The moduli space of representations of the modular group into G_2

The first claim follows from an appropriately general version of the spectral theorem as the elements \phi_h surject onto the special orthogonal group for the bilinear form on {\mathbf{H}}_0. Notice then that if we restrict to considering matrices M mapping onto diagonal matrices Q_0, the columns of M are then orthogonal. We will make use of this observation when proving claim (3) below.

The second claim can be proved explicitly, consider for example the elements

in {\mathbf{H}}_1. These act like the three transpositions of the diagonal entries of Q_0 and thus they generate all permutations of the diagonal entries.

For the third claim notice that if Q_0 \neq 3{\rm Id}_3 is non-zero, then without loss of generality the diagonal entry of Q_0 which is not 3 can be ordered to be the first. Thus, if we define \vec{a} = a_1 + a_2i + a_3j+a_4ij using the first column of a matrix M \in A mapping onto Q_0, then \vec{a} is a non-degenerate element of {\mathbf{H}}, and hence there is h_1\in {\mathbf{H}}_1 so that the only nonzero coordinate of h_1\vec{a} = (0,a_2,0,0) is the i-coordinate. Therefore, using our orthogonality observation in the proof of claim (1), every element of A has a representative of the form

where the second two columns are perpendicular, thought of as elemenets of {\mathbf{H}}. Having specialized a_1, a_3, a_4, b_2 and c_2 to be zero, the condition from (?) that the fourth column of the matrix in (?) should be in the span of the first three quickly gives

The open condition, \det Q_0\neq 0, implies a_2^2-1 \neq 0 giving b_1=0. Similarly, using the fifth column in (?) being in the span of the first three gives c_1=0. Now, looking at the fourth row of the sixth column gives c_3=3b_4. Perpendicularity between the second and third column then gives b_4(b_3+c_4) = 0.

In the case b_4=0 we have the desired shape, so consider the case c_4=-b_3. Looking at the first four columns now gives

which gives a_2(1+b_3^2+3b_4^3), however, by assumption a_2\neq0 and 1+b_3^2+3b_4^3\neq 0 from the non-degeneracy of Q_0.

Now, given that the only non-zero entries are a_2, b_3, and c_4 one may then directly verify from the third and forth column of (?) the equation

For the first claim we simply notice that this is precisely the set of {\mathbf{H}}_1 \times 1 orbits of elements of the form

Therefore the first claim follows by Lemma 4.1.

The second claim follows from the observation that the map

has open image and is generically finite, and that

is the natural image of \{ (w,x,y)\;|\; w^2+3x^2+y^2\}, which is not a subgroup, acting on

Because X_0 is 4-dimensional and surjects onto an open in X, which is also 4 dimensional, we conclude that the map is generically finite.

Clearly ((w,x,y),(a,b,c)) and ((-w,-x,-y),(-a,-b,-c)) map to the same point, and it is not hard to verify that these are the only identifications that take place under this map.

Generically we have that the diagonal elements of Q_0 are distinct, and none of them are 3. It follows that any h\in H_m acts to permute the diagonal of Q_0, and, consequently, permute the values a, b, and c up to sign.

The subgroup of \operatorname{SO}_{\mathbf{H}} which permutes the diagonal of Q_0 is given by H'\times \mathbf{H}_1 where

This is a group of size 48 isomorphic to S_4\times C_2, where the leftmost generator listed above represents a 4-cycle, and the middle generator represents an element of order 2. Mapping elements h \in H' to their representing matrix \phi_h defines a surjective homomorphism H' \to S_4 with kernel C_2 = \{\pm 1\}, and then this group maps surjectively onto S_3 via its (generic) permutation action on the elements of Q_0.

Either from the proof of Lemma 4.1, or by a direct finite computation since H' is a finite group, one sees for each h' \in H' that there exists an h''\in \mathbf{H}_1 such that (h',h'')\in H_m. In fact, according to our conventions for the various actions, one can take h''= h'. Moreover, it is clear that h'' is unique up to sign, noting also that (-1,-1) = (1,1) \in \mathbf{H}_1 \times \mathbf{H}_1/(\pm 1) = \operatorname{SO}_{\mathbf{H}}. This concludes the proof of our description for H_m, and then one sees from this description that H_m is in fact a subgroup of \operatorname{SO}_{\mathbf{H}}.

Finally, the claim about the stabilizer of m in H_m can simply be checked by enumerating the elements of H' and checking.

Firstly, as (g,1)(1,h)m = (1,h')m' we have

Thus we may write

where h_1\in H'.

It follows that g=h_1 \in H'. Hence, (g,\pm g) = (g, {h'}^{-1}h). so that h = \pm h' g.

For (g,u)\in G_{(1,h)m} write (g,u) (1,h)m = (1,h')m' with h' = w'+x'i+y'j\in \operatorname{SL}_2^{\operatorname{long}}.

Now we see that

It follows that (g,(h')^{-1}uh) \in H_m and hence g\in H' and

so that

Write g h^{-1} = w_1 + x_1i + y_1j + z_1ij and u=u_1+u_2i and we see

so that generically we have (u_1,u_2) = \pm (y_1,z_1)/\sqrt{y_1^2+3z_1^2}.

Now, if in the above we had

then

hence g \in H'' and u= hgh^{-1} \in H''. For generic h the condition u\in \operatorname{U}_1 implies g=\pm 1, but this gives (g,u) = \pm(1,1) which is trivial in \operatorname{SO}_\mathbf{H}.

We can identify W with the affine scheme

On this subscheme we have that

That is, this map is given by symmetric polynomials. Sage outputs that the scheme-theoretic image of this map is the entire affine plane. But I think this may simply be returning the closure of the set-theoretic image. For example, if we include the open condition u\neq -3 then obviously we lose surjectivity and the image is the basic affine open described by this condition. But Sage still says this is surjective. So probably as long as we don’t care what the Zariski dense set-theoretic image is, only that it is Zariski dense, this Sage computation is enough.

Consider the ideal in \mathbf{Q}[a,b,c,t,u] defined as

Eliminating a and b from this ideal produces the principal ideal defined by

Therefore, given each pair (t,u) \in \mathbf{A}^2, we find that there are generically 6 possible choices for c in the preimage. There are fewer than 6 choices for c precisely if

Since our equations are symmetric in a, b and c, the same holds if we eliminate any other pair of variables.

Suppose that we avoid the degenerate locus of points (t,u) described by the vanishing above, and choose a triple (a,b,c) in the preimage. We have seen that there are 6 possibilities for c. If bc=1 then the closed condition simplifies to b+c=0 and we find that u=-3. Therefore, this does not occur for any of the points (a,b,c) above (t,u) in the nondegenerate locus. It follows that we can use the closed condition to solve for a=\frac{b+c}{bc-1} above the nondegenerate locus. One observes that then

For each of the 6 different c values that can lie above (t,u), if c^2+1\neq 0 then the expression for u above shows that there are generically 2 choices for b. On the other hand, if c^2+1=0, in fact u=-3 so we are in the degenate locus and we can ignore this case. It follows that the fibers of the map under study are generically of size at most 12.

Now we should show that the maximum size of 12 is actually obtained generically. Therefore, given (u,t) in the nondegenerate locus, choose a c value satisfying the degree 6 polynomial above with coefficients in \mathbf{Q}[u,t]. We then solve for b as a root of the quadratic polynomial

so that

This allows us to express a and b in terms of c and u alone. We have seen above that since c^2+1 \neq 0 in the nondegnerate locus, we can also solve for t in terms of c and u alone. Doing so, one can check say on a computer that -3(a^2+b^2+c^2) is indeed equal to the expression for t in terms of c and u. Therefore, each of the six choices of c leads, generically, to two points (a,b,c) above (u,t), so that fiber size is indeed generically equal to 12.

A direct computation shows that:

and that t((w,x,y),(a,b,c)) and u((w,x,y),(a,b,c)) are both independent of w,x,y. On the other hand, let us write

for j=7,8,11. Then we find that if we write w_0 = w^2, x_0 = 3x^2 and y_0 = y^2, so that w_0 +x_0+y_0=1, then

One finds that

In the nondegeneracy locus, Remark 4.13 shows that t+2u\neq 0. Therefore, in this locus we can use the equation above to solve for \delta_{11} in terms of the other parameters.

Fix now a (generic) triple (a,b,c) satisfying abc = a+b+c. We wish to understand the map

where w_0+x_0+y_0=1. The two-by-two matrix above is generically invertible, as long as none of a,b,c are equal, and they are all nonzero. In this locus of points we can solve for any given \alpha,\beta giving expression for y_0w_0 and y_0x_0 in terms of \alpha,\beta,a,b,c. This equation has two solutions unless t+2u=0.

Now let us summarize how the computations above have established each part of the theorem:

1. The proof above shows that we are surjective onto fibers unless the conditions from (1) hold. In Remark 4.13 we observed that these conditions are equivalent to abc(a-b)(a-c)(b-c) \neq 0.

2. This follows essentially because the matrix

   \left(\begin{matrix}(abc)^3(c-a)&(abc)^3(b-a)\\(abc)^2(c^2-a^2+ab-bc)&(abc)^2(ac-bc+b^2-a^2)\end{matrix}\right)

   appearing above is intertible unless t+2u=0. Then by studying the expressions for \delta_7 and \delta_8, we obtain the conditions in part (2). We see that the degree is 192 if these conditions hold as 12 is contributed from the first two coordinates by Lemma 4.12, 8 are from the map (w,x,y) \mapsto (w_0,x_0,y_0), and 2 are contributed by (w_0,x_0,y_0) \mapsto (\delta_7,\delta_8), by the computation above.

3. This follows by Lemma 4.5 as stated.

4. This follows by Lemma 4.10 as stated.

5. This is deduced from the previous parts.

This concludes the proof.

A representation is reducible if and only if it commutes with some nonscalar transformation.

Since \phi(R) has 3 distinct eigenvalues, of multiplicities 3, 2 and 2, its commutator is a linear subspace of matrices of dimension 17. This subspace is contained inside the larger 25-dimensional space of matrices of the form

We computed the commutator [A,\phi(R)]=0 explicitly, and then restricted to such values of A.

Once restricted to such A values, we then considered the equation [A,\phi(S)]=0 on a computer algebra system. After localizing at the equations (1), (2) and (3), it is easy to see that one must have the upper 3\times 3-block of A being diagonal by examining entries of [A,\phi(S)]. After imposing this, then the conditions on [A,\phi(S)], where

1. A satisfies [A,\phi(R)]=0 and

2. the upper 3\times 3 block of A is diagonal,

all factor into expressions of the form:

for polynomials p and q with rational coefficients. Moreover, subject to conditions (1), (2) and (3), the factors p(a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2,c_1,c_2) are all invertible. Hence, we computed an ideal J just using the q(w,x,y,z,A_{ij}) factors, which is essentially a localization of the equations above. At this point, it was easy to compute a Groebner basis for this simpler ideal J and deduce Proposition 5.1 from this.

Actually, we performed this computation in several steps: we first used the Groebner basis for J to make A slightly closer to diagonal — eventually needing to assume condition (4) — and then we repeated this procedure in several steps. But at the end of this process, conditions (1), (2), (3) and (4) are seen to be sufficient to deduce that only scalar matrices A solve the equations [A,\phi(R)]=0 and [A,\phi(S)]=0. This concludes the proof.

This is a consequence of Theorem 4.14 and the discussion above about introducing the parameters a_1, a_2 et cetera in place of a, b, c as in Theorem 4.14.