Quasisimple groups with a proper subgroup having the same vector orbits in characteristic 2

Suppose that G is a quasisimple group, H is a maximal subgroup of G and V is a non-trivial irreducible \mathrm{GF}(2)G-module. Suppose that H is not transitive on V^\#. If G/Z(G) is an alternating group, then Proposition 4.6 provides the example in case Theorem A (vi). For G/Z(G) not a classical group defined in characteristic 2, Proposition 5.2, Proposition 6.1, Proposition 7.2 show that no examples of immutable triples arise. Finally, when G/Z(G) is a classical group defined in characteristic 2, Proposition 8.19 provides all the other examples in Theorem A.

Set q=2^a. We apply Theorem A. If either case (v) or G \cong \Omega_8^+(2) holds, then we simply check all subgroups of G for immutability and obtain the stated result enumerated in (iii) or (iv).

Suppose that Theorem A (i), (ii) or (iii) hold. Then, setting \mathbb K=\mathrm{End}_G(V), we have \mathbb K= \mathrm{GF}(q) and V is the natural \mathbb KG-module for G\cong \Omega^{\epsilon}_{2n}(q) with \epsilon 1= (-1)^n. In particular, on the 1-dimensional \mathbb K-spaces in V, G has orbits of length

1. (a) (q^n-1)(q^{(n-1)}+1)/(q-1) and q^{(n-1)}(q^{n}-1) when n is even.

2. (b) (q^{n}+1)(q^{(n-1)}-1)/(q-1) and q^{(n-1)}(q^{n}+1) when n is odd.

Since (G,K,V) is immutable, Lemma 2.4 implies that G and K have the same orbits on the 1-dimensional \mathbb K-spaces in V. As the orbits [Liebeck, Table 1 (2) and (3) with q even] are the same as (a) and (b) respectively, we may apply [Liebeck, Theorem] to obtain (i), (ii) and (iii). Notice that Theorem A (iv) is subsumed in (ii) as \mathrm{Sp}_6(q) action on a spin module extends to a natural module for \Omega_8^+(q). Applying Theorem A one final time, we see that all the candidates for K arising from [Liebeck, Theorem] indeed yield immutable triples.

In cases (i)-(v) of Theorem A, G has just 2 orbits on the \mathbb KG 1-spaces of V. As G has at least 3-orbits, on the \mathbb KG 1-spaces of V, Theorem A (vi) holds and an elementary Magma calculation yields the result.

Assume that G is quasisimple, H is a maximal subgroup of G, V is a \mathrm{GF}(2)G-module with no centralized direct summand and that V is not irreducible. The possibilities for (G/C_G(W),H/C_G(W),W) where W is a faithful composition factor for G are given by Theorem A, Proposition 9.2. Lemma 11.1, Lemma 11.2 together with the opening discussion in ? show that Z(G) has odd order.

Assume that G is transitive on W^\#. If G is as in Proposition 9.2 (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv), then Lemma 9.5, Lemma 9.8 yield case (iii) of Theorem B. The symplectic possibilities listed in Proposition 9.2 (v) and (vi) and Theorem A (iv) in Proposition 9.2 are the subject of Lemma 9.11, Proposition 10.5 and they give Theorem B (i) and (ii). The possibilities listed in Proposition 9.2 (vii), (viii) and (ix) are investigated in Lemma 9.3, Lemma 9.4 and yield the restrictions of the \Omega_5(2)-modules to G \cong \mathrm{Alt}(6) and its dual as listed in Theorem B (iv).

Lemma 9.10, shows that G cannot come from Theorem A (i), (ii) or (iii). Theorem A (iv) does not extend to an reducible example by Lemma 9.11. Finally, Theorem A (v) and (vi) give no reducible examples by Lemma 9.6, Lemma 9.7.

This is just the Frattini Argument: Let g \in G, then vg \in vG=vH and so there exists h \in H such that vh= vg. Hence gh^{-1}\in C_G(v) and this yields g= gh^{-1}h \in C_G(v) H. Conversely, if G= C_G(v)H, then surely vH= v{C_G(v)H}=vG.

(i) Suppose that v \in V is a representative of a regular orbit. Then, by Lemma 2.1, G=C_G(v)H=H, which is a contradiction.

(ii) As V is a \mathrm{GF}(p)G-module, there exists v \in V^\# which is centralized by a Sylow p-subgroup of G. Hence |G:C_G(v)| is prime to p.

(iii) Let v \in V. Then vH\subseteq vL\subseteq vG. If (G,H,V) is immutable, then vG=vH and so vH= vL=vG for all v \in V. Hence (L,H,V|_L) and (G,L,V) are immutable. If, on the other hand, (L,H,V|_L) and (G,L,V) are immutable, then, for all v in V, vH= vL and vL=vG. Hence vH=vG and (G,H,V) is immutable.

Let v_1, \dots, v_n be representatives of the G-orbits on V. Then

The result follows.

Since G and \mathbb K commute, G acts on the set of 1-dimensional \mathbb K-subspaces of V. Furthermore, \gen{v}_{\mathbb K}g=\gen{vg}_{\mathbb K} for all v \in V^\# and g \in G. Let v \in V^\# and \gen{w}_{\mathbb K}\in \gen{v}_{\mathbb K}G. Then there exists g \in G such that \gen{vg}_{\mathbb K}=\gen{w}_{\mathbb K}. Since (G,H,V) is immutable, there exists h \in H such that vh=vg. Thus \gen{w}_{\mathbb K}=\gen{vg}_{\mathbb K}=\gen{vh}_{\mathbb K}=\gen{v}_{\mathbb K}h and so \gen{w}_{\mathbb K} \in \gen{v}_{\mathbb K}H. It follows that \gen{v}_{\mathbb K}H= \gen{v}_{\mathbb K}G, as claimed.

Suppose that W>0 is a submodule of V|_H and let w \in W^\#. Then w G= w H \subseteq W and so w g \in W for all g \in G. Hence W is a submodule of V. Since V is irreducible, W=V. Hence V|_H is irreducible. Suppose that O_p(H) \not \le C_G(V). Since C_V(O_p(H)) \ne 0 is H-invariant and V is faithful, we conclude that O_p(H)=1.

Suppose that A \le G is elementary abelian of r-rank k. Then there exists a maximal subgroup B of A such that C_V(B) \ne 0. Let v \in C_V(B)^\#. Then G= C_G(v)H and B \le C_G(v). Taking L=C_G(v) we have B\le L and G=HL from Lemma 2.1. This proves the claim.

By Burnside’s orbit counting lemma, G has \frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G} C_V(g)= \frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G} C_{V^*}(g) orbits on V and V^*. Since a similar statement holds for H, we obtain have result.

We may regard V^* as the vector space V with the action of an element g \in G obtained by applying the inverse transpose of g. Since for g \in X, (g^{-1})^T=g^{\sigma_0}, the claim follows.

This is [FOS, Lemma 3.5].

Since r does not divide |H| and (G,H,V) is immutable, no orbit of G on V has length divisible by r. Hence S fixes a representative of every G-orbit on V. The number of orbits of G on V is bounded below by |V|/|H| by Lemma 2.3. Hence |C_V(S)| \ge |V|/|H|, and this proves the first part of the claim.

Suppose that \log_p(|V|/|H|)> \frac 12 \dim V. Then \dim C_V(S)> \frac 12 \dim V, and so C_V(S) \cap C_V(S^g) \ne 0 for all g \in G. Since C_V(G)=0, \langle S,S^g\rangle <G for all g \in G.

For w \in W, we have w G= w H and so (i) holds.

Let v+ W \in V/W. Then

This demonstrates (ii). The final statement immediately follows.

We know C_G(v+w) \le C_G(v+W)= P and C_P(v+w)= C_P(w).

Set W= V \oplus T and let w \in W. Then w=v+t where v \in V and t\in T. In particular, C_G(w)= C_G(v). Therefore, G= C_G(w)H if and only if G=C_G(v)H and this is the claim. Moreover, if \{v_1, \dots, v_n\} are G-orbit representatives for the action of G on V, then \{t+v_i\mid t \in T, 1\le i\le n\} are representatives for the orbits of G on W and this proves the statement about the number of orbits.

Suppose the claim is false and choose V to be a counter example of minimal dimension. If all composition factors of V are trivial modules, then as G=O^p(G), V is a direct sum of trivial modules, a contradiction.

Let U be submodule of V minimal such that U has a non-trivial composition factor. Then U has no centralized direct summand by the minimal choice of U. Hence either U=V or U is irreducible for otherwise we could select W to be a section of U.

In the first case, V has a maximal submodule M consisting just of trivial modules. Let K be a maximal submodule of M, then the minimal choice of U implies that V/K has no centralized direct summand and we take W= V/K, which is a contradiction.

Hence U is irreducible. In particular, U<V. Let Y be a submodule of V with Y/U irreducible. If Y has no centralized direct summand, then we take W=Y and obtain a contradiction. Therefore Y =T \oplus U with T a trivial G-module. By hypothesis Y<V. Now set \overline V = V/T. Then \overline Y \ne \overline V. Since \dim \overline V < \dim V, we are done unless \overline V has a centralised direct summand. So \overline V = C\oplus X where C denotes the maximal centralized direct summand of \overline V. If X is not irreducible, then we can choose W to be a section of X by induction, a contradiction. Hence X is irreducible and X \cong U. Let C^\dagger be the preimage of C. All the composition factors of C^\dagger are trivial G-modules and so as G=O^p(G), C^\dagger is centralized by G and V= C^\dagger \oplus U, contradicting V having no centralized direct summands. This completes the proof of the lemma.

For this calculation, we may and do identify G with a subgroup of \mathrm{GL}(V). Extend \{v_1, v_2 \} to a basis \mathcal B=\{v_1, \dots, v_n\} of V and write

Then, for g\in G\le\mathrm{GL}(V), we express g= (a_{ij})\in \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb F) with respect to the basis \mathcal B. Thus v_1g= \sum_{j=1}^n a_{1j}v_j and v_2g= \sum_{j=1}^n a_{2j}v_j. Therefore

and so, noting that the coefficient of v_{i_1}\otimes v_{i_2}\otimes \dots \otimes v_{i_l} is

we obtain wg=w if and only if v_1g^{\sigma _i}=a_{11}^{\sigma _i }v_1 for 1\le i \le \ell-1 and v_2g^{\sigma_\ell}= a_{22}^{\sigma_\ell} v_2 with

and all the other possible combinations are zero. Therefore, the first two rows of g are

In particular C_G(w_2) \le \mathrm{Stab}_G(\langle v_1\rangle) \cap \mathrm{Stab}_G(\langle v_2\rangle) as claimed.

A similar but slightly easier proof shows that C_G(w_1) stabilizes \langle v_1\rangle.

We know that on restriction to \mathrm{GF}(p)G, V is a direct sum of isomorphic irreducible \mathrm{GF}(p)G-modules V= U_1\oplus\dots \oplus U_k for some k \ge 1. In particular, we have that the intersection of all the maximal \mathrm{GF}(p)G-submodules of V is zero.

Let v \in V be a non-zero vector fixed by L. Then there exists a maximal \mathrm{GF}(p)G-submodule W of V such that v \not \in W. Furthermore, V/W\cong U as \mathrm{GF}(p)G-modules. Since v is fixed by L, v+W is fixed by L in V/W. Assume that (G,H,U) is immutable. Then G= C_G(v+W)H by Lemma 2.1. Since L \le C_G(v+W) this contradicts our assumption about factorisations with over-groups of L.

We are given that V corresponds to the q-restricted weight \lambda and we can write V=V(\lambda). Since B leaves C_V(S) invariant, P\ge B and so P is a parabolic subgroup of G by [Carter, Theorem 8.3.2 ]. In particular, following the notation in [Carter, Proposition 8.2.2] we have P=BN_JB for some J \subseteq \Pi. Therefore, N_J/T is the parabolic subgroup of N/T which stabilizes the weight \lambda. Hence \lambda\in \langle \omega_k\mid k \in K\rangle. If \lambda\in \langle \omega_k\mid k \in K_0\rangle for some K_0 \subset K, then the corresponding reflections of N/T in K\setminus K_0 would fix \lambda and stabilize C_V(S). As they are not in P, this is impossible. Hence \lambda = \sum_{k\in K} e_{k} \omega_k with 0< e_{k}< q for k \in K. We now rewrite \lambda as a p-adic expansion of basic weights thus we take the p-adic expansion of each e_{k}= \sum_{\ell=0}^{e-1}d_{k,\ell}p^\ell with 0\le d_{k,\ell}<p. This yields

Now observe that each \sum_{k\in K} d_{k,\ell}\omega_k is a basic weight as 0\le d_{k,\ell}<p. Applying the Steinberg tensor product theorem (see [Jantzen, II.3.17 Corollary]) yields

This concludes the proof.

We may assume that P=BN_JB omits the jth fundamental reflection. Thus K=\Pi\setminus J=\{j\} in Lemma 2.17 and

where W_\ell= V\left(\sum_{k\in K} d_{k,\ell}\omega_k\right). Since K=\{j\} and 0\le d_{k,\ell}<p=2,

and so W_\ell=V(\omega_j) or is trivial for each \ell. Define \Theta=\{\sigma^\ell \mid d_{j,\ell}=1\} and W=V(\omega_j). Then \Theta \subseteq \Sigma and {V}=\bigotimes_{\theta \in \Theta} W^{\theta}, as claimed.

Assume that n \ge 7. We require m\left({2n}\atop n\right) \le 2n+8mn^3. As n \ge 7, this is equivalent to m\le \frac {2n}{ \left({2n}\atop n\right)-8n^3 }. We know 1\le m. So we calculate directly that 1\le \frac n{ \left({2n}\atop n\right)-4n^3 } fails for 7\le n \le 11. Assume that n \ge 12. Now we approximate

which is a contradiction. Hence n \le 6.

Set q=2^{a}. By construction V can be realized over \mathrm{GF}(q^2) and can be identified as coming from the fundamental weight \omega_n. Let \sigma \in \mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{GF}(q^2)) have fixed field \mathrm{GF}(q) and \tau be the graph automorphism associated with the untwisted Dynkin diagram for G. Then \tau permutes the fundamental weights as it does the nodes of the diagram. In particular, \tau(\omega_n)= \omega_n and so [KleidmanLiebeck, Proposition 5.4.2] yields the first claim.

Using the notation from Lemma 2.9, [GuralnickSaxl, Theorem 4.2] gives \alpha(G)=2n and, [ParkerWilson, Corollary 16] gives |G| \le 2q^{4n^2}. Thus if G has no regular orbits on V, Lemma 2.9 implies

and this only holds when n \le 6 by Lemma 2.19.

Since W is an irreducible submodule, we have W \le C_V(Q). For v \in V, define the map

Since P centralizes V/W, [v,q]\in W. Hence \phi_{ v} is well-defined.

Let q_1,q_2\in Q and 1\le e\le p. Then, as q_1 and q_2 commute and the image of \phi_{ v } is contained in W\le C_V(Q),

and so \phi_{ v} is a linear transformation from Q to W. Let g\in P and q \in Q. Then {v}g^{-1}= v+w for some w\in W and so

Hence \phi_{ v} is a \mathrm{GF}(p)P-module homomorphism.

Since V is faithful, we may choose x \in V \setminus C_V(Q). Hence \phi_x is non-trivial. As Q and W are irreducible, \phi_{ x} is an isomorphism. Now the map

is a linear transformation with kernel C_V(Q), and so the assertion follows as \mathrm{Hom}_P(Q,W)\cong \mathrm{End}_{P/Q}(W).

Define \overline G=G/Z(G) and set D=C_X(Z(G)). Then, as D=[X,Z(G)], D and X/D are isomorphic as \mathrm{GF}(p)\overline G-modules. Identify G as a subgroup of \mathrm{GL}(X) and \overline G as a subgroup of \mathrm{GL}(X) by taking some complement E to D in X and assuming that it is \overline G-invariant. Let

Then, as D is invariant under both \overline G and G, Q is a subgroup of X which is normalized by \overline G and G. Notice that

and C_Q(\overline G)=Z(G)\cong W as V is absolutely irreducible.

Define H=Q\overline G which is a semidirect product. Then H= QG and Z(H) has order p.

Suppose L and M are complements to Q in H. Then LZ(H)/Z(H) and MZ(H)/Z(H) are complements to Q/Z(H) in H/Z(H). Furthermore, if LZ(H)/Z(H) and MZ(H)/Z(H) are conjugate in H/Z(H), then we may as well suppose that both L and M are in LZ(H). Thus L= (LZ(H))'=(MZ(H))'= M. This shows that \dim_{\mathrm{GF}(p)} \mathrm H^1(G,U) \le \dim_{\mathrm{GF}(p)} \mathrm H^1(G,U/W).

Let L be a complement to Q in H. Then, in H/Z(H), both G/Z(H) and LZ(H)/Z(H) are complements to Q/Z(H) in H/Z(H). But surely G/Z(H) and LZ(H) are not conjugate in H as G is perfect and LZ(H) is not. Hence

as claimed.

This can be deduced from [KleidmanLiebeck, Proposition 4.3.14]. We outline their argument. Let V be the natural \mathrm{GF}(q)G-module and Q be the associated quadratic form. Let T be the trace map from \mathrm{GF}(q^r) to \mathrm{GF}(q) and let Q_\# with TQ_\#=Q be the quadratic from on V_\#=V regarded as a \mathrm{GF}(q^r) vector space and which is preserved by \mathrm{SO}_{2n/r}^+(q^r). Let \mathcal U be the collection of maximal totally singular subspaces of V with respect to Q and \mathcal U_\# be the corresponding set for Q_\#. Since singular vectors in V_\# with respect to Q_\# are singular with respect to Q, we have \mathcal U_\# \subseteq \mathcal U. Aschbacher [AschbacherFG, 23.13] defines an equivalence relation on \mathcal U by saying that A\sim B if and only if \dim A/(A\cap B) is even. Then he shows in [AschbacherFG, 23.14] that \Omega_{2n}^+(q) is the subgroup of G which preserves this equivalence relation. Let U \in \mathcal U_\# and let t \in M be a reflection on V_\# such that C_U(t) is a \mathrm{GF}(q^r) hyperplane of U. Then |U:U \cap U^t|= q^{r}. Hence U and U^t are in different equivalence classes if and only if r is odd. In particular, if r is odd, M \not \le \Omega_{2n}^+(q). If r is even, then any two members of \mathcal U_\# intersect in a \mathrm{GF}(q^2)-subspace and so have intersection of even \mathrm{GF}(q)-codimension. It follows that M \le G'=\Omega_{2n}^+(q). This verifies the claim.

Let q=2^a. We know that G=MK from [LiebeckPraegerSaxl]. Since |G:K|= |M:M\cap K | =q^n(q^n+1), M \cap N_G(K) has index q^{n}(q^n+1) in M and so we deduce that M\cap N_G(K) \cong \Omega_{2n/r}^+(q^r).2.r. Now by Lemma 3.1

Hence

and this proves the assertion.

We know that G=MK from [LiebeckPraegerSaxl]. As in Lemma 3.2, we only require M\cap K \not \le K_0 from which it follows that G=MK_0. In this instance this follows from [KleidmanLiebeck, Proposition 4.3.16 (II)].

We know that G=MK from [LiebeckPraegerSaxl]. So, as in Lemma 3.2, we just need to show that M\cap K \not \le K_0. Now, from [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Subcase 5.2.3 (b)] we know that M \cap K \cong \mathrm{SL}_3^\epsilon(q){:}2. Now the outer elements of order two induce the graph automorphism when \epsilon =+ and act as either the field automorphism or the graph automorphism when \epsilon = -. In particular, \mathrm{SL}_3^+(q){:}2 is not a subgroup of \mathrm{SL}_4(2^a)\cong \Omega_6^+(2^a) and \mathrm{SL}_3^-(q){:}2 is not a subgroup of \mathrm{SU}_4(2^a)\cong \Omega_6^-(2^a). This proves our claim.

Aiming for a contradiction, assume that X\ne Y and set P=X \cap Y. Then G=HP=HX=HY and P is a parabolic subgroup of G.

Using [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1, 2 3 & 4] (see also Proposition 8.4), we see that one of the following holds:

1. (a) G/Z(G) \cong \mathrm{PSL}_n(q) and P =P_1\cap P_{n-1} with n \ge 3;

2. (b) G \cong \Omega_{2n}^+(q), n \ge 5 and P= P_{n}\cap P_{n-1}; or

3. (c) G\cong \Omega_8^+(q) and P_1\cap P_3\cap P_4 \le P.

Assume that (a) holds. Then G=H(P_1\cap P_{n-1}) and so |G|= |H||P_1\cap P_{n-1}|/|H\cap P_1\cap P_{n-1}|. Notice that |P_1:P_1\cap P_{{n-1}}|= (q^{n-1}-1)/(q-1). Let p be a Zsigmondy prime dividing q^{n-1}-1. Then, using [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1, 2 3 & 4] to obtain information about H, we observe that p does not divide either |H| or |P_1\cap P_{n-1}| and so we have a contradiction. This leaves us to consider a(n-1)= 6 in which case there are no Zsigmondy prime divisors of 2^6-1. Hence either a=3 and n= 3, a=2 and n=4 or a=1 and n=7. In the first case, G=\mathrm{SL}_3(2^3) and H\cong \mathrm{GL}_1(2^9):3, and we check that H has no factorisations with P_1\cap P_2. In the second case, there are two candidates for H and both have order which is not divisible by 7. Finally, we need to consider H=\mathrm{GL}_1(2^7) in \mathrm{SL}_7(2) and this case also fails. Thus case (a) cannot hold.

Now consider cases (b) and (c). We argue similarly. Let U be the natural orthogonal module for G. We know that G=HP_n= HP_{n-1}. Assume that G=H(P_n\cap P_{n-1}). We have |P_n:P_n\cap P_{n-1}|= (q^n-1)/(q-1). As n\ge 4, we have |P_1\cap P_{n-1}| is not divisible by the Zsigmondy primes dividing q^n-1 or n=6 and q=2 when there is no Zsigmondy prime. Assume that G \ne \Omega_{12}^+(2) and let r be a Zsigmondy prime dividing q^n-1. Then H must contain a Sylow r-subgroup of G. Notice that the subgroup \mathrm{GL}_n(q) which stabilizes a totally singular n-space and its opposite, have an element of order r which has exactly two n-dimensional composition factors on U. In particular, no such element is conjugate into N_1 or N_2^-. This contradicts H containing a Sylow r-subgroup of G.

Hence G \cong \Omega_{12}^+(2). In this case a Magma calculation shows that the candidates for H are not transitive on the cosets of P_{n} \cap P_{n-1} and so this case is also impossible. This completes the elimination of cases (b) and (c). We conclude that P is maximal in G.

Assume that V is not the fully deleted permutation module for G. By Lemma 2.2 (i), G does not have a regular orbit on V. Hence, by [FOS, Theorem 1.1], the possibilities for G and V are given in [FOS, Table 1]. In particular, 5\le n \le 12.

For each of the possibilities listed [FOS, Table 1], we need to determine the candidates for the maximal subgroup H of G that potentially result in (G,H,V) being immutable. This is done using the maximal subgroups listed in the [ATLAS] or [BHRoney].

Suppose that n=5. Then F^*(G) \cong \mathrm{Alt}(5)\cong \mathrm{SL}_2(4), and V is the natural \mathrm{GF}(4)\mathrm{SL}_2(4)-module regarded as a module over \mathrm{GF}(2). Hence F^*(G) acts transitively on the non-zero vectors of V. Since G has no proper subgroups not containing F^*(G) of order divisible by 15, we have no candidates for H in this case.

Suppose that n=6. Then F^*(G) \cong \mathrm{Alt}(6) or 3^.\mathrm{Alt}(6). If F^*(G) \cong \mathrm{Alt}(6), then \dim V=4 by [FOS, Table 1]. Hence V is the natural module for G\cong \mathrm{Sp}_4(2)'. As this module can be constructed as the fully deleted permutation module, we reject this possibility in this instance. Hence we may suppose that F^*(G) \cong 3^.\mathrm{Alt}(6) and \dim V=6. In this case a Magma calculation reveals no examples.

Suppose that n=7. Then F^*(G) \cong \mathrm{Alt}(7) or 3^.\mathrm{Alt}(7). The candidates for V are given in [FOS, Table 1]. If G \cong \mathrm{Alt}(7), then \dim V= 4 and G acts transitively on V^\#. Thus 15 divides |H|. This means that H\cong \mathrm{Alt}(6) or H \cong \mathrm{Sym}(5) each of which acts transitively on V^\#. If G \cong \mathrm{Sym}(7), then \dim V \in \{8,14\}. Using Magma exhibits no examples.

The final possibility is that G \cong 3^.\mathrm{Alt}(7) and V the 12-dimensional module and this potential example is eliminated using Magma.

For n=8 and G \cong \mathrm{Alt}(8) we use [FOS, Table 1] and Magma to obtain (ii).

When n=9 and G\cong \mathrm{Alt}(9), Magma eliminates the modules of dimension 8 which are not the fully deleted permutation module as well as the 20-dimensional possibilities. Similar calculations show that G \cong \mathrm{Sym}(9), \mathrm{Alt}(10) and \mathrm{Sym}(10) are not possibilities.

Finally, assume n=12. Then G \cong \mathrm{Sym}(12) and \dim V= 32. Since \mathrm{Alt}(12) does not appear on [FOS, Table 1], \mathrm{Alt}(12) has a regular orbit on V (see also [FOS, Proposition 4.6]). If (G,H,V), is immutable then H must have order divisible by |\mathrm{Alt}(12)| hence H has index at most 2 in G, which is a contradiction.

The vectors of W, correspond to subsets of \Omega given by the support of the vector. Hence, as X=\mathrm{Alt}(n) is (n-1)-homogeneous, the orbits of X on W are determined by the size of the support set. As the subspace W_1 consists of those elements of even support, this proves (i) and (ii).

For (iii), suppose that n is even and calculate in V=W_1/W_0. For v,w \in W with v \ne w, we have v+W_0= w+ W_0 if and only if their supports are complementary. Hence X has orbit representatives \sum_{i=0}^{k} e_i+W_0 where 0\le k \le n/2 is even, as claimed.

We have G =\mathrm{Alt}(n) or G=\mathrm{Sym}(n). We adopt the notation introduced in Lemma 4.3 for the fully deleted permutation module for G. Suppose that t \le n/2 is even with 0<n/2-t \le 2. We claim that H is t-homogeneous acting on the set \Omega=\{1, \dots, n\}. So let \tau_1 and \tau_2 be arbitrary t-sets.

If n is odd, then, by Lemma 4.3 (ii), V=W_1 and \sum_{i\in \tau_1}e_i is in the same G-orbit as \sum_{i\in \tau_2}e_i. Hence, as ( G,H,V) is immutable, they are also in the same H-orbit. Thus there exists h\in H such that \tau_1h=\tau_2. Hence H is t-homogeneous in this case.

Suppose that n is even. Then t < n/2. In this case \sum_{i\in \tau_1}e_i+W_0 is in the same G-orbit as \sum_{i\in \tau_2}e_i+W_0. Then, as t < n/2, \sum_{i\in \tau_1}e_i+W_0\ne \sum_{i\in \tau_2}e_i+W_0. Hence as (G,H,V) is immutable, again we have a h\in H such that \tau_1h=\tau_2.

Since n \ge 9, we conclude in both cases that H is t-homogeneous with t \ge 4. Hence [Kantorhom, Theorem 1] implies H is either t-transitive or n=9 and H is 4-homogeneous. Furthermore possibilities for H are subgroups of \mathrm{Alt}(9) and our maximality assumption yields H \cong \mathrm P\Gamma\mathrm L_2(8). It is then an easy Magma calculation to see that (\mathrm{Alt}(9), \mathrm P\Gamma\mathrm L_2(8), V) is immutable with the described orbit lengths.

So assume that H is t-transitive with t as described above. For n \in \{9,10,11,12\}, t=4 and so H is 4-transitive and for n \ge 13 we have t \ge 6. Then, as H does not contain \mathrm{Alt}(n), [CameronPermutationGroups, Theorem 4.11, pg. 110] gives t=4 and either H \cong \mathrm M_{11} with n=11 or F^*(H)\cong \mathrm M_{12} with n=12. A calculation with Magma shows that \mathrm M_{11} has 7 orbits on its 10-dimensional modules whereas \mathrm{Alt}(11) has 6 orbits. Similarly, we calculate that (\mathrm{Alt}(12),\mathrm M_{12},V) is also not immutable this time with \mathrm{Alt}(12) having 4 orbits and \mathrm M_{12} having 5. This completes the proof of the lemma.

This follows from a straightforward Magma calculation.

When V is not the fully deleted permutation module, Lemma 4.2 provides the claim in part (i). When V is the fully deleted permutation module and n \ge 9, the result in (ii) follows from Lemma 4.4. The cases with V the fully deleted permutation module and 5 \le n \le 8 are handled in Lemma 4.5 yielding one more example in case (i).

This applies [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem C, Table 6]. Note that in this application, we have X= L.

Suppose that Hypothesis 4.1 holds and that G is a cover of a sporadic simple group. Then Lemma 5.1 shows that there are only a small number of pairs (G,H) to consider and in all cases G/Z(G) is a Mathieu group. Using Lemma 2.2(i) and [FMJO, Theorem 1, Table 1], yields that in each case V is either the code, or the cocode module or that G \cong 3^.\mathrm{M}_{22} and \dim V=12. An elementary Magma calculation shows that the number of orbits of G and H on V is different. Thus there are no immutable triples (G,H,V) and this contradicts the fact that Hypothesis 4.1 holds. This completes the proof.

Suppose that the claim is false. Then, by Lemma 2.1, G= C_G(v)H is a factorisation of G for all v \in V^\#. If G is defined in characteristic 2, then we can choose v to be centralized by Sylow 2-subgroup of G. Hence there must exist a maximal factorisation with one of the factors a parabolic subgroup. However, [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem B, Table 5] shows that no such factorisation exists. Hence G is defined in odd characteristic. Now [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem B, Table 5] yields that G \cong \mathrm{G}_2(3^d) and G= HL where O^2(L) has to be one of \mathrm{SL}_3(3^d), \mathrm{SU}_3(3^d), or {}^2\mathrm{G}_2(3^d). Lemma 2.6 implies that we can choose L so that the 3-rank of L is m_3( G )-1. By [GLS3, Theorem 3.3.3], m_3(G)=4d whereas m_3(\mathrm{SL}_3(3^d))= m_3(\mathrm{SU}_3(3^d))= m_3({}^2\mathrm{G}_2(3^d))=2d. This shows that Hypothesis 4.1 cannot hold when G is an exceptional group.

Again we invoke [Lee1, Table 1.2] this time looking for 2-powers greater than 2 in column 4 and the examples where G is quasisimple. In particular, in [Lee1, Table 1.2], the parameter c must be allowed to be 1. We also recall that V regarded as a \mathrm{GF}(2)G-module must be irreducible. We use Magma to enumerate the irreducible \mathrm{GF}(2)G-modules for small groups with G quasisimple and include the program in the additional materials. This results in the presented list.

Let S \in \mathrm{Syl}_2(G). Then the vectors v \in C_V(S)^\# are high weight vectors. As (G,H,V) is immutable, vG= vH and G= C_G(v)H. Since S \le C_G(v), [GLS3, Theorem 2.6.7] implies there is a maximal parabolic subgroup P \ge S such that C_G(v) \le P. But then G=C_G(v)H=PH and this proves the claim.

Since G has elements of order q+1, |V| \ge q^2 by Zsigmondy’s Theorem. As (G,H,V) is immutable, we have G= C_G(w)H for all w \in V^\#. In particular, by Lemma 8.2, G=HB where B is a Borel subgroup of G and so H has order divisible by q+1. The subgroup structure [Huppert, Satz II.8.27] of \mathrm{SL}_2(q) shows that H is contained in the normalizer of the cyclic subgroup of order q+1 and so H is dihedral of order 2(q+1). Hence, for w\in V^\#, C_G(w) has index at most 2(q+1) in G. Since G has no subgroup of index 2(q+1), we have that |w G|=q+1 for all w \in V^\# by a theorem of Galois [Huppert, Satz II.8.28]. In particular, C_G(w) is conjugate to B for every w \in V^\#. Hence

and so

As |V|\ge q^2, it follows that |C_V(B)|\ge q. Let B_1\ne B be a conjugate of B. Then G=\langle B,B_1\rangle and so C_V(B_1) \cap C_V(B)=0. Hence

and therefore

Hence |C_V(B)|\le q+1 and as this order is a power of 2, we obtain q\le |C_V(B)|\le q and so |C_V(B)|=q. Thus,

We conclude that V= C_V(B)+C_V(B_1). But then T=B\cap B_1 centralizes V and this is impossible as |T|=q-1>1 and V is non-trivial. This shows that (G,H,V) is not immutable for any proper subgroup H of V.

We begin with case (xiii). By Lemma 2.5, H acts irreducibly on V. Since the irreducible \mathrm{GF}(2)H-modules have dimension at most 5, this yields \dim V=5. But then P\in \{P_1,P_4\} as P_2 and P_3 operate with no fixed points on V, a contradiction.

For case (xiv) we adopt the same approach, but this time Magma shows that the largest irreducible \mathrm{GF}(2)H-module has dimension 16. On the other hand, the non-trivial irreducible \mathrm{GF}(2)G-modules of dimension at most 16 which can restrict to H irreducibly have dimensions 6 and 8. An orbit calculation with Magma then shows that these cases lead to no examples.

In case (xv) we have G= \mathrm{SU}_9(2). This case is already too large for Magma to calculate all the irreducible \mathrm{GF}(2)G-modules. Let S \in \mathrm{Syl}_2(G) and consider V= V(\lambda) an irreducible \overline{\mathbb L}G-module. We know C_V(S) is normalized by P_1 and H does not factorise with any other conjugacy class of parabolic subgroups. The weights for V are 2-restricted and so V is the restriction of a 2-restricted irreducible module of \mathrm{SL}_9(4). Since P_1 fixes C_V(S) and C_V(S)= C_V(S_1) where S_1 is a Sylow 2-subgroup of \mathrm{SL}_9(4) containing S, we have P_1 \le Q where Q is a parabolic subgroup of \mathrm{SL}_9(4). Because P_1 fixes a 1-space and an 8-space when it acts on the natural \mathrm{SU}_9(2)-module over \mathrm{GF}(4), we see that P_1 is in a parabolic subgroup of \mathrm{SL}_9(4) which fixes both these subspaces. From this, as \lambda is 2-restricted, Lemma 2.17 implies that \lambda\in \{ \omega_1, \omega_2,\omega_1+\omega_2\}. Hence V is either the natural \mathrm{SU}_9(2)-module U, its dual, or is the irreducible constituent A of U\otimes U of dimension 80. These modules are all realized over \mathrm{GF}(4).

Let n \in U be a non-isotropic vector, then L=C_G(n) \cong \mathrm{SU}_8(2) is uniquely contained in its normalizer N_1. Since there are no factorisations N_1H by [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1, 2 & 3], we see that V= U is impossible. Of course, we now have (G,H,U^*) is not immutable by Lemma 2.7.

Suppose that V= A. Then on restriction to L=\mathrm{SU}_8(2), U becomes 1\oplus W with W of dimension 8. Hence, as an L-module, we calculate

As W\otimes W^* has a 1-dimensional L-submodule, we conclude that L has a fixed vector on A. Now we apply Lemma 2.16 with [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1, 2 & 3] to obtain a contradiction.

For case (xvi), we have V is the natural module again by Lemma 2.17. Now we calculate with Magma to obtain a contradiction.

Finally, we consider case (xvii). Since the maximal parabolic subgroup of shape 2^{1+8}{:}(\mathrm{Sym}(3)\times \mathrm{Sym}(3) \times \mathrm{Sym}(3)) and the parabolic subgroups of shape 2^{6+3}{:}\mathrm{SL}_3(2) have index which does not divide |\mathrm{Alt}(9)|, the stabiliser of a high-weight vector in V is one of P_1, P_3 or P_4. Hence one final application of Lemma 2.17 yields V is either the natural module or a half-spin module. Using the triality automorphism we may assume that V is the natural module. This time, using Magma we obtain the examples as detailed in the lemma.

We know that P is a parabolic subgroup of G by Lemma 2.17. Assume, aiming for a contradiction, that P is not maximal. Then P is contained in two different maximal parabolic subgroups say X and Y and G=HP=HX=HY. Now Lemma 3.5 delivers X=Y, a contradiction.

For the untwisted groups, this is a direct application of Lemma 8.6, Lemma 2.18, Proposition 8.4.

Suppose that G=\mathrm{SU}_{2n}(q) and set R=\mathrm{SL}_{2n}(q^{2}). Then \overline V is the restriction of an \overline{\mathbb L}R-module, V(\lambda) with q-restricted weight \lambda. Since C_V(S) is normalized by P_n in G, P_n is uniquely contained in the parabolic subgroup P_n^* of R. Now Lemma 2.18 yields \Theta \subseteq \Sigma and \overline{W}= V(\omega_n) such that

The identification of V(\omega_n) with the exterior nth power, is well-known.

The situation for G=\Omega_{2n}^-(q) is similar this time taking the embedding of G into \Omega_{2n}^+(q^{2}).

In this case G/Z(G)=\mathrm{PSL}_m(q) with m \ge 3 and either

1. \overline{W}=V(\omega_1) is the natural m-dimensional \overline{\mathbb L}G-module; or

2. \overline{W}=V(\omega_{m-1}) is the dual natural m-dimensional \overline{\mathbb L}G-module.

We know that \overline{V}= \bigotimes_{\theta \in \Theta} \overline W^{\theta} as an \overline {\mathbb {L}} G-module and we may suppose that \overline W= V(\omega_1) by Lemma 2.7. Hence \overline W is a natural \overline {\mathbb L} G-module. Let \mathbb K=\mathrm{GF}(q). Then \overline{W} = W\otimes_{\mathbb K} \overline{\mathbb L} where W is the natural \mathbb K G-module of \mathbb K-dimension m. We write U= \bigotimes_{\theta \in \Theta} W^{\theta} and note that U\otimes _{\mathbb K} \overline{\mathbb L} = \overline V. Thus U= V \otimes_{\mathbb L}\mathbb K, and, when U is regarded as a \mathrm{GF}(2)G-module, we can identify U as a direct sum of some number of modules isomorphic to our original module V.

Write \Theta=\{\sigma_1, \dots, \sigma_\ell\} \subseteq \Sigma. Assume that |\Theta|=\ell\ge 2.

We begin by considering the cases with m \ge 4. Set L \cong \mathrm{SL}_2(2)\times \mathrm{SL}_{m-2}(q) and regard L as a subgroup of G embedded in \mathrm{SL}_2(q)\times \mathrm{SL}_{m-2}(q) with the first factor centralized by \sigma.

Then as a \mathbb KL-module W= N\oplus M where \dim_{\mathbb K} N=2 and \dim_{\mathbb K} M= m-2. Further we note that N^{\sigma_i}=N as \sigma centralizes the first factor of L. As m\ge 4, L is not contained in a parabolic subgroup conjugate to either P_1 or P_{n-1}. We have

Since N \otimes N \cong T\oplus N where T is indecomposable with socle the trivial module, by induction we obtain \underbrace{N\otimes \dots \otimes N}_{\ell \text{ copies}} contains a non-zero vector fixed by L and so, therefore, does U. Since L is not conjugate to a subgroup of P_1 or P_{n-1}, we can apply Lemma 2.16 and Proposition 8.4 together with [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1, 2 & 3] to provide a contradiction as a=|\Sigma| \ge \ell. This shows that m= 3.

So assume m=3. Consider the subgroup J of G isomorphic to the Frobenius group of order 21 as a subgroup of the fixed points of \sigma (which is isomorphic to \mathrm{SL}_3(2)). Then W is irreducible as an \mathbb K J-module. If necessary, extend \mathbb K to a field \mathbb G such that O_7(J) acts on W as a diagonal matrix group and fix a generator x of O_7(J). Thus x has eigenvalues \theta, \theta ^2 and \theta^4 where \theta is a non-trivial 7th root of unity. Hence, as J is centralized by \sigma, we know that

as \mathbb G J-modules. As a \mathbb G J-module, U is an \ell-fold tensor product of W \otimes_{\mathbb K}\mathbb G.

On

x has eigenvalues \theta, \theta^2 and \theta^4 all with multiplicity 1, \theta^3, \theta^5 and \theta^6 all with multiplicity 2. Writing Y= W\otimes_{\mathbb K}\mathbb G we further deduce that

as an \mathbb GJ-module. Suppose that \ell=|\Theta| \ge 3. Then U contains a \mathbb GJ-submodule isomorphic to Y \otimes Y^* and hence J has a non-zero fixed point w on Y. We now apply [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1, 2 & 3] and Lemma 2.16, Proposition 8.4 to obtain a contradiction.

Suppose then that \ell=2. Then U= W^{\sigma_1}\otimes W^{\sigma_2}. In particular, \dim_{\mathbb K} U=9. (In this case, J has no non-zero fixed points on U.)

Recall that \mathbb L=\mathrm{End}_{G}(V) and \mathbb K \ge \mathbb L. Let \langle \sigma_0\rangle=C_\Sigma(\mathbb L) =\mathrm{Gal}(\mathbb K/\mathbb L ). Then \sigma_0 has order |\mathbb L :\mathbb K |. If \mathbb K = \mathbb L, then V=U and Lemma 2.15 applies to reveal a vector w\in V such that C_G(w) leaves invariant two distinct 1-spaces \langle w_1\rangle and \langle w_2\rangle in W where w_1 and w_2 are \mathbb K-linearly independent. Since H normalizes a subgroup of order q^{2}+q+1 by Proposition 8.4 (i), and has order coprime to 2, and C_G(w) does not contain a Sylow 2-subgroup of G (as it fixes two \mathbb K-linearly independent 1-spaces), we see that G\ne HC_G(w), a contradiction. Therefore \mathbb K > \mathbb L. By [AschbacherFG, (26.3)(3)], we have U \cong U^{\sigma_0}.

As \ell=2, we have \sigma_1=\sigma^{a_1} and \sigma_2=\sigma^{a_2} so that

Then, as U \cong U^{\sigma_0}, Steinberg’s tensor product theorem yields W^{\sigma^{a_1}} \cong W^{\sigma^{a_2}\sigma_0} and W^{\sigma^{a_2}} \cong W^{\sigma^{a_1}\sigma_0}. It follows that \sigma_0 has order 2. Hence |\mathbb L :\mathbb K |=2. Let X be the unitary subgroup of G as in Lemma 2.8. Then

as \mathbb K X-modules. Thus U \cong W^{\sigma^{a_1}}\otimes(W^{\sigma^{a_1}})^*. It follows that X has fixed vectors on U, and as X is not contained in any parabolic subgroups of G, we argue that (G,H,V) is not immutable using Lemma 2.16 and this is our contradiction.

Now we are left with |\Theta|=\ell =1. Hence U=W^{\sigma_1}, V= U and, as G is transitive on V^\#, so is H. This is our claim.

In this case, we have G=\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(q), n \ge 2 ,(n,q) \ne (2,2) and \overline W= V(\omega_1). Set \mathbb K= \mathrm{GF}(q). We know

where \Theta \subseteq \Sigma. Note that \overline W= W\otimes_{ \mathbb K} \overline{\mathbb L} where W is the natural \mathbb KG-module. So U=\bigotimes_{\theta \in \Theta} W^{\theta} is a \mathbb KG-module and \overline V= U\otimes_{\mathbb K}\overline {\mathbb L} as in Lemma 8.8.

If |\Theta|=1, then H acts transitively on the non-zero vectors of V and this is our conclusion. So suppose that |\Theta|\ge 2.

Set L \cong \mathrm{Sp}_2(2)\times \mathrm{Sp}_{2n-2}(q) and regard L as a subgroup of G with the first factor centralized by \sigma. Notice that L is not contained in a conjugate of P_1. However, as in the proof of Lemma 8.8, L fixes a non-zero vector of w \in U. Again we obtain a contradiction via [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1, 2 & 3], Lemma 2.16, Proposition 8.4.

In this case, we have G=\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(q), n \ge 2 ,(n,q) \ne (2,2) and \overline W= V(\omega_n). When n=2, \overline W is quasiequivalent to V(\omega_1) and so we may apply Lemma 8.9 to obtain the claim. So assume that n \ge 3. Set \mathbb K=\mathrm{GF}(q). Let S \in \mathrm{Syl}_2(P_n), B=N_{P_n}(S) be a Borel subgroup in P_n and assume that these subgroups are \Sigma-invariant. Furthermore recall that C_V(S) is P_n-invariant.

Assume that \ell=1. Then \overline V= \overline W^{\sigma_1} and \overline W can be realized over \mathbb K and we write this module as W. Then W has dimension 2^n over \mathbb K=\mathbb L and we have V=W. This module has \mathrm{GF}(2)-dimension 2^na. We first show that in this case we obtain our claimed immutable example.

We start by considering \mathrm{Sp}_6(q). Then W is 8-dimensional over \mathbb K. The high weight space is fixed by the parabolic subgroup P_3, P_3 has shape q^{3+3}{:}\mathrm{SL}_3(q).(q-1) and acts transitively on the non-zero vectors in C_W(S). (To see this, notice that C_W(S) \le C_{W}(O_2(P_1)). Then by [PR03, Theorem 6.1] this subspace is a spin-module for O^{2'}(P_1/O_2(P_1)) \cong \mathrm{Sp}_4(q). Thus P_1 acts transitively on the non-zero vectors in C_{W}(O_2(P_1)) and, in particular, all the non-zero vectors in C_W(S) are in the same G-orbit.) This accounts for (q^3+1)(q^2+1)(q^2-1)=q^7+q^4-q^3-1 vectors in W.

Consider the subgroup M=\mathrm{G}_2(q). This is maximal in \mathrm{Sp}_6(q) by [BHRoney, Table 8.29] and we can assume that it is normalized by \Sigma.

Since (by [Lubeck, Theorem 4.4 and Appendix A.49] for example) the only non-trivial irreducible \mathrm{GF}(q)M-modules of dimension at most 8 is one of the 6-dimensional modules and since W \cong W^*, M centralizes a 1-dimensional subspace of W. Since M is a maximal subgroup of G, we see that M is the stabilizer of the q-1 non-zero vectors in this 1-space. This then contributes (q-1)q^3(q^4-1)=q^8-q^7-q^4+q^3 vectors to our count of vectors. Together we now have all the vectors, we know that the vector stabilizers for the action of \mathrm{Sp}_6(q) on W are conjugates of P_3 and M. Finally, using [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1 & 2 ] shows that taking H \cong \mathrm \Omega_6^-(q){:}2, (G,H,W) is immutable. This is the example in our conclusion.

Now suppose that G = \mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(q) with n \ge 4. Then W is a 2^n-dimensional spin module over \mathbb K. Let P_{n-3} be the \Sigma-invariant parabolic subgroup containing B with \Sigma-invariant Levi complement isomorphic to L_{n-3}=\mathrm{GL}_{n-3}(q) \times \mathrm{Sp}_6(q) and let U_{n-3} be the unipotent radical of P_{n-3}. Then P_{n-3} is a maximal subgroup of G. Set W_{n-3}= \langle C_W(S)^{P_{n-3}}\rangle. Then W_{n-3} is centralized by U_{n-3} and the left-hand factor J of L_{n-3} which is isomorphic to \mathrm{GL}_{n-3}(q). Hence W_{n-3} is a P_{n-3}/C_{P_{n-3}}(W_{n-3})\cong \mathrm{Sp}_6(q) spin module of \mathbb K-dimension 8 (see [PR03, Theorem 6.1]). As in (ii), select w in W_{n-3} so that C_{P_{n-3}}(w)/U_{n-3}J \cong \mathrm{G}_2(q) is \Sigma-invariant and set K = C_{P_{n-3}}(w).

As (G,H,W) is immutable, Proposition 8.4 (iv) gives H \cong \Omega_{2n}^-(q){:}2 and G= HC_G(w). Let N be a maximal subgroup containing C_G(w) and hence K. Then G= HN. The candidates for N are included in [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1 & 2 ]. This yields N is isomorphic to one of

1. (a) P_n,

2. (b) \mathrm{Sp}_{2c}(q^b).b where bc=n and b is a prime,

3. (c) \mathrm{Sp}_n(q)\wr 2 when n is even,

4. (d) \Omega_{2n}^+(2):2 when q=2.

Now notice that the Sylow 2-subgroup of K has index q^3 in a Sylow 2-subgroup of P_{n-3} and so the 2-part of |K| is q^{n^2-3}. Since the 2-part of the orders of \mathrm{Sp}_{2c}(q^b).b and \mathrm{Sp}_n(q)\wr 2 are at most 2(q^b)^{c^2} and 2q^{n^2/4+ n^2/4} respectively, cases (b) and (c) do not give overgroups of C_G(w).

Suppose that K is contained in a parabolic subgroup P=P_n of G. Then K normalizes O_2(P) and therefore KO_2(P) is a group and K \cap O_2(P)\le U_{n-3}. Then U_{n-3}O_2(P) is a 2-group and so O_2(P) normalizes U_{n-3} by [Grodal, Lemma 4.2]. In particular, O_2(P)\le P_{n-3}=N_G(U_{n-3}). Since K is maximal in P_{n-3}, and O_2(P)K is a group, O_2(P) \le K. Since K normalizes O_2(P), O_2(P)\le U_{n-3}. Applying [Grodal, Lemma 4.2] again yields P_{n-3} normalizes O_2(P) and therefore the maximality of P_{n-3} yields P_{n-3}= P. Since P \ne P_{n-3}, we have a contradiction. Hence (a) does not hold.

Finally consider the possibility that q=2 and that K is contained in \mathrm O_{2n}^+(2). Using 2-parts of the orders of both groups we obtain 2^{n^2-n+1} \ge 2^{n^2-3} and so n=4. In this case a Magma calculation yields G has 4 orbits on W whereas H has 5. We have demonstrated that if \ell=1 and (G,H,V) is immutable, then G\cong \mathrm{Sp}_6(q) and V is 8-dimensional over \mathbb K.

Assume now that \ell \ge 2. Hence V is isomorphic to a submodule of U=\bigotimes_{\theta \in \Theta} W^{\theta} where U= V \otimes_{\mathbb L} \mathbb K.

Suppose that n \ge 4 and consider the vector w with centralizer K as above. Then, as K is \Sigma-invariant, w\otimes w\otimes \dots\otimes w\in U is fixed by K. Lemma 2.16 now shows that (G,H,V) is not immutable. Hence n=3.

Assume \ell \ge 3. If U is realizable over a proper subfield of \mathbb K, then the field of definition of U, lies somewhere between \mathbb K and \mathrm{GF}(q^{1/\ell})=\mathrm{GF}(2^{a/\ell}). Hence

Using the notation from Lemma 2.9, [GuralnickSaxl, Theorem 4.2] gives \alpha(G)=7 and [ParkerWilson, Corollary 16] yields |G|\le q^{21}. Since G has no regular orbits on V by Lemma 2.2, we now use Lemma 2.9 and the fact that the function \frac{2^{3\ell}}{\ell} increases with \ell to obtain the impossible

This contradiction shows that \ell=2. Now let L \cong \mathrm{Sp}_6(2) be centralized by \Sigma. Then W^{\sigma_1} and W^{\sigma_2} are isomorphic and self-dual as \mathrm{GF}(2)L-modules. It follows that L fixes a vector U|_L= W\otimes W\ge \mathrm{End}_G(U). By [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1 & 2 ] there is no factorisation G=HM with M \ge L (as G is perfect) and so Lemma 2.16 yields the result. This completes the proof of the lemma.

Set \mathbb K = \mathrm{GF}(q^2). Here we have G/Z(G)\cong \mathrm{PSU}_{2n}(q) with n \ge 2, and \overline W= V(\omega_n) is the nth exterior power of the natural \overline{\mathbb L}\mathrm{SU}_{2n}(q)-module. By Lemma 2.20, we may realize \overline W over \mathrm{GF}(q ) and we write W for this module.

We begin by assuming that |\Theta|=1. Then W= V regarded as an \mathbb LG-module where now \mathbb L=\mathrm{GF}(q).

For S \in \mathrm{Syl}_2(P_n), we know that C_W(S) in normalized by P_n. We also know that P_n stabilizes a totally isotropic n-space I on the natural module N for G. Remember that N is defined over \mathbb K. Furthermore, L_n a Levi complement in P_n acts on N such that N=I\oplus J with J an isotropic n-space opposite I. Now, using [FultonHarris, (B.1) in Section B.2, page 473] as a \mathbb K L_n-module we have

Taking a=0 and a=n reveals that W has a \mathbb KL_n-submodule

which is a direct sum of two 1-spaces and we deduce that L=O^{2'}(L_n)\cong \mathrm{SL}_n(q^{2}) centralizes T. Now N_G(L_n) permutes \{I,J\} and so |N_G(L_n):L_n|=2 and N_G(L_n) acts irreducibly on N. Now choose K\le N_G(L_n) such that K \ge L and K/L \in \mathrm{Syl}_2(N_G(L_n)/L). Then K acts irreducibly on N and so K is not conjugate to a subgroup of P_n. Furthermore, in its action on W, K normalizes T and as K/L is a 2-group, C_T(K) \ne 0. Let M \ge K be a maximal subgroup chosen so that M contains the stabiliser of a non-zero vector of W\otimes _{\mathbb L}\mathbb K fixed by K. Since W\otimes _{\mathbb L}\mathbb K regarded as a \mathbb L-module is a direct sum of modules isomorphic to W, we see that C_W(K) \ne 0. Therefore, as (G,H,V) is immutable, G=MH and we know H=N_1. Using [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1, 2 & 3] yields either

1. (a) M \cong \mathrm{PSp}_{2n}(q); or

2. (b) that a=1 and n \ge 3.

In case (a), we know that M \ge K \ge L \cong \mathrm{SL}_n(q^2). We know by [HuppertSinger, Satz 1 & 3] that L has a cyclic subgroup of order (q^{2n}-1)/(q^2-1) while the every irreducible cyclic subgroup of M has order dividing q^n+1. Hence in case (a) we must have n=2. In this case L \cong \Omega_4^-(q) and so is a candidate subgroup of \mathrm{Sp}_4(q) as q is even. Now we identify G with \Omega_6^-(q) and W with that natural \mathbb K\Omega_6^-(q)-module and obtain the example as claimed.

Thus case (b) holds with G/Z(G) \cong \mathrm{PSU}_{2n}(2), n \ge 3. Combining Lemma 2.9, Lemma 2.20 shows that n \le 6. Thus G/Z(G)=\mathrm{PSU}_6(2), \mathrm{PSU}_8(2), \mathrm{PSU}_{10}(2) or \mathrm{PSU}_{12}(2). In the first case, we can calculate directly using Magma that G has 6 orbits on W, whereas H has 9 orbits. In the remaining cases, we can choose a prime p such p does not divide |H| (the pairs (2n,p) are (8,17), (10,31), (12,13)). Let R \in \mathrm{Syl}_p(G). Then a random check with Magma shows that G is generated by two conjugates of R.

Employing Lemma 2.10 implies that \dim C_W(R) \ge \log_2(|W|/|H|). Set \ell_{2n}= \log_2(|W|/|H|). Then \ell_{8}=19, \ell_{10}\ge 169 and \ell_{12}\ge 801. Now the second clause of Lemma 2.10, shows that 2n=8. Finally, we check that \dim C_W(R)=6 when 2n=8. We have demonstrated that (G,H,W) is not immutable.

So suppose that |\Theta|\ge 2. Then a> 1 and so q>2. When n \ge 3, taking w\in T^\# \subset W^\# fixed by K as in the previous paragraph and for all maximal subgroups M containing K, we have that G\ne HM. Writing U= \bigotimes_{\theta \in \Theta} W^{\theta}, we have w\otimes \dots \otimes w\in U is also fixed by K as K can be chosen to be stabilised by \Sigma. But G\ne HM, and we obtain a contradiction from Lemma 2.16. Thus n=2. In this case, we again regard G as \Omega_6^-(q) and W as that natural \mathbb K\Omega_6^-(q)-module. Now let L \le \Omega_4^+(2)\times \Omega_2^-(q) with the first factor centralized by \Sigma be such that L \cong \mathrm{SU}_2(2)\times \Omega_2^-(q) where \mathrm{SU}_2(2)\cong \mathrm{SL}_2(2) acts with two non-trivial 2-dimensional composition factors on the natural \mathbb K \Omega_4^+(2)-module. Then as in Lemma 8.8, we see that L fixes a non-zero vector on U=\bigotimes_{\theta \in \Theta} W^{\theta}. Keeping in mind that q>2 and G is simple, we obtain a contradiction using [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1, 2 & 3], with Lemma 2.16, Proposition 8.4.

Proposition 8.7 (iv) states that G \cong \Omega_{2n}^\epsilon(q) with n \ge 5, \epsilon 1= (-1)^n, and \overline{W}= V(\omega_1) is the natural \overline{\mathbb L}G-module. Let \mathbb K= \mathrm{GF}(q), \mathbb L=\mathrm{End}_G(V). We have G \cong \Omega_{2n}^\epsilon(q) with n \ge 5, \epsilon 1=(-1)^n, and \overline{W}=V(\omega_1). We have

and note that \overline W can be realized over \mathbb K as W. Thus we set

as a \mathbb KG-module. By Proposition 8.4 (vi) and (ix), we have G= P_1H with H normalizing a subgroup \mathrm{SU}_n(q).

Suppose that |\Theta|\ge 2 and consider the subgroup

Then the first factor \mathrm{SU}_2(2)\cong \mathrm{Sym}(3) and is centralized by the standard Frobenius automorphisms of G and so, as |\Theta|\ge 2, our familiar argument from Lemma 8.8 shows that L has a fixed point on U. Since L is not contained in P_1, we must have some maximal factorisation HM with M \ge L. Using [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1 & 2 ] shows that M \cong N_1. Since L does not fix any 1-spaces in W, we have a contradiction. Hence |\Theta|=1. Now V=U=W. Since G and H have the same number of orbits on V, we have that (G,H,V) is immutable in this case and the details of the orbits are given in ?.

Set \mathbb K=\mathrm{GF}(q). We have G \cong \Omega_{2n}^+(q), n \ge 5 and we may as well assume that \overline W=V(\omega_{n}) with high-weight space invariant under P_n. Thus \overline W is a half-spin module for G and this module can be defined over \mathbb K.

We start by recalling that the orbits of \Omega_8^+(q) on the non-zero vectors of the 8-dimensional half-spin module have stabilisers O^{2'}(P_3) (or O^{2'}(P_4)) and \mathrm{Sp}_6(q)\cong \Omega_7(q). (These are the same as on the natural module, by application of the triality automorphism.)

We intend to show that \overline V=\overline W, leads to (G,H,V) not being immutable. The argument is reminiscent of that in Lemma 8.10. Suppose that \overline V=\overline W. Then as W can be regarded as \mathbb KG-module and \mathbb K=\mathbb L, we can assume that V= W where V is now regarded as a \mathbb LG-module.

Let P_{n-4} be from the conjugacy class of parabolic subgroups which stabilize an (n-4)-dimensional totally singular subspace on the natural module. Then P_{n-4} is a maximal subgroup of G and has Levi complement isomorphic to L_{n-4}=\mathrm{GL}_{n-4}(q) \times \Omega_8^+(q). Let U= U_{n-4} be the unipotent radical of P_{n-4}. We may assume that P_{n-4} contains the same Borel subgroup as P_n and that P_n fixes the high weight space W_n of dimension 1. Set W_{n-4}= \langle W_n^{P_{n-4}}\rangle. Then W_{n-4} is centralized by U_{n-4} and the left hand factor J of L_{n-4} which is isomorphic to \mathrm{GL}_{n-4}(q). Hence W_{n-4} is a P_{n-4}/C_{P_{n-4}}(W_{n-4})\cong \Omega_8^+(q) half-spin module of \mathbb K-dimension 8 (see [PR03, Theorem 6.1]). Select w in W_{n-4} so that C_{P_{n-4}}(w)/U_{n-4}J \cong \mathrm{Sp}_6(q) and set K= C_{G}(w).

Using Proposition 8.4 (vii) and (viii) gives

and as (G,H,V) is immutable, G= HK. Let M be a maximal subgroup containing K. Then G= HM. The candidates for M are included in [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Tables 1 & 2 ] noting that G is perfect. Thus, not taking into account the structure of K, the initial options for the pair (H,M) are as follows:

1. (a) (N_1,P_j) with j \in \{n,n-1\}.

2. (b) (N_1,{} \mathrm{GU}_n(q).2) with n even.

3. (c) (N_1,\mathrm{Sp}_2(q) \otimes \mathrm{Sp}_n(q)) with n even and q> 2.

4. (d) (N_1, \mathrm{GL}_n(q).2) with n even.

5. (e) (N_1,\Omega_n^+(4).2^2) with n even and q=2.

6. (f) (N_1,\mathrm{Co}_1) with n=12 and q=2.

7. (g) (N_2^- ,P_j) with j \in \{n,n-1\}.

8. (h) (N_2^-, \mathrm{GL}_n(2).2), n even and q=2.

Now notice that the Sylow 2-subgroup of K\cap P_{n-4} has index q^3 in a Sylow 2-subgroup of P_{n-4} and so the 2-part of |K| is at least q^{n(n-1)-3}. Considering the Sylow 2-subgroups of M in all but cases (a) and (g) yields a contradiction. Thus K is contained in a parabolic subgroup P of G. Thus K normalizes O_2(P) and therefore (K\cap P_{n-4})O_2(P) is a group. In particular, X=U_{n-4}O_2(P) is normalized by K\cap P_{n-4}. If O_2(P) \not \le U_{n-4}, then N_X(U_{n-4})>U_{n-4}. As P_{n-4}= N_G(U_{n-4}) and K\cap P_{n-4} is a maximal subgroup of P_{n-4}, we obtain a contradiction as K \cap P_{n-4} normalizes N_X(U_{n-4}). Therefore O_2(P) \le U_{n-4}. Applying [Grodal, Lemma 4.2] yields P_{n-4} normalizes O_2(P) and therefore the maximality of P_{n-4} yields P_{n-4}= P. Finally noting that G= HK= HP_{n-4} gives a contradiction. Hence (G,H,V) is not immutable when V=W.

Now assume that \Theta=\{\sigma_1, \dots, \sigma_\ell\}\subseteq \Sigma with \ell \ge 2 and that

Now take w\in W fixed by K. Then w\otimes \dots \otimes w is also fixed by K and we obtain a contradiction via Lemma 2.16.

We have that G =\Omega_8^+(q) and W is the natural \mathbb KG-module where \mathbb K=\mathrm{GF}(q). Assume |\Theta|=\ell\ge 2 and set U= W^{\sigma_1} \otimes \dots\otimes W^{\sigma_\ell}. Then V is a summand of U when U is considered as a \mathrm{GF}(2)-module and so, as in the last paragraph of Lemma 8.10, |V|\ge q^{\frac{8^\ell}{\ell}}. Using Lemma 2.9 we have |V|\le |G|^{\alpha(G)} and by [ParkerWilson, Corollary 16] (using 2\le q) and [GuralnickSaxl, Theorem 4.2] we have |G| \le q^{ 29.8}= q^{232}. Hence

which indicates that \ell \le 3. Furthermore, if \ell=3, then V has field of definition \mathbb L=\mathrm{GF}(2^{a/3}).

Suppose that \ell=3. Take L={}^3\mathrm D_4(q). Then L= C_G(\kappa \tau) where \kappa \in \Sigma has order 3 and \tau is the triality automorphism which commutes with \Sigma. We know that

and since U has field of definition \mathbb L=\mathrm{GF}(2^{a/3}), we have U^\kappa=U. It follows that \sigma_2=\sigma_1\kappa and \sigma_3=\sigma_1\kappa^2 and so

Hence we may just consider V=W\otimes W^\kappa \otimes W^{\kappa^2}. By [AschbacherMultLin, (6.1)], L preserves a Hermitian symmetric 3-sesquilinear form \mathcal H on W. Since the vector space of 3-sesquilinear forms on V is isomorphic to the dual of the vector space W\otimes W^\kappa \otimes W^{\kappa^2} and W is self-dual, L fixes a vector in W\otimes W^\kappa \otimes W^{\kappa^2} [Yokonuma, Proposition 1.3’, page 14] and so we must have G=HL. However, by [BHRoney, Table 8.50], L is maximal in G and by [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Table 4] we have a contradiction as no factorisations involve L.

Thus \ell=2 and we argue that \Omega_{2n}^+(2) fixes a non-zero vector on W^{\sigma_1}\otimes W^{\sigma_2} for a contradiction to [LiebeckPraegerSaxl, Theorem A, Table 4 ]. We have proved \ell=1 and the result follows.

Since V is a natural module for \Omega_8^+(q), we know that G has 2 orbits on the 1-spaces of W and q+1 orbits on vectors. The stabilizers are O^{2'}(P_1) and N_1\cong \mathrm{Sp}_6(q).

We have L\cong \Omega_6^-(q)\cong \mathrm{SU}_4(q) and L^\tau and L^{\tau^2} act irreducibly on V. We regard V as the natural \mathrm{SU}_4(q)-module defined over \mathrm{GF}(q^2) (so the spin modules for \Omega_6^-(q)). Hence L^\tau and L^{\tau^2} also have q+1 orbits on vectors, namely the isotropic vectors, and the vectors of a non-singular subspace which take different values in \mathrm{GF}(q) with respect to the Hermitian form. Since the number of orbits is the same, we have (G,L^\tau,V) and (G,L^{\tau^2},V) are immutable.

Since L= (N_{2}^-)^\infty\le N_1=H, and (G,L^\tau,V) and (G,L^{\tau^2},V) are immutable by Lemma 8.16 so are (G,H^\tau,V) and (G,H^{\tau^2},V) by Lemma 2.2 (iii).

This is almost the same as for Corollary 8.17.

Because of Lemma 8.3, we may assume that G \not \cong \mathrm{SL}_2(q) and so G is defined in dimension at least 3. Then Proposition 8.4 lists the pairs (G,H) that we need to consider. Lemma 8.5 shows that if any of the “exceptional" cases arise then its due to G\cong \Omega_8^+(2) acting on one of its half-spin modules and H being an irreducible \mathrm{Alt}(9)-subgroup. Using triality, we may transform the module to the natural module and these examples are listed in case (v). With these cases considered, Proposition 8.7 determines the candidates for the module V for an immutable triple (G,H,V). This leads to six cases which are then considered in the subsequent lemmas. In particular, Lemma 8.8, Lemma 8.9 give rise to instances where H is transitive on the non-zero vectors of V and cover the possibilities given in Proposition 8.7 (i) and (ii)(a). Proposition 8.7 (ii)(b) is examined in Lemma 8.10 and this results in the case listed in (ii). By Lemma 8.12, Proposition 8.7 (iii) leads to n=2, and G \cong \mathrm{SU}_4(q)\cong \Omega_6^-(q) acting on the natural orthogonal module. This is included as the n=3 case of part (iii). For Proposition 8.7 (iv), Lemma 8.13 yields the triples in (iii) when n \ge 5. Case (v) of Proposition 8.7 gives no examples of immutable triples by Lemma 8.14. Finally, considering Proposition 8.7 (vi), we have G \cong \Omega_8^+(q). In this case, we first show that V can be taken to be the natural module in Lemma 8.15 and then Corollary 8.17, Corollary 8.18 provide the final example in part (iii) with n=4 and case (iv).

Let \Sigma=\mathrm{Gal}(\mathrm{GF}(q^n)/\mathrm{GF}(q)) be generated by \sigma which maps x\in \mathrm{GF}(q^n) to x^q. Identify V with \mathrm{GF}(q^n) regarded as a \mathrm{GF}(q) vector space. Then by the well-known Normal Basis Theorem [JacobsonIII, Lemma 2], there exists \beta \in V such that \{\beta^{\sigma^{i}}\mid 0\le i\le n-1\} is an ordered basis for V. With respect to this ordered basis \sigma is represented by the matrix

which has order n.

Recall that the embedding of \mathrm{GF}(q^n)^\times into \mathrm{GL}_n(q) arises from the assignment of \alpha\in \mathrm{GF}(q^n) to the transformation T_\alpha: x\mapsto x\alpha. Take \alpha to be a primitive element of \mathrm{GF}(q). Then \gen{T_\alpha} has order q^n-1 in \mathrm{GL}_n(q). Now \det (T_\alpha) is just the norm of \alpha (see [Lang, Proposition VI.5.6]). Thus

and so \det(T_\alpha) has order q-1 in \mathrm{GF}(q). In particular, H_1 has order \frac{q^n-1}{q-1}.n

Suppose first that n is odd or that n is even and that p=2. Then \det S=1. Hence \sigma \in H_1. Since \sigma fixes the non-zero vector v=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\beta^{\sigma^{i}}, we see that |vH_1|= \frac{q^n-1}{q-1}. Thus |vH_1|=q^n-1 if and only if q=2.

Now suppose that n is even and p is odd. Then \det S=-1 and \sigma^2 \in H_1. Since \gen{\sigma} is the stabilizer of v in H, \gen{\sigma^2} is the stabilizer of v in H_1. Therefore, as |H_1|= \frac{q^n-1}{q-1}.n, we deduce that

Thus in this case, |vH_1|=q^n-1 if and only if q=3. This completes the proof.

This uses results of Huppert and Hering from [Huppert, Hering] (see [HBIII, Section 7] or [LiebeckAffine, Appendix 1]). Plainly, since H is transitive on V^\#, so is G. Hence G has to be a quasisimple group listed in [LiebeckAffine, Appendix 1] and V is required to be a module defined in characteristic 2. Hence G is one of \mathrm{SL}_n(2^a), \mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(2^a), or \mathrm G_2(2^a)' for some a and n \ge 2 or is an exceptional case G\cong \mathrm{Alt}(7) or \mathrm{Alt}(6) with \dim V=4.

Suppose that G \cong \mathrm{SL}_n(2^a). Then \dim_{\mathrm{GF}(2)} V= na. We apply [LiebeckAffine, Appendix 1] again to determine the candidates for H. If H normalizes a linear group, then we must have H normalizes \mathrm{SL}_{n/b}(2^{ab}) and the maximality of H forces b to be a prime dividing n. Now in the special case that n=b, then we notice that H is in case A(1) of [LiebeckAffine, Appendix 1] but it is also contained in \mathrm{SL}_n(2^a). Hence Lemma 9.1 implies q=2. These two possibilities give cases (i) and (ii) of the theorem. If H normalizes a symplectic subgroup, then surely n is even and we have case (iii). Since the normalizer of \mathrm G_2(2^a)' in \mathrm{SL}_6(2^a) is contained in \mathrm{Sp}_6(2^a), there are no possibilities with H normalizing such a subgroup. If H = \mathrm{Alt}(7), then n=4 and this is listed in (iv). Since \mathrm{Alt}(6) is not maximal in \mathrm{SL}_4(2), this completes the analysis of the linear case for G.

Suppose that G\cong \mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(2^a). Assume that H normalizes a linear group \mathrm{SL}_m(2^c) with m \ge 3. Then H has an irreducible cyclic subgroup of order \alpha=(2^{mc}-1)/(2^c-1) whereas the maximal order of an irreducible cyclic subgroup of G is \beta=2^{na}+1 by [HuppertSinger, Satz 5]. The transitivity of G and H yields 2^{2na}-1= 2^{mc}-1. Hence \alpha = (2^{2na}-1)/(2^c-1)= (2^{na}+1)(2^{na}-1)/(2^{2na/m}-1). As we require \alpha \le \beta and as m\ge 3, we have a contradiction. Since \mathrm{SL}_2(2^c) is a symplectic group, when this subgroup is maximal we have listed this in case (iv). If H \le \Gamma\mathrm L_1(2^c) then c=2n and H \le \mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(2^a) \le \mathrm{SL}_{2n}(2^a). Now Lemma 9.1 implies that c=1. But then H contains a cyclic subgroup of order 2^{2n}-1, again contradicting [HuppertSinger, Satz 5].

Continuing with G\cong \mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(2^a), if H normalizes a subfield subgroup \mathrm{Sp}_{n/b}(2^{ab}), then H is transitive on the non-zero vectors and for H to be maximal we require b to be a prime. These examples appear in (v).

Finally, for the symplectic groups we have \mathrm{G}_{2}(2^a) acts transitively on the non-zero vectors of the 6a-dimensional natural module. As \mathrm{G}_2(2^a) is maximal in \mathrm{Sp}_{6}(2^a) this is (v).

Now suppose that G=\mathrm{G}_{2}(2^a). Since G< \mathrm{Sp}_{6}(2^a), the possible transitive subgroups have to normalize one of \mathrm{SL}_2(2^{3a})=\mathrm{Sp}_{2}(2^{3a}), \mathrm{SL}_3(2^{2a}) but these groups are not subgroups of G.

Next, we consider G=\mathrm{Alt}(7). Here G has transitive subgroups \mathrm{Alt}(6) and \mathrm{SL}_2(4){:}2\cong \mathrm{Sym}(5). Finally, we could have G \cong \mathrm{Alt}(6) and then we obtain H\cong \mathrm{SL}_2(4) and that is the lot. These three examples are listed in parts (vii), (viii) and (ix).

Using Theorem A and Proposition 9.2 we see that the faithful composition factors of V are isomorphic to either U_1 or U_2 where U_1 and U_2 are the 4-dimensional (quasiequivalent) irreducible modules for G. We check using Magma that the stated examples are indeed examples. We then construct all the \mathrm{GF}(2)\mathrm{Alt}(6)-modules up to dimension 9, remove those with a centralized direct summand and calculate the orbits of maximal subgroups on the remaining modules. This just yields two irreducible modules and four modules of dimension 5. This is sufficient to demonstrate our statement.

This time we have that the faithful composition factors for G are 4-dimensional. Using Magma we check that V is completely reducible and then that a direct sum of two irreducible 4-dimensional modules gives no immutable examples. This proves the claim.

We know that G acts transitively on the faithful composition factors of V by Theorem A and Proposition 9.2. Moreover, Proposition 9.2 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) yield H \cong \mathrm{GL}_2(4){:}2, \mathrm{Sp}_4(2) or \mathrm{Alt}(7). Now assume that V is not irreducible and that is has no centralized direct summand. Then the faithful composition factors of V are either the 4-dimensional module F or its dual F^*. We know from Magma that \mathrm H^1(G,F)= \mathrm H^1(G,F^*)=0 and so V only has faithful composition factors. A Magma calculation also shows that \mathrm{Ext}^1(F,F ) =0 and \dim \mathrm{Ext}^1(F,F^*)=1. The non-split extension of F by F^* produces no instances of an immutable triple. So we only need to consider direct sums of copies of F and of F^*. Now we simply check that all possibilities for direct sums of two or three modules give immutable examples (the orbits are of lengths 5 for a sum of two modules and 16 for three). Furthermore, in all cases, we have H \cong \mathrm{Alt}(7). Now modules which are a sum of at least four faithful 4-dimensional modules have 67 orbits for G and 74 for H. This proves the lemma.

We know from Theorem A, Proposition 9.2 that the composition factors of V are trivial modules and copies of the fully deleted permutation module W. We also know H \cong \mathrm P\Gamma\mathrm{L}_2(8). A Magma calculation shows that \mathrm H^1(G,W) is trivial and so we may assume that V has no trivial composition factors. Thus, a minimal counter example will have two composition factors. So we may assume that V has dimension 16. We calculate using Magma that \mathrm {Ext}^1(W,W)=0 and so V \cong W\oplus W. Now calculating with Magma we see that (G,H,V) is not immutable.

We know that every non-trivial composition factor of V is quasiequivalent to the natural \Omega_8^+(2)-module. The proof is a Magma calculation. We determine all three 8-dimensional modules and check that there are no non-split extensions between them. We also check that there are no extensions with trivial module. In the end we consider a direct sum of two 8-dimensional modules and this delivers no immutable triples.

Assume that G \not \cong \mathrm{SL}_4(2). Noticing that \Omega^+_6(2^a) is not listed in Theorem A and using Proposition 9.2, we deduce that all the faithful composition factors of V are natural, or dual natural modules for G. Furthermore, the candidates for H are provided by Proposition 9.2.

A Magma check shows that G \not \cong \mathrm{SL}_3(2).

We claim that V is irreducible. Suppose this is false. Then by Lemma 2.11, Lemma 2.13, Lemma 2.14, we may assume that V has exactly two composition factors. By [JonesParshall, Tables B and C], as G \not \cong \mathrm{SL}_3(2), we deduce that V has no trivial composition factors. Thus we may assume that \dim V= 2na.

Let W be a proper submodule of V. Thus W and V/W are natural or dual natural \mathrm{GF}(2)G-modules.

Set \overline{V}= V/W and let v \in V \setminus W. Then every vector of V \setminus W is mapped into \overline v=v+W by some element of G. Let P be the subgroup of G which fixes \overline{v} and define Q=O_2(P). Then, as G \not \cong \mathrm{SL}_3(2), P is perfect, P/Q \cong \mathrm{SL}_{n-1}(2^a), Q regarded as a \mathrm{GF}(2)P/Q-module is dual to the module \overline{V}/C_{\overline V}(P) and has order 2^{a(n-1)}. Let U=\langle v,W\rangle. Then \dim U=na+1. We intend to show that we can choose v to be centralized by P.

Suppose that \overline V \cong W. Then Q acts on U/C_W(P) where \dim C_W(P)=\dim C_{\overline V}(P)=1. If this action is non-trivial, then [U/C_W(P),Q]=W/C_W(P) is isomorphic to Q as a \mathrm{GF}(2)P/Q-module by Lemma 2.21. However, these modules are dual to each other. Hence [U,Q]\le C_W(P). As G \not\cong \mathrm{SL}_4(2), [JonesParshall, Tables B and C] shows that U/C_W(P) splits as a direct sum of a 1-space C/C_W(P) and W/C_W(P). But then, as P is perfect, C is centralized by P and consequently we may assume that v is centralized by P.

Now consider \overline V \cong W^*. Set Y=[W,P] and note \dim W=(n-1)a. Then Y\cong Q as a \mathrm{GF}(2)P/Q-module and Q centralizes Y. As P is perfect, P centralizes U/Y. Since \mathrm {End}_G(V)\cong \mathrm{GF}(2^a), and |U/Y|=2^{a+1}, we must have C_U(Q)> Y by Lemma 2.21. By [JonesParshall, Tables B and C] again, C_U(Q) splits as a direct sum with Y and once again we may assume that v is fixed by P.

If W \cong \overline V^*, then W contains a submodule of dimension a(n-1) on which P induces the natural \mathrm{SL}_{n-1}(2^a)-module whereas when W \cong \overline V, there is a quotient of W on which P/Q acts naturally. In particular, in the first case we can choose w \in W so that |wP|= 2^{a(n-1)}-1 and in the second case we can choose w to have |wP| a multiple of (2^{a(n-1)}-1). By Lemma 2.12, C_G(v+w)= C_P(w). It follows that |G:C_P(v+w)| is divisible by (2^{a(n-1)}-1)(2^{an}-1). Therefore, immutability implies that |H| is a multiple of (2^{a(n-1)}-1)(2^{an}-1) and this is impossible as H is known by Proposition 9.2 (i), (ii) and (iii).

Suppose false. By Theorem A, Lemma 2.11, the non-trivial composition factors of V are all 8a-dimensional and are either natural modules or half-spin modules. By [JonesParshall, Tables B and C], we see that all the trivial modules split from such composition factors and as V has no centralized direct summands, all the composition factors of V are 8a-dimensional. By Lemma 2.14, Lemma 2.11, we may assume that V has exactly two faithful composition factors. Hence \dim V=16a. Furthermore, as the claim is false, we may assume that the composition factors are not isomorphic. Thus there is W< V such that V/W is a natural module and W is a half-spin module. Let v \in V\setminus W be such that v+W is a singular vector in V/W and let P be the centralizer of v+W. Then P has shape 2^{6a}{:}\Omega_{6}^+(2^a)\cong 2^{6a}{:}\mathrm{SL}_4(2^a). Set U=\langle v,W\rangle of dimension 1+8a. Then, as U is a half-spin module, the composition factors for P on U have dimension 1, 4a and 4a. Applying Lemma 2.21 twice together with the fact from [JonesParshall, Tables B and C] that \mathrm H^1(P/O_2(P),N)=0 for N the natural \mathrm{SL}_4(2^a)-module or its dual, we see that C_U(P) \ne 0 and U= C_U(P)+W. Hence we may select v to be centralized by P. Now picking an element w of C_W(O_2(P))^\# we see that C_P( v+w)= C_P(w) by Lemma 2.12. Hence, identifying P as a subgroup of the parabolic subgroup P_1, we have that C_P(w) is conjugate to a subgroup of P_1 \cap P_3 or P_1\cap P_4. This contradicts Lemma 3.5.

By Theorem A, Lemma 9.9, we may assume the faithful composition factors of V are natural modules. Furthermore, by [JonesParshall, Tables B and C] we know that there are no trivial composition factors (notice that G \not \cong \Omega_6^+(2) as \epsilon 1 = (-1)^n). Hence to prove the lemma, by Lemma 2.11 we may as well assume that V has a submodule W with W and V/W both natural modules. Let v +W\in V/W be a non-zero singular vector and let P\le G be its stabilizer. Then P has shape q^{2n-2}{:}\Omega_{2n-2}^\epsilon (2^a) (see [KleidmanLiebeck, Proposition 4.1.20]).

Set Q= O_2(P) and note that P is perfect since G \not \cong \Omega_6^+(2). Now set U=\langle v,W\rangle of dimension 2na+1. Then, as P is perfect, [U,P]=[W,P] has dimension 2(n-1)a and W/C_W(P) \cong O_2(P) as \mathrm{GF}(2)P/Q-modules have dimension (2n-2)a. Since \mathrm{End}_{P/Q}(W) \cong \mathrm{GF}(2^a), using Lemma 2.21 we deduce that C_U(Q)/C_W(P)\not=0 and U= C_U(Q) +W. Since, by [JonesParshall, Tables B and C], \mathrm{H^1}(P/O_2(P),[W,P]/C_W(P))=0 whenever (2n,\epsilon,2^a) \ne (8,+,2), there exists a P-submodule C/C_W(P) centralized by P and such that C_U(Q)/C_W(P)= C/C_W(P)\oplus W/C_W(P). Since P is perfect, P centralizes C. Hence we may select v \in C_U(P).

By Lemma 2.12 C_G(v+w)= C_P(w) for all w \in W such that w+C_W(P) is singular. Then C_P(w) centralizes \langle C_W(P),w\rangle and so is contained in the parabolic subgroup conjugate to P_2. But there are no factorisations P_2H and so we have a contradiction unless G\cong \Omega_{8}^+(2). However, the omitted case is handled in Lemma 9.7 and this completes the proof.

Suppose that (G,H,V) is immutable. Assume that U_1 and U_2 are faithful irreducible sections of V with U_1 a spin module. Then Lemma 2.11 implies that (G,H,U_1) and (G,H,U_2) are both immutable. Since U_1 is a spin module, Theorem A (iv) implies that H \cong \mathrm{SO}_6^-(2^a ). Assume that U_2 is not a spin module. Then U_2 is the natural \mathrm{GF}(2)G-module and G acts transitively on U_2^\# again by Theorem A. Since H has two orbits on U_2^\#, this is impossible. We conclude that all faithful composition factors in V are spin modules. By [JonesParshall, Table B], as V has no trivial direct summands, every composition factor of V is a spin module.

It now suffice to show that V cannot have two composition factors. So suppose that V has dimension 16a and that W is a submodule of dimension 8a. If 2^a=2, we perform a Magma calculation to verify the claim. Hence we may assume that 2^a\ge 4.

Then \overline V= V/W and W are spin modules. Let v \in V \setminus W be such that v+W is stabilized by P\cong \mathrm{G}_2(2^a) (see ? (iv)). Then P is perfect as 2^a\ge 4. Set U= \langle v,W\rangle of dimension 8a+1. Then the \mathrm{GF}(2)P composition factors of V are trivial, and the natural \mathrm G_2(q)-module S of dimension 6a. Since \dim C_W(P)=a, W/C_W(P) is indecomposable of dimension 7a with natural module socle (see Remark 8.11). Appealing to [JonesParshall, Table B] we have \dim \mathrm H^1(P,S)=a and consequently we may assume that [v,P] \in C_W(P). As P is perfect, we conclude that v is centralized by P. Let w \in W be chosen so that w+C_W(P) has an orbit of length 2^{6a}-1 in W/C_W(P). By Lemma 2.12, C_G(w+v)=C_P(w) which has order dividing 2^{6a}(2^{2a}-1). Now H is \mathrm{SO}_6^-(2^a) and |G:H| is divisible by 2^{3a}-1. Thus there is no factorisation C_G(v+w)H, a contradiction.

We know that G acts transitively on each faithful composition factor and that they have dimension 4a. Assume that U_1 and U_2 are faithful composition factors. Then (G,H,U_1) and (G,H,U_2) are both immutable by Lemma 2.11, now the above discussion shows that U_1 and U_2 are isomorphic.

We know that |\mathrm H^1(G,N)|=q from [JonesParshall, Table B]. Hence |X| \le q^{2+2n}. Identify G with \mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(q) \cong \Omega_{2n+1}(q) and recall that the natural \mathrm{GF}(q)\Omega_{2n+1}(q)-module is uniserial with a 1-dimensional socle and 2n-dimensional quotient as a module for \mathrm{GF}(q)\Omega_{2n+1}(q).

Let H= \Omega_{2n+2}^+(q) and W be the natural \mathrm{GF}(q)H-module. Let v \in W be a non-singular vector which is stabilized by G. Set Y_0=\langle v \rangle_{\mathrm{GF}(q)} and Y_1=Y_0^\perp. Then Y_1 is stabilized by G \cong \Omega_{2n+1}(q). Since Y_0 is isotropic, Y_0<Y_1 and Y_1 is a \mathrm{GF}(q)-hyperplane of W. Furthermore, Y_1 is a natural \mathrm{GF}(q)G-module. Now W/Y_0 \cong Y_1^* as a \mathrm{GF}(q)G-module and so W/Y_0 is uniserial with socle of dimension 2n. Thus W realizes the maximum possible size of a module satisfying the hypothesis of the lemma. This proves that X is a section of W.

We now consider the orbits of G on W. We first check by computer that the statements are true for \mathrm{Sp}_4(2) and \mathrm{Sp}_6(2). This means that for non-trivial v+Y_0\in Y_1/Y_0, we know that C_G(v+Y_0) is perfect.

As G fixes every vector in Y_0, G has q orbits of length 1 on Y_0. The subgroup G acts transitively on Y_1/Y_0 . Let u+Y_0 be in Y_1/Y_0. Then the stabiliser in L of u+Y_0 is perfect and so centralize \langle u,Y_0\rangle. Thus on the elements of Y_1\setminus Y_0, G has q orbits each of length q^{2n}-1.

Let Z_+ and be an non-degenerate 2-space of +-type and Z_- be a non-degenerate 2-space of --type both containing Y_0. Write V= Z_+\perp Z_+^\perp= Z_-\perp Z_-^\perp. Let \epsilon =\pm and define H_\epsilon be the subgroup of H which preserves the decomposition V= Z_\epsilon\perp Z_\epsilon^\perp. As G is perfect, every element of G has determinant 1. Set G_\epsilon =G\cap H_\epsilon Then G_+\cong \Omega_{2n}^\epsilon(q){:}2\cong \mathrm{SO}_{2n}^\epsilon(q). Note that the involutions in the outer half of G_\epsilon have determinant 1 and so are not reflections on V. In particular, on Z_\epsilon they act with C_{Z_\epsilon}(G_\epsilon)= Y_0 and with orbits of length 2 on the vectors of Z_\epsilon\setminus Y_0. Thus for w \in Z_\epsilon\setminus Y_0 we have C_G(w) \cong \Omega_{2m}^\epsilon(q). In this way Z_\epsilon accounts for \frac{1}{2}(q^2-q) orbits each of length (q^{n}-\epsilon 1)q^n. Since

We have shown that the orbits of G on W are as described in Lemma 10.2. That is q of length 1, q of length q^{2n-1}, \frac{1}2(q^2-q) each of length (q^n- 1)q^n and (q^n+ 1)q^n.

First of all we consider G acting on {\mathcal W}. Then we note that by Lemma 10.2, Lemma 3.2, Lemma 3.3, Lemma 3.4, (G,H,{\mathcal W}) is immutable if and only if there exists an odd prime b dividing n such that H is conjugate to \mathrm{Sp}_{2n/b}(2^{ab}){:}b; or n=3 and H is conjugate to \mathrm{G}_2(2^a). It follows from Lemma 2.11 that every section of {\mathcal W} is immutable in these cases.

So now assume that (G,H,V) is immutable with n even, and H is conjugate to \mathrm{Sp}_{n}(2^a){:}2. Then by Lemma 10.2, Lemma 3.2, Lemma 3.3, (G,H,{\mathcal W}) is not immutable and this failure of immutability is due to the fact that the orbits with stabiliser \Omega_{2n}^+(2^a) split into two orbits for H. Thus to achieve immutability, we need to double the size of the stabilizers.

Assume that B \le C_{\mathcal W}(G) and V=A/B is a faithful section of {\mathcal W} with [{\mathcal W},G]\le A \le {\mathcal W}. The elements of a \in A\setminus [{\mathcal W},G] with stabilizers \Omega_{2n}^+(2^a) are the vectors whose stabiliser needs to grow in A/B. Let K be conjugate to \Omega_{2n}^+(2^a) such that a is centralized by K. Write {\mathcal W}=Z \perp Z^\perp where Z is 2a-dimensional centralized by K and Z^\perp=[\mathcal W,K]\le [\mathcal W,G]. Then a\in Z (as in the proof of Lemma 10.2). Now N_G(K) \cong \Omega_{2n}^+(2^a){:}2 has an element t of order 2 which acts as a \mathrm{GF}(2^a)-transvection on both Z and Z^\perp and so we need to find sections where t acts trivially. Note that C_Z(t)= C_{\mathcal W}(G) and set Z^\dagger to be the preimage of C_{Z /B}(t). Then Z^\dagger=\{z\in Z \mid[z,t]\le B\} and \dim Z /Z^\dagger=\dim C_{\mathcal W}(G)/B.

Now a+B is centralized by N_G(K) if and only if [a,t] \in B which is if and only if a \in Z^\dagger. Hence (G,H,V) is immutable if and only if [\mathcal W,G]\le A \le B^\dagger and this proves our claim.

Write q=2^a. By Lemma 9.11, Lemma 10.1, we may assume that every faithful composition factor of V is a natural module for G. We first claim that V has at most one faithful composition factor. So, for a contradiction, assume that V has at least two faithful composition factors. Choose a section of minimal dimension that contains at least two faithful composition factors. Then by Lemma 2.11 and induction, we may as well suppose that this section is V. Then V=[V,G] and C_V(G)=0. Let 0<X<Y<V be such that X is faithful and V/Y is faithful. Then X and V/Y are natural G-modules and Y/X is centralized by G.

If q=2 and n=3, then we check using Magma that the only candidate for V is a direct sum of two natural modules. Then we just check that a direct sum of two natural modules does not produce immutable triples. Thus q> 2 when n=3. In particular, the stabilizer of a vector in the natural module has shape q^{1+2(n-2)}{:}\mathrm{Sp}_{2n-2}(q) and is perfect.

Since V/Y and X are natural modules, G acts transitively on the non-zero vectors of both V/Y and X. Assume that (G,H,V) is immutable. Thus H\cong \mathrm{Sp}_{2n/b}(q^{ab}){:}b for some prime b dividing n or 2n=6 and H \cong \mathrm G_2(q). Let \tau be an element of order p where p is a Zsigmondy prime divisor of q^{2(n-1)}-1. Then p divides q^{(n-1)}+1. Notice that p \ge 2a(n-1)+1>n and so in particular, p > b for all prime divisors b of n. We know X= C_X(\tau)\perp [X,\tau] where C_X(\tau) has dimension 2a is non-degenerate. Suppose that n \ge 3. Then the Sylow p-subgroups of G are cyclic. Suppose that p divides |H|. Then \tau is conjugate to an element of H and so to an element of H'. If H'\cong \mathrm{Sp}_{2n/b}(q^b), then as |C_X(\tau)|= 2^{2a} and |C_X(\tau)| is a \mathrm{GF}(q^b) subspace, we deduce that b=2. Then C_X(\tau) is a 1-space and so is isotropic with respect to the \mathrm{GF}(q^b) form preserved by H'. However, this means that C_X(\tau) is isotropic as a \mathrm{GF}(q)-space; but it is not as it is non-degenerate. Hence p does not divide |H | in this case. If H\cong \mathrm G_2(q), then |H|=q^6(q^6-1)(q^2-1) and so |H| and p are coprime. Since (G,H,V) is immutable, every vector of V is centralized by some conjugate of \tau. We intend to prove something similar when n=2. In this case we know that H\cong \mathrm{SL}_2(q^2){:}2 and p divides q+1. Hence p certainly divides |H|. However the elements of H of order p act fixed-point-freely on X and so are not conjugate to \tau. It follows that H does not contain a Sylow p-subgroup of G and so if v\in V, then C_G(v) must have order divisible by p. Consider v \in V \setminus Y and let P be the centralizer of v+Y. Then some element of G of order p centralizes v and so centralizes v+Y. But then this element is conjugate into P and we conclude that v is centralized by a conjugate of \tau. Thus, every element of V\setminus Y is centralized by a conjugate of \tau.

Let v \in V \setminus Y and P be the centralizer of v+Y\in V/Y in G. Set J= \langle v,Y\rangle and K=[X,P]. Then \dim X/K = a and \dim J/K=a+\dim Y/X+1. Since P centralizes J/Y, Y/X and X/K, we have [J,P,P,P]<K and so, as P is perfect, we deduce that J/K is centralized by P.

Now acting on J, P leaves invariant a chain of submodules 0<L<K<J with \dim L=a, and K=L^\perp of dimension (2n+1)a. Furthermore, L and J/K are centralized by P and Y/X is the natural (2n-2)a-dimensional module for P/O_2(P). Set Q= O_2(P). Then K\ge [J,Q]\ge [Y,Q]=K, [K,Q]=X and C_Y(Q)=L. Let R= Z(P). Then R has order q with [X,R]=L and C_X(R)=K.

Let r \in R be an involution. Set \widetilde J=J/L. Then C_{\widetilde J}(r) \ge \widetilde X and [\widetilde J,r] \le [\widetilde J,P] \le \widetilde K. Since \widetilde J/C_{\widetilde J}(r)\cong [\widetilde J, r] as P-modules, and \widetilde J/C_{\widetilde J}(r) is centralized by P, we deduce from the fact that \widetilde K is irreducible, that [\widetilde J, r]=0. Hence [J,R]=[Y,R]=L. Notice that |J/K|\ge 2^{a+1}> \mathrm{End}_{P/O_2(P)}(\widetilde Y). Applying Lemma 2.21 to P/R yields C_{\widetilde J}(Q) has co-dimension a in \widetilde J. As C_{\widetilde X}(Q)= \widetilde K has codimension a in \widetilde X, we must have \widetilde J= C_{\widetilde J}(Q)+\widetilde X. Let C be the preimage of C_{\widetilde J}(Q) in J. Then

Let T\le P have order (q-1)^{n-1}. Then TQ/Q is contained in a subgroup of P/Q isomorphic to a direct product of n-1 copies of \mathrm{SL}_2(q). In particular T acts fixed-point-freely on K/L. Since C is P-invariant, C is in particular T-invariant. Set D= C_C(T). Then

and D>L. Let d \in D \setminus Y. Then d is centralized by an element s of order p (as every vector of V\setminus Y is centralized by a conjugate of \tau). Since s fixes d+W=v+W, s\in P. Set P^*= \langle s,T\rangle. Then, by [GuralnickPentillaPraegerSaxl, Main Theorem], P^* Q=P. Since P^* centralizes L and D/L, P^* centralizes D. As [D,Q]\le L, Q also normalizes D and so, as P is perfect, P centralizes D.

It follows that there is an element x \in V with x+Y = v+Y such that x is centralized by P. Now pick an element b \in K \setminus L. Consider x+b. We know that x+b is centralized by some element \tau^* of order p which is conjugate to \tau (as every of V\setminus Y is centralized by a conjugate of \tau). Thus x+b+Y= v+Y is centralized by \tau^*. It follows as above that \tau^* \in P. Therefore

and so b=b\tau^*. But \tau^* acts fixed-point-freely K/L and thus we have a contradiction. Hence (G,H,V) is not immutable as asserted. We have shown that V has a unique non-trivial composition factor. Suppose that [V,G] does not contain C_V(G). Then for v \in C_V(G)\setminus [V,G], we have \gen{v} is a centralized direct summand of V. Indeed, let U \ge C_{[V,G]}(G) be a complement to \gen{v} in C_V(G), then U+[V,G] is a G-invariant complement to \gen{v}. Since there are no such centralized summands, we have [V,G]\ge C_V(G). Hence [V,G]/C_V(G) is isomorphic to the natural module for \mathrm{Sp}_{2n}(q). Now Lemma 10.2 shows that V is a section of \mathcal W and the possibilities for (G,H,V) are then described in Lemma 10.4. This completes the proof.

Let t\in Z(G) be the involution. Assume that the result is false and that (G,H,V) is an immutable triple with t acting non-trivially on V and \dim V minimum with this property. In particular, V has no centralized direct summand. Since t does not centralize V,

and Lemma 2.11 implies that both (G,H,V/[V,t]) and (G, H,C_V(t)) are immutable.

If V/C_V(t) is not irreducible, then choose a submodule V>W>C_V(t). By Lemma 2.11, (G, H,W) is immutable. Since t acts non-trivially on W, this contradicts the minimal choice of V. Hence V/C_V(t) is an irreducible \mathrm{GF}(2)G-module. As [V,t]\cong V/C_V(t), [V,t] is also irreducible. Assume that U \le C_V(t) is a G-submodule such that U \cap [V,t]=0. Then t acts non-trivially on V/U and so the minimality of V yields U=0. Hence [V,t] is the socle of C_V(t).

We intend to determine the candidates for G and V as listed in Proof Proof. Assume that [V,t] \ne C_V(t). Then, as C_V(t) has socle [V,t], the results of ?, ? together yield the first two lines and final two lines of Proof Proof. So assume that C_V(t)=[V,t]. Then the potential candidates for V are obtained from Theorem A, Proposition 9.2 after remembering that V/C_V(t)\cong [V,t] as \mathrm{GF}(2)G-module, we obtain the remaining lines of Proof Proof.

Suppose first that C_V(t)\ne [V,t]. Then G is either 2^.\mathrm{Alt}(6) or 2^.\mathrm{Sp}_6(2). We employ the Magma command LowDimensionalModules and see that there are no faithful modules of dimension less then 14 for the 2^.\mathrm{Sp}_6(2) and that 2^.\mathrm{Alt}(6) has two faithful 9-dimensional modules as detailed in the second last row of Proof Proof. A quick Magma check shows that these examples do not result in immutable triples.

Thus we may assume that C_V(t)=[V,t]. Here we check the cohomology condition from Lemma 2.22. Thus we set X= V/C_V(t) and calculate using Magma that \dim \mathrm H^1(G,(X\otimes X^*)/C_{X\otimes X^*}(G))=0, and conclude that there are in fact no faithful modules V. This completes the proof.

Choose a counter example with \dim V minimal. Let t \in Z(G)^\#. Then V/[V,t] is a module for G/\gen{t}. Since (G ,H ,V/[V,t]) is immutable by Lemma 2.11, Lemma 11.1 yields [V,t]=[V,Z(G)]. Similarly C_V(t)=C_V(Z(G)). As in Lemma 11.1, we may assume that [V,t] is irreducible and C_V(t) has socle [V,t]. Since C_V(t) has no centralized summand, we deduce that C_V(t) is irreducible. Hence [V,t]=C_V(t)=C_V(Z(G))=[V,Z(G)]. Since G is perfect, it follows that \dim [V,t]=8 by Theorem A. In particular, \dim V=16. Now commutation with the elements of Z(G) determines a set of four linear maps in \mathrm{Hom}_G(V/C_V(t),[V,t])\cong \mathrm{End}_G(V/C_V(t)) \cong \mathrm{GF}(2), a contradiction.