from Theorem 1.3(b) is faithful and thus \operatorname{ed}_k(G_p)\le \dim (\rho), see for example [BF, Prop. 4.11]. The Corollary follows.
Two Sylow-p subgroups of G defined over k=k^{(p)} do not need to be isomorphic over k.
Let G_1 and G_2 be direct products of tori and p-groups over a field k. Then \operatorname{ed}_k(G_1 \times G_2; p) = \operatorname{ed}_k(G_1; p) + \operatorname{ed}_k(G_2; p).
For i = 1, 2 let G_i be an algebraic group defined over k and C_i be a central k-subgroup of G_i. Assume that C_i is isomorphic to \mu_p^{r_i} over k for some r_1, r_2 \ge 0. Then
For i = 1, 2 let \pi_i \colon G_1 \times G_2 \to G_i be the natural projection and \epsilon_i \colon G_i \to G_1 \times G_2 be the natural inclusion.
If \rho_i is a d_i-dimensional k-representation of G_i whose restriction to C_i is faithful, then clearly \rho_1 \circ \pi_1 \oplus \rho_2 \circ \pi_2 is a d_1 + d_2-dimensional representation of G_1 \times G_2 whose restriction to C_1 \times C_2 is faithful. This shows that
To prove the opposite inequality, let \rho \colon G_1 \times G_2 \to \operatorname{GL}(V) be a k-representation such that \rho_{| \, C_1 \times C_2} is faithful, and of minimal dimension
with this property. Let \rho_1,\rho_2,\dotsc,\rho_n denote the irreducible decomposition factors in a decomposition series of \rho. Since C_1 \times C_2 is central in G_1 \times G_2, each \rho_i restricts to a multiplicative character of C_1 \times C_2 which we will denote by \chi_i. Moreover since C_1 \times C_2\simeq \mu_p^{r_1+r_2} is linearly reductive \rho_{| \, C_1 \times C_2} is a direct sum \chi_1^{\oplus d_1} \oplus \dotsb \oplus \chi_n^{\oplus d_n} where d_i=\dim V_i. It is easy to see that the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) \rho_{| \, C_1 \times C_2} is faithful,
(ii) \chi_1, \dots, \chi_n generate (C_1 \times C_2)^* as an abelian group.
In particular we may assume that \rho=\rho_1\oplus \dotsb \oplus \rho_n. Since C_i is isomorphic to \mu_p^{r_i}, we will think of (C_1 \times C_2)^* as a \mathbb{F}_p-vector space of dimension r_1 + r_2. Since (i) \Leftrightarrow (ii) above, we know that \chi_1, \dots, \chi_n span (C_1 \times C_2)^*. In fact, they form a basis of (C_1 \times C_2)^*, i.e., n = r_1 + r_2. Indeed, if they were not linearly independent we would be able to drop some of the terms in the irreducible decomposition \rho_1 \oplus \dots \oplus \rho_n, so that the restriction of the resulting representation to C_1 \times C_2 would still be faithful, contradicting the minimality of \dim(\rho).
We claim that it is always possible to replace each \rho_j by \rho_j', where \rho_j' is either \rho_j \circ \epsilon_1 \circ \pi_1 or \rho_j \circ \epsilon_2 \circ \pi_2 such that the restriction of the resulting representation \rho' = \rho_1' \oplus \dots \oplus \rho_n' to C_1 \times C_2 remains faithful. Since \dim(\rho_i) = \dim(\rho_i'), we see that \dim(\rho') = \dim(\rho). Moreover, \rho' will then be of the form \alpha_1 \circ \pi_1 \oplus \alpha_2 \circ \pi_2, where \alpha_i is a representation of G_i whose restriction to C_i is faithful. Thus, if we can prove the above claim, we will have
as desired.
To prove the claim, we will define \rho_j' recursively for j = 1, \dots, n. Suppose \rho_1', \dots, \rho_{j-1}' have already be defined, so that the restriction of
to C_1 \times C_2 is faithful. For notational simplicity, we will assume that \rho_1 = \rho_1', \dots, \rho_{j-1} = \rho_{j-1}'. Note that
Since \chi_1, \dots, \chi_n form a basis (C_1 \times C_2)^* as an \mathbb{F}_p-vector space, we see that (a) \chi_j \circ \epsilon_1 \circ \pi_1 or (b) \chi_j \circ \epsilon_2 \circ \pi_2 does not lie in \operatorname{Span}_{\mathbb{F}_p}(\chi_1, \dots, \chi_{j-1}, \chi_{j+1}, \dots, \chi_n). Set
Using the equivalence of (i) and (ii) above, we see that the restriction of
to C is faithful. This completes the proof of the claim and thus of Lemma 8.2.
Let \Gamma=\operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{sep}}/k) and let M,L be \mathbb{Z}\Gamma-lattices. Then the following statements are equivalent:
L_{(p)}\simeq M_{(p)}.
There exists an injective map \phi\colon L \to M of \mathbb{Z}\Gamma-modules with cokernel Q finite of order prime to p.
There exists a p-isogeny \operatorname{Diag}(M) \to \operatorname{Diag}(L).
The equivalence ? \Leftrightarrow ? is clear from the anti-equivalence of \operatorname{Diag}.
The implication ? \Rightarrow ? follows from Q_{(p)}=0 and that tensoring with \mathbb{Z}_{(p)} is exact.
For the implication ? \Rightarrow ? we use that L and M can be considered as subsets of L_{(p)} (resp. M_{(p)}). The image of L under a map \alpha \colon L_{(p)} \to M_{(p)} of \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}\Gamma-modules lands in \frac{1}{m} M for some m\in \mathbb{N} (prime to p) and the index of \alpha(L) in \frac{1}{m}M is finite and prime to p if \alpha is surjective. Since \frac{1}{m}M\simeq M as \mathbb{Z}\Gamma-modules the claim follows.
Let G be an abelian group which is an extension of a p-group by a torus over k and \Gamma \colonequals \operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{sep}}/k) be the absolute Galois group of k=k^{(p)}. Let \Gamma act through a finite quotient \overline{\Gamma} on X(G). Then
where the minimum is taken over all permutation \mathbb{Z}\overline{\Gamma}-lattices L which admit a map of \mathbb{Z}\overline{\Gamma}-modules to X(G) with cokernel finite of order prime to p. If G is a torus, then the minimum can also be taken over all \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}\overline{\Gamma}-lattices L which admit a surjective map of \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}\overline{\Gamma}-modules to X(G)_{(p)}.
Let us prove the first claim. In view of Theorem 1.3(a) it suffices to show that the least dimension of a p-faithful representation of G_{k^{(p)}} over k^{(p)} is equal to the least rank of a permutation \mathbb{Z}\overline{\Gamma}-module L which admits a map to X(G) with cokernel finite of order prime to p.
Assume we have such a map L\to X(G). Using the anti-equivalence \operatorname{Diag} we obtain a p-isogeny G \to \operatorname{Diag}(L). We can embed the quasi-split torus \operatorname{Diag}(L) in \operatorname{GL}_n where n=\operatorname{rk} L [voskresenskii, Section 6.1]. This yields a p-faithful representation of G of dimension \operatorname{rk} L.
Conversely let \rho \colon G \to \operatorname{GL}(V) be a p-faithful representation of G. Since G_{\operatorname{sep}} is diagonalizable, there exist characters \chi_1,\dotsc,\chi_n \in X(G) such that G acts on V_{\operatorname{sep}} via diagonal matrices with entries \chi_1(g),\dotsc,\chi_n(g) (for g \in G) with respect to a suitable basis of V_{\operatorname{sep}}. Moreover \overline{\Gamma} permutes the set \Lambda \colonequals \{\chi_1,\dotsc,\chi_n\}. Define a map \phi \colon \mathbb{Z}[\Lambda] \to X(G) of \mathbb{Z}\overline{\Gamma}-modules by sending the basis element \chi_i\in \Lambda of L\colonequals \mathbb{Z}[\Lambda] to itself. Then the p-faithfulness of \rho implies that the cokernel of \phi is finite and of order prime to p. Moreover \operatorname{rk} L = |\Lambda| \leq n= \dim V.
Now consider the case where G is a torus. Assume we have a surjective map \alpha \colon L \to X(G)_{(p)} of \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}\overline{\Gamma}-modules where L=\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}[\Lambda] is permutation, \Lambda a \overline{\Gamma}-set. Then \alpha(\Lambda)\subseteq \frac{1}{m}X(G) for some m \in \mathbb{N} prime to p (note that \frac{1}{m}X(G) can be considered as a subset of X(G)_{(p)} since X(G) is torsion free). By construction the induced map \mathbb{Z}[\Lambda] \to \frac{1}{m}X(G) \simeq X(G) becomes surjective after localization at p, hence its cokernel is finite of order prime to p.
Let A be a finite (twisted) cyclic p-group over k. Let l/k be a minimal Galois splitting field of A, and \Gamma \colonequals \operatorname{Gal}(l/k). Then
Since [l:k] is a power of p, l^{(p)}/k^{(p)} is a Galois extension of the same degree and the same Galois group as l/k. So we can assume k=k^{(p)}.
By Corollary 9.2 \operatorname{ed}(A;p) is equal to the least cardinality of a \Gamma-set \Lambda such that there exists a map \phi \colon \mathbb{Z}[\Lambda]\to X(A) of \mathbb{Z}\Gamma-modules with cokernel finite of order prime to p. The group X(A) is a (cyclic) p-group, hence \phi must be surjective. Moreover \Gamma acts faithfully on X(A). Surjectivity of \phi implies that some element \lambda \in \Lambda maps to a generator a of X(A). Hence |\Lambda|\geq|\Gamma \lambda|\geq |\Gamma a| = |\Gamma|. Conversely we have a surjective homomorphism \mathbb{Z}[\Gamma a] \to X(A) that sends a to itself. Hence the claim follows.
In the case of twisted cyclic groups of order 4 Corollary 9.3 is due to Rost [Ro] (see also [BF, Theorem 7.6]), and in the case of cyclic groups of order 8 to Bayarmagnai [Ba]. The case of constant groups of arbitrary prime power order is due to Florence [Fl]; it is now a special case of the Karpenko-Merkurjev Theorem 1.1.
Let T,T' be k-tori. If the lattices X(T), X(T') belong to the same genus then
Let \operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{sep}}/k) act through a finite quotient \overline{\Gamma} on X(T) and X(T'). By assumption there exists a \mathbb{Z} \overline{\Gamma}-lattice L in the genus of \mathbb{Z} \overline{\Gamma} such that X(T)\oplus \mathbb{Z} \overline{\Gamma} \simeq X(T')\oplus L. The torus S=\operatorname{Diag}(\mathbb{Z} \overline{\Gamma}) has a generically free representation of dimension \dim S, hence \operatorname{ed}_k(S)=0. Since L is a direct summand of \mathbb{Z}\overline{\Gamma} \oplus \mathbb{Z}\overline{\Gamma} the torus S'\colonequals \operatorname{Diag}(L) has \operatorname{ed}_k(S')\leq \operatorname{ed}_k(S\times S)\leq 0 as well, where the first inequality follows from [BF, Remarks 1.16 (b)]. Therefore
and similarly \operatorname{ed}_k(T')\leq \operatorname{ed}_k(T). Hence \operatorname{ed}_k(T)=\operatorname{ed}_k(T'). A similar argument shows that \operatorname{ed}_k(T;\ell)=\operatorname{ed}_k(T';\ell) for any prime \ell. This concludes the proof.
Let k=k^{(p)} be a p-closed field and T a k-torus. Then
where the minimum is taken over all p-faithful representations of T.
The second equality follows from Theorem 1.3(a) and the inequality \operatorname{ed}_k(T;p)\leq \operatorname{ed}_k(T) is clear. Hence it suffices to show \operatorname{ed}_k(T)\leq \operatorname{ed}_k(T;p). Let \rho \colon T \to \operatorname{GL}(V) be a p-faithful representation of minimal dimension so that \operatorname{ed}_k(T;p)=\dim \rho - \dim T. The representation \rho can be considered as a faithful representation of the torus T'= T/N where N\colonequals \ker \rho is finite of order prime to p. By construction the character lattices X(T) and X(T') are isomorphic after localization at p. Since \operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{sep}}/k) is a (profinite) p-group it follows that X(T) and X(T') belong to the same genus. Hence by Proposition 10.1 we have \operatorname{ed}_k(T')=\operatorname{ed}_k(T). Moreover \operatorname{ed}_k(T')\leq \dim \rho - \dim T', since \rho is a generically free representation of T'. This finishes the proof.
The following example shows that “p-faithful" cannot be replaced by “faithful" in the statement of Theorem 1.3(a) (and Corollary 10.2), even in the case where G is a torus.
Let p be a prime number such that the ideal class group of \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_p) is non-trivial (this applies to all but finitely many primes, e.g. to p=23). This means that the subring R=\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_p] \subseteq \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_p) of algebraic integers has non-principal ideals. Let k be a field which admits a Galois extension l of degree p and let \Gamma\colonequals \operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{sep}}/k), \overline{\Gamma}\colonequals \operatorname{Gal}(l/k)\simeq \Gamma/\Gamma_l \simeq C_p where \Gamma_l = \operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{sep}}/l) and C_p denotes the cyclic group of order p. We endow the ring R with a \mathbb{Z} \Gamma-module structure through the quotient map \Gamma \to \overline{\Gamma} by letting a generator of \overline{\Gamma} act on R via multiplication by \zeta_p. The k-torus Q\colonequals \operatorname{Diag}(R) is isomorphic to the Weil restriction R_{l/k}(\operatorname{\mathbb{G}}_m) and has a p-dimensional faithful representation. We will construct a k-torus G with a p-isogeny G\to Q, such that G does not have a p-dimensional faithful representation. Let I be a non-principal ideal of R. We may consider I as a \mathbb{Z} \Gamma-module and set G\colonequals \operatorname{Diag}(I). We first show that I and R become isomorphic as \mathbb{Z}\Gamma-modules after localization at p. For this purpose let I^\ast=\{x \in \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_p) \mid xI\subseteq R\} denote the inverse fractional ideal. We have I\oplus I^\ast \simeq R \oplus R by [CR, Theorem 34.31]. The Krull-Schmidt Theorem [CR, Theorem 36.1] for \mathbb{Z}_{(p)} C_p-lattices implies I_{(p)} \simeq R_{(p)}, hence the claim. Therefore by Lemma 9.1 there exists a p-isogeny G\to Q, which shows in particular that G has a p-faithful representation of dimension p. Assume that G has a p-dimensional faithful representation. Similarly as in the proof of Corollary 9.2 this would imply the existence of a surjective map of \mathbb{Z}\Gamma-lattices \mathbb{Z}\overline{\Gamma}\to I. However such a map cannot exist since I is non-principal, hence non-cyclic as a \mathbb{Z}\Gamma-module.
Let T be a torus over k, k^{(p)} a p-closure and \Gamma=\operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{alg}}/k^{(p)}). The following are equivalent:
\operatorname{ed}_k(T;p)=0.
\operatorname{ed}_{k^{(p)}}(T;p)=0.
\operatorname{ed}_{k^{(p)}}(T)=0
H^1(K,T)=\{1\} for any p-closed field K containing k.
X(T)_{(p)} is a \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}\Gamma-permutation module.
X(T) is an invertible \mathbb{Z}\Gamma-lattice (i.e a direct summand of a permutation lattice).
There is a torus S over k^{(p)} and an isomorphism
for some étale algebra E over k^{(p)}.
A prime p for which any of these statements fails is called a torsion prime of T.
? \Leftrightarrow ? is Lemma 3.3.
? \Leftrightarrow ? follows from [Me1, Proposition 4.4].
? \Rightarrow ? is clear.
? \Rightarrow ?: This follows from Corollary 9.2. Indeed, \operatorname{ed}_k(T;p)=0 implies the existence of a \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}\Gamma-permutation lattice L together with a surjective homomorphism \alpha:L\to X(T)_{(p)} and \operatorname{rk} L = \operatorname{rk} X(T)_{(p)}. It follows that \alpha is injective and X(T)_{(p)}\simeq L.
? \Rightarrow ?: Let L be a \mathbb{Z}\Gamma-permutation lattice such that L_{(p)}\simeq X(T)_{(p)}. Then by [CR, Corollary 31.7] there is a \mathbb{Z}\Gamma-lattice L^\prime such that L\oplus L\simeq X(T)\oplus L^\prime.
? \Rightarrow ?: The torus R=\operatorname{R}_{E/k^{(p)}}(\operatorname{\mathbb{G}}_m) has a faithful representation of dimension \dim R (over k^{(p)}) and hence \operatorname{ed}_{k^{(p)}}(R) = 0. Since T_{k^{(p)}} is a direct factor of R we must have \operatorname{ed}_{k^{(p)}}(T)\le 0 by [BF, Remarks 1.16 b)].
? \Leftrightarrow ?: A permutation lattice P can be written as
for some (separable) extensions L_i/k^{(p)} and \Gamma_{L_i}=\operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{alg}}/L_i). Set E=L_1\times\cdots\times L_m. The torus corresponding to P is exactly \operatorname{R}_{E/k^{(p)}}(\operatorname{\mathbb{G}}_m), cf. [voskresenskii, 3. Example 19].
Let T be a torus over k of rank <p-1. Then \operatorname{ed}_k(T;p)=0. This follows from the fact that there is no non-trivial integral representation of dimension <p-1 of any p-group, see for example [AP, Satz]. Thus any finite quotient of \Gamma=\operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{alg}}/k^{(p)}) acts trivially on X(T) and so does \Gamma.
The equivalence of parts ? and ? in Theorem 11.1 can also be deduced from [CTS, Proposition 7.4].
Let p be an odd prime, T an algebraic torus over k, and \Gamma = \operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{alg}}/k^{(p)}).
\operatorname{ed}(T;p) \leq 1 iff there exists a \Gamma-set \Lambda and an m\in \mathbb{Z}[\Lambda] fixed by \Gamma such that X(T)_{(p)} \cong \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}[\Lambda] / \langle m \rangle as \mathbb{Z}_{(p)} \Gamma-lattices.
\operatorname{ed}(T;p)=1 iff m=\sum a_{\lambda} \lambda from part ? is not 0 and for any \lambda \in \Lambda fixed by \Gamma, a_{\lambda}=0 \mod p.
If \operatorname{ed}(T;p)=1 then T_{k^{(p)}}\cong T' \times S where \operatorname{ed}_{k^{(p)}}(S;p)=0 and X(T')_{(p)} is an indecomposable \mathbb{Z}_{(p)} \Gamma-lattice, and \operatorname{ed}_{k^{(p)}}(T';p)=1.
? If \operatorname{ed}(T;p)=1, then by Corollary 9.2 there is a map of \mathbb{Z} \Gamma-lattices from \mathbb{Z}[\Lambda] to X(T) which becomes surjective after localization at p and whose kernel is generated by one element. Since the kernel is stable under \Gamma, any element of \Gamma sends a generator m to either itself or its negative. Since p is odd, m must be fixed by \Gamma.
The \operatorname{ed}(T;p)=0 case and the converse follows from Theorem 1.4 or Corollary 9.2.
? Assume we are in the situation of ?, and say \lambda_0 \in \Lambda is fixed by \Gamma and a_{\lambda_0} is not 0 \mod p. Then X(T)_{(p)} \cong \mathbb{Z}_{(p)} [\Lambda - \{ \lambda_0 \}], so by Theorem 11.1 we have \operatorname{ed}(T;p)=0.
Conversely, assume \operatorname{ed}(T;p)=0. Then by Theorem 11.1, we have an exact sequence
0 \to \langle m \rangle \to \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}[\Lambda] \to \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}[\Lambda'] \to 0
for some \Gamma-set \Lambda' with one fewer element than \Lambda. We have
by [CTS, Key Lemma 2.1(i)] together with the Change of Rings Theorem [CR, 8.16]; therefore this sequence splits. In other words, there exists a \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}\Gamma-module homomorphism f \colon \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}[\Lambda] \to \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}[\Lambda] such that the image of f is \langle m \rangle and f(m) = m. Then we can define c_{\lambda} \in \mathbb{Z}_{(p)} by f(\lambda) = c_{\lambda} m. Note that f(\gamma(\lambda)) = f(\lambda) and thus
for every \lambda \in \Lambda and \gamma \in \Gamma. If m = \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda} a_{\lambda} \lambda, as in the statement of the theorem, then f(m) = m translates into
Since every \Gamma-orbit in \Lambda has a power of p elements, reducing modulo p, we obtain
This shows that a_{\lambda} \ne 0 modulo p, for some \lambda \in \Lambda^{\Gamma}, as claimed.
? Decompose X(T)_{(p)} uniquely into a direct sum of indecomposable \mathbb{Z}_{(p)} \Gamma-lattices by the Krull-Schmidt theorem [CR, Theorem 36.1]. Since \operatorname{ed}(T;p)=1, and the essential p-dimension of tori is additive (Thm.8.1), all but one of these summands are permutation \mathbb{Z}_{(p)} \Gamma-lattices. Now by [CR, 31.12], we can lift this decomposition to X(T) \cong X(T') \oplus X(S), where \operatorname{ed}(T';p)=1 and \operatorname{ed}(S;p)=0.
Let E be an étale algebra over k. It can be written as E=L_1\times\cdots\times L_m with some separable field extensions L_i/k. The kernel of the norm \operatorname{R}_{E/k}(\operatorname{\mathbb{G}}_m)\to \operatorname{\mathbb{G}}_m is denoted by \operatorname{R}_{E/k}^{(1)}(\operatorname{\mathbb{G}}_m). It is a torus with lattice
where \Gamma=\operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{sep}}/k) and \Gamma_{L_i}=\operatorname{Gal}(k_{\operatorname{sep}}/L_i). Let \Lambda be the disjoint union of the cosets \Gamma/\Gamma_{L_i} Passing to a p-closure k^{(p)} of k, \Gamma_{k^{(p)}} fixes a \lambda in \Lambda iff [L_i:k] is prime to p for some i. We thus have
For a p-group G there are only finitely many genera of indecomposable \mathbb{Z} G-lattices if and only if G is cyclic of order dividing p^2.
For G=C_2\times C_2 a classification of the (infinitely many) different genera of \mathbb{Z} G-lattices has been worked out by [Na]. In contrast for G=C_{p^3} or G=C_p\times C_p and p odd (in the latter case) no classification is known.
Every indecomposable torus T over k split by G has character lattice isomorphic to one of the \mathbb{Z} G-lattices M in the list (\mathbb{L}) after p-localization and \operatorname{ed}(T)=\operatorname{ed}(T;p)=\operatorname{ed}(\operatorname{Diag}(M);p). Their essential dimensions are given in the tables below.
We will assume p>2 in the sequel. For p=2 the Theoerem is still true but some easy additional arguments are needed which we leave out here.
The essential p-dimension of tori corresponding to M_1\ldots,M_6 easily follows from the discussion in section ?. Let M be one of the lattices M_7,\ldots,M_{12,r} and T=\operatorname{Diag} M the corresponding torus. We will determine the minimal rank of a permutation \mathbb{Z} G-lattice P admitting a homomorphism P \to M which becomes surjective after localization at p. Then we conclude \operatorname{ed}(T;p)=\operatorname{rk} P-\operatorname{rk} M with Corollary 9.2.
We have the bounds
where the upper bound holds since every M is given as a quotient of \mathbb{Z} G (or \mathbb{Z} G \oplus \mathbb{Z} H). Let C=\operatorname{Split}_k (T[p]) the finite constant group used in the proof of Theorem 1.3. The rank of C determines exactly the number of direct summands into which P decomposes. Moreover each indecomposable summand has rank a power of p.
As an example, we show how to find C for M=M_{11,r}: The relations g^j\cdot(\epsilon-(1-h)^r);\delta_H are written out as
and the k_{\operatorname{sep}}-point of the torus are
and C is the constant group of fixed points of the p-torsion T[p]:
(Note that the primitive pth root of unity \zeta_p is in k by our assumption that k is p-closed). For other lattices this is similar: C is equal to \operatorname{Split}_k(\operatorname{Diag}(P)[p])\simeq \mu_p^r where M is presented as a quotient P/N of a permutation lattice P (of minimal rank) as in (\mathbb{L}) and where r denotes the number of summands in a decomposition of P.
We need to exclude the possibility \operatorname{rk} P=p^2+1 for the lattices M=M_{9,r},\ldots,M_{12,r}. We can only have the value p^2+1 if there exists a character in M which is fixed under the Galois group and nontrivial on C. The following Lemma 12.4 tells us, that such characters do not exist in either case. Hence the minimal dimension of a p-faithful representation of all these tori is p^2+p.
For i=9,\ldots,12 and r\geq 1 every character \chi \in M_{i,r} fixed under G has trivial restriction to C.
By [Hi] the cohomology group H^0(G,M_{i,r})=M_{i,r}^G of G-fixed points in M_{i,r} is trivial for i=11, has rank 1 for i=9,12 and rank 2 for i=10, respectively. They are represented by \mathbb{Z} \delta_H in M_{9,r}, by \mathbb{Z} (\epsilon - (1-h)^r) in M_{12,r} and by \mathbb{Z} (\epsilon - (1-h)^r)\oplus \mathbb{Z}\delta_H in M_{10,r}, respectively. Since all these characters are trivial on
the claim follows.
The text on this page is from arXiv:0910.5574v1 by Roland Lötscher, Mark MacDonald, Aurel Meyer and Zinovy Reichstein, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/0910/0910.5574.jsonl.