IMAGE OF THE ARTIN GROUPS OF CLASSICAL TYPES INSIDE THE FINITE
IWAHORI-HECKE ALGEBRAS
ALEXANDRE ESTERLE
Abstract. We determine the image of the Artin groups of types B and D inside the Iwahori-Hecke algebras,
when defined over finite fields, in the semisimple case. This generalizes earlier work on type A by Brunat,
Magaard and Marin. In this multi-parameter case, this image depends heavily on the parameters.

arXiv:1707.02479v1 [math.RT] 8 Jul 2017

1. Introduction and notation
In this article, we determine the image of the Artin groups of types B and D inside the Iwahori-Hecke
algebras defined over finite fields in the semisimple case. We now recall previous work done on this subject.
O. Brunat and I. Marin determine the image of the usual braid group inside the finite Temperley-Lieb algebra
[4] and O. Brunat, K. Magaard and I. Marin determine the image of the usual braid group inside its finite
Iwahori-Hecke algebra [3]. In [19], I. Marin determines the Zariski closure of the image of the Artin groups
inside the corresponding Iwahori-Hecke algebra in characteristic 0 and for generic parameters. In this paper
we extend and conclude the study of classical types over finite fields and establish results which are a natural
sequel to the results in [19]. For a Coxeter group W , we write AW for its associated Artin group and AW
for the derived subgroup of AW . In theorems analogous to Theorem 1.1 of [3], we determine, under certain
conditions on the parameters of our finite Iwahori-Hecke algebras, the image of the derived subgroups of the
Artin groups ABn and ADn inside their associated Iwahori-Hecke algebras. Restricting to the derived subgroup
is, as it was in type A, more convenient, and does not significantly weaken our results since ABn /ABn ≃ Z2
and ADn /ADn ≃ Z. For type B, the main results are given in Theorems 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 in Section 2.2.2. The
main result for type D is given in Theorem 3.2.
1
As in [2], we write SLn (q), SUn (q 2 ), SPn (q) and Ω±
n (q) for the finite classical groups acting naturally on the
vector space Fnq . As in [4] and [3] for type A, the irreducible representations of the Iwahori-Hecke algebras in
types B and D are explicitly described by the Hoefsmit model (see [8] or [12]). The irreducible representations
of the Iwahori-Hecke algebras are indexed by double-partitions λ of n and have a basis formed by the standard
double-tableaux T associated with those double-partitions. A double-partition of n is a partition of r and a
partition of n − r for a given r ∈ [[0, n]]. Each double-partition is therefore associated with two Young diagrams,
a standard double-tableau associated with this double-partition is the result of some filling of these Young
diagrams with the integers from 1 to n which increase towards the right and towards the bottom within each
diagram. The image of ABn and ADn by a given irreducible representation associated to a double-partition
is one of the above finite classical groups defined over Fq or F 12 , depending on properties of the doubleq
partitions and of the field on which the Iwahori-Hecke algebra is defined. In order to recover the image inside
the full Iwahori-Hecke algebra over the field on which it is defined, we find the factorizations between different
irreducible representations (see Propositions 2.5, 2.6 and 3.6) depending on combinatorial properties of the
double-partitions, and then use Goursat’s Lemma (see [9]).
Certain problems arise when treating types B and D which were not present in the case of type A. The main
difficulty which arises in type B comes from the second parameter which forces us to deal with a larger variety
of field extensions (see Section 2.2.2). The image varies according to the field extension which is considered, in
the last three cases, the results obtained are quite different from the ones in type A. The outline of the proof
is the same as in [3], we first find the factorizations between the different representations and prove the result
for small n. Then we get the result for all n by induction using a theorem by Guralnick and Saxl [10] and the
branching rule. The small cases are the most interesting parts of the study and require techniques different from
the ones in [3]. One of these techniques is to use the maximal subgroups of low-dimensional classical groups
which were determined in [2].
In type D, the main difficulty comes from the fact that the representations associated with double-partitions
with the same components split into two irreducible representations and we have to consider the doublepartitions up to transposition of the two components. For example, this produces a more complex branching
rule (Lemma 3.1).
Our results about the image of Artin groups inside the finite Hecke algebras may have various applications.
For instance, finite classical groups and direct products of finite classical groups appear as finite quotients of
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 20C08, 20F36 ; Secondary 20E28.
Key words and phrases. Artin group, Iwahori-Hecke algebra, Representation, Finite classical group.
1

the Artin groups. Since the latter are fundamental groups of algebraic varieties, this also defines interesting
finite coverings of these varieties. Since these varieties are defined over Q, this may have applications to inverse
Galois theory (see for example [23]). It is also interesting in terms of finite classical groups because we get
explicit generators verifying the braid relations for those groups. This can provide interesting constructions of
these groups and some of their subgroups by looking at restrictions to parabolic subgroups of the Artin groups.
We now introduce various notations which we use throughout the article. For a finite group G, we write
Op (G) for its maximal normal p-subgroup and G′ = [G, G] for its derived subgroup. We write k for the cyclic
group of order k, N.H for an extension of N by H which can be split and N : H for a split extension of N by H
where in both cases N is the normal subgroup. We write Epn for the elementary abelian group of order pn . If
λ is a double-partition of n, we write λ ⊢⊢ n and if T = (T1 , T2 ) is a double-tableau associated with λ, we write
T ∈ λ and we call T1 and T2 the components of T. For i ∈ [[1, n]] and T ∈ λ, we write τT (i) = 1 if i is in the
left component of T and τT (i) = 2 if i is in the right component of T. We write nλ for the number of standard
double-tableaux associated with λ. We write IN the identity matrix and Ei,j the elementary matrices.
Acknowledgments. This article is part of a doctoral thesis directed by O. Brunat and I. Marin. The
author thanks I. Marin for a careful reading of the manuscript and suggested improvements. The author
thanks O. Brunat and I. Marin for help understanding [3] and [4] and discussions on some proofs of this article.
The author also thanks K. Magaard for suggestions which were a great help to simplify proofs for the low
dimensional cases. The author thanks R. Chaneb for pointing out [2] for maximal subgroups of low-dimensional
finite classical groups.
2. Type B
Let p be a prime, n ∈ N⋆ , α ∈ Fp of order a greater than n and not in {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10} and β ∈
Fp \ {−αi , −(n − 1) ≤ i ≤ n − 1} different from 1. We set Fq = Fp (α, β). The Artin group of type B is the group
generated by the elements T = S0 , S1 , . . . , Sn−1 verifying the relation S0 S1 S0 S1 = S1 S0 S1 S0 , for i ∈ [[1, n − 2]],
Si Si+1 Si = Si+1 Si Si+1 and for (i, j) ∈ [[0, n − 1]] such that |i − j| ≥ 2, Si Sj = Sj Si . The associated IwahoriHecke Fq -algebra is defined by the generators indexed in the same way as for the Artin group and verifying
the previous relations and deformations of the relations of order 2 of the Coxeter groups : (T − β)(T + 1) = 0
and for i ∈ [[1, n − 1]], (Si − α)(Si + 1) = 0. In the following, we identify the Artin group with its image inside
the Iwahori-Hecke algebra. We write ℓ1 , ℓ2 for the length functions on ABn = hT, Si ii∈[[1,n−1]] such that for all
i ∈ [[1, n − 1]], ℓ1 (Si ) = 1, ℓ1 (T ) = 0, ℓ2 (Si ) = 0 and ℓ2 (T ) = 1.
In Section 2.1 we give the irreducible representations described by the Hoefsmit model in [8] and [12] (Theorem
2.1) and define a weight on standard tableaux and double-partitions of n which allows us to define a bilinear
form verifying nice properties (Proposition 2.1).
In Section 2.2, we determine all the isomorphisms between different irreducible representations and then state
the main results for type B (Theorem 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4).
In Section 2.3, we prove the result in all possible cases depending on the properties of the field extensions Fq
of Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ) and Fp (α) of Fp (α + α−1 ).
2.1. Hoefsmit model and first properties.
Theorem 2.1. Assume α is of order greater than n and β ∈ Fp \ {−αi , −(n − 1) ≤ i ≤ n − 1}. The following
matrix model gives a list of the pairwise non-isomorphic absolutely irreducible modules Vλ of the Iwahori-Hecke
algebra Hn,α,β indexed by double-partitions of n.
If T = (T1 , T2 ) is a standard double-tableau, then
• if 1 ∈ T1 , T.T = βT and if 1 ∈ T2 , T.T = −T,
• Si .T = mi (T)T + (1 + mi (T))T̃ where T̃ = Ti↔i+1 if Ti↔i+1 is standard and 0 otherwise.
α−1
cj (T)−rj (T)
Above we have mi (T) =
β if j ∈ T1 and ct(T : j) = −αcj (T)−rj (T) otherwise
ct(T:i) , ct(T : j) = α
1− ct(T:i+1)

and rj (T) (resp cj (T)) is the row (resp column) of j in the tableau of T containing j.

Proof. This theorem is a standard result and the proof in the generic case can be found in [8] or Hoefsmit’s
Ph.D. thesis [12]. The proof in the finite field case is similar. For more details, we refer the interested reader to
[7].

We now generalize the work done in [3] for type A to type B, that is we define a bilinear form which is fixed
by the image of the derived subgroup of the Artin
algebra. We define a weight
Q group of the Iwahori-Hecke Q
(−1), ω2 (T) =
(−1) and ω3 (T) =
by ω(T) = ω1 (T)ω2 (T)ω3 (T) where ω1 (T) =
i<j,i∈T1 ,j∈T2
i<j,i,j∈T2 ,ri (T)>rj (T)
Q
(−1) and a bilinear form (.|.) by (T|T̃) = ω(T)δT′ ,T̃ where T′ = (T′2 , T′1 ) for T = (T1 , T2 ). In

i<j,i,j∈T1 ,ri (T)>rj (T)
′

the same way λ = (λ′2 , λ′1 ) is the transpose of λ = (λ1 , λ2 ).
2

m−b(µ)

and if λ = (λ1 , λ2 )
If µ is a partition of m with diagonal size b(µ) = max{i, µi ≥ i}, we let ν(µ) = (−1) 2
is a double-partition with λ1 a partition of r and λ2 a partition of n − r, we let ν̃(λ) = ν(λ1 )ν(λ2 )(−1)r(n−r) .
We now give a proposition similar to Proposition 3.1 in [3].
Proposition 2.1. For all standard double-tableaux T, T̃, we have the following properties.
(1) (Si .T|Si .T̃) = (−α)(T|T̃) and (T.T|T.T̃) = (−β)(T|T̃).
(2) For all b ∈ Bn , (b.T|b.T̃) = (T|T̃).
(3) The restriction of (.|.) to Vλ when λ = λ′ and to Vλ ⊕ Vλ′ when λ 6= λ′ is non-degenerate.
Suppose that λ = λ′ . Then (., .) is symmetric on Vλ if ν̃(λ) = 1 and skew-symmetric otherwise.
Moreover, its Witt index is positive.
Proof. Let T and T̃ be two double standard-tableaux.
1. We have (T.T|T.T̃) 6= 0 ⇔ (T|T̃) 6= 0 ⇔ T′ = T̃ ⇒ (T.T|T.T̃) = −β(T|T̃) because τT (1) = 3 − τT′ (1).
Let i ∈ [[1, n − 1]], if τT (i) = τT (i + 1) then by [3, Prop 2.4.], we have (Si .T|Si .T̃) = (T|T̃) because in the
same way, we have ω(T) = −ω(Ti↔i+1 ) for any standard double-tableau T and mi (T) = mi (TτT (i) ) when
τT (i) = τT (i + 1). We now assume τT (i) 6= τT (i + 1). We have that Si .T = mi (T)T + (1 + mi (T))Ti↔i+1 and
Si .T̃ = mi (T̃)T̃ + (1 + mi (T̃))T̃i↔i+1 . It follows that
(Si .T|Si .T̃)

= mi (T)mi (T̃)(T|T̃) + (1 + mi (T))mi (T̃)(Ti↔i+1 , T̃) + mi (T)(1 + mi (T̃))(T|T̃i↔i+1 )
+ (1 + mi (T))(1 + mi (T̃))(Ti↔i+1 |T̃i↔i+1 ).

This is non-zero only if T̃ = T′ or T̃ = T′i↔i+1 . We now have two possible cases.
The first case is T̃ = T′ . We write a = ci − ri + ri+1 − ci+1 with (ri , ci ) and (ri+1 , ci+1 ) the boxes in T, we
then have
(Si .T|Si .T̃) =
=
=

=
=
The second case is T̃ =
(Si .T|Si .T̃)

T′i↔i+1 ,

mi (T)mi (T′ )ω(T) + (1 + mi (T))(1 + mi (T′ ))ω(Ti↔i+1 )
−ω(T)(1 + mi (T) + mi (T′ ))
!
α−1
α−1
−ω(T) 1 +
+
uτ (i)
u
1 + uτ (i+1)
1 + uτ (i+1)
αa
α−a
τ (i)
!
u
uτ (i)
αa + 1 + uτ (i+1)
α−a
1 + uτ (i+1)
τ (i)
−ω(T)1 + (α − 1)
u
uτ (i)
αa + uτ (i+1)
α−a + 1
1 + uτ (i+1)
τ (i)
−α(T|T̃).
we then have

= (1 + mi (T))(mi (T′i↔i+1 ))ω(Ti↔i+1 ) + mi (T)(1 + mi (T′i↔i+1 ))ω(T)
= −ω(T)(mi (T′i↔i+1 ) − mi (T))



= −ω(T) 

α−1

1+

uτ (i) αri+1 −ci+1
uτ (i+1) αri −ci

−

1+

α−1

uτ (i) αci −ri
uτ (i+1) αci+1 −ri+1

= 0





= −α(T|T̃).
This concludes the proof of the first result, (2) follows from the first result.
3. By definition, the bilinear form is non-degenerate. Assume λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) = λ′ . We consider T = (T1 |T2 ) ⊢
⊢ n. Since substituting i1 < i2 < ... < il in T1 by 1 < 2 < ... < l does not change the product and
the weight ω on T ∈Qµ for µ ⊢⊢ n satisfies ω(T)ω(T′ ) = ν(µ) by [18](Lemme 6), we have ω(T)ω(T′ ) =
(−1). The cardinal of the set {i < j, i ∈ T1 , j ∈ T2 or i ∈ T2 , j ∈ T1 } is equal
ν(λ1 )ν(λ2 )
i<j,i∈T1 ,j∈T2 or i∈T2 ,j∈T1

to the number of pairs (i, j) with i in T1 and j in T2 , which equals ( n2 )2 . It follows that ω(T)ω(T′ ) = ν̃(λ) for
any standard double-tableau T associated with λ. For any pair (T, T̃), we have that
(T̃|T) = ω(T̃)δT,T̃′ = ν̃(λ)ω(T̃′ )δT,T̃′ = ν̃(λ)ω(T)δT̃,T′ = ν̃(λ)(T|T̃).
The Witt index is positive since the basis can be partitioned in pairs (T|T′ ).



We remark that we have proved that ω(T)ω(T′ ) = ν̃(λ) for any double-partition λ and standard doubletableau T in Vλ .
2.2. Factorization of the image of the Artin group in the Iwahori-Hecke algebra.
3

2.2.1. Isomorphisms between representations. Let L ∈ End(V ) be defined by T 7→ ω(T)T′ . We give a generalization of Lemma 3.2. of [3].
Proposition 2.2. Let λ be a double-partition of n such that λ 6= λ′ (resp λ = λ′ ). L induces an endomorphism
of Vλ ⊕ Vλ′ (resp Vλ ) which switches Vλ and Vλ′ (resp leaves Vλ stable) such that the actions of Sr and T satisfy
LSr L−1 (−α)−1 = tSr−1 , LT L−1 (−β)−1 = tT −1 .
Proof. This follows directly from Proposition 2.1 by writing the matrix of the bilinear form and the matrix of
L.


We now suppose Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ).
We then have an Fq -automorphism ǫ of order 2 such that ǫ(α) = α−1 and ǫ(β) = β −1 .
Let h., .i be the hermitian form defined by hT, T̃i = d(T)δT,T̃ where

˜ 1 )d(T
˜ 2)
d(T) = d(T

Y

i∈T1 ,j∈T2 ,i<j

2 + βαai,j −1 + β −1 α1−ai,j
α + α−1 + βαai,j + β −1 α−ai,j

with ai,j = ci − ri + rj − cj and d˜ induced by the d defined in [3] applied to T1 and T2 by seeing them as
standard tableaux using the ordered bijections onto [[1, r]] and [[1, n − r]].
We now check that d(T) is well defined and non-zero for any standard double-tableau. We prove in what
follows that the big product in the expression of d is indeed well-defined and non-zero for any double-tableau
with no empty components.
Let λ ⊢⊢ n, T = (T1 , T2 ) ∈ λ and (i, j) a pair of integers such that i < j, i ∈ T1 and j ∈ T2 . We set r
to be the number of boxes of T1 , we have 1 − r ≤ ci − ri ≤ r − 1 and 1 − (n − r) ≤ cj − rj ≤ n − r − 1
so 2 − n ≤ a = ai,j ≤ n − 2. We have α + α−1 + βαa + β −1 α−a = α(1 + βαa−1 ) + α−a β −1 (1 + βαa−1 ) =
α(1 + βαa−1 )(1 + α−a−1 β −1 ). This product never cancels because β ∈
/ {−αi , 1 − n ≤ i ≤ n − 1}. In the same
a−1
−1 1−a
a−1
−1 1−a
way 2 + βα
+β α
= (1 + βα
)(1 + β α
) never cancels.
Now we have defined this hermitian form, we can generalize Proposition 3.6 from [3].
Proposition 2.3. The group ABn acts in a unitary way on V with respect to this hermitian form and this form
is non-degenerate on Vλ for any double-partition λ of n. In particular, for any double-partition λ of n, there
exists a matrix P ∈ GLnλ (q) such that P Rλ (T )P −1 = ǫ(Rλ⋆ (T )) = Rλ (T ) and P Rλ (Sr )P −1 = ǫ(Rλ⋆ (Sr )).
Proof. The action of T is indeed unitary with regards to this hermitian form because βǫ(β) = (−1)ǫ(−1) = 1.
Let T be a standard double-tableau and r ∈ [[1, n − 1]]. If τT (r) = τT (r + 1) then the result is a consequence of
Proposition 3.6. in [3].
We now assume that τT (r) 6= τT (r + 1), up to switching T and Tr↔r+1 we can assume that τT (r) = 1 and
τT (r + 1) = 2. It remains to show that hT, Ti = hSr .T, Sr .Ti, hTr↔r+1 , Tr↔r+1 i = hSr .Tr↔r+1 , Sr .Tr↔r+1 i and
hSr .T, Sr .Tr↔r+1 i = hT, Tr↔r+1 i. In the following computation, we write a = ai,i+1 and T̃ = Tr↔r+1 . We have
hSr .T, Sr .Ti

= mr (T)ǫ(mr (T))d(T) + (1 + mr (T))ǫ(1 + mr (T))d(T̃)


α + α−1 + βαa + β −1 α−a
(1 + mr (T))ǫ(1 + mr (T)))
= d(T)(mr (T)ǫ(mr (T)) +
2 + βαa−1 + β −1 α1−a


α−1 − 1
α + α−1 + βαa + β −1 α−a α + βαa α−1 + β −1 α−a
α−1
+
= d(T)
1 + βαa 1 + β −1 α−a
2 + βαa−1 + β −1 α1−a 1 + βαa 1 + β −1 α−a


−1
α + α−1 + βαa + β −1 α−a
2−α−α
+
= d(T)
2 + βαa + β −1 α−a
2 + βαa + β −1 α−a
= d(T)
= hT, Ti.
4

We also have
hSr .T̃, Sr .T̃i

= mr (T̃)ǫ(mr (T̃))d(T̃) + (1 + mr (T̃))ǫ(1 + mr (T̃))d(T)


α−1
α−1 − 1
2 + βαa−1 + β −1 α1−a α + β −1 α−a α−1 + βαa
= d(T̃)
+
1 + β −1 α−a 1 + βαa
α + α−1 + βαa + β −1 α−a 1 + β −1 α−a 1 + βαa

−1
2−α−α
= d(T̃)
+
2 + βαa + β −1 α−a

4 + 2βαa+1 + 2β −1 α−a−1 + 2βαa−1 + β 2 α2a + α−2 + 2β −1 α1−a + α2 + β −2 α−2a
(α + α−1 + βαa + β −1 α−a )(2 + βαa + β −1 α−a )


2 − α − α−1
(α + α−1 + βαa + β −1 α−a )2
= d(T̃)
+
2 + βαa + β −1 α−a
(α + α−1 + βαa + β −1 α−a )(2 + βαa + β −1 α−a )
= d(T̃)

Finally, we have
hSr .T, Sr .T̃i

= hT̃, T̃i.
= mr (T)ǫ(1 + mr (T̃))d(T) + (1 + mr (T))ǫ(mr (T̃))d(T̃)


α − 1 α−1 + βαa
α + α−1 + βαa + β −1 α−a α + βαa α−1 − 1
= d(T)
+
1 + βαa 1 + βαa
2 + βαa−1 + β −1 α1−a 1 + βαa 1 + βαa
α−1
(α−1 + βαa )(2 + βαa−1 + β −1 α1−a )−
= d(T)
(1 + βαa )2 (2 + βαa−1 + β −1 α1−a )

α−1 (α + α−1 + βαa + β −1 α−a )(α + βαa )
α−1
= d(T)
2α−1 + βαa−2 + β −1 α−a + 2βαa +
a
2
(1 + βα ) (2 + βαa−1 + β −1 α1−a )

β 2 α2a−1 + α − α − α−1 − βαa − β −1 α−a − βαa − βαa−2 − β 2 α2a−1 − α−1
= 0
= hT, T̃i.



We recall that ABn = [ABn , ABn ] is the derived subgroup of ABn . When it exists, we write ǫ for the
automorphism of order 2 of Fq = Fp (α, β).
Lemma 2.1. If λ is a double-partition of n then the restriction of Rλ to ABn is absolutely irreducible.
Proof. For n ≤ 3, this is a consequence of the results on the representations with two columns by [17] (Proposition 5). Since ABn is generated by ABn−1 and ABn , we have the result by the same method as in the Lemma
3.4(i) of [3].

We now recall Lemma 2.2 of [3].
Lemma 2.2. Let G be a group, k a field and R1 , R2 two representations of G in GLN (k) such that the
restrictions to the derived subgroup of G are equal and the restriction of at least one of them is absolutely
irreducible. There exists a character η : G → k ⋆ such that R2 = R1 ⊗ η.
Proposition 2.4. If λ1 a partition of n then R(λ1 ,∅)|ABn ≃ R(∅,λ1 )|ABn .
Proof. The action of T is diagonal and the action of Si on (T1 , ∅) is identical to the one on (∅, T1 ) so the proof
of the result is straightforward.

Proposition 2.5. Let λ and µ be double-partitions of n with no empty components. We then have the following
properties.
(1) If Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ), then
(a) Rλ|ABn ≃ Rµ|ABn ⇔ λ = µ,
⋆
⇔ λ = µ′ .
(b) Rλ|ABn ≃ Rµ|A
Bn
(2) If Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ), then
(a) Rλ|ABn ≃ Rµ|ABn ⇔ λ = µ,
⋆
⇔ λ = µ′ ,
(b) Rλ|ABn ≃ Rµ|A
Bn
(c) Rλ|ABn ≃ ǫ ◦ Rµ|ABn ⇔ λ = µ′ ,
⋆
⇔ λ = µ.
(d) Rλ|ABn ≃ ǫ ◦ Rµ|A
Bn
(3) If Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ), then
(a) Rλ|ABn ≃ Rµ|ABn ⇔ λ = µ,
5

⋆
⇔ λ = µ′ ,
(b) Rλ|ABn ≃ Rµ|A
Bn
(c) Rλ|ABn ≃ ǫ ◦ Rµ|ABn ⇔ (λ1 , λ2 ) = (µ′1 , µ′2 ),
⋆
⇔ (λ1 , λ2 ) = (µ2 , µ1 ).
(d) Rλ|ABn ≃ ǫ ◦ Rµ|A
Bn
(4) If Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) 6= Fp (α, β + β −1 ) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ), then
(a) Rλ|ABn ≃ Rµ|ABn ⇔ λ = µ,
⋆
⇔ λ = µ′ ,
(b) Rλ|ABn ≃ Rµ|A
Bn
(c) Rλ|ABn ≃ ǫ ◦ Rµ|ABn ⇔ (λ1 , λ2 ) = (µ2 , µ1 ),
⋆
⇔ (λ1 , λ2 ) = (µ′1 , µ′2 ).
(d) Rλ|ABn ≃ ǫ ◦ Rµ|A
B
n

Proof. In all cases, (a) and (b) are the same and the proof is identical.
(a) By the preceding lemmas, it is sufficient to show that if there exists η : ABn → F⋆q such that Rλ ≃ Rµ ⊗ η
then λ = µ. Assume such a character exists, since the abelianization of ABn is < T , S1 >≃ Z2 , up to conjugation
we have Rλ (b) = Rµ (b)uℓ1 (b) v ℓ2 (b) for some u, v ∈ F⋆q . Taking the eigenvalues of S1 and T on both sides of the
equality we get that {α, −1} = {uα, −u} and {β, −1} = {vβ, −v}. Since α2 6= 1 6= β 2 , we have u = v = 1 which
implies that Rλ and Rµ are isomorphic representations. By theorem 2.1, this implies λ = µ.
⋆
follows from Proposition 2.2.
(b) The implication λ = µ′ ⇒ Rλ|ABn ≃ Rµ|A
Bn
⋆
⋆
⋆
)⋆ = Rµ|ABn . The result follow
≃ (Rµ|A
Assume now Rλ|ABn ≃ Rµ|AB , we then have Rλ′ |ABn ≃ Rλ|A
Bn
Bn
n
from (a).
In the same way, it is enough to show the converse implication in the remainder of the proof.
2. d) This result follows directly from Proposition 2.3.
2. c) By 2. d) and 2. b), we have

ǫ ◦ Rλ′ |ABn ≃ ǫ ◦ (ǫ ◦ Rλ⋆ ′ |ABn ) = Rλ⋆ ′ |ABn ≃ Rλ|ABn .
3) In this case ǫ(α) = α−1 and ǫ(β) = β.
3. c) For every standard double-tableau T = (T1 , T2 ), we define T̃ by T̃ = (T′1 , T′2 ). Let η : ABn → F⋆q be the
character of ABn defined by η(T ) = 1 and η(Sr ) = −α for all r.
Let Q : V(λ1 ,λ2 ) → V(λ′1 ,λ′2 ) , (T1 , T2 ) 7→ (T′1 , T′2 ), U : Vλ → Vλ , T 7→ ω(T)T.
Using the same notations as in Proposition 2.3, we will show that for all r ∈ [[1, n − 1]] :
Q−1 (−α)ǫ(Rλ′1 ,λ′2 (Sr ))Q = U −1 P Rλ (Sr )P −1 U, Q−1 ǫ(Rλ′1 ,λ′2 (T ))Q = U −1 P Rλ (T )P −1 U.

Let T = (T1 , T2 ) be a standard double-tableau. The second equality follows from P Rλ (T )P −1 = Rλ (T ) and
ǫ(β) = β. If Tr↔r+1 is non-standard, the first equality is verified by Sr . Assume Tr↔r+1 is standard, write
a = ar,r+1 . If τT (r) = τT (r + 1) then in the basis (T, Tr↔r+1 ), we have :
!
!
−1
−a
−1
−a
Rλ (Sr ) =

−αQ

−1

α−1
1−αaa
α+α
1−αa

α−α
1−α−a
α−1
1−α−a

, U −1 P Rλ (Sr )P −1 U = −α

ǫ(Rλ′1 ,λ′2 (Sr ))Q = −αǫ(

If τT (r) = 1 and τT (r + 1) = 2 then we have
!
−1 −a
Rλ (Sr ) =

α−1
1+βαaa
α+βα
1+βαa

α+β α
1+β −1 α−a
α−1
1+β −1 α−a

,U

−αQ−1 ǫ(Rλ′1 ,λ′2 )Q = −αǫ(

−1

α−1
1−α−a
α−α−a
1−α−a

P Rλ (Sr )P

α−1
1+βα−a
α+βα−a
1+βα−a

α−αa
1−αa
α−1
1−αa

−1

!

!

α

−α
1−α−a
−1
α −1
1−α−a

,

= U −1 P Rλ (Sr )P −1 U.

U = −α

α+β −1 αa
1+β −1 αa
α−1
1+β −1 αa

α −1
1−αa
α−1 −αa
1−αa

α−1 −1
1+βαa
βαa +α−1
1+βαa

β −1 α−a +α−1
1+β −1 α−a
α−1 −1
1+β −1 α−a

!

,

= U −1 P Rλ (Sr )P −1 U.

It follows that R(λ1 ,λ2 )|ABn ≃ ǫ ◦ R(λ′1 ,λ′2 )|ABn .
3. d) This is a consequence of 3. c) and 3. b).
4. c, 4. d) The proof of these results is analogous to the ones of 3. d) and 3. c).



For r ∈ [[1, n − 1]], we define the double-partitions λ(r) = ([1n−r ], [r]) and λ(r) = ([r], [1n−r ]). The following
proposition is a generalization of Proposition 3.5 of [3].
Proposition 2.6. For r ∈ [[1, n − 1]], there exists η1,r , η2,r : ABn → F⋆q such that
Rλ(r) ≃ (Λr Rλ(1) ) ⊗ η1,r and Rλ(r) ≃ (Λr Rλ(1) ) ⊗ η2,r .
Proof. Every double-tableau associated with λ can be mapped in a one-to-one way to a set {i1 , i2 , ..., ir } ⊂ [[1, n]]
such that i1 < i2 < ... < ir where ik is the number in the k-th box of the right component. We write vI the
corresponding double-tableau and vi = v{i} .
After computation, we get the following for k ∈ [[1, n − 1]].
6

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

If
If
If
If

1 ∈ I then Rλ(r) (T )vI = −vI .
1∈
/ I then Rλ(r) (T )vI = βvI .
k, k + 1 ∈
/ I then Rλ(r) (Sk )vI = −vI .
k, k + 1 ∈ I then Rλ(r) (Sk )vI = αvI .

(5) If k ∈ I, k + 1 ∈
/ I then Rλ(r) (Sk )vI =

(6) If k ∈
/ I, k + 1 ∈ I then Rλ(r) (Sk )vI =

−1 k−1
α
α−1
v + α+β
v
.
1+β −1 αk−1 I
1+β −1 αk−1 I∆{k,k+1}
α+βα1−k
α−1
v + 1+βα1−k vI∆{k,k+1} .
1+βα1−k I

Above, ∆ is the symmetric difference : A∆B = (A ∪ B) \ (A ∩ B).
To each set I = {i1 , i2 , ..., ir } can be given in a one-to-one way an element uI of Λr Rλ(1) writing
uI = vi1 ∧ vi2 ∧ ... ∧ vir and these uI form a basis. For k ∈ [[1, n − 1]], we have the following.
(1) If 1 ∈ I then Λr Rλ(1) (T )uI = −β r−1 uI .
(2) If 1 ∈
/ I then Λr Rλ(1) (T )uI = β r uI .
(3) If k, k + 1 ∈
/ I then Λr Rλ(1) (Sk )uI = (−1)r uI .
(4) If k, k + 1 ∈ I then Λr Rλ(1) (Sk )uI = (−1)r−1 αuI .
−1

k−1

−r−1 α+β α
(5) If k ∈ I, k + 1 ∈
/ I then Λr Rλ(1) (Sk )uI = (−1)r−1 1+βα−1
−1 αk−1 uI + (−1)
1+β −1 αk−1 uI∆{k,k+1} .
1−k

α−1
r−1 α+βα
(6) If k ∈
/ I, k + 1 ∈ I then Λr Rλ(1) (Sk )uI = (−1)r−1 1+βα
u
.
1−k uI + (−1)
1+βα1−k I∆{k,k+1}

Looking at the basis change vI 7→ uI and the character η1,r (h) = (−1)(r−1)ℓ1 (h) β (r−1)ℓ2 (h) , we have the first
part of the proposition. In the same way, writing η2,r (h) = (−1)(r−1)ℓ1 (h) (−1)(r−1)ℓ2 (h) , we have the second
part of the proposition.

2.2.2. Factorization depending on the field. The result depends on the properties of the field extension Fq =
Fp (α, β) of Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ) and the field extension Fq̃ = Fp (α) of Fp (α + α−1 ). By elementary field theory,
we have the following possibilities.
(1) Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ) and Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ).
(2) Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ) and Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ).
(3) Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ).
(4) Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ).
(5) Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) 6= Fp (α, β + β −1 ) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ) and Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ).
(6) Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) 6= Fp (α, β + β −1 ) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ) and Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ).
We remark that in the third and fourth cases, we have Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ).
Before stating the main results for type B, we recall the two following lemmas, the first one is Lemma 2.4 of
[4] and the proof of the second one is included in the proof of Proposition 4.1 of [3].
Lemma 2.3. Let ρ be an absolutely irreducible representation of a group G in GLr (q) where Fq is a finite field
such that there exists an automorphism ǫ of order 2 of Fq . If ρ ≃ ǫ ◦ ρ⋆ , then there exists S ∈ GLr (q) such that
1
S −1 ρ(g)S ∈ GUr (q 2 ) for all g ∈ G.
Lemma 2.4. Let ρ and G be as in the previous lemma. If ρ ≃ ǫ ◦ ρ, then there exists S ∈ GLr (q) such that
1
S −1 ρ(g)S ∈ GLr (q 2 ) for all g ∈ G.
In certain cases, (λ1 , λ2 ) factorizes through (λ2 , λ1 ) or (λ′1 , λ′2 ) so we need a good order on double-partitions
of n. We first choose for r ≤ n an order on partitions of r such that if r has 2l partitions different from their
transpose {ai , ai′ }i∈[[1,l]] and s partitions {al+i }i∈[[1,s]] equal to their transpose then a1 < a′1 < a2 < a′2 < ... <
al < a′l < al+1 = a′l+1 < ... < al+s = a′l+s . We also require a1 = [r]. This gives us that λ < µ implies that
λ′ < µ′ whenever λ 6= µ′ . If λ ⊢⊢ n1 and µ ⊢⊢ n2 then we say λ > µ if n1 > n2 or n1 = n2 and λ > µ.
We then define the order < on double-partitions of n in the following way where λ1 is a partition of rλ :
(λ1 , λ2 ) < (µ1 , µ2 ) if rλ < rµ or (rλ = rµ and λ1 < µ1 ) or (rλ = rµ , λ1 = µ1 and λ2 < µ2 ).
Lemma 2.5. If λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) is a double-partition such that λ 6= λ′ , λ 6= (λ2 , λ1 ) and λ 6= (λ′1 , λ′2 ) then exactly
one of those double-partitions verifies the property :
(∗)λ < λ′ and λ < (λ′1 , λ′2 ).
Proof. Let λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) be a double-partition verifying the conditions in the lemma. Assume λ > λ′ and
λ < (λ′1 , λ′2 ). Since λ > λ′ , we have rλ ≥ rλ′ and since rλ + rλ′ = n, we get rλ ≥ n2 . Let’s show that either
(λ′ < λ and λ′ < (λ2 , λ1 )) or ((λ2 , λ1 ) < (λ′1 , λ′2 ) and (λ2 , λ1 ) < (λ′2 , λ′1 )), i.e. either λ′ verifies (∗) or (λ2 , λ1 )
verifies (∗). Those two cases are indeed distinct because either λ′ < (λ2 , λ1 ) or (λ2 , λ1 ) < λ′ . If λ′ < (λ2 , λ1 )
then we are in the first case because we assumed λ > λ′ . Let’s now assume λ′ > (λ2 , λ1 ), we must show
(λ2 , λ1 ) < (λ′1 , λ′2 ). This is obvious if rλ > n2 . If rλ = n2 then (λ1 , λ2 ) = λ > λ′ = (λ′2 , λ′1 ) implies that λ1 > λ′2
or (λ1 = λ′2 and λ2 > λ′1 ) which is a contradiction so λ1 > λ′2 and since λ1 6= λ2 , this implies λ′1 > λ2 by
definition of our order on partitions of rλ . This shows that (λ2 , λ1 ) < (λ′1 , λ′2 ).
7

Assume λ > λ′ and λ > (λ′1 , λ′2 ). We then have that either λ′ verifies (∗) or (λ2 , λ1 ) verifies (∗) in exactly
the same way as in the previous case.
Assume λ < λ′ and λ > (λ′1 , λ′2 ), let us show that (λ′1 , λ′2 ) < (λ2 , λ1 ) and (λ′1 , λ′2 ) < (λ1 , λ2 ), i.e. (λ′1 , λ′2 )
verifies (∗). It is enough to show the second inequality since we have the first one by assumption. This is obvious
if rλ < n2 . If rλ = n2 then λ1 < λ′2 because λ1 6= λ′2 so λ′1 < λ2 because λ1 6= λ2 and (λ′1 , λ′2 ) < (λ2 , λ1 ).
Assume λ < λ′ and λ < (λ′1 , λ′2 ). To conclude the proof, it is enough to show that not one of λ′ , (λ′1 , λ′2 ) and
(λ2 , λ1 ) verifies (∗) in this case. It is obvious for λ′ and (λ′1 , λ2 ). If rλ < n2 , it is also obvious for (λ2 , λ1 ) since
(λ2 , λ1 ) > (λ′1 , λ′2 ). If rλ = n2 then since λ1 < λ′2 and λ1 6= λ′2 , we have that λ2 > λ′1 so (λ2 , λ1 ) > (λ′1 , λ′2 ). 
We are now able to state the main results for type B which are a generalization of Theorem 1.1 of [3], the
end of the proof will be in the next section. The main difference arises from the additional factorizations in the
last cases for the field extensions.
We write A1,n = {(λ1 , ∅), λ1 ⊢ n}, A2,n = {(∅, λ2 ), λ2 ⊢ n}, An = A1,n ∪A2,n . Aǫn = {(λ1 , ∅) ∈ A1,n , λ1 not a hook},
ǫn = {λ ⊢⊢ n, λ ∈
/ An , λ not a hook}, Fq̃ = Fp (α).
−1
Theorem 2.2. If FQ
, β + β −1 ) and Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ), then the morphism :
q = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α
×
ABn → HBn ,α,β ≃
GL(λ) factors through the epimorphism
λ⊢⊢n

Φn : ABn → SLn−1 (q̃) ×
SLn (q)2 ×

Y

(λ1 ,∅)∈Aǫn ,λ1 <λ′1

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ<λ′

SLnλ (q̃) ×

SLnλ (q) ×

Y

(λ1 ,∅)∈Aǫn ,λ1 =λ′1

Y

OSP (λ)′ ×

OSP (λ)′ .

λ∈ǫn ,λ=λ′

where OSP (λ) is the group of isometries of the bilinear form defined in 2.
If Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ) and Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ) then we have the corresponding theorem
where the first row of groups corresponds to the unitary case in [3].
Theorem 2.3. If FqQ= Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ), then the morphism
×
≃
ABn → HB
GL(λ) factors through the epimorphism
n ,α,β
λ⊢⊢n

1

Φn : ABn → SUn−1 (q̃ 2 ) ×

Y

(λ1 ,∅)∈Aǫn ,λ1 <λ′1

1

SUn (q 2 )2 ×

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ<λ′

SU (λ) ×

SU (λ) ×

Y

(λ1 ,∅)∈Aǫn ,λ1 =λ′1

] (λ)′ ×
OSP

] (λ)′ .
OSP

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ=λ′

] (λ) is the group of isometries of a bilinear form of the same type as the one in 2 but defined over
where OSP
F 21 .
q

Assume that Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ), we then have by
Proposition 2.5 and Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4 the following theorem :
Theorem 2.4. If Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ), then the morphism
Q
×
GL(λ) factors through the epimorphism
≃
ABn → Hn,α,β
λ⊢⊢n

1

Φn : ABn → SUn−1 (q̃ 2 ) ×

SLn (q) ×

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ<λ′ ,λ<(λ′1 ,λ′2 ),λ6=(λ2 ,λ1 )

Y

Y

(λ1 ,∅)∈Aǫn ,λ1 <λ′1

SLnλ (q) ×

λ∈ǫn ,λ=λ′ ,λ<(λ′1 ,λ′2 )

SU (λ) ×

Y

(λ1 ,∅)∈Aǫn ,λ1 =λ′1

λ∈ǫn ,λ<λ′ ,λ=(λ2 ,λ1 )

OSP (λ)′ ×

Y

Y

SU (λ) ×

] (λ)′ ×
OSP
Y

1

SLnλ (q 2 )×

λ∈ǫn ,λ<λ′ ,λ=(λ′1 ,λ′2 )

] (λ)′ .
OSP

λ∈ǫn ,λ=λ′ ,λ=(λ′1 ,λ′2 )

The corresponding statements for the cases Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) 6= Fp (α, β + β −1 ) = Fp (α +
α , β + β −1 ) and (Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ) or Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 )) should be clear and are left to the reader.
Their proof is deduced from the same propositions and lemmas.
−1

2.3. Surjectivity of the morphism Φn . In this section, we conclude the proof of the theorems in the previous
section by showing that the morphism Φn is surjective.
8

2.3.1. First case : Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ), Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ). In this subsection, we prove
the surjectivity of the morphism in the easiest case and establish groundwork for the other cases. We first prove
the result for n ≤ 4 and then use induction to get the result for all n.
We recall Goursat’s Lemma also used in [4] and [3] :
Lemma 2.6 (Goursat’s Lemma). Let G1 and G2 be two groups, K ≤ G1 × G2 , and write πi : K −→ Gi the
projection. Let Ki = πi (K) and K i = ker(πi′ ) or (i, i′ ) = (1, 2). There exists an isomorphism ϕ : K1 /K 1 →
K2 /K 2 such that K = {(k1 , k2 ) ∈ K1 × K2 , ϕ(k1 K 1 ) = k2 K 2 }.
We first prove that if for any λ ⊢⊢ n, the composition of Rλ with the projection on its corresponding
quasi-simple factor is surjective then Φn is surjective and then prove by induction that each composition is
indeed surjective. In order to get the image of the hook partitions it is enough to get the images inside the
representations associated with the partitions ([1n−1 ], [1]) and ([1], [1n−1 ]) . We recall Wagner’s theorem which
can be found for example in [16, II, Theorem 2.3].
Theorem 2.5. Let Fr be a finite field, n ∈ N, n ≥ 3 and G ⊂ GLn (r) a primitive group generated by pseudoreflections of order greater than or equal to 3. Then one of the following is true.
(1) SLn (r̃) ⊂ G ⊂ GLn (r̃) for some r̃ dividing r.
1
1
(2) SUn (r̃ 2 ) ⊂ G ⊂ GUn (r̃ 2 ) for some r̃ dividing r.
(3) n ≤ 4, the pseudo-reflections are of order 3 and G ≃ GUn (2).
Proposition 2.7. Let n ≥ 3 and R1 (resp R2 ) be the representation associated with the double-partition
([1n−1 ], [1]) (resp ([1], [1n−1 ])). We have R1 (ABn ) = R2 (ABn ) = SLn (q).
Proof. Let n ≥ 3, we use theorem 2.5. The eigenvalues of R1 (T ) are β with multiplicity n − 1 and −1
with multiplicity 1 and the eigenvalues of R1 (Si ) are α with multiplicity 1 and −1 with multiplicity n − 1.
The group G = hβ −1 R1 (T ), −R1 (S1 ), ..., −R1 (Sn−1 )i is generated by pseudo-reflections. To apply Wagner’s
Theorem (Theorem 2.5), we must show our group is primitive. If G was imprimitive, we could write Fnq =
V1 ⊕ V2 ⊕ ... ⊕ Vr , where for all i and for all g ∈ G, there exists a j such that g.Vi = Vj . Since R1 is irreducible,
either β −1 R1 (T ).V1 6= V1 or there exists i ≤ n − 1 such that −R1 (Si ).V1 6= V1 . Assume there exists i such that
−R1 (Si ).V1 6= V1 . Up to reordering, we have V2 = −R(Si ).V1 . If dim(V1 ) ≥ 2 then H−R1 (Si ) (the hyperplane
fixed by −R1 (Si )) has a non-empty intersection with V1 so V1 ∩ V2 6= ∅ which is a contradiction so dim(V1 ) = 1.
This reasoning is valid for any Vi so they are all one-dimensional. Let x ∈ V1 be a non-zero vector, it can be
written in a unique way as x = x1 + x2 with x1 ∈ Ker(R1 (Si ) + α) and x2 ∈ H−R1 (Si ) . We then have that
−R1 (Si )x = −αx1 + x2 and −R(Si )(−R(Si )x) = α2 x1 + x2 = α(x1 + x2 ) + (1 − α)(−αx1 + x2 ) ∈ V1 ⊕ V2 . Since
α∈
/ {0, 1} this contradicts the fact that there exists j such that −R(Si ).V2 = Vj . If V1 6= β −1 R1 (T )V1 = V2 , then
if x = x1 +x2 6= 0 with x ∈ V1 , x1 ∈ Ker(R1 (T )+β)x2 ∈ Hβ −1 R1 (T ) , we have that β −1 R1 (T )x = −β −1 x1 +x2 and
β −1 R1 (T )(β −1 R1 (T )x) = β −2 x1 +x2 = β −1 (x1 +x2 )+(1−β −1 )(−β −1 x1 +x2 ) ∈ V1 ⊕V2 . This is absurd because
β −1 ∈
/ {0, 1}. This shows that G is primitive and in the same way, G̃ = h−R2 (T ), −R2 (S1 ), ..., −R2 (Sn−1 )i is
primitive and generated by pseudo-reflections of order greater than or equal to 3. By Theorem 2.5, we have
1
1
SLn (q̃) ⊂ G, G̃ ⊂ GLn (q̃) or SUn (q̃ 2 ) ⊂ G, G̃ ⊂ GUn (q̃ 2 ) for some q̃ dividing q. If we were in the unitary
case then there would exist an automorphism ǫ of order 2 of Fq̃2 such that det(M ) = ǫ(det(M ))−1 for all M in
G or G̃. We also have det(β −1 R1 (T )) = −β −1 , det(−R1 (S1 )) = det(−R2 (S1 )) = −α and det(−R2 (T )) = −β
so if G or G̃ is unitary then ǫ(β) = β −1 and ǫ(α) = α−1 so α + α−1 and β + β −1 would be in Fq̃ which is a
contradiction because q̃ 2 divides q and Fq = Fp (α+α−1 , β+β −1 ). This proves we have SLn (q̃) ⊂ G, G̃ ⊂ GLn (q̃)
for some q̃ dividing q so using again the determinants, we have α and β in Fq̃ and so q̃ = q. We have
SLn (q) = [G, G] = [R1 (ABn ), R1 (ABn )] = R1 (ABn ) and SLn (q) = [G̃, G̃] = [R2 (ABn ), R2 (ABn )] = R2 (ABn )
which concludes the proof.

By [21], ABn is perfect for n ≥ 5 but not for n ≤ 4 so those cases must be treated separately.
Lemma 2.7. If n ≤ 4 then Φn is surjective.
Proof. Double-partitions of n = 2 are all one-dimensional
except
for ([1], [1]) so we onlyneed to show that



α−1
α+β
β 0
1
.
R[1],[1] (AB2 ) = SL2 (q). We write t = R[1],[1] (T ) =
and s = R[1],[1] (S1 ) = β+1
αβ + 1 αβ − β
0 −1






1
1
β−1
α+β
α
0
1
then P −1 tP = α+1
First note that if P = αβ+1
and P −1 sP =
. This
−1.
αβ
+
1
βα
−
α
0
−1.
α+β
proves that the roles of α and β are completely symmetrical in this case so up to conjugating by P , we can
exchange the conditions on α and the conditions on β. We write G =< t, s >. We have det(t) = −β and
2
det(s) = −α. Let (u, v) ∈ Fp such that u2 = −β −1 and v 2 = −α−1 , we set Fq′ = Fq (u, v). We then have
G = ht, si = hut, vsi ⊂ P SL2 (q ′ ). We write Sn the permutation group of n elements and An its derived
subgroup. By Dickson’s Theorem [13, Chapter II, HauptSatz 8.27], we have that G is either abelain by abelian
or isomorphic to S3 , A4 , A5 , S4 , P SL2 (q̃) or P GL2 (q̃) for a given q̃ greater than or equal to 4 and dividing q ′ .
9

r

If ut = 1 in P SL2 (q ′ ) then ((−u)r )2 = 1 so β r = (−1)r and by the condition on the order of α, G cannot
be isomorphic to S3 , S4 , A4 or A5 .
We now exclude the case G abelian by abelian. If G is abelian by abelian, then [G, G] is abelian, i.e. ab = ba
for all a, b ∈ [G, G] or equivalently ab = ±ba for all a, b ∈ [G, G]. We have that (tst−1 s−1 )(s−1 tst−1 ) −
(s−1 tst−1 )(tst−1 s−1 ) =
!
2
2 2
3
2
2
(αβ+1)(α+β)
β+αβ+β 2 −α−β)(α−1)(αβ+1)
− (β−1)(α−1)
− (α β +αβ −αβ −α βα
2 (β+1)
βα2 (β+1)
.
(β−1)(α−1)2 (αβ+1)(α+β)
(α2 β 2 +αβ 3 −αβ 2 −α2 β+αβ+β 2 −α−β)(α−1)(α+β)
β 2 α2 (β+1)

βα2 (β+1)

This matrix is non-zero because the diagonal coefficients are non-zero by the conditions on β. This means that
if [G, G] is abelian than we have (tst−1 s−1 )(s−1 tst−1 ) + (s−1 tst−1 )(tst−1 s−1 ) = 0 but this matrix equals


(α2 β+α β 2 −2 α β+α+β )(α−1)(α β+1)
α4 β+α3 β 2 −2α3 β−2α2 β 2 +α3 +4α2 β+αβ 2 −2α2 −2αβ+α+β
−
α2 β
α2 β

.
(α2 β+α β 2 −2 α β+α+β)(α+β)(α−1)
α4 β+α3 β 2 −2 α3 β−2 α2 β 2 +α3 +4 α2 β+α β 2 −2 α2 −2 α β+α+β
−
2
2
2
α β
α β

The non-diagonal coefficients are non-zero if A = α2 β + α β 2 − 2 α β + α + β is non-zero. If A = 0 then, the
1
bottom right coefficient of (tst−1 s−1 )(st−1 s−1 t) + (st−1 s−1 t)(tst−1 s−1 ) is equal to − (β+1)α
2 β 2 multiplied by
α4 β 3 + α3 β 4 − α4 β 2 − 3 α3 β 3 − 2 α2 β 4 + 5 α3 β 2 + 4 α2 β 3 +

α β 4 − 3 α3 β − 8 α2 β 2 − 3 α β 3 + 4 α2 β + 5 α β 2 + β 3 − 2 α2 − 3 α β − β 2 =
(α2 β 2 − α2 β + 2αβ − 2α)A + β((β − 1)A − 2α2 (β 3 + 1)) = −2βα2 (β 3 + 1).
This is non-zero by the condition on β. The diagonal coefficients of the difference of these two commutators
are identical to the ones of the difference of the previous commutators so they’re non-zero. This proves G isn’t
abelian by abelian and there exists q̃ greater than or equal to 4 such that [G, G] ≃ P SL2 (Fq̃ ).
For H a group and A an H-module, we write Z 2 (H, A) = {f : H × H → A, ∀x, y, z ∈ H, z.f (x, y)f (xy, z) =
f (y, z)f (xy, z)} the group of cocyles and B 2 (H, A) = {f : H × H → A, ∃t : H → A, ∀x, y ∈ H, f (x, y) =
t(y)t(xy)−1 y.t(x)} the group of coboundaries. We write M (H) = H 2 (H, C⋆ ) = H2 (H, Z) its Schur multiplier.
We have [G, G] = [G, G] ⊂ P SL2 (q), this inclusion gives a projective representation of SL2 (q̃) with associated
cocyle c ∈ Z 2 (SL2 (Fq̃ ), F⋆q ). We show that H 2 (SL2 (Fq̃ ), F⋆q ) is trivial which is equivalent to Z 2 (SL2 (Fq̃ ), F⋆q ) =
B 2 (SL2 (Fq̃ ), F⋆q ) so this cocycle is a coboundary. We write H = SL2 (q̃). By the Universal Coefficients Theorem
[11, Theorem 3.2], we have the following exact sequence
1 → Ext(H1 (H, Z), F⋆q ) → H 2 (H, F⋆q ) → Hom(H2 (H, Z), F⋆q ) → 1.

We have H1 (H, Z) = H/[H, H] [15] and H2 (H, Z) = M (H), since q̃ ≥ 4, SL2 (Fq̃ ) is perfect and the exact
sequence becomes
1 → 1 → H 2 (H, F⋆q ) → Hom(M (H), F⋆q ) → 1.

By [15, Theorem 7.1.1], if q̃ ∈
/ {4, 9} then the Schur multiplier M (H) is trivial so this reduces to H 2 (H, F⋆q ) ≃ {1}.
It remains to take care of the cases q̃ = 4 and q̃ = 9. If q̃ = 4, we have M (H) = Z/2Z and char(Fq ) = 2 so
Hom(M (H), F⋆q ) = 1. Indeed, every morphism ϕ from M (H) to F⋆q verifies 1 = ϕ(2x) = ϕ(x)2 for all x ∈ M (H)
so 0 = ϕ(x)2 − 1 = (ϕ(x) − 1)2 for all x ∈ M (H) so ϕ is trivial. If q̃ = 9 then we have M (H) = Z/3Z and
H 2 (H, F⋆q ) is trivial by the same reasoning as for q̃ = 4. In all cases, we can define a representation ρ of SL2 (q̃)
in SL2 (q).
By [1], any representation σ of SL2 (q) in GL2 (q) is up to conjugation of the form σ(M ) = ψ(M ) where
ψ(M ) is the matrix obtained from M by applying ψ ∈ Aut(Fq )) to all its coefficients. We have Fq = Fq̃ (w)
for any w generating the cyclic group F⋆q . There exists a homomorphism from Fq to Fq̃ sending 1 to w and
stabilizing Fq̃ . We define a representation ρ̃ of SL2 (q) in SL2 (q) such that ρ̃(M ) = ρ(M ) for all M in SL2 (q̃).
We have ρ(M ) = ρ̃(M ) = ψ(M ) for all M in SL2 (q̃). We have [G, G] ≃ P SL2 (q̃) so ψ([G, G]) ≃ P SL2 (q̃)
is conjugate to P SL2 (q̃) in GL2 (q ′ ). We have ψ(tst−1 s−1 ) ∈ ψ([G, G]) so its trace 2 − (α + α−1 + β + β −1 )
belongs to Fq̃ . This shows that α + α−1 + β + β −1 ∈ Fq̃ . We also have that the trace T1 of s2 t−1 s−2 t and
4
3 2
3
2 2
3
2
β+αβ 2 −2α2 −2αβ+α+β
the trace T2 of st−2 s−1 t2 are in Fq̃ . We have T1 = α β+α β −2α β−2α β +αα2+4α
. We write
β
B = α + α−1 + β + β −1 . We then have T1 = (α + α−1 )B − 2B + 2. T2 has the expression of T1 with α and
β switched so T2 = (β + β −1 )B − 2B + 2. Since B, T1 and T2 are in Fq̃ , we have (α + α−1 )B and (β + β −1 )B
are in Fq̃ . We have B = α + α−1 + β + β −1 so B = 0 would imply α ∈ {−β, −β −1 } which contradicts the
assumptions on α and β. B is non-zero so α + α−1 and β + β −1 are in Fq̃ and so Fq̃ = Fq . We conclude using
Lemma 2.1 of [4].
The double-partitions of n = 3 to consider are ([2, 1], ∅), ([1], [12 ]) and ([12 ], [1]). We want to show the image
of Φ3 is equal to SL2 (q̃) × SL3 (q) × SL3 (q). If we restrict ourselves to the image inside SL3 (Fq ) × SL3 (Fq ), we
show that it is SL3 (q) × SL3 (q). By Proposition 2.7, SL3 (q) = R[12 ],[1] (AB3 ) and R[1],[12 ] (AB3 ) = SL3 (q). We
now use Goursat’s Lemma : we write as in the lemma K = R(AB3 ), K1 = R[12 ],[1] (AB3 ), K2 = R[1],[12 ] (AB3 ) π1
10

(resp π2 ) the projection unto SL3 (q)(corresponding to ([12 ], [1])) (resp SL3 (q)) (corresponding to ([1], [12 ]))),
K 1 = ker(π2 ), K 2 = ker(π1 ) and ϕ the isomorphism given by Goursat’s Lemma. We have K = {(x, y) =∈ K1 ×
K2 , ϕ(xK 1 ) = yK 2 }. By the same reasoning as the one in Proposition 3.1. of [4], either SL3 (Fq )×SL3 (Fq ) ⊂ K
or K1 /K 1 is non-abelian and ϕ is an isomorphism of P SL3 (Fq ) and using the same notations, up to conjugation
R2 (b) = S φ (R1 (b))z(b) for all b ∈ AB3 (S = Id or S = M 7→ tM −1 ).
Let us show that the second possibility is absurd by choosing the right elements in AB3 . For any element
b of AB3 , Tr(R[1],[12 ] (b)) = z(b) Tr(S φ (R[12 ],[1] (b)). We write U = S1 S2−1 , V = T S1 T −1 S2−1 , W = S2 S1 S2−2 and
X = S2 T S1 T −1 S2−2 , they are all elements of AB3 . By explicit computation, for both choices of S, we have :
Tr(R[1],[12 ] (U )) = Tr(R[1],[12 ] (V )) = Tr(R[1],[12 ] (W )) = Tr(R[1],[12 ] (X)) = −

(α − 1)2
,
α

Tr(S(R[12 ],[1] (U ))) = Tr(S(R[12 ],[1] (V ))) = Tr(S(R[12 ],[1] (W ))) = Tr(S(R[12 ],[1] (X))) = −

(α − 1)2
.
α

This shows that z(U ) = z(V ) = z(W ) = z(X) and
−1

1 = z(U )z(W )

= z(U W

−1

)=

− (α−1)
α

2
2

)
φ(− (α−1)
α

.

This proves φ(α + α−1 ) = α + α−1 . We also have
1 = z(U V −1 ) =

3 − α − α−1 − β − β −1
.
φ(3 − α − α−1 − β − β −1 )

Using φ(α + α−1 ) = α + α−1 , we have φ(β + β −1 ) = β + β −1 so φ = 1. We deduce that
1 = z(U X −1 ) =

−αβ
1 + 2αβ − 2β − αβ 2
(α − 1)(αβ 2 − 2αβ + 2β − 1)
= 2
,
2
αβ
(α − 1)(2αβ + β − α − 2β)
β + 2αβ − 2β − α
1 − αβ 2 = β 2 − α, (1 − β 2 )(1 + α) = 0.

Since β 2 6= 1 and α2 6= 1, we get a contradiction. This shows that SL3 (q) × SL3 (q) = R(AB3 ).
We now set G1 = SL3 (q) × SL3 (q) and G2 = SL2 (q̃), the image of Φ3 is a subgroup of G1 × G2 for which
the projections onto G1 and G2 are surjective. Using again Goursat’s Lemma and the notation there, we have
K1 /K 1 ≃ K2 /K 2 . We have a surjective morphism ψ from K1 = G1 = SL3 (q) × SL3 (q) to K2 /K 2 where
K2 = SL2 (q̃). If K2 /K 2 was non-abelian then we would have K2 /K 2 ≃ P SL2 (q̃). If the restriction ψ1 (resp
ψ2 ) of ψ to SL([12 ], [1]) (resp SL([1], [12 ]) was not trivial then ψ1 (resp ψ2 ) would factor into an isomorphism
from P SL3 (q) unto P SL2 (Fq ) since the center of SL3 (Fq ) would again be in the center of ψ1 and ψ2 .This would
lead to a contradiction so their image is trivial and ψ is not surjective so the quotients are abelian. This shows
that K1 = [K1 , K1 ] ⊂ K 1 and K2 = [K2 , K2 ] ⊂ K 2 then using Goursat’s Lemma we conclude that the image
of Φ3 is equal to G1 × G2 . This shows that Φ3 is surjective.
The double-partitions of 4 in our decomposition are ([14 ], ∅), ([22 ], ∅), ([2, 1, 1], ∅), ([1], [13 ]), ([13 ], [1]),
([1 ], [12 ]) and ([2, 1], [1]) of respective dimensions 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6 and 8 (We removed the hooks, ([3], [1])
and ([1], [3])). We know the restriction to the first five is surjective by [3] and Proposition 2.7 so we only need
to show that R[12 ],[12 ] (AB4 ) = SL6 (q) and R([2,1],[1]) (AB4 ) = SL8 (q).
Let us first consider the double-partition ([12 ], [12 ]). By the branching rule and the case n = 3 above, we
have
2

SL3 (q) × SL3 (q) = R[12 ],[1] (AB3 ) × R[1],[12 ] (AB3 ) = R[12 ],[12 ] (AB3 ) ⊂ R[12 ],[12 ] (AB4 ) ⊂ SL6 (q).
We can now use Theorem 3 from [4].
Theorem 2.6. Let Fr be a finite field and Γ < GLN (r) with N ≥ 5 and q > 3 such that
(1) Γ is absolutely irreducible,
(2) Γ contains SLa (r) in a natural representation with a ≥ N2 .
If N 6= 2a then Γ contains SLN (r). Otherwise, either Γ contains SLN (r), or Γ is a subgroup of GL N (r) ≀ S2 .
2

We use this theorem on R[12 ],[12 ] (AB4 ). To get the desired result, we only need to show that R[12 ],[12 ] (AB4 )
cannot be a subgroup of GL3 (r)≀S2 . If it were true, then we would have R[12 ],[12 ] (AB4 ) ⊂ SL3 (q)×SL3 (q) which
would contradict the irreducibility shown in Lemma 2.1. This shows that we have R[12 ],[12 ] (AB4 ) = SL6 (q).
We now consider the double-partition ([2, 1], [1]). Again by the branching rule and the case n = 3, we have
that the restriction to AB3 is SL3 (Fq ) × SL3 (Fq ) × SL2 (Fq̃ ). We now use the fact each of these groups is
generated by transvections and the fact that AB4 is normally generated by AB3 . When the characteristic is
different from 2, we can use the following theorem (first theorem of [25]).
11

Theorem 2.7. If G is an irreducible subgroup of GLn (q) generated by transvections with q = pr , p > 3, n > 2
1
then G is conjugate inside GLn (q) to SLn (q̃), Spn (q̃) or SUn (q̃ 2 ) for some q̃ dividing q.
We write G = R([2,1],[1]) (AB4 ), H = R([2,1],[1]) (AB3 ) = SL3 (q) × SL3 (q) × SL2 (q̃) and we pick t1 (resp t2
(resp t3 )) a transvection of SL3 (q) × {I5 } (resp {I3 } × SL3 (q) × {I2 } (resp {I6 } × SL2 (q̃)). We then have
H = hhti h−1 , h ∈ H, i ∈ {1, 2, 3}i and so G = hghg −1 , h ∈ H, g ∈ Gi = hgti g −1 , g ∈ G, i ∈ {1, 2, 3}i is generated
by transvections and we can apply the theorem. We also recall the following lemma [3, Lemma 5.6].
Lemma 2.8. For any prime p and m ≥ 2, the field generated over Fp by {Tr(g), g ∈ SLm (q)} is Fq and for all
1
m ≥ 3, the field generated over Fp by {Tr(g), g ∈ SUm (q 2 )} is Fq .
By Proposition 2.5, we know that R[2,1],[1] (AB4 ) preserves no non-degenerate bilinear form. It also shows
that it can preserve no non-degenerate hermitian form. Indeed, if it were to preserve a hermitian form
then we would have Tr(M ) = ǫ(Tr(t(M )−1 )) for any M in G and we have diag([α, α−1 , 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]) and
diag([β, β −1 , 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]) in H ⊂ G, so we would have ǫ(α + α−1 ) = α + α−1 and ǫ(β + β −1 ) = β + β −1 . Since
Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ), the automorphism ǫ of order 2 would be trivial which is a contradiction.
This proves G is conjugated in GL8 (q) to SL8 (q̃) for some q̃ dividing q. By Lemma 2.8, the field generated over
Fp by the traces of the elements of G is Fq̃ so q̃ = q because G contains SL3 (q) in a natural representation so
the field generated by its elements contains Fq . This shows that when p 6= 2, G = R([2,1],[1]) (AB4 ) = SL8 (q).
Assume now p = 2, we can use the following theorem [22, Theorem 1].
Theorem 2.8. Let V be a Fq -vector space of dimension n ≥ 4 with q even. If G is an irreductible proper
subgroup of SL(V ) = SLn (q) generated by a set D of transvections of G, then D is a conjugacy class of odd
transpositions of G.
Assume G = R([2,1],[1]) (AB4 ) is different from SL8 (q). We again have that G is generated by transvections
and by applying the above theorem, those transvections are in a single conjugacy class of G. Since Op (G) is
normal in G and V = F8q is an irreducible Fq G-module, we apply Clifford’s Theorem [6, Theorem 11.1] and get
that ResG
Op (G) (V ) is semisimple. Since Op (G) is a p-group, the unique irreducible Fq Op (G)-module is the trivial
module so Op (G) acts trivially on V . It follows that Op (G) is trivial. We can thus apply Kantor’s Theorem [14,
Theorem II] :
Theorem 2.9. Let p be a prime and q = pl for some l ∈ N. Assume G is an irreducible subgroup of SLN (q)
generated by a conjugacy class of transvections, such that Op (G) ≤ [G, G]∩Z(G). Then G is one of the following
subgroups.
1
(1) G = SLn (q ′ ) or G = SpN (q ′ ) in SLN (q ′ ) or G = SUN (q ′ 2 ) in SLN (q ′ ), q ′ |q.
± ′
(2) G = ON
(q ) < SLn (q ′ ), q ′ |q.
(3) G = Sn < SLN (2) where N = n − d and d = gcd(n, 2).
(4) G = S2n in SL2n−1 (2) or in SL2n (2).
(5) G = SL2 (5) < SL2 (9).
(6) G = 3.P Ω−,π
< SL6 (4).
6
(7) G = SU4 (2) < SL5 (4).
(8) G = A ⋊ SN in SLN (2i ) where A is a subgroup of diagonal matrices.
Since α is of order greater than 4, we have q ≥ q̃ = 2r > 8. The group G contains H = SL3 (q) × SL3 (q) ×
SL2 (q̃), so cases 3 to 7 are excluded. If we were in Case 8 then G would have at mose (q − 1) 10×9
= 45(q − 1)
2
3

2

−1)
= (q − 1)(q 2 + q + 1)(q + 1)
transvections (see proof of Theorem 1.3. page 661 of [4]). SL3 (q) has (q −1)(q
q−1
transvections and (q 2 + q + 1)(q + 1) ≥ 847(q − 1) > 45(q − 1). For the same reasons as when p 6= 2, G is neither
unitary nor symplectic nor orthogonal. The only remaining possibility is G = SL8 (q) which is a contradiction
since we assumed G 6= SL8 (q). This proves that G = SL8 (q).

The restriction to each double-partition of 4 is thus surjective, it remains to show Φ4 is surjective using
Goursat’s Lemma (Lemma 2.6). This means we have to show the image is SL2 (q̃) × SL3(q̃) × SL4 (q) × SL4(q) ×
SL8 (q).
By Theorem 1.2. of [4], the restriction to SL2 (q̃) × SL3 (q̃) is surjective. We write G1 the image of this
restriction and G2 = R([1],[13 ]) (AB4 ) = SL4 (q). Let K be the image AB4 in G1 × G2 , using the corresponding
notations in Goursat’s Lemma, we have K1 = G1 , K2 = G2 and K1 /K 1 ≃ K2 /K 2 . If these quotients are
abelian then the proof of K = G1 × G2 is straightforward using Goursat’s Lemma. Since the only non-abelian
decomposition factor of G2 is P SL4 (q) and the only non-abelian decomposition factors of G1 are P SL2 (q̃) and
P SL3 (q̃), we have a contradiction if these quotients are non-abelian. Write now K̃ = R([1],[3]) (AB4 ) = SL4 (q)
and let us consider the image J of AB4 inside K × K̃. Using again Goursat’s Lemma, this time with K1 =
K, K2 = K̃, we have K1 /K 1 ≃ K2 /K 2 . If the quotients are abelian then J = K × K̃. If the quotients are
non-abelian then there is an isomorphism S φ from P SL4 (q) to P SL4 (q), where the first one corresponds to
12

R([1],[13 ]) (AB4 ) and the second one to R([1],[3]) (AB4 ). This implies that there exists a character z from AB4 to
F⋆q such that up to conjugation, for every h ∈ H4 , we have R[1],[13 ] (h) = S φ (R([1],[3]) (h))z(h). The isomorphism
S φ is of the form [24, Section 3.3.4] M 7→ φ(M ) or M 7→ φ(t(M −1 )) where φ is a field automorphism of Fq . We
would then have that for all h ∈ AB4 , Tr(R([13 ],[1]) (h)) = φ(Tr(S(R([1],[3]) (h)))z(h).
Writing U = S1 S2−1 , V = T S1 T −1 S2−1 , X = S2 T S1 T −1 S2−2 , P = S3 S2 S3−2 , Q = T S1 T −1 S3−1 , R1 = R([13 ],[1])
and R2 = R([1],[3]) , we have 3 − α − α−1 = Tr(R1 (P )) = Tr(R1 (P Q−1 )) = Tr(R2 (P )) = Tr(R2 (P Q−1 ) =
3−α−α−1
Tr(t(R2 (P Q−1 )−1 )) = Tr(t(R2 (P Q−1 )−1 ) so z(P Q−1 ) = z(P ) = Φ(3−α−α
This shows that z(Q) =
−1 ) .
z(P )z(P Q−1 )−1 = 1. We also have Tr(R1 (Q)) = Tr(R2 (Q)) = Tr(t(R2 (Q)−1 )) = 2 − α − α−1 so 1 = z(Q) =
2−α−α−1
−1
) = α + α−1 . We have Tr(R1 (U )) = Tr(R1 (V )) = Tr(R1 (X)) = Tr(R2 (U )) =
Φ(2−α−α−1 ) and Φ(α + α
Tr(R2 (V )) = Tr(R2 (X)) = Tr(t(R2 (X)−1 )) = Tr(t(R2 (V )−1 )) = Tr(t(R2 (U )−1 ) = 3 − α− α−1 so z(U ) = z(V ) =
z(X) = 1. Tr(R1 (U V −1 )) = Tr(R2 (U V −1 )) = Tr(t(R2 (U V −1 )−1 )) = 4 − α − α−1 − β − β −1 . It follows that
4−(α+α−1 )−(β+β −1 )
−1
z(U V −1 ) = z(U )z(V )−1 = 1 = Φ(4−(α+α
) = β +β −1 . Since Fq = Fp (α+α−1 , β +β −1 ),
−1 )−(β+β −1 )) so Φ(β +β
2

β+αβ 2 −α2 −5αβ−β 2 +α+2β
,
αβ
−1
−1

we have Φ = Id . Tr(R1 (U X −1 )) = − 2α
α2 β 2 −2α2 β−αβ 2 +5αβ−α−2β+1
.
αβ

Since z(U X

) = z(U )z(X)

Tr(R2 (U X −1 )) = Tr(t(R2 (U X −1 )−1 ))) =

= 1 and Φ = Id , it follows that

α2 β 2 − 2α2 β − αβ 2 + 5αβ − α − 2β + 1 = −2α2 β − αβ 2 + α2 + 5αβ + β 2 − α − 2β.

This shows that α2 β 2 + 1 = α2 + β 2 so (α2 − 1)(β 2 − 1) = 0. This contradicts the conditions on α and β. This
contradiction shows that J = K × K̃.
We conclude using Goursat’s Lemma with R([12 ],[12 ]) (AB4 ) = SL6 (q) then with R[2,1],[1] (AB4 ) = SL8 (q). 
We now show that if the representation associated with each double-partition is surjective, then Φn is
surjective.
Lemma 2.9. If n ≥ 5, Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ) and the composition of Φn and the projection upon
each quasi-simple group associated with each double-partition is surjective, then Φn is surjective.
Proof. Let n ≥ 5, we know by [3, Theorem 1.1] that the restriction to double-partitions with an empty component is surjective. We first show that we can add the hook partitions. We then show by induction on the
double-partitions using the order we picked that Φn is surjective.
Q
Q
OSP ′ (λ) where OSP ′ (λ) is the derived
SLnλ (q̃)×
We write G0,0 = SLn−1 (q̃)×
(λ1 ,∅)∈Aǫn ,λ1 =λ′1

(λ1 ,∅)∈Aǫn ,λ1 <λ′1

subgroup of the group of isometries of the Fq̃ -bilinear form defined in [3] which identifies to the one defined
in this article. We then have by Theorem 1.1. of [3] that the image of ABn inside G0,0 is G0,0 . We have
G0,1 = R[1],[n−1] (AB4 ) = SLn (q) by Proposition 2.7. We use Goursat’s Lemma to show that the image of ABn
inside G0,0 ×G0,1 is equal to G0,0 ×G0,1 . Using the notations in Goursat’s Lemma, we have K1 = G0,0 , K2 = G0,1
and K1 /K 1 ≃ K2 /K 2 . If the quotients are abelian then we are done since the groups we consider are perfect.
We assume that they are non-abelian and show there is a contradiction. The only non-abelian decomposition
factor of K2 is P SLn (q) so since the finite classical simple groups are non-isomorphic as long as n ≥ 4 and q ≥ 4
[24, Section 1.2] , there would exist a decomposition factor of K1 corresponding to a double-partition λ of n
with its right component empty such that P G(λ) = Rλ (ABn ) ≃ P SLn (q) = R([1],[n−1]) (ABn ). Therefore, up to
conjugation [24, Section 3.3.4], we have that Rλ (h) = S Φ (R([1],[n−1]) (h))z(h) for all h ∈ ABn with z : ABn → F⋆q ,
Φ an automorphism of Fq and S being either the identity or the transpose of the inverse. Since n ≥ 5, we have
ABn perfect [21, Corollary] so z is trivial. By Lemma 2.2 and since the abelianization of ABn is the group
{T , S1 } ≃ Z2 , we have Rλ (h) = S Φ (R([1],[n−1]) (h))uℓ1 (h) v ℓ2 (h) . Since λ has its right component empty, the only
eigenvalue of Rλ (T ) is β. On the other hand, the eigenvalues of S φ (R([1],[n−1]) (T ))v are equal to {vΦ(β), −v} or
{vΦ(β −1 ), −v}, so we would have −v = vΦ(β) or −v = vΦ(β −1 ) which is not possible because we have β 6= −1.
This contradiction shows that the image is equal to G0,0 × G0,1 .
Assume now G0,2 = G0,0 × G0,1 and G0,3 = R([1],[1n −1]) (ABn ) = SLn (q) and consider the image of ABn
inside G0 = G0,2 × G0,3 . We use Goursat’s Lemma with K1 = G0,2 and K2 = G0,3 . In the same way as
before, it is sufficient to show that the quotients K1 /K 1 ≃ K2 /K 2 are abelian. The sets of eigenvalues of
S Φ (R([1],[1n−1 ]) (T ) are again {Φ(β), −1} or {Φ(β)−1 , −1}. If the quotients were non-abelian, we would have
R([1],[n−1]) (h) = S φ (R([1],[1n−1 ]) (h))z(h) for all h ∈ ABn with S, φ and z as before. We have z trivial since ABn
is perfect so R([1],[n−1]) (h) = S φ (R([1],[1n−1 ]) (h))uℓ1 (h) v ℓ2 (h) . Let us show Φ is trivial. We have R([1],[n−1]) (T ) and
R([1],[1n−1 ]) (T ) both have for eigenvalues −1 with multiplicity n − 1 and β with multiplicity 1. This shows that
either β = vΦ(β) and −1 = −v or β = vΦ(β)−1 and −1 = −v. In both cases, v = 1 and Φ(β + β −1 ) = β + β −1 .
The eigenvalues of R([1],[n−1]) (S1 ) are −1 with multiplicity 1 and −α with multiplicity n − 1 and the eigenvalues
of R([1],[1n−1 ]) (S1 ) are −1 with multiplicity n − 1 and α with multiplicity 1 so we have either −1 = uΦ(α)
and α = −u or −1 = uΦ(α−1 ) and α = −u. In both cases u = −α and Φ(α + α−1 ) = α + α−1 . We
have Φ trivial so Fq = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ). This would imply R([1],[n−1])|ABn ≃ S(R([1],[1n−1 ])|ABn ) but
13

([1], [1n−1 ]) ∈
/ {([1], [n − 1]), ([1], [n − 1])′ } when n > 2. By Proposition 2.5, this is absurd. This shows the image
of ABn in G0 is equal to G0 .
For λ0 ∈ ǫn = {λ ⊢⊢ n, λ ∈
/ An , λ not a hook}, we set
Y
Y
OSP ′ (λ)×
SLnλ (q̃) ×
Gλ0 = SLn−1 (Fq̃ ) ×
(λ1 ,∅)∈Aǫn ,λ1 <λ′1

SLn (Fq )2 ×

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ<min(λ′ ,λ0 )

SLnλ (q) ×

(λ1 ,∅)∈Aǫn ,λ1 =λ′1

Y

OSP ′ (λ).

λ∈ǫn ,λ=λ′ <λ0

where OSP (λ) is the group of isometries of the bilinear form defined before Proposition 2.1.
For the minimal element λ0 of ǫn , we just showed the composition Φn with the projection onto Gλ0 = G0 is
surjective. Let us show by induction (numbering the double-partitions of n with the order defined previously)
that for all λ0 , the composition of Φn with the projection onto Gλ0 is surjective.
Let λ0 ∈ ǫn . Assume the composition is surjective onto Gλ0 and let us show that the composition onto
Gλ0 +1 = Gλ0 ×G(λ0 ) is surjective where G(λ0 ) = SLN (q) if λ0 6= λ′0 and G(λ0 ) = OSP ′ (λ0 ) ∈ {SPN (q), Ω+
N (q)}
if λ0 = λ′0 . We use Goursat’s Lemma with K1 = Gλ0 and K2 = G(λ0 ) on the image Φn in K1 × K2 . As before,
it is sufficient to show that the quotients K1 /K 1 ≃ K2 /K 2 are abelian. Assume they are non-abelian. The only
non-abelian Jordan-Hölder factor of G(λ0 ) is P G(λ0 ), so there exists λ less than λ0 such that up to conjugation
(see [24] 3.3.4., 3.5.5. and 3.7.5) Rλ (h) = S Φ (Rλ0 (h)z(h) for all h ∈ ABn (There is no triality involved since
if n ≥ 5, λ = λ′ and λ ∈ ǫn then dim(Vλ ) > dim(V([2,1],[2,1]) ) = 80 > 8). By the same arguments as in the
induction initialization, we have that λ has no empty components. Since n ≥ 5, ABn is perfect and z is trivial.
We then have Rλ0 |ABn ≃ S Φ (Rλ|ABn ). Let us show that Φ is trivial. By Lemma 2.2, there exists u, v ∈ F⋆q such
that up to conjugation, for all h ∈ ABn , we have Rλ0 (h) = S Φ (Rλ (h))uℓ1 (h) v ℓ2 (h) . Comparing eigenvalues of T ,
we get either {β, −1} = {vΦ(β), −v} or {β, −1} = {vΦ(β −1 ), −v}. In the first case, either v = 1 and Φ(β) = β
or v = −β and −1 = vΦ(β) so Φ(β + β −1 ) = β + β −1 . In the second case either v = 1 and Φ(β −1 ) = β or
v = −β and vΦ(β −1 ) = −1 so Φ(β + β −1 ) = β + β −1 . In the same way using S1 , we show Φ(α + α−1 ) = α + α−1 .
This shows that Φ is trivial because Fq = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ). We then have Rλ0 |ABn ≃ S(Rλ|ABn ) which
contradicts Proposition 2.5 since λ < λ0 ≤ λ′0 .

To get that Φn is surjective, it now only remains to show that what we assumed in Lemma 2.9 is true.
Theorem 2.10. If n ≥ 5 then for all λ ⊢⊢ n double-partitions in our decomposition, we have Rλ (ABn ) = G(λ)
where G(λ) is the group in the following list.
(1) SLn−1 (q̃) if λ = ([n − 1, 1], ∅).
(2) SLN (q̃) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 < λ′1 .
(3) SPN (q̃) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 = λ′1 and ( p = 2 or (p ≥ 3 and ν(λ1 ) = −1)).
′
(4) Ω+
N (q̃) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 = λ1 , p ≥ 3 and ν(λ1 ) = 1.
(5) SLn (q) if λ ∈ {([1], [n − 1]), ([1], [1n−1 ])}.
(6) SLN (q) if λ ∈ ǫn , λ < λ′ .
(7) SPN (q) if λ = λ′ and (p = 2 or ν̃(λ) = −1).
′
(8) Ω+
N (q) if λ = λ , p ≥ 3 and ν̃(λ) = 1.
Proof. Let n ≥ 5. By [4] (Theorem 1.1.), it is sufficient to show it for λ ∈ ǫn .
The result is true for n = 4, so we can use induction and assume Φn−1 is surjective.
The main result we use to show this theorem is a theorem by Guralnick and Saxl [10]. Recall that the proof
of [10] uses the classification of finite simple groups.
Theorem 2.11 (Gulralnick-Saxl). Let V be a finite-dimensional vector space of dimension d > 8, d 6= 10
over an algebraically closed field Fp of characteristic p > 0. Let G be a primitive tensor-indecomposable finite
irreducible subgroup of GL(V ). We write vG (V ) the minimal dimension
of [βg, V ] = (βg − 1)V , for g ∈ G and
√
d
β ∈ Fp such that βg 6= 1. We then have either vG (V ) > max(2, 2 ) or one of the following assertions.
(1) G is a classical group in a natural representation.
(2) G is the alternating or the symmetric group of degree c and V is the permutation module of dimension
c − 1 or c − 2.
The first thing to do is to take care of the double-partitions such that nλ > 8 and nλ 6= 10. For n = 5, the double partitions to consider are ([13 ], [12 ]), ([12 ], [13 ]), ([1], [2, 2]), ([1], [2, 12 ]), ([1], [3, 1]), ([2], [2, 1]) and ([12 ], [2, 1])
of respective dimensions 10, 10, 10, 15, 15, 20 and 20. For n = 6, they are ([12 ], [14 ]), ([14 ], [12 ]), ([13 ], [13 ]),
([1], [4, 1]), ([1], [2, 13 ]), ([1], [3, 2]), ([1], [22 , 1]), ([1], [3, 1, 1]), ([2], [22 ]), ([12 ], [22 ]), ([2], [3, 1]), ([12 ], [3, 1]),
([2], [2, 12 ]), ([12 ], [2, 12 ]), ([3], [2, 1]), ([13 ], [2, 1]) and ([2, 1], [2, 1]) of respective dimensions 15, 15, 20, 24, 24, 30,
30, 36, 30, 30, 45, 45, 45, 45, 40, 40 and 80. We can now note that if n = 6, we have nλ ≥ 15 so by the branching
rule, if n ≥ 6 and λ is a double-partition of ǫn then nλ ≥ 15. The only double-partitions λ such that nλ ≤ 8 or
14

nλ = 10 are ([13 ], [12 ]), ([12 ], [13 ]) and ([1], [2, 2]) which are of dimension 10. By Lemma 2.7 and the branching
rule, we have that R[1],[2,2] (AB4 ) = SL8 (q) × SL2 (q̃), R[13 ],[12 ] (AB4 ) = SL4 (q) × SL6 (q) and R[13 ],[12 ] (AB4 ) =
SL4 (q) × SL6 (q). By Theorem 2.6, we have that R([1],[2,2]) (AB5 ) = R[13 ],[12 ] (AB5 ) = R[12 ],[13 ] (AB5 ) ≃ SL10 (q).
We now show in the same way as in [3] (Part 5), that the other assumptions of Theorem 2.11 are verified.
In order to do this, we use the following results shown in [3].
Lemma 2.10. If d ≥ 6 and G ≤ GLd (q) contains an element conjugated to diag(ξ, ξ −1 , 1, 1, ...) with ξ 2 6= 1,
then G is tensor-indecomposable.
Lemma 2.11. If d ≥ 16 and G ≤ GLd (q) contains an element of order prime to p conjugated to a
diag(ξ, ξ, ξ −1 , ξ −1 , 1, 1, .., 1) with ξ 2 6= 1, then G is tensor-indecomposable except possibly if G ≤ G1 ⊗ G2 with
G1 ≤ GL2 (q).
For a block matrix with blocks B1 , . . . , Br , we write diag(B1 , . . . , Br ).
Lemma 2.12. If G contains a natural SL2 (q) and q ≥ 8 or G contains a twisted diagonal embedding of SL2 (q)
(G ⊃ {diag(M, t(M −1 ), IN −4 ), M ∈ SL2 (q)}), then case 2 of Theorem 2.11 is excluded.
By the proof of the imprimitivity of G in [3], it is sufficient to show that ABn is normally generated by ABn−1
and that G contains either a transvection or an element of Jordan form diag(I2 + E1,2 , I2 + E1,2 , IN −4 ) to get
that G is imprimitive.
In order to show that we are in case 1 of Theorem 2.11, we must show that for n ≥ 5, that we have q ≥ 8 and
that for any double-partition λ of n, G = Rλ (ABn ) contains either a natural SL2 (q) and nλ > 6 or contains a
twisted diagonal embedding of SL2 (q) and nλ > 16. We must also prove that ABn is normally generated ABn−1
and the exceptional case of Lemma 2.11 is impossible when nλ > 16, G contains a twisted diagonal embedding
of SL2 (q) but no natural SL2 (q) in an obvious way.
Let n ≥ 5, assume the lemma is true for all m ≤ n − 1. By Lemmas 2.9 and 2.7, we have Φm surjective for
all m ≤ n − 1. By assumption, α is of order strictly greater than 5 and not belonging to {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10}.
This implies that α is of order at least 7 and that q ≥ 8. If λ has at most two columns then since λ ∈ ǫn , λ
contains a natural SL2 (q). Assume now λ ∈ ǫn has at least three rows or three columns.
Assume that for all µ ⊂ λ containing ([2, 1], [1]) or ([1], [2, 1]), we have µ′ ⊂ λ. We then have that λ = λ′
and n is even. Since n is even, we have µ 6= µ′ for any double-partition µ ⊂ λ. Since λ ∈ ǫn and contains
strictly more than two rows and two columns, there exists µ ⊂ λ containing ([1], [2, 1]) or ([2, 1], [1]). Since
Φm−1 is surjective and µ′ ⊂ λ, we have a twisted diagonal embedding of SLnµ (q) in G = Rλ (ABn ) and since
nµ ≥ 8 ≥ 2, we have a twisted diagonal embedding of SL2 (q). Otherwise there exists µ ⊂ λ containing
([2, 1], [1]) or ([1], [2, 1]) such that µ′ ⊂ λ. Since Φm−1 is surjective, we get that λ contains a natural SLnµ (q)
and so contains a natural SL2 (q). For double-partitions which are not of dimension strictly greater than 16,
i.e. ([1], [2, 12 ]) and ([1], [3, 1]), we are in the second case.
We now show that ABn is normally generated by ABn−1 for n ≥ 5. By [3, Lemma 2.1], we have that AAn is
normally generated by AAn−1 for n ≥ 4. Since T commutes with Si for all i ≥ 2, we have the same result for
ABn for n ≥ 4.
It now only remains to show that the exception of Lemma 2.11 is impossible when there is no obvious natural
SL2 (q) in G. In order to do this, we show a proposition analogous to Proposition 2.4. of [3].
Proposition 2.8. Let K be a field, if n ≥ 7 and ϕ : ABn → P SL2 (K) is a group morphism then ϕ = 1.
Proof. Let K be a field, n ≥ 7 and ϕ such a morphism. The restriction ϕ to AAn ≤ ABn is trivial by
−1
−2
, p1 = Sn−1 Sn−2 Sn−1
, q3 =
Proposition 2.4. of [3]. By Theorem 3.9. of [21], ABn is generated by p0 = Sn−2 Sn−1
−1
−1
−1
−1
l
−l
Sn−3 Sn−1 , b = Sn−2 Sn−1 Sn−3 Sn−2 , rl = T S1 T Sn−1 , qi = Sn−i Sn−1 , l ∈ Z, 4 ≤ i ≤ n − 2 and the following
relations :
(1) For 4 ≤ j ≤ n − 2, p0 qj = qj p1 and p1 qj = qj p−1
0 p1 .
(2) For l ∈ Z, p0 rl = rl p1 and p1 rl = rl p0−1 p1 .
(3) For 3 ≤ i < j ≤ n − 2, |i − j| ≥ 2, qi qj = qj qi .
(4) For 3 ≤ i ≤ n − 3, qi rl = rl qi .
−1
2 −1
(5) p0 q3 p−1
0 = b, p0 bp0 = b q3 b
−1
−1
−1
(6) p1 q3 p1 = q3 b, p1 bp1 = (q3−1 b)3 q3−2 b.
(7) For 3 ≤ i ≤ n − 3, qi qi+1 qi = qi+1 qi qi+1 .
(8) For l ∈ Z, qn−2 rl qn−2 = rl qn−2 rl .
(9) For l ∈ Z, rl rl+1 = rl+1 rl+2 .
By [3, Proposition 2.4], the images of all the generators except for (rl )l∈Z are trivial. By the eighth relation,
we get that the images of the rl are also trivial and the desired result follows.

This shows that if n ≥ 7 and G ≤ G1 ⊗ G2 with G1 ≤ GL2 (q), then G ⊂ SL N (q) × SL N (q). This
2
2
contradicts the irreducibility. Since we need n ≥ 7 to apply this reasoning, we must consider separately
15

the cases where n ∈ {5, 6} and G does not contain a natural SL2 (q). Looking at all the cases enumerated
previously, the only one to consider is λ = ([2, 1], [2, 1]). Up to conjugation, we have H = R[2,1],[2,1] (AB5 ) =
{diag(M, t(M −1 ), N, t(N −1 )), M, N ∈ SL20 (q)} ≃ SL20 (q) × SL20 (q).
Assume that G = R([2,1],[2,1]) (AB6 ) ⊂ G1 ⊗ G2 and that G1 ⊂ GL2 (q). We then have a morphism θ from
G to SL2 (q) since ABn is perfect for n ≥ 5. If we consider the restriction of θ to H, its kernel is a subgroup
of H and its image is a subgroup of SL2 (q). Since P SL20 (q) is the only non-abelian composition factor of H,
we have that if the image is non-abelian then there exists a subgroup of SL2 (q) isomorphic to P SL20 (q). This
is absurd so the image is abelian and the kernel contains the derived subgroup of H which is equal to H since
H is perfect. In the same way, for all g ∈ G, the restriction of θ to gHg −1 is trivial and since H normally
generates G, θ is trivial which contradicts the irreducibility of G in the same way as in the proof of the previous
proposition.
We have thus shown that we are in the first case of Theorem 2.11. By the same reasoning as in [3, page
16], we have in all cases that q ′ = q. If λ = λ′ , we have G ⊂ G(λ) by Proposition 2.2 so G = G(λ). If
λ 6= λ′ , G preserves no bilinear form since Rλ is not isomorphic to Rλ⋆ . If G preserves a hermitian form then
there exists an automorphism Φ of order 2 of Fq such that M is conjugated to Φ(t(M )−1 ) for all M ∈ G.
Since G contains a natural SL2 (q), we then have Tr(diag(α, α−1 , 1, 1, ..., 1)) = Φ(Tr(diag(α−1 , α, 1, ..., 1))) and
Tr(diag(β, β −1 , 1, 1, ..., 1)) = Φ(Tr(diag(β −1 , β, 1, ..., 1))) so Φ(α + α−1 ) = α + α−1 and Φ(β + β −1 ) = β + β −1 .
This implies that Φ = Id because Fq = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ). This is absurd and we conclude that G =
SLnλ (q).

By Theorem 2.10, Lemma 2.7 and Lemma 2.9, we have that for all n, Φn is surjective.
2.3.2. Cases 2-3. We have shown the surjectivity of Φn for the first of the six possible field extension configurations described at the beginning of 2.2.2. The proof in cases 2 and 3 only requires small changes to the one
in the first case, but the new factorizations appearing in cases 4 to 6 require more work, especially for the low
dimensional representations. We treat in this subsection cases 2 and 3 emphasizing on the differences with the
first case.
In case 2, i.e., Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ) and Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ), the same arguments as
1
the ones in case 1 work at every step of the proof. Indeed, SU2 (q̃ 2 ) is also generated by a conjugacy class of
1
transvections. Since q̃ is a square and α is order not diving 8 by assumption, we have that q̃ ≥ 16 and q̃ 2 > 3.
1
We also still have that SL8 (q) × SU2 (q̃ 2 ) contains SL8 (q) × {I2 } so all the arguments works in the same way.
This shows that in case 2, Φn is surjective for all n.
In case 3, i.e., Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ), all representations
1
are unitary. The main differences occur in the proof that when n = 4, the direct product of two SU4 (q 2 ) is in
the image, and in the conclusion of the proof of this version of Theorem 2.10.
Theorem 2.12. If n ≥ 5, then for all λ ⊢⊢ n in our decomposition, Rλ (ABn ) = G(λ) where G(λ) is the
corresponding group in the following list.
1
(1) SUn−1 (q̃ 2 ) if λ = ([n − 1, 1], ∅).
1
(2) SUN (q̃ 2 ) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 < λ′1 .
1
(3) SPN (q̃ 2 ) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 = λ′1 and ( p = 2 or (p ≥ 3 and ν(λ1 ) = −1)).
1
+
(4) ΩN (q̃ 2 ) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 = λ′1 , p ≥ 3 and ν(λ1 ) = 1.
1
(5) SUn (q 2 ) if λ ∈ {([1], [n − 1]), ([1], [1n−1 ])}.
1
(6) SUN (q 2 ) if λ ∈ ǫn , λ < λ′ .
1
(7) SPN (q 2 ) if λ = λ′ and (p = 2 or (p ≥ 3 and ν̃(λ) = −1.
1
+
(8) ΩN (q 2 ) if λ = λ′ , p ≥ 3 and ν̃(λ) = 1.
Proof. We recall Proposition 4.1. of [3].

Proposition 2.9. Let q = u2 , ϕ be a non-degenerate bilinear form over FN
q , ψ a non-degenerate hermitian form
N
over Fq . If G ⊂ OSPN (ϕ)∩UN (ψ) is absolutely irreducible, then there exists x ∈ GLN (q) and a non-degenerate
x
′
′
bilinear form ϕ′ over FN
u such that G ⊂ OSP (ϕ ) and ϕ is of the same type as ϕ.

When n = 4, the proof that Φ4 is surjective is the same up to the point where we prove Φ is trivial using
Φ(α + α−1 ) = α + α−1 and Φ(β + β −1 ) = β + β −1 . In case 3, Φ could also be equal to the automorphism ǫ of
order 2 of Fq . It is thus necessary to show that the following is absurd :
α2 β 2 − 2α2 β − αβ 2 + 5αβ − α − 2β + 1
−2α2 β − αβ 2 + α2 + 5αβ + β 2 − α − 2β
= ǫ(
).
αβ
αβ
This would imply
α2 β 2 − 2α2 β − αβ 2 + 5αβ − α − 2β + 1 =
=

−2α−2 β −1 − α−1 β −2 + α−2 + 5α−1 β −1 + β −2 − α−1 − 2β −1
α−2 β −2
−2β − α + β 2 + 5αβ + α2 − αβ 2 − 2α2 β.
16

This is absurd because it is the same equality we proved to be impossible in the first case.
We now adapt the end of the proof of the corresponding version of Theorem 2.10. By [3, page 18], we are in
1
1
case 1 of Theorem 2.11. If λ 6= λ′ , G contains a natural SU3 (q 2 ) so q = q ′ by Lemma 2.8. Since G ⊂ SUnλ (q 2 )
1
and G preserves no bilinear form by Proposition 2.5, we have G = SUnλ (q 2 ). If λ = λ′ , we use Proposition
1
2.9 to get that G ⊂ OSP (q 2 ). By Lemma 2.8, we have that Fq′ contains {x + ǫ(x), x ∈ Fq }. This implies that
1
1
1
q ′ = q 2 because Fq′ contains α + α−1 and β + β −1 and q ′ divides q 2 . We conclude that G = OSP ′ (q 2 ).

2.3.3. Cases 4-5-6. In this subsection, we finish the proof for type B by considering the last three cases for the
field extensions. In these cases more factorizations appear and this complicates greatly the proof for small n.
We will use the tables of maximal subgroups of finite classical groups in low dimension from [2]. This gives
interesting techniques to determine if a certain subgroup G of a classical group is the group itself, when given
information on the subgroups of G.
In these cases, we can still use various arguments from the first case, but except for Proposition 2.7 which
remains true in all these cases, all the low-dimensional cases must be done again. It is not necessary to use new
arguments for Lemma 2.9. We start by studying the case n ≤ 4.
Lemma 2.13. In cases 4, 5 and 6, we have Φn surjective for n ≤ 4.

1

Proof. For n = 2, we have, using the same arguments as in the first case and Lemma 2.4, that Im(Φ2 ) = SL2 (q 2 ).
For n = 3, we have by the factorizations in Proposition 2.5 that in all cases Φ3 is surjective.
The only case left to consider is n = 4 and the double-partitions ([12 ], [12 ]) and ([1], [2, 1]) of respective
1
1
dimensions 6 and 8. We have to prove that R([12 ],[12 ]) (AB4 ) = SL6 (q 2 ) or SU6 (q 2 ) and R([2,1],[1]) (AB4 ) =
1
1
SL8 (q 2 ) or SU8 (q 2 ) depending on the case.
We start by G = R([12 ],[12 ]) (H4 ) in case 5 or 6, where we have Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) 6= Fp (α, β +
−1
β ) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ). We then have H = R([12 ],[12 ]) (AB3 ) ≃ SL3 (Fq ). Since ([12 ], [12 ]) = ([12 ], [12 ]), by
1
Proposition 2.5 (4.c) and Lemma 2.4, up to conjugation, we have G ⊂ SL6 (q 2 ).
1
We use the classification of maximal subgroups SL6 (q 2 ) [2, Tables 8.24 and 8.25] . Using the fact that H is a
subgroup of G, we exclude the possibility that G is included in all but two of these groups, using the divisibility
of the cardinals that would ensue. We start by considering the sporadic maximal subgroups in table 8.25 and
get the cardinals of these groups using the atlas [5]. Since q is a square and α is of order greater than 4, we
have q ≥ 9. This implies that |SL3 (q)| = q 3 (q 2 − 1)(q 3 − 1) ≥ 93 ∗ (92 − 1)(93 − 1) = 42456960 which is greater
1
3
3
than all the cardinals in the list (the last one is of cardinal 6q 2 (q − 1)(q 3 − 1) and 6 < q 2 (q + 1)(q 2 + 1)). We
1
now look at the list in table 8.24 of the 18 geometric maximal subgroups of SL6 (q 2 ). In cases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
5
3
1
15
and 13, the cardinal of the maximal subgroup divides q 2 (q 2 − 1)(q 2 − 1)(q 2 − 1)2 (q − 1)2 (q 2 − 1). This implies
that it is sufficient to show that |SL3 (q)| = q 3 (q 3 − 1)(q 2 − 1) does not divide this quantity to exclude these
5
3
1
cases. It can be true only if q 3 − 1 divides (q 2 − 1)(q 2 − 1)2 (q − 1)2 (q 2 − 1). The Euclidean remainder of
1
5
3
1
those two quantities seen as polynomials in q 2 is 4q 2 + 2q 2 − 2q 2 − 4q − 2q 2 + 2. Therefore, if q 3 − 1 divides
the first quantity than it divides the remainder which is positive so it is less than or equal to it. We have
1

1

1

ǫ(α) = α−1 = αq 2 so αq 2 +1 = 1. Since α is of order strictly greater than 6 by assumption, we have that q 2 ≥ 6
3
1
5
5
5
5
and 4q 2 + 2q 2 − q − 2q 2 − 4q − 2q 2 + 2 ≤ 4q 2 + 2q 2 + 2 ≤ 4q 2 + 3q 2 ≤ 5q 2 < q 3 − 1. This gives us the desired
contradiction.
Using the same type of arguments, we exclude all the remaining cases except for cases 11 and 17 which are
1
1
1
SL3 (q).(q 2 + 1).2 and (q 2 − 1, 3) × SP6 (q 2 ). We start by excluding case 11.
We know H = R([12 ],[12 ]) (AB3 ) ≃ SL3 (q) normally generates G = R([12 ],[12 ]) (AB4 ) ⊂ P −1 SL6 (F 21 )P for
q

1

a certain matrix P in GL6 (q). Assume P GP −1 is a subgroup of M = SL3 (q).(q 2 + 1).2, since SL3 (q) is
perfect, P HP −1 is perfect and the image of P HP −1 in the quotient Z/2Z of M is trivial. H is thus included
1
in SL3 (q).(q 2 + 1). Using the same argument, we have that P HP −1 is included in the SL3 (q) appearing in the
expression of M so P HP −1 is equal to that SL3 (q). For all g ∈ P GP −1 , we can apply the same reasoning to
gP HP −1 g −1 = SL3 (q) = P HP −1 so P GP −1 = SL3 (q) = P HP −1 because H normally generates G so H = G.
This leads to a contradiction because G is irreducible and H is not.
1
1
It only remains to show P GP −1 cannot be included in the maximal subgroup M = (q 2 − 1, 3) × SP6 (q 2 ) of
1
1
SL6 (q 2 ). Assume it is the case. By the same arguments as in case 11, we have that P GP −1 ⊂ {1} × SP6(q 2 ) ≃
1
SP6 (q 2 ). Looking at the cardinals in Tables 8.28 and 8.29 of [2], we see than none of them is divisible by
1
|SL3 (q)|. This implies that SL3 (q) ≃ SP6 (q 2 ) which is absurd. This excludes case 17 and shows that P GP −1
1
is equal to SL6 (q 2 ). This concludes the study of double-partition ([12 ], [12 ]) in the field cases 5 and 6.
Assume now we are in case 4, i.e., Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ).
1
We then have by Lemma 2.3 and Proposition 2.5 that there exists a matrix P such that P GP −1 ⊂ SU6 (q 2 )
and H ≃ SL3 (q), writing again G = R([12 ],[12 ]) (AB4 ) and H = R([12 ],[12 ]) (AB3 ). The goal this time is to show
1
that P GP −1 = SU6 (q 2 ). Using Tables 8.26 and 8.27 of [2], cardinality arguments and the fact that groups
1
in class C 1 are not irreducible and so cannot contain P GP −1 as a subgroup, we get that if G 6= SU6 (q 2 ),
17

1

then G is included in SL3 (q).(q 2 − 1).2. By the same argument as before, this is impossible. It follows that
1
P GP −1 = SU6 (q 2 ).
The only double-partition remaining for n ≤ 4 now is λ = ([2, 1], [1]) which affords a representation of
dimension 8 and verifies λ = (λ′1 , λ′2 ).
We start by case 4, i.e., Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β + β −1 ) and
so Fq̃ = Fp (α + α−1 ) 6= Fp (α). We then have by Goursat’s Lemma and the result for n = 3 that H =
1
R([2,1],[1]) (AB3 ) ≃ SL3 (q) × SU2 (q̃ 2 ) ⊂ G = R([2,1],[1]) (AB4 ). By Proposition 2.5, we know that there exists
P ∈ GL8 (q) such that for all h ∈ H4 , P R([2,1],[1]) (h)P −1 = ǫ(R([2,1],[1]) )(h). By Lemma 2.4, this implies that
1
there exists S ∈ GL8 (q) such that S −1 R([2,1],[1])(AB4 )S ⊂ GL8 (q 2 ) with γ −1 P = ǫ(S)S −1 and ǫ(P )P = ǫ(γ)γ.
We can use the arguments used previously to see that our group is primitive, tensor-indecomposable, preserves
1
1
no symmetric, skew-symmetric or hermitian form over Fq2 and cannot be included in GL8 (q ′ ) for q ′ < q 2 .
1
Using [2, Tables 8.44 and 8.45] and the order of our subgroup H of G, if S −1 GS 6= SL8 (q 2 ) then we have
1
1
1
(q−1,4)
S −1 GS ⊂ (((q 2 − 1, 4)(q 2 + 1)) ◦ SL4 (q)). 1
.2, which is in class C 3 of SL8 (q 2 ). An element of class C 3
1

(q 2 −1,4)

cannot contain a transvection of SL8 (q 2 ). This contradicts the fact that H is included in G because H contains
1
1
the transvections of SU2 (q̃ 2 ). This shows that the only possibility left is S −1 GS = SL8 (q 2 ).
We now consider cases 5 and 6 where our representation is now unitary by Proposition 2.5. In both cases, there
1
exists a matrix P such that P GP −1 ⊂ SU8 (q 2 ) with G = R([2,1],[1]) (AB4 ) and we have H = R([2,1],[1]) (AB3 ) ≃
SL3 (q)×SU2 (q̃) (resp SL2 (q̃)) in case 5 (resp case 6). We again have that G is a primitive tensor-indecomposable
group preserving no symmetric or skew-symmetric form over F 21 . This implies that G is included in no
q

maximal subgroup of type C 1 or C 2 . Looking at the tables 8.46 and 8.47 of [2] and using the information above
1
and cardinality arguments, we get that P GP −1 must be equal to SU8 (q 2 ). This concludes the proof of the
lemma.

We must now show that we can use Theorem 2.11. The factorizations of λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) by (λ′1 , λ′2 ) and
by (λ2 , λ1 ) change the arguments for the natural SL2 (q) and twisted diagonal embeddings of SL3 (q). Let
λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) be a double-partition of n ≥ 5.
We then have five different cases.
(1) λ 6= λ′ , λ 6= (λ2 , λ1 ) and λ 6= (λ′1 , λ′2 ). Let us show Rλ (ABn ) contains a natural SL3 (q). It is sufficient
to show there exists µ ⊂ λ such that µ′ 6⊂ λ, (µ2 , µ1 ) 6⊂ λ and (µ′1 , µ′2 ) 6⊂ λ.
We write λ1 partition of n1 and λ2 partition of n2 with n = n1 + n2 ≥ 5. We only consider doublepartitions with no empty component. This implies that n1 and n2 are greater than or equal to 1. Since
the roles of λ1 and λ2 are symmetrical for this, we can assume without loss of generality n1 ≥ n2 .
(a) n2 = 1, we then have that λ2 = λ′2 , so λ1 6= λ′1 . There exists µ1 ⊂ λ1 such that µ′1 6⊂ λ1 . We then
have that µ = (µ1 , λ2 ) ⊂ λ, but µ′ 6⊂ λ and (λ2 , µ1 ) 6⊂ λ because n1 − 1 ≥ 4 > 1 and (µ′1 , λ′2 ) 6⊂ λ,
because µ′1 6⊂ λ1 .
(b) n1 > n2 = 2 and λ1 6= λ′1 . We set µ = (λ1 , [1]), we have µ′ and ([1], λ1 ) 6⊂ λ because n1 > n2 and
(λ′1 , [1]) 6⊂ λ because λ′1 6= λ1 .
(c) n1 > n2 = 2 and λ1 = λ′1 . If for all µ1 ⊂ λ1 , µ1 ⊂ λ2 or µ′1 ⊂ λ2 then n1 = 3 and λ1 = [2, 1] which
implies that either ([2], [12 ]) ⊂ λ or ([12 ], [2]) ⊂ λ. By Proposition 2.6, Rλ (ABn ) contains a natural
SL3 (q).
(d) n1 > n2 ≥ 3 and λ2 6= λ′2 . There exists µ2 ⊂ λ2 such that µ′2 6⊂ λ2 . We then set µ = (λ1 , µ2 ). We
have that (µ2 , λ1 ) 6⊂ λ, (µ′2 , λ′1 ) 6⊂ λ because n1 > n2 and (λ′1 , µ′2 ) 6⊂ λ because µ′2 6⊂ λ2 .
(e) n1 > n2 ≥ 3 and λ2 = λ′2 , so λ1 6= λ′1 . We know that there exists µ1 ⊂ λ1 such that µ′1 6⊂ λ1 . If
(λ2 , µ1 ) ⊂ λ or (λ′2 , µ′1 ) ⊂ λ then µ1 = λ2 or µ′1 = λ2 . We have that λ2 = λ′2 so this contradicts
µ′1 6⊂ λ1 . This shows that µ1 6= µ′1 . We have that (µ′1 , λ′2 ) 6⊂ λ because µ′1 6⊂ λ1 .
(f) n1 = n2 ≥ 3. We then have that λ1 6= λ′1 or λ2 6= λ′2 . If λ1 6= λ′1 , we pick µ1 ⊂ λ1 such that
µ′1 6⊂ λ1 and set µ = (µ1 , λ2 ), by the assumption on µ1 , (µ′1 , λ2 ) 6⊂ λ, (λ2 , µ1 ) 6⊂ λ and (λ′2 , µ′1 ) 6⊂ λ
because λ2 6= λ1 and λ′2 6= λ1 . If λ2 6= λ′2 , we pick µ2 ⊂ λ2 such that µ′2 6⊂ λ2 and µ = (λ1 , µ2 )
verifies the required property.
(2) λ = (λ′1 , λ′2 ), λ 6= (λ2 , λ1 ) and λ 6= λ′ . We then have that µ′1 ⊂ λ for all µ1 ⊂ λ1 and that for all µ2 ⊂ λ2 ,
µ′2 ⊂ λ2 . We also have that n1 + n2 ≥ 5.
(a) n1 ≥ n2 = 1. Let µ1 ⊂ λ1 , we set µ = (µ1 , λ2 ). We have that (λ2 , µ1 ) 6⊂ λ and µ′ 6⊂ λ because
n1 − 1 ≥ 3 > 1 but (µ′1 , λ′2 ) ⊂ λ.
(b) n1 > n2 ≥ 2. We pick µ2 ⊂ λ2 and set µ = (λ1 , µ2 ). We have that (µ2 , λ1 ) 6⊂ λ and µ′ 6⊂ λ because
n1 > n2 but (λ′1 , µ′2 ) ⊂ λ.
(c) n1 = n2 ≥ 2. We pick µ1 ⊂ λ1 and set µ = (µ1 , λ2 ). We have that (λ2 , µ1 ) 6⊂ λ because λ2 6= λ1
and µ′ 6⊂ λ because λ′2 6= λ1 but (µ′1 , µ′2 ) ⊂ λ.
18

In case 4 for the fields, i.e., Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β), if µ 6= (µ′1 , µ′2 ) then
1
Rλ (ABn ) contains up to conjugation {diag(M, ǫ(M ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SL3 (q)}, and a natural SL3 (q 2 )
if µ = (µ′1 , µ′2 ) (it is possible this is the case for all µ ⊂ λ if we have square partitions).
In cases 5 and 6 for the fields, i.e., Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) 6= Fp (α, β + β −1 ), if µ 6= (µ′1 , µ′2 )
then Rλ (ABn ) contains up to conjugation {diag(M, tǫ(M −1 ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SL3 (q)}, and a natural
1
SU3 (q 2 ) if µ = (µ′1 , µ′2 ).
(3) λ = (λ2 , λ1 ) 6= λ′ . We then have n1 = n2 ≥ 3. λ1 = λ2 6= λ′1 because λ 6= λ′ . We can then pick
µ1 ⊂ λ1 such that µ′1 6⊂ λ′1 and µ = (µ1 , λ2 ), we have (µ′1 , λ′2 ) 6⊂ λ and µ′ 6⊂ λ because λ′2 6= λ1 = λ2
and (λ2 , µ1 ) ⊂ λ but µ 6= (λ2 , µ1 ) because n1 − 1 < n1 = n2 .
In case 4 for the fields, Rλ (ABn ) contains up to conjugation {diag(M, tǫ(M −1 ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SL3 (q)}.
In cases 5 and 6 for the fields, Rλ (ABn ) contains up to conjugation {diag(M, ǫ(M ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈
SL3 (q)}.
(4) λ = λ′ 6= (λ′1 , λ′2 ) = (λ2 , λ1 ), we have n1 = n2 ≥ 3 and there exists µ1 ⊂ λ1 such that µ1 6⊂ λ2
because λ1 6= λ2 . We have µ′ ⊂ λ because µ′1 ⊂ λ′1 = λ2 , (λ2 , µ1 ) 6⊂ λ car λ2 6= λ1 and (µ′1 , λ′2 ) 6⊂ λ
because λ′2 6= λ2 = λ′1 . We have µ 6= µ′ because λ′2 6= µ1 . Rλ (ABn ) contains up to conjugation
{diag(M, t(M −1 ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SL3 (q)}.
(5) λ = λ′ = (λ2 , λ1 ) = (λ′1 , λ′2 ). We then have n1 = n2 ≥ 3. If λ1 and λ2 are square partitions, then for all
µ ⊂ λ, we have that µ = (µ′1 , µ′2 ) 6= µ′ = (µ2 , µ1 ), because n1 = n2 > n1 − 1 = n2 − 1.
1
In case 4 for the fields, Rλ (ABn ) contains up to conjugation {diag(M, t(M −1 ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SU3 (q 2 )}.
In cases 5 and 6 for the fields, Rλ (ABn ) contains up to conjugation {diag(M, t(M −1 ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈
1
SL3 (q 2 )}.
If λ1 or λ2 is a square partition, then there exists µ ⊂ λ such that µ 6= µ′ , µ 6= (µ2 , µ1 ) and µ 6=
′
(µ1 , µ′2 ). This implies that Rλ (ABn ) contains up to conjugation {diag(M, t(M −1 ), ǫ(M ), ǫ(t(M −1 )), Inλ −12 ), M ∈
SL3 (q)}.
We use the notations in Theorem 2.11. In all of the above cases except for the last
one, there exists g in
√
Rλ (ABn ) such that [g, V ] = 2. This implies that vG (V ) = 2 and vG (V ) ≤ max(2, 2d ). In the last case, we
have in the same way an element g such that [g, V ] = 4. We also have inthat case that λ = λ′ = (λ1 , λ2 ) and
n ≥ 6,.This implies that λ contains ([2, 1], [2, 1]), which is of dimension 63 × 2 × 2 = 80. It follows that d ≥ 80
and

√
d
2

≥

√
80
2

> 4. This shows that we still have vG (V ) ≤ max(2,

√
d
2 ).

It remains to check that all the assumptions of the theorem are again verified and the classical group we get
is the one we want.
The first step is to take care separately of double-partitions λ such that nλ ≤ 10. If nλ = 10 then by the
conditions in Theorem 2.11, we can assume p 6= 2. The second step is to verify that the remaining doublepartitions are tensor-indecomposable. The third step is to verify that they are imprimitive in the monomial
case. The fourth step is to verify that they are imprimitive in the non-monomial case. The fifth step is to check
that we are not in 2. of Theorem 2.11. The sixth and last step is to verify that we have the desired classical
groups in each of the above cases.
First step. For n = 5, it is enough to consider ([2, 2], [1]), ([2, 1, 1], [1]), ([2, 1], [2]) and ([13 ], [12 ]), for which
the respective nλ is 10, 15, 20 and 10. We must show that R([13 ],[12 ]) (AB5 ) = SL10 (q) and R([2,2],[1]) (AB5 ) =
1
1
SL10 (q 2 ) in case 4 for the fields and R([2,2],[1]) (AB5 ) = SU10 (q 2 ) in cases 5 and 6 on the fields. The other doublepartitions are of dimensions greater than 10. We know that G = R([13 ],[12 ]) (AB5 ) contains R([13 ],[12 ]) (AB4 ) =
1
SL4 (q) × SL6 (q 2 ) and it is normally generated by this group, which is generated by transvections. Since
1
p 6= 2, Theorem 2.7 implies that G is conjugated in GL10 (q) to SL10 (q ′ ), SP10 (q ′ ) or SU10 (q ′ 2 ) for some q ′
1
dividing q. Lemma 2.8 implies that q ′ = q. The groups SP10 (q) and SU10 (q 2 ) are excluded by Proposition
2.5, because R([13 ],[12 ]) is not isomorphic to its dual representation or its dual representation composed with the
automorphism of order 2 of Fq . This shows that G = SL10 (q). In case 4, we know that G = R([2,2],[1]) (AB5 ) is
1
conjugated to a subgroup of SL10 (q 2 ) by Proposition 2.5 and Lemma 2.4 and that G contains R([2,2],[1]) (AB4 ) =
1
1
SL8 (q 2 ) × SL2 (q̃). It follows that it contains a natural SL8 (q 2 ) and we can apply Theorem 2.6 to get that
1
1
G = SL10 (q 2 ). In cases 5 and 6, G = R([2,2],[1]) (AB5 ) is conjugated to a subgroup of SU10 (q 2 ) by Proposition
1
2.5 and Lemma 2.3 and contains R([2,2],[1]) (AB4 ), which contains a natural SU8 (q 2 ) in both cases. By Theorem
1
1.4 of [4], we have indeed G = SU10 (q 2 ).
Second step. We now show that those representations are tensor-indecomposable. Since ([2, 1, 1], [1]) contains
a natural SL3 (q), doubles-partitions with at most two rows or at most two columns are tensor-indecomposable
by Lemmas 2.10 and 2.11. By the enumeration of the different cases, those lemmas cover all double-partitions
of n except if λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) = λ′ = (λ2 , λ1 ) = (λ′1 , λ′2 ) and neither λ1 nor λ2 contains a sub-partition µ such that
µ = µ′ . In such a case, λ contains ([2, 1], [2, 1]) which is of dimension 80 and we can use the following lemma.
19

Lemma 2.14. If d ≥ 80 and G ⊂ GLd (q) contains an element of order coprime to p and conjugated in GLd (q)
to the diagonal matrix (ξ, ξ, ξ, ξ, ξ −1 , ξ −1 , ξ −1 , ξ −1 , 1, ..., 1) with ξ 2 =
6 1, then G is tensor-indecomposable, except
possibly if G ⊂ G1 ⊗ G2 with G1 ⊂ GLa (q), a ∈ {2, 4}.

Proof. Let g = P diag(ξI4 , ξ −1 I4 , Id−8 )P√−1 . Assume that g = g1 ⊗ g2 with g1 ∈ GLa (Fq ), g2 ∈ GLb (Fq ) with
3 ≤ a ≤ b and ab = d. We have that b ≥ d so b ≥ 9 because d ≥ 80. We write λ1 , ..., λa the eigenvalues of g1 and
µ1 , ..., µb the eigenvalues of g2 . We then have that ∀i ∈ [[1, a]], ∀j ∈ [[1, b]], λi µj ∈ {1, ξ, ξ −1 }. The numbers ξ and
ξ −1 only appear 4 times each. This implies the number of couples (λ1 µi , λ2 µi ) ∈ {(1, ξ), (ξ, 1), (ξ, ξ −1 )} is less
than or equal to 4 as is the number of couples (λ1 µi , λ2 µi ) ∈ {(1, ξ −1 ), (ξ −1 , 1), (ξ −1 , ξ)}. For any i ∈ [[1, a]], the
inequality λ1 µi 6= λ2 µi implies that (λ1 µi , λ2 µi ) ∈ {(1, ξ), (ξ, 1), (1, ξ −1 ), (ξ −1 , 1), (ξ, ξ −1 ), (ξ −1 , ξ)}. It follows
that there are at most 8 couples (λ1 µi , λ2 µi ) such that λ1 µi 6= λ2 µi . Since b ≥ 9, this implies that there exists
i ∈ [[1, a]] such that λ1 µi = λ2 µi . It follows that λ1 = λ2 . In the same way, we have that λ1 = λj for all
j ∈ [[1, a]]. Up to reordering, we can assume λ1 µ1 = ξ. We then have λ2 µ1 = λ3 µ1 = ξ. Since there are exactly
4 ways ξ appears as a λi µj , we have that a = 4.
By the assumptions on λ, H = Rλ (ABn−1 ) is a direct product of groups isomorphic to some SLm (q) with
m ≥ n([2,1],[2]) = 20. If G = Rλ (ABn ) is not tensor-indecomposable then G ⊂ SL2 (q) ⊗ SL d (q) or G ⊂
2
SL4 (q) ⊗ SL d (q). We then have a morphism from G into SL2 (q) or SL4 (q). If we consider the restriction of
4
this morphism to H, its kernel is a normal subgroup of H. The only non-abelian decomposition factors of H
are P SLm (q) with m ≥ 20 so if the image is non-abelian, then there exists a subgroup of SL2 (q) or a subgroup
of SL4 (q) isomorphic to some P SLm (q). This leads to a contradiction because m ≥ 20. It follows that the
image is abelian and since H is perfect, the kernel is equal to H. Since H normally generates G, the morphism
is trivial on G which contradicts the irreducibility of G.

Third step. In the monomial case, the only additional case to consider is the same one as in the second step.
Looking at the corresponding proof in [3, page 14], we get that (p − 1)r ≤ 4 with q = pr . We know that q is
1

1

a square, n ≥ 6, α is of order greater than n and ǫ(α) ∈ {α, α−1 } so αq 2 −1 = 1 or αq 2 +1 = 1. In both cases
1
1
q 2 + 1 > 6, and so q 2 ≥ 6 and q ≥ 36. The condition (p − 1)r ≤ 4 implies that q ≤ max(51 , 41 , 32 , 24 ) = 16 so
we have a contradiction.
Fourth step. We know that there exists a matrix t of order p such as the one in [3, page 14] or with Jordan
form diag(I2 + E1,2 , I2 + E1,2 , I2 + E1,2 , I2 + E1,2 , Inλ −8 ).
If p 6= 2, we can use the same arguments as in page 15 of [3] because we still have (t − 1)2 = 0.
Assume now that p = 2. Assume that G ⊂ H ≀Sm = (H1 ×H2 ×· · ·×Hm )⋊Sm with H1 , . . . Hm the m-copies
of GLN/m (q) permuted by Sm , that V = U1 ⊕ U2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Um is the direct sum corresponding to the wreath
product and that t ∈
/ H1 × · · · × Hm . Assume t ∈
/ H1 × · · · × Hm . Up to reordering, we can assume tU1 = U2 .
If dim(Ui ) ≥ 5 then we can consider linearly independent vectors v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 , v5 in U1 and by completing the
family of vectors (v1 , tv1 , v2 , tv2 , v3 , tv3 , v4 , tv4 , v5 , tv5 ) which are linearly independent because tU1 = U2 6= U1 ,
we geta basis
 upon which t acts as a matrix of the form M2 ⊕ M2 ⊕ M2 ⊕ M2 ⊕ M2 ⊕ X for a certain X with
0 1
M2 =
. This implies that the rank of t − 1 is greater than or equal than 5 which is a contradiction.
1 0
We can thus assume that dim(Ui ) ≤ 4. Note that G = Rλ (ABn ) and ABn is perfect for n ≥ 5 [21] so G is
perfect. If G ⊂ (H1 × H2 × · · · × Hm ) ⋊ Sm , we get G ⊂ (H1 × H2 × · · · × Hm ) ⋊ Am because [Sm , Sm ] ⊂ Am .
If t is a transvection then by the same reasoning as above on the dimensions of Ui , we are in the monomial
case which was done in the third step.
If t is of rank 2, then either we are in the monomial case or dim(Ui ) = 2. The monomial case is done, so
it is sufficient to prove that dim(Ui ) = 2 leads to a contradiction. We take t1 and t2 two such elements of
rank 2. Assume dim(Ui ) = 2, since we have t(U1 ) = U2 and t1 (U2 ) = t21 (U1 ) = U1 . If (ua , ub ) are linearly
independent then (t1 ua − ua , t1 ub − ub ) is a basis of Im(t1 − 1), which is of dimension 2 and included in U1 ⊕ U2
for all i ∈
/ {1, 2}, ti (Ui ) = Ui . It follows that the projection of t1 upon Sm from the semi-direct product is a
transposition. This is a contradiction because the projection of G upon Sm is included in Am .
If t is of rank 4 and Rλ (ABn−1 ) does not contain in an obvious way any transvections or elements t of rank
2, then G contains up to conjugation {diag(M, t(M −1 ), ǫ(M ), tǫ(M −1 ), Inλ −8 ), M ∈ SL2 (q)}. We consider two
elements t1 and t2 of rank 4. If dim(U1 ) = 4 then if (u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 ) is a basis of U1 , (u1 − t1 u1 , u2 − t1 u2 , u3 −
t1 u3 , u4 − t1 u4 ) is a basis of Im(t1 − 1), which is of dimension 4. It follows that the projection of t1 upon Sm is
a transposition, which is absurd.
If dim(U1 ) = 3, then if (u1 , u2 , u3 ) is a basis of U1 , we have that V ect{t1 u1 − u1 , t1 u2 − u2 , t1 u3 − u3 } ⊂
Im(t1 − 1). If there exists i ∈
/ {1, 2} such that ti (Ui ) 6= Ui then in the same way as before, there would exist a
subspace of dimension 6 of Im(t1 − 1), which is of dimension 4. This shows that the projection of t1 upon Sm
is a transposition, which is absurd.
If dim(Ui ) = 2, then we can take 4 distinct non-zero elements a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 of Fq , which is possible because
1
q 2 ≥ 6. We know that G contains up to conjugation the elements tj for j ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4} with tj = diag(I2 +
20

aj E1,2 , I2 + aj E1,2 , I2 + ǫ(aj )E1,2 , I2 + ǫ(aj )E1,2 , Inλ −8 ). We have that Im(tj − 1) is independent of j. We also
have that t1 (U1 ) = U2 and t1 (U2 ) = t21 (U1 ) = U1 . Since Im(t1 − 1) ∩ U1 ⊕ U2 is then of dimension 2 and the
projection of t1 upon Sm is not a transposition, there exists i ∈
/ {1, 2} such that t1 (Ui ) 6= Ui . Up to reordering,
we can assume t1 (U3 ) = U4 and t1 (U4 ) = t21 (U3 ) = U3 . This shows that for all j ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}, Im(tj − 1) =
Im(t1 − 1) ⊂ U1 ⊕ U2 ⊕ U3 ⊕ U4 . Since each tj is of order 2, it follows writing π the projection of G upon Sm
that we have {π(t1 ), π(t2 ), π(t3 ), π(t4 )} ⊂ {Id , (12)(34), (13)(24), (14)(23)}.
Let us show that π(tj ) = Id for all j. They are all conjugated in G. Since H1 × H2 × · · · × Hm is a normal
subgroup of (H1 × H2 × · · · × Hm ) ⋊ Sm , it is sufficient to show it for one of them. Assume it is wrong for
all of them. We then have {π(t1 ), π(t2 ), π(t3 ), π(t4 )} ⊂ {(12)(34), (13)(24), (14)(23)}. Therefore, there exists a
pair (i, j), i 6= j such that π(ti ) = π(tj ) and so π(ti tj ) = Id . But the matrix of ti tj in the basis we chose is
diag(I2 + (ai + aj )E1,2 , I2 + (ai + aj )E1,2 , I2 + ǫ(ai + aj )E1,2 , I2 + ǫ(ai + aj )E1,2 , Inλ −8 ). We have ai + aj 6= 0
because p = 2 and the elements al are pairwise distinct. It follows that ti tj is conjugated each tl so we have
a contradiction. This shows that for all j ∈ {1, 4}, π(tj ) = Id . It follows that tj ∈ H1 × H2 × · · · × Hm which
is normal in (H1 × H2 × · · · × Hm ) ⋊ Sm . Since G is normally generated by Rλ (ABn−1 ), which is normally
generated by elements of the form tj , we have that G ⊂ H1 × H2 × · · · × Hm , which contradicts the irreducibility
of G. This is absurd and it follows that G is an imprimitive group.
1

1

Fifth step. If G contains a natural SL2 (q 2 ) or a natural SU2 (q 2 ) then we can apply the same arguments as
in [3, page 13]. If G contains a twisted diagonal embedding or a twisted diagonal embedding composed with
the automorphism of order 2 of Fq of SL3 (q), then we can apply the arguments of [3, page 14]. If we are not in
any of the above cases, then λ = λ′ = (λ2 , λ1 ), so n ≥ 6 and we are in one of the following cases.
1

(1) Rλ (ABn ) contains up to conjugation {diag(M, t(M −1 ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SU3 (q 2 )}.
1
(2) Rλ (ABn ) contains up to conjugation {diag(M, t(M −1 ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SL3 (q 2 )}.
(3) Rλ (ABn ) contains up to conjugation {diag(M, t(M −1 ), ǫ(M ), tǫ(M −1 ), Inλ −12 ), M ∈ SL3 (q)}.

1

In the first two cases, we have an element g conjugated to diag(ξ, ξ, ξ −1 , ξ −1 , 1, . . . , 1) with ξ of order q 2 − 1
1
but the order of α is less than or equal to q 2 + 1 in both cases. If g is an element of Snλ such that [g, V ] = 4,
then we have (g = σ1 σ2 σ3 σ4 product of 4 disjoint transpositions and g is of order 2) or (g is the product of
2 disjoint 3-cycles and g is of order 3) or (g is a 5-cycle and g is of order 5) or (g is the disjoint product of 2
1
transpositions and a 3-cycle and g is of order 6). Since nλ ≥ 6 and the order of α is greater than n, q 2 + 1 > 7
1
so q 2 − 1 > 5 which contradicts all the cases except for the last one. In the last case, we have that nλ ≥ 7 by
1
1
the decomposition of g. Since λ = λ′ , nλ is even and q 2 − 1 = q 2 + 1 − 2 > nλ − 2 > 6, which contradicts the
last case.
In the third case, we have an element g conjugated to diag(ξ, ξ, ξ, ξ, ξ −1 , ξ −1 , ξ −1 , ξ −1 , 1, . . . , 1) which is of
1
order o(g) = q − 1 but q 2 + 1 > 7 so q > 36. Since q is an even power of a prime number, it follows that
q > 49 and q − 1 ≥ 49. We have [g, V ] = 8 so by considering the decomposition into disjoint cycles of g
and using the fact that the
Prank of σ − 1 of a cycle σ is equal to the length of the cycle minus 1, we get
o(g) ∈ {lcm({ni + 1}i∈I ), ni = 8, ni ∈ N⋆ }. It follows that o(g) ≤ 30 < 49 ≤ q − 1 = o(g) which is a
i∈I

contradiction.

Sixth step. We have shown that G = Rλ (ABn ) is a classical group in a natural representation, the last step
is to show that we have the following theorem.
Theorem 2.13. If n ≥ 5, then for all double-partition λ ⊢⊢ n in our decomposition, Rλ (ABn ) = G(λ), where
G(λ) is given by the following list.
(1) When Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β), and Fq̃ = Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 )
1
(a) SUn−1 (q̃ 2 ) if λ = ([n − 1, 1], ∅).
1
(b) SUnλ (q̃ 2 ) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 < λ′1 .
1
(c) SPnλ (q̃ 2 ) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 = λ′1 and ( p = 2 or (p ≥ 3 and ν(λ1 ) = −1)).
1
′
2
(d) Ω+
N (q̃ ) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 = λ1 , p ≥ 3 and ν(λ1 ) = 1.
(e) SLn (Fq ) if λ = ([1], [n − 1]).
(f) SLnλ (Fq ) if λ 6= λ′ , λ 6= (λ′1 , λ′2 ) and λ 6= (λ2 , λ1 ).
1
(g) SUnλ (q 2 ), if λ = (λ2 , λ1 ) 6= λ′ .
(h) SLnλ (F 21 ),if λ = (λ′1 , λ′2 ) 6= λ′ .
q
(i) SPnλ (q), if λ = λ′ 6= (λ2 , λ1 ) and (p = 2 or ν(λ) = −1).
′
(j) Ω+
nλ (q),if λ = λ 6= (λ2 , λ1 ), p 6= 2 and ν(λ) = 1.
1
(k) SPnλ (q 2 ), if λ = λ′ = (λ2 , λ1 ) and (p = 2 or ν(λ) = −1).
1
′
2
(l) Ω+
nλ (q ) if λ = λ = (λ2 , λ1 ), p 6= 2 and ν(λ) = 1.
(2) When Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) 6= Fp (α, β + β −1 ),
(a) when Fq̃ = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ),
21

(b)

(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)

(i) SLn−1 (Fq̃ ) if λ = ([n − 1, 1], ∅).
(ii) SLnλ (Fq̃ ) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 < λ′1 .
(iii) SPnλ (q̃) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 = λ′1 and (p = 2 or (p ≥ 3 and ν(λ1 ) = −1)).
′
(iv) Ω+
N (q̃) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 = λ1 , p ≥ 3 and ν(λ1 ) = 1.
−1
when Fq̃ = Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α ),
1
(i) SUn−1 (q̃ 2 ) if λ = ([n − 1, 1], ∅).
1
(ii) SUnλ (q̃ 2 ) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 < λ′1 .
1
(iii) SPnλ (q̃ 2 ) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 = λ′1 and ( p = 2 or (p ≥ 3 and ν(λ1 ) = −1)).
1
′
2
(iv) Ω+
N (q̃ ) if λ = (λ1 , ∅), λ1 = λ1 , p ≥ 3 and ν(λ1 ) = 1.
SLn (Fq ) if λ = ([1], [n − 1]),
SLnλ (Fq ) if λ 6= λ′ , λ 6= (λ′1 , λ′2 ) and λ 6= (λ2 , λ1 ),
SLnλ (F 12 ) if λ = (λ2 , λ1 ) 6= λ′ ,
q

1

SUnλ (q 2 ) if λ = (λ′1 , λ′2 ) 6= λ′ ,
SPnλ (q) if λ = λ′ 6= (λ2 , λ1 ) and (p = 2 or ν(λ) = −1),
′
Ω+
nλ (q) if λ = λ 6= (λ2 , λ1 ), p 6= 2 and ν(λ) = 1,
1
SPnλ (q 2 ) if λ = λ′ = (λ2 , λ1 ) and (p = 2 or ν(λ) = −1),
1
′
2
Ω+
nλ (q ) if λ = λ = (λ2 , λ1 ), p 6= 2 and ν(λ) = 1.

Proof. It is sufficient to prove the result for double-partitions with no empty components which are not hooks.
We know by Theorem 2.11 and the previous steps that G(λ) is a classical group in a natural representation.
The proof uses Proposition 2.5 and the separation of the cases made before the enumeration of the six steps.
We write Fq′ the field over which our classical group is defined. In all cases G(λ) ⊂ SLn (q) so q ′ divides q.
Assume Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α, β + β −1 ) 6= Fp (α + α−1 , β).
(1) If λ 6= λ′ , λ 6= (λ′1 , λ′2 ) and λ 6= (λ2 , λ1 ), then G(λ) contains a natural SL2 (q). By Lemma 2.8, we have
that q ′ = q. By Proposition 2.5, G(λ) preserves no hermitian or bilinear form, so G(λ) = SLnλ (q).
(2) If λ = (λ2 , λ1 ) 6= λ′ , then by Proposition 2.5 and Lemma 2.3, we have up to conjugation G(λ) ⊂
1
SUnλ (q 2 ). Up to conjugation, G(λ) contains {diag(M, tǫ(M −1 ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SL3 (q)}, so G(λ) contains
1
{diag(M, M, Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SU3 (q 2 )}.
1
Let ϕ be the natural representation of SU3 (q 2 ) in GL3 (Fp ) and ρ the diagonal representation of
1
SU3 (q 2 ) in GLnλ (Fp ), given by the above subgroup of G(λ).
We have ρ ≃ ϕ ⊕ ϕ ⊕ 1nλ −6 with 1 the trivial representation. Let σ be a generator of Gal(Fq /Fq′ ).
Since G(λ) is a classical group over Fq′ , we have that ρ ≃ ρσ so ϕ ≃ ϕσ . It follows that for every
Gal(Fq /F ′ )

1

q
M ∈ SU3 (q 2 ), we have σ(Tr(M )) = Tr(M ). By Lemma 2.8, we have that Fq = Fq
and so
1
′
q = q. By Proposition 2.5, G(λ) preserves no bilinear form so G(λ) = SUnλ (q 2 ).
(3) If λ = (λ′1 , λ′2 ) 6= λ′ , then by Proposition 2.5 and Lemma 2.4, up to conjugation, we have that G(λ) ⊂
1
1
SLnλ (q 2 ). The group G(λ) contains either a natural SL3 (q 2 ) or a group of the form {diag(M, ǫ(M ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈
SL3 (q)}.
1
1
If G(λ) contains a natural SL3 (q 2 ) then by Lemma 2.8, we have q ′ = q 2 . We know by Proposition
1
2.5 that G(λ) preserves no symmetric or skew-symmetric bilinear form . If we had G(λ) ⊂ SUnλ (q 4 ),
1
1
then the natural SL3 (q 2 ) in G(λ) would inject itself in some SU3 (q 4 ). This is absurd because of their
1
orders so we have G(λ) = SLnλ (q 2 ).
If G contains up to conjugation a group of the form {diag(M, ǫ(M ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SL3 (q)} then
1
1
it contains {diag(M, M, Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SL3 (q 2 )}. Let ϕ be the natural representation of SL3 (q 2 ) in
1
GL3 (Fp ) and ρ the diagonal representation of SL3 (q 2 ) in GLnλ (Fp ) given by the above subgroup of
G(λ). We then have ρ ≃ ϕ⊕ϕ⊕1nλ −6 . Let σ be a generator of Gal(F 21 /Fq′ ). We have ρ ≃ ρσ so ϕ ≃ ϕσ

q

Gal(F

and by Lemma 2.8, we have that F

1

q2

=F

1
q2

1

q2

/Fq′ )

1
2

1

so q ′ = q . We cannot have G(λ) = SUnλ (q 4 )
1

1

because SL3 (q) would inject itself in SU6 (q 4 ) and we know that

|SU6 (q 4 )|
q

15
4

<

|SL3 (q)|
.
q3

By Proposition
1

2.5, G(λ) cannot preserve any symmetric or skew-symmetric bilinear form so G(λ) = SLnλ (q 2 ).
(4) Case 4 is analogous to Case 3.
(5) If λ = λ′ = (λ2 , λ1 ), then by Proposition 2.5 and Proposition 2.9, G(λ) preserves a bilinear form of the
1
type given by Proposition 2.1 defined over F 21 . This shows that q ′ ≤ q 2 and it is enough to show that
q

1

q ′ = q 2 to conclude the proof.
If λ1 and λ2 are square partitions then G(λ) contains up to conjugation the group
1
{diag(M, t(M −1 ), Inλ −6 ), M ∈ SU3 (q 2 )}.
1
Let ϕ be the natural representation of SU3 (q 2 ) in GL3 (Fp ), and ρ the twisted diagonal representation
1
of SU3 (q 2 ) in GLnλ (Fp ) given by the above subgroup of G(λ). We have ρ ≃ ϕ ⊕ ϕ⋆ ⊕ 1nλ −6 . Let σ be
22

a generator of Gal(F

1

q2

/Fq′ ). Since G(λ) is a classical group over Fq′ , we have ρ ≃ ρσ . It follows that

ϕ ≃ ϕσ or ϕ ≃ (ϕ⋆ )σ . The first possibility implies that F
2

Gal(F

1
q2

=F

/Fq′ )

1
q2

1
q2

1

1

, so q ′ = q 2 . The second

1

1

possibility implies that ϕ ≃ ϕσ , so q ′ = q 2 or σ is of order 2 and SU3 (q 2 ) injects into SU3 (q 4 ), which
1
is a contradiction. In both cases, we have q ′ = q 2 and the desired result follows.
If λ1 or λ2 is not a square partition, then G(λ) contains up to conjugation the group
{diag(M, t(M −1 ), ǫ(M ), tǫ(M −1 ), Inλ −12 ), M
∈
SL3 (q)}, and so contains its subgroup
1
1
{diag(M, t(M −1 ), M, t(M −1 ), Inλ −12 ), M ∈ SL3 (q 2 )}. Let ϕ be the natural representation of SL3 (q 2 )
1
in GL3 (Fp ) and ρ be the representation of SL3 (q 2 ) in GLnλ (Fp ) given by the above subgroup G(λ). We
⋆
⋆
nλ −6
have ρ ≃ ϕ ⊕ ϕ ⊕ ϕ ⊕ ϕ ⊕ 1
. Let σ be a generator of Gal(F 21 /Fq′ ). Since G(λ) is a classical group
q
defined over Fq′ , we have that ρ ≃ ρσ . It follows that ϕ ≃ ϕσ or ϕ ≃ (ϕ⋆ )σ . By the same arguments as
1
1
1
1
before, we have q ′ = q 2 or SL3 (q 2 ) injects itself in SU3 (q 4 ), which is not possible. This proves q ′ = q 2
−1
−1
and concludes the case Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α, β + β ) 6= Fp (α + α , β).
If Fq = Fp (α, β) = Fp (α + α−1 , β) 6= Fp (α, β + β −1 ), then all the arguments are the same up to permutation
of the different cases.

3. Type D
In this section, we determine the image of the Artin group of type D inside its asssociated finite Iwahori-Hecke
algebra. In the first two subsections, in an analogous way to what we did in type B, we establish preliminary
results which permit us to state Theorems 3.2 and 3.3 which are the main theorems of this section. In the last
two subsections, we complete the proofs of these theorems.
3.1. Definition of the model. Let n ≥ 4, p a prime different from 2, α ∈ Fp of order greater than 2n. We set
in this section Fq = Fp (α). As in [8], we take for the Iwahori-Hecke algebra of type D HDn ,α the sub-algebra
of HBn ,α,1 generated by U = T S1 T, S1 , . . . Sn−1 . In this case σ : Vλ1 ,λ2 → Vλ2 ,λ1 , (T1 , T2 ) 7→ (T2 , T1 ) is an
isomorphism of HDn ,α -modules. It is a standard fact (see [7] for a proof) that under those conditions on α,
the simple modules of HDn ,α are indexed by double-partitions (λ1 , λ2 ), λ1 > λ2 and the modules Vλ,λ split into
two irreducible sub-modules Vλ,λ,+ and Vλ,λ,− of the same dimension. The branching rule for type D is more
complicated so we recall it in the following proposition. (a proof in a more general setting can be found in [20]):
Proposition 3.1. Let n ≥ 5 and (λ, µ) ⊢⊢ n, λ > µ. We then have:
L
Vλ̃,µ̃ .
(1) If nλ > nµ + 1, then Vλ,µ|HDn−1 ,α =
(λ̃,µ̃)⊂(λ,µ)

(2) If nλ = nµ + 1 and µ 6⊂ λ, then

Vλ,µ|HDn−1 ,α = (

M

µ̃⊂µ

Vλ,µ̃ ) ⊕ (

M

Vλ̃,µ ) ⊕ (

λ̃⊂λ
λ̃>µ

M

Vµ,λ̃ ).

λ̃⊂λ
λ̃<µ

(3) If nλ = nµ + 1 and µ ⊂ λ, then
M
M
M
Vλ,µ|HDn−1 ,α = (
Vλ,µ̃ ) ⊕ (
Vλ̃,µ ) ⊕ (
Vµ,λ̃ ) ⊕ Vµ,µ,+ ⊕ Vµ,µ,− .
µ̃⊂µ

λ̃⊂λ
λ̃>µ

L

L
Vµ,λ̃ ).
Vλ,µ̃ ) ⊕ (
µ̃⊂µ
λ̃⊂λ
L
= Vλ,λ,−|HDn−1 ,α =
Vλ,µ̃ .

(4) If nλ = nµ and λ > µ, then Vλ,µ|HDn−1 ,α = (
(5) If λ = µ, then Vλ,λ,+|HDn−1 ,α

λ̃⊂λ
λ̃<µ

µ̃⊂µ

We keep the same weight on double-tableaux as for type B. Let λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) ⊢⊢ n and T = (T1 , T2 ) ∈ λ. We
define ϕ(T) to be T′ if µ′ > λ′ and σ(T′ ) otherwise. We define a new ν̃(λ) to be ν(λ1 )ν(λ2 )(−1)nλ1 (n−nλ1 ) if
λ′2 ≥ λ′1 and ν̃(λ) = ν(λ1 )ν(λ2 ) otherwise. We define the bilinear form (T|T̃) = ω(T)δϕ(T),T̃ .
Proposition 3.2. For any pair of standard double-tableaux (T, T̃), we have the following properties.
(1) (Si .T|Si .T̃) = (−α)(T|T̃) and (U.T|U.T̃) = (−α)(T|T̃).
(2) For all d ∈ Dn , we have that (d.T|d.T̃) = (T|T̃).
Those relations stay true if we substitute one or two of the standard double-tableaux by the elements
σ(T) − T and σ(T) + T, which form bases for Vλ,+ and Vλ,− for double-partitions λ of the form λ =
(λ1 , λ1 ).
(3) The restriction of (., .) to Vλ if λ = ϕ(λ) 6= (λ2 , λ1 ) and to Vλ ⊕ Vϕ(λ) if λ ∈
/ {ϕ(λ), (λ2 , λ1 )} is
non-degenerate with ϕ(λ) = λ′ if nλ = nµ and µ′ > λ′ , and ϕ(λ) = (λ′1 , λ′2 ) otherwise.
If λ = ϕ(λ) 6= (λ2 , λ1 ) then (., .) is symmetric on Vλ if ν̃(λ) = 1 and skew-symmetric otherwise.
Moreover, its Witt index is positive.
23

(4) If n ≡ 0 (mod4) and λ = (λ1 , λ1 ), then the restriction of (., .) to Vλ,+ and Vλ,− if λ = λ′ and to
Vλ,+ ⊕ Vλ,− if λ 6= λ′ , is non-degenerate.
If λ = λ′ then (., .) is symmetric on Vλ,+ and Vλ,− if µ̃(λ) = 1 and skew-symmetric otherwise.
Moreover, its Witt index is positive.
(5) If n ≡ 2 (mod4) and λ = (λ1 , λ1 ) then the restriction of (., .) to Vλ,+ ⊕ Vλ′ ,− is non-degenerate.
Proof. For 1. and 2., the proof is exactly the same as for Proposition 2.1 by noting mi (σ(T)) = mi (T). The
extension to elements of the bases of Vλ,+ and Vλ,− follows from the bilinearity of (., .).
For 3., the proof also remains the same because ν̃(λ) = ω(T)ω(ϕ(T)). This is true because when ϕ(T) = T′ ,
ν̃(λ) does not change from the one in type B and when ϕ(T) = σ(T′ ), ν̃(λ) is multiplied by (−1)nλ1 (n−nλ1 ) =
ω(T)ω(σ(T)).
4. We assume n ≡ 0 (mod4). If λ = (λ1 , λ1 ) ⊢⊢ n and T ∈ λ then ω(σ(T)) = (−1)nλ1 (n−nλ1 ) ) ω(T) =
n 2
(−1)( 2 ) ω(T) = ω(T).
For any standard double-tableaux T, T̃, we have that (T|T̃) = ω(T)δT,ϕ(T) . Since λ = (λ1 , λ1 ), we have
ϕ(λ) = λ′ and for all T ∈ λ and all T ∈ λ′ , we have ϕ(T) = T′ .
Let λ = (λ1 , λ1 ) and λ̃ = (λ̃1 , λ̃1 ) be double-partitions of n. If T ∈ λ and T̃ ∈ λ̃ then we have :
(T + σ(T)|T̃ + σ(T̃))

= (T|T̃) + (T|σ(T̃)) + (σ(T)|T̃)) + (σ(T)|σ(T̃))
= ω(T)(δT,T̃′ + δT,σ(T̃)′ ) + ω(σ(T))(δσ(T),T̃′ + δσ(T),σ(T̃)′ )
= (δT,T̃′ + δT,σ(T̃)′ )(ω(T) + ω(σ(T))
= δT+σ(T),T̃′ +σ(T̃′ ) (ω(T) + ω(σ(T)))
= 2ω(T)δT′ +σ(T)′ ,T̃+σ(T̃) .

In the same way, we have that (T + σ(T)|T̃ − σ(T̃)) = (T − σ(T)|T̃ + σ(T̃)) = 0 and
(T − σ(T)|T̃ − σ(T̃)) = 2ω(T)δT′ −σ(T)′ ,T̃−σ(T̃) . The result follows.
5. Assume n ≡ 2 (mod 4). If λ = (λ1 , λ1 ) ⊢⊢ n and T ∈ λ, then ω(σ(T)) = (−1)nλ1 (n−nλ1 ) ) ω(T) =
n 2
(−1)( 2 ) ω(T) = −ω(T). It follows that if λ̃ = (λ̃1 , λ̃1 ) ⊢⊢ n and T̃ ∈ λ̃, then (T+σ(T)|T̃ +σ(T̃)) = (T−σ(T)|T̃ −
σ(T̃)) = 0, (T + σ(T)|T̃ − σ(T̃)) = 2ω(T)δT′ −σ(T)′ ,T̃−σ(T̃) and (T − σ(T)|T̃ + σ(T̃)) = 2ω(T)δT′ +σ(T)′ ,T̃+σ(T̃) . The
result follows.

3.2. Factorization of the image of the Artin group inside the finite Hecke algebra. In this subsection,
we find the different factorizations between the irreducible representations of ADn . Most of the factorization
results are summarized in Proposition 3.6. We then state the main results for type D in Theorems 3.2 and 3.3.
We define the linear map L from V to V which sends T to L(T) = ω(T)ϕ(T).
Proposition 3.3. Let r ∈ [[1, n − 1]] and T a standard double-tableau, we then have
LSr L−1 (T) = (−α)t(Sr−1 )(T), LU L−1 = (−α)t(U −1 )(T).

Let λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) ⊢⊢ n. We have the following propositions.
(1) If λ ∈
/ {ϕ(λ), (λ2 , λ1 )}, then L stabilizes Vλ ⊕ Vϕ(λ) and switches Vλ and Vϕ(λ) .
(2) If λ = ϕ(λ) 6= (λ2 , λ1 ), then L stabilizes Vλ .
(3) If n ≡ 0 (mod4) and λ = (λ1 , λ1 ) 6= (λ′1 , λ′1 ), then L stabilizes Vλ,+ ⊕ Vλ′ ,+ (resp Vλ,− ⊕ Vλ′ ,− ) and
switches Vλ,+ and Vλ′ ,+ (resp Vλ,− and Vλ′ ,− ).
(4) If n ≡ 0 (mod4) and λ = (λ1 , λ1 ) = (λ′1 , λ′1 ), then L stabilizes Vλ,+ and Vλ,− .
(5) If n ≡ 2 (mod4) and λ = (λ1 , λ1 ), then L stabilizes Vλ,+ ⊕ Vλ′ ,− and switches Vλ,+ and Vλ′ ,− .
This follows directly from Proposition 3.2 by writing the matrix of the bilinear form and the matrix of L. .

Proposition 3.4. For r ∈ [[1, n − 1]], we write λr the double-partition of n defined by λr = ([r], [1n−r ]) if r ≥ n2
and λr = ([1n−r ], r) if r < n2 . Taking the same notations as in Proposition 2.6 of type B, for all d ∈ ADn , we
have η1,r (d) = η2,r (d) because the length in T of such an element is even and we have β = 1. We define the
character ηr of ADn by ηr (d) = η1,r (d) = η2,r (d).
We then have by Proposition 2.6 that Rλr ≃ (Λr Rλ1 ) ⊗ η1,r for all r ∈ [[1, n − 1]].

Assume Fq = Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ). We write ǫ the unique automorphism of Fq of order 2. We have that
ǫ(α) = α−1 .
We then define for every standard double-tableau the same way as for type B,
2+αai,j −1 +α1−ai,j
˜ 1 )d(T
˜ 2) Q
and the associated hermitian form h., .i defined by
d(T) = d(T
a
−a
i∈T1 ,j∈T2
i<j

α+α−1 +α

i,j +α

i,j

hT, T̃i = d(T)δT,T̃ . We write Λ for the set of all double-partitions λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) of n such that λ1 ≥ λ2 .

Proposition 3.5. For all d ∈ ADn , λ ∈ Λ and T ∈ λ, we have hd.T, d.T̃i = hT, T̃i. This shows that ADn acts
in a unitary way on those irreducible modules.
24

Proof. The proof of the first statement follows from Proposition 2.3 and the second follows from the expression
of the bases of Vλ,± and the Z-bilinearity of the hermitian form.

The following proposition summarizes the results in this section :
Proposition 3.6. Let λ, µ, γ and δ be doubles-partitions of n such that dim(Vλ ) > 1, λ1 > λ2 , µ1 > µ2 ,
γ1 = γ2 and δ1 = δ2 . We have the following properties.
(1) The restrictions of Rλ , Rγ,+ and Rγ,− to ADn are absolutely irreducible.
(2) Rλ|ADn ≃ Rµ|ADn ⇔ λ = µ.
(3) Rλ|ADn 6≃ Rγ,±|ADn .
(4) Rγ,±|ADn ≃ Rδ,±|ADn ⇔ γ = δ.
(5) Rγ,±|ADn 6≃ Rδ,∓|ADn .
⋆
⇔ µ = ϕ(λ).
(6) Rλ|ADn ≃ Rµ|A
Dn
⋆
(7) Rλ|ADn 6≃ Rγ,± .
(8) If n ≡ 0 (mod4), then
⋆
⇔ γ = ϕ(δ).
(a) Rγ,±|ADn ≃ Rδ,±|A
Dn
⋆
(b) Rγ,±|ADn 6≃ Rδ,∓|AD .
n
(9) If n ≡ 2 (mod4), then
⋆
(a) Rγ,±|ADn 6≃ Rδ,±|A
.
Dn
⋆
(b) Rγ,±|ADn ≃ Rδ,∓|AD ⇔ γ = ϕ(δ).
n
(10) If Fq = Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ), then
⋆
(a) Rλ|ADn ≃ ǫ ◦ Rµ|A
⇔ λ = µ.
Dn
(b) Rλ|ADn 6≃ ǫ ◦ Rγ,± .
⋆
(c) Rγ,±|ADn ≃ ǫ ◦ Rδ,±|A
⇔ γ = δ.
Dn
⋆
(d) Rγ,±|ADn 6≃ ǫ ◦ Rδ,∓|AD .
n

Proof. 1. is shown in the same way as Lemma 3.4. of [3], because ADn is generated by ADn ans ADn−1 .
Using Propositions 3.5 and 3.3, it is sufficient to show 2, 3, 4 and 5 to conclude the proof. In the same way as
for type B, we need to use Lemma 2.2. If Rλ|ADn ≃ Rµ|ADn then there exists a character η : ADn → F⋆q such
that Rλ ≃ Rµ ⊗ η. Since ADn /ADn =< S1 >, there exists u ∈ F⋆q such that for all d ∈ ADn , η(d) = ul(d) . We
have Rλ (S1 ) = uRµ (S1 ). By considering the eigenvalues, we have that {α, −1} = {uα, −u}. Therefore u = 1
or α2 = 1. By the conditions on α, u = 1 and Rλ ≃ Rµ so λ = µ. Since the set of eigenvalues is of Rγ,± (S1 ) is
also {α, −1}, the rest of the proof follows.

We now give a theorem for double-partitions with an empty component and then results for hook partitions.
Theorem 3.1. Let λ = (λ1 , ∅) ⊢⊢ n with λ1 not a hook and G = Rλ (ADn ). We then have the following.
(1) If Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ), then
(a) if λ1 6= λ′1 , then G = SLnλ (q),
(b) if λ1 = λ′1 and (p = 2 or p ≥ 3 and ν̃(λ) = −1), then G = SPnλ (q),
(c) if λ1 = λ′1 , p ≥ 3 and ν̃(λ) = 1, then G = Ω+
nλ (q).
(2) If Fq = Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ), then
1
(a) if λ1 6= λ′1 then G = SUnλ (q 2 ),
1
(b) if λ1 = λ′1 and ν̃(λ) = −1 then G = SPnλ (q 2 ),
1
2
(c) if λ1 = λ′1 and ν̃(λ) = 1 then G = Ω+
nλ (q ).
Proof. The restriction of Rλ to ADn is the same as the representation Rλ1 in type A. Since ν̃(λ) = ν(λ1 ),
the result follows directly from [3, Theorem 1.1] after noting that Rλ (AAn ) ⊂ Rλ (ADn ) and that we have the
corresponding inclusions by Proposition 3.2.

Proposition 3.7. If Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ), then R([1n−1 ],[1]) (ADn ) = SLn (q) and if Fq = Fp (α) 6=
1
Fp (α + α−1 ) then R([1n−1 ],[1]) (ADn ) = SUn (q 2 ).
Proof. The proof is the same one as the proof of Proposition 2.7.



We write again A1,n = {(λ1 , ∅), λ1 ⊢ n}, A2,n = {(∅, λ2 ), λ2 ⊢ n}, An = A1,n ∪ A2,n and
ǫn = {λ ⊢⊢ n, λ not a hook}

×
≃
Theorem 3.2. If Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ) and n is odd, then the morphism from ADn to HD
n ,α
Q
GLnλ (q) factorizes through the epimorphism
λ⊢⊢n
λ1 >λ2

Φn : ADn → SLn−1 (q) × SLn (q) ×

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ>ϕ(λ)
λ1 >λ2
25

SLnλ (q) ×

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ=ϕ(λ)
nλ >nµ

OSP (λ)′ .

×
≃
If Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ) and n ≡ 0 (mod4), then the morphism from ADn to HD
n ,α

Q

GLnλ,+ (q) × GLnλ,− (q) factorizes through the epimorphism

Q

λ⊢⊢n
λ1 >λ2

GLnλ (Fq ) ×

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )⊢n

Φn : ADn → SLn−1 (q) × SLn (q) ×
Y

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ>ϕ(λ)
λ1 >λ2

SL nλ (q)2 ×

Y

2

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )∈ǫn
λ>ϕ(λ)

SLnλ (q) ×

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ=ϕ(λ)
λ1 >λ2

OSP (λ)′ ×

OSP (λ, +)′2 .

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )∈ǫn
λ=ϕ(λ)

×
≃
If Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ) and n ≡ 2 (mod4) then the morphism from ADn to HD
n ,α

Q

GLnλ,+ (q) × GLnλ,− (q) factorizes through the epimorphism

Q

λ⊢⊢n
λ1 >λ2

GLnλ (Fq ) ×

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )⊢n

Φn : ADn → SLn−1 (q) × SLn (q) ×
Y

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ>ϕ(λ)
λ1 >λ2

SL nλ (q)2 ×

Y

2

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )∈ǫn
λ>ϕ(λ)

SLnλ (q) ×

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ=ϕ(λ)
λ1 >λ2

OSP (λ)′ ×

SL nλ (q).
2

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )∈ǫn
λ=ϕ(λ)

In all of the above, OSP (λ) is the group of isometries of the bilinear form defined in Proposition 3.2.
In the unitary case, we have an analogous result :
×
≃
Theorem 3.3. If Fq = Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ) and n is odd, then the morphism from ADn to HD
n ,α
Q
GLnλ (q) factorizes through the morphism
λ⊢⊢n
λ1 >λ2

1

1

Φn : ADn → SUn−1 (q 2 ) × SUn (q 2 ) ×

1

Y

SUnλ (q 2 ) ×

λ∈ǫn ,λ>ϕ(λ)
λ1 >λ2

Y

] (λ)′ .
OSP

λ∈ǫn ,λ=ϕ(λ)
nλ >nµ

×
≃
If Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ) and n ≡ 0 (mod4), then the morphism from ADn to HD
n ,α

Q

GLnλ,+ (q) × GLnλ,− (q) factorizes through the morphism

Q

λ⊢⊢n
λ1 >λ2

GLnλ (Fq ) ×

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )⊢n

1

1

Φn : ADn → SUn−1 (q 2 ) × SUn (q 2 ) ×
Y

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )∈ǫn
λ>ϕ(λ)

1

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ>ϕ(λ)
λ1 >λ2

1

SU nλ (q 2 )2 ×

SUnλ (q 2 ) ×

Y

2

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ=ϕ(λ)
λ1 >λ2

] (λ)′ ×
OSP

] (λ, +)′2 .
OSP

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )∈ǫn
λ=ϕ(λ)

×
≃
If Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ) and n ≡ 2 (mod4), then the morphism from ADn to HD
n ,α

Q

GLnλ,+ (q) × GLnλ,− (q) factorizes through the morphism

Q

λ⊢⊢n
λ1 >λ2

GLnλ (Fq ) ×

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )⊢n

1

1

Φn : ADn → SUn−1 (q 2 ) × SUn (q 2 ) ×
Y

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )∈ǫn
λ>ϕ(λ)

Y

1

λ∈ǫn ,λ>ϕ(λ)
λ1 >λ2

1

SU nλ (q 2 )2 ×
2

SUnλ (q 2 ) ×

Y

Y

λ∈ǫn ,λ=ϕ(λ)
λ1 >λ2

] (λ)′ ×
OSP

1

SU nλ (q 2 ).
2

λ=(λ1 ,λ1 )∈ǫn
λ=ϕ(λ)

] (λ) is the group of isometries associated with the bilinear form over F 1 obtained from
In all of the above, OSP
q2
the one in Proposition 3.2 using Proposition 2.9.
Those two theorems (except for the surjectivity) follow Propositions 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, Theorem 3.1 and
Proposition 3.6. It now remains to check that Φn is surjective in all cases.
26

3.3. The case n = 4. In this subsection, we prove the result for n = 4.
The double-partitions to consider for n = 4 are ([4], ∅), ([3, 1], ∅), ([2, 2], ∅), ([2, 1, 1], ∅), ([14 ], ∅), ([3], [1]),
([2, 1], [1]), ([13 ], [1]), ([2], [2]), ([2], [12 ]) and ([12 ], [12 ]).
By Proposition 3.3, if we know the image for λ, we know the image for ϕ(λ). By Proposition 3.1, we know the
image for doubles-partitions with an empty component. By Proposition 3.7, we know the image for ([13 ], [1])
and by Proposition 3.4, we know the image for ([2], [12 ]) using the image of ([13 ], [1]). The only double-partitions
left to consider are ([12 ], [12 ]) and ([2, 1], [1]).
Lemma 3.1. If Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ), then R[2,1],[1] (AD4 ) = SP8 (q).
1
If Fq = Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ), then R[2,1],[1] (AD4 ) = SP8 (q 2 ).
Proof. Assume first that Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ). Using Proposition 3.2, there exists P ∈ GL8 (q) such that
G = P R[2,1],[1] (AD4 )P −1 ⊂ SP8 (q). Using Proposition 3.1, we have that R[2,1],[1] (AD3 ) = R[2],[1] × R[12 ],[1] ×
R[2,1],∅ (AD3 ) ≃ SL3 (q) × SL2 (q), where SL3 (q) is in a twisted diagonal embedding and SL2 (q) is in a natural
representation using Goursat’s Lemma and the previous arguments. Using the same arguments as before
and Lemma 2.8 with the natural representation of SL2 (q), we know G is primitive, tensor-indecomposable,
irreducible, perfect and cannot be realized in a natural representation over a proper subfield of Fq . This implies
that G cannot be included in a maximal subgroup of class C1 , C2 , C4 or C5 . Using the fact that the order of
SL3 (q) × SL2 (q) is q 4 (q 2 − 1)2 (q 3 − 1) and the fact that α is of order greater than 16, we have that q > 17 so
q > 19 and |G| ≥ 194 (192 − 1)(193 − 1). Looking at the Tables 8.48. and 8.49. in [2], we have by cardinality
arguments that G can be included in no maximal subgroup of SP8 (q), so G = SP8 (q).
Assume now Fq = Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ). There exists P ∈ GL8 (q) such that G = P R[2,1],[1] (AD4 )P −1 ⊂
1
1
1
1
1
SP8 (q 2 ) and G contains SU3 (q 2 ) × SU2 (q 2 ), where SU3 (q 2 ) is in a twisted diagonal embedding and SU2 (q 2 ) is
−1
in a natural representation.
 We canno longer use Lemma 2.8 in this case, but since ǫ(α) = α , we have up to
α
0
conjugation that diag(I6 ,
) ∈ G. It follows that α + α−1 belongs to the field generated by the traces
0 α−1
of the elements of G. This shows that any field over which G is realized in a natural representation contains
F 12 . By the above, in this case, we have that G is primitive, tensor-indecomposable, irreducible, perfect and
q
cannot be realized in a natural representation over a proper subfield of F 12 . This implies that G cannot be
q

1

1

included in a maximal subgroup of SP8 (q 2 ) of class C1 , C2 , C4 or C5 . Since αq 2 = ǫ(α) = α−1 , we have that
1
1
q 2 + 1 > 16 and so q 2 ≥ 17 because p 6= 2. Looking again at the tables 8.48. and 8.49. in [2] we get that
1
1
1
G = SP8 (q 2 ) or G ⊂ GU4 (q 2 ).2. Since G is perfect, the latter would imply that G ⊂ SU4 (q 2 ) and that there
1
1
1
is some copy of SU3 (q 2 ) × SU2 (q 2 ) inside SU4 (q 2 ). Looking at all the maximal subgroups in tables 8.10. and
8.11., we see using only cardinality arguments, that such a copy cannot be included in any maximal subgroup of
1
1
1
SU4 (q 2 ) and so such a copy is equal to SU4 (q 2 ). This leads to a contradiction. This proves that G = SP8 (q 2 )
and concludes the proof of the lemma.

Lemma 3.2. If Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ), we have R([12 ],[12 ]),+ (D4 ) = R([12 ],[12 ]),− (D4 ) = SL3 (q).
1
If Fq = Fp (α) 6= Fp (α + α−1 ), we have R([12 ],[12 ]),+ (D4 ) = R([12 ],[12 ]),− (D4 ) = SU3 (q 2 ).
Proof. The result follows from Proposition 3.1 and the fact that R([12 ],[1]) (D3 ) is equal to the group we want in
both cases.

3.4. Surjectivity of Φn for n ≥ 5. In this subsection, we use the previous subsections to prove by induction
on n the main results for type D.
Assume first that Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ). Using Proposition 3.6, by the same kind of arguments as for
type B, we can use Goursat’s Lemma to show the morphism is surjective upon each component. This means it
is sufficient to show the following theorem.
Theorem 3.4. Let λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) ⊢⊢ n not a hook, such that λ1 ≥ λ2 . We write G(λ) = Rλ (ADn ) if λ1 > λ2 ,
G(λ, +) = Rλ,+ (ADn ) and G(λ, −) = Rλ,− (ADn ) otherwise. We then have the following possibilities.
(1) If λ = ([2, 1n−2 ], ∅), then G(λ) = SLn−1 (q).
(2) If λ = ([1n−1 ], [1]), then G(λ) = SLn (q),
(3) If λ ∈ ǫn , λ1 > λ2 and λ > ϕ(λ), then G(λ) = SLnλ (q),
(4) If λ ∈ ǫn , λ1 > λ2 and λ = ϕ(λ), then we have the following possibilities.
(a) If ν̃(λ) = −1, then G(λ) = SPnλ (q).
(b) If ν̃(λ) = 1, then G(λ) = Ω+
nλ (q).
(5) If λ = (λ1 , λ1 ) ∈ ǫn , then we have the following possibilities.
(a) If ϕ(λ) > λ, then G(λ, +) = G(λ, −) = SL nλ (q).
2
(b) If ϕ(λ) = λ, then we have the following possibilities.
(i) If n ≡ 0 (mod4) then
(A) if ν̃(λ) = −1 then G(λ, +) = G(λ, −) = SPnλ (q),
27

(B) if ν̃(λ) = 1 then G(λ, +) = G(λ, −) = Ω+
nλ (q).
(ii) If n ≡ 2 (mod4) then G(λ, +) = G(λ, −) = SL nλ (q).
2

Proof. For n = 4, we have the result by the previous section. Theorem 3.1 gives us the result for doublepartitions with an empty component and Proposition 3.7 gives us the result for double-partitions with two rows
or two columns and one of the components of size one. For n ≥ 5, we proceed by induction but we must first
treat the following cases separately : ([2, 2], [1]), ([13 ], [12 ]) and (([13 ], [13 ]), ±).
By Lemma 3.1, Theorem 3.1, Proposition 3.1 and Goursat’s Lemma, we have R([2,2],[1]) (AD4 ) = SP8 (q) ×
1
SP2 (q). By Theorem 1 of [25] and Lemma 5.6. of [3], we have that R([2,2],[1]) (D5 ) ∈ {SL10 (q), SU10 (q 2 ), SP10 (q)}.
1−1
4−2
Since ([2, 2], [1]) = ϕ(([2, 2], [1])) and ν̃([2, 2], [1]) = (−1) 2 (−1) 2 = −1, we have up to conjugation that
R([2,2],[1]) (D5 ) ⊂ SP10 (q) by Proposition 3.2 and so up to conjugation, we have R([2,2],[1]) (D5 ) = SP10 (q).
In the same way, we have that R([13 ],[12 ]) (D4 ) = SL4 (q) × SL3 (q) × SL3 (q) so G(([13 ], [12 ])) = R([13 ],[12 ]) (D5 )
1
is in {SL10 (q), SU10 (q 2 ), SP10 (q)}. By Proposition 3.6, we know that G(([13 ], [12 ])) preserves no bilinear form,
1
so we only have to exclude the unitary case. Assume G(([13 ], [12 ])) is included up to conjugation in SU10 (q 2 ).
t
−1
There then exists an automorphism ǫ of order 2 of Fq such that each M in G(λ)is conjugated
to ǫ((M )).

α
0
In particular G(([13 ], [12 ])) contains a natural SL2 (q). This implies that diag(I8 ,
) is conjugated to
0 α−1


α
0
diag(I8 , tǫ((
)−1 )). Taking the traces of those matrices implies that ǫ(α + α−1 + 8) = α + α−1 + 8.
0 α−1
We have that Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ) so this shows that ǫ is trivial which is a contradiction. It follows that
G(([13 ], [12 ])) = SL10 (q).
By Proposition 3.1 and the fact that R([13 ],[12 ]) (D5 ) = SL10 (q), we have that SL10 (q) ⊂ R([13 ],[13 ]),± (D6 ) ⊂
SL10 (q). It follows that R([13 ],[13 ]),± (D6 ) = SL10 (q).
We now proceed to the induction on n using Theorem 2.11.
Let n ≥ 5 and λ ⊢⊢ n. Suppose the theorem is true for n − 1. We use Proposition 3.1 for different possibilities
to show that G(λ) or G(λ, ±) contains a subgroup verifying the same properties as in type B.
(1) If λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) and λ1 > λ2 and λ 6= ϕ(λ) then ϕ(λ) = (λ′1 , λ′2 ) because the order we picked for partitions
of n2 verifies that, if λ1 6= λ′2 and λ1 > λ2 , then λ′1 > λ′2 . We then have λ1 6= λ′1 or λ2 6= λ′2 .
(a) If λ′2 6= λ2 , then there exists µ2 ⊂ λ2 such that µ′2 6⊂ λ2 . We have that (λ′1 , µ′2 ) 6⊂ (λ1 , λ2 ) because
µ′2 6⊂ λ2 ) and (µ′2 , λ′1 ) 6⊂ (λ1 , λ2 ) because otherwise λ′1 = λ2 and so λ′2 = λ1 . This shows that G(λ)
contains a natural SL3 (q).
(b) If λ2 = λ′2 and λ1 6= λ′1 , then there exists µ1 ⊂ λ1 such that µ′1 6⊂ λ1 . We then have (µ′1 , λ′2 ) 6⊂
(λ1 , λ2 ) because µ′1 6⊂ λ1 and (λ′2 , µ′1 ) 6⊂ (λ1 , λ2 ) because λ′2 6= λ1 . This shows that G(λ) also
contains a natural SL3 (q) in this case.
(2) If λ = (λ1 , λ2 ) = ϕ(λ) and λ1 > λ2 , then
(a) If ϕ(λ) = (λ′1 , λ′2 ), then
(i) If λ1 and λ2 are square partitions, then Rλ (Dn−1 ) = G(µ1 , λ2 ) × G(λ1 , µ2 ) and since
ν̃(µ1 , λ2 ) = ν̃(λ1 , µ2 ) = ν̃(λ), we have that :
+
+
(A) If ν̃(λ) = 1, then Ω+
n(µ1 ,λ2 ) (q) × Ωn(λ1 ,µ2 ) (q) ⊂ G(λ) ⊂ Ωn(λ1 ,λ2 ) (q).
(B) If ν̃(λ) = −1 then SPn(µ,λ2 ) (q) × SPn(λ1 ,µ2 ) (q) ⊂ G(λ) ⊂ SPnλ (q). It follows that G(λ)
is an irreducible group generated by transvections because it is normally generated by
the group on the left of our inclusions so by Theorem 1 of Serezkin-Zalesskii [25], we
have that G(λ) is equal to the group on the right and the theorem is proved in this case.
(ii) If λ1 or λ2 is not a square partition then there exists µ ⊂ λ such that ϕ(µ) 6= µ. It follows
that ϕ(µ) ⊂ λ or σ(ϕ(µ)) ⊂ λ, so G(λ) contains a twisted diagonal SL3 (q).
(b) If ϕ(λ) = (λ′2 , λ′1 ), then if µ ⊂ λ2 , we have that (λ1 , µ) ⊂ (λ1 , λ2 ), ϕ((λ1 , µ)) = (λ′1 , µ′ ) 6⊂ (λ1 , λ2 )
because λ1 6= λ′1 . We have that (µ′ , λ′1 ) ⊂ (λ1 , λ2 ) so G(λ) contains a twisted diagonal SL3 (q).
(3) If λ = (λ1 , λ1 ) 6= (λ′1 , λ′1 ), then there exists µ1 ⊂ λ1 such that µ′1 6⊂ λ1 . It follows that (λ′1 , µ′1 ) 6⊂ (λ1 , λ1 )
and (µ′1 , λ′1 ) 6⊂ (λ1 , λ1 ). This shows that G(λ, ±) contains a natural SL3 (q).
(4) If λ = (λ1 , λ1 ) = (λ′1 , λ1 ) and λ1 is not a square partition, then there exists µ1 ⊂ λ1 such that µ1 6= µ′1
so (λ1 , µ1 ) 6= ϕ((λ1 , µ1 )) = (λ′1 , µ′1 ). We have that (µ′1 , λ′1 ) ⊂ (λ1 , λ1 ) so G(λ, ±) contains a twisted
diagonal SL3 (q).
(5) If λ = (λ1 , λ1 ) = (λ′1 , λ′1 ) and λ1 is a square partition, then we have the two following possibilities.
n 2
(a) If n ≡ 0 (mod4), then for all µ ⊂ λ, we have that ν̃(λ) = ν(λ1 )2 (−1)( 2 ) = 1 = ν̃(µ). This is
because if λ1 is a square, then the only sub-partition µ1 of λ1 verifies ν(µ1 ) = ν(λ1 ). By the
branching rule, we have that Ω+nλ (q) ⊂ G(λ, ±) ⊂ Ω+nλ (q). It follows that G(λ) = Ω+nλ (q) and the
2
2
2
theorem is proved in this case.
(b) If n ≡ 2 (mod4), then ν̃(µ) = ν(λ1 )2 = 1 for all µ ⊂ λ. The branching rule shows that Ω+nλ (q) ⊂
2

G(λ, ±) ⊂ SL nλ (q). By Proposition 3.6, G(λ, ±) preserves no bilinear form so G(λ, ±) = SL nλ (q).
2

2

28

In all the cases where G(λ) or G(λ, ±) contains a natural SL3 (q) or a twisted diagonal SL3 (q), we can use
exactly the same arguments as in [3] beacuse if the morphism AAn to ADn defined by Si 7→ Si is trivial then
ADn is trivial.
The only case we need to treat separately is (([2, 1], [2, 1]), ±) because n = 6. We need a separate argument
to show that G(([2, 1], [2, 1]), ±) is tensor-indecomposable. In this case R([2,1],[2,1]) (AD5 ) = G([2, 1], [12 ]) ×
G([2, 1], [2]) = SL20 (q) × SL20 (q). If G(([2, 1], [2, 1]), ±) ⊂ SL40 (q) ⊗ SL2 (q), then the morphism from
R([2,1],[2,1]) (D5 ) to SL2 (q) is trivial. Since R([2,1],[2,1]) (D5 ) normally generates G(([2, 1], [2, 1]), ±), G(([2, 1], [2, 1]), ±)
is included in SL40 (q) × SL40 (q). This contradicts its irreducibility.
This shows that it is sufficient to take care of case 2.a.i.A. Assume we are in case 2.a.i.A. We then have that
G(λ) ⊂ Ω+
nλ (q) is generated by a conjugacy class of long root elements and G(λ) is irreducible. Since p 6= 2,
if we check that Op (G(λ)) ⊂ [G, G] ∩ Z(G), then we can apply Theorem I in Kantor’s article [14]. Applying
G(λ)
Clifford’s Theorem (Theorem 11.1 of [6]), we have that ResOp (G(λ)) (V ) is semisimple and since Op (G(λ)) is a
G(λ)

p-group, its only irreducible representation over Fq is the trivial one. This shows that ResOp (G(λ)) (V ) is trivial
so Op (G(λ)) = 1 and all the assumptions of Theorem I of Kantor are verified (the minimal dimension in this
case is greater
 than or equal to the dimension of ([3, 3, 3], [2, 2]) and the dimension of ([4, 4, 4, 4], [1]) which are
42 × 2 × 13
4 ≥ 5 and 17 × 24024 ≥ 5). This shows that we are in one of the following cases :
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

′
′
G(λ) = Ω+
nλ (q ), q |q,
−
′
′2
′2
G(λ) = Ωnλ (q ) ⊂ Ω+
nλ (q ), q |q and nλ is even,
′
+
′
n
G(λ) = SU λ (q ) ⊂ Ωnλ (q ), nλ ≡ 0 (mod4) and q ′ |q,
2
′
′
G(λ) ⊂ Ω+
8 (q ), q |q,
′
G(λ) = [G2 (q ), G2 (q ′ )] ⊂ Ω7 (q ′ ), q ′ |q,
′3
′3
G = 3 D4 (q ′ ) ⊂ Ω+
8 (q ), q |q.


Since n ≥ 13, αq−1 = 1 and α is of order greater than 2n, we have q ≥ 29 and nλ ≥ min(84 13
4 , 17 × 24024).
This proves that Cases 4, 5 and 6 are excluded by cardinality arguments.
Let us show that 3. is also excluded by cardinality arguments. We write |G|p the cardinal of a Sylow pnλ nλ
(
−1)
2
2

+
2
. We know that G(λ) contains Ω+
subgroup of a group G, so that |SU nλ (q ′ )|p = q ′
n1 (q) × Ωn2 (q). It
2
follows that if λ1 is the square partition of r and λ2 is the square partition of n−r < r, writing al for the number
of

standard tableaux associated with a square partition of l ∈ N⋆ , we have that nλ = nr ar an−r , n1 = n−1
a
a
r−1 r n−r

and n2 = n−1
a
a
.
Note
that
a
is
even
because
r
>
1
and
using
the
branching
rule
twice,
we
get
that ar is
r
n−r
r
r
equal to twice the dimension of the two partitions we get by removing first the only extremal node and then one
n2 n2
n1 n1
+
2 ( 2 −1)+ 2 ( 2 −1) .
of the two extremal nodes of the resulting partition. It follows that |Ω+
n1 (q) × Ωn2 (q)|p = q

To exclude 3, it is sufficient to show that this quantity is strictly greater than q
q-logarithm of the quotient of those two quantities, we have that :

nλ nλ
(
−1)
2
2
2

. If we write A the

nλ nλ
( − 1)
n2 n2
n1 n1
(
− 1) +
(
− 1) − 2 2
2 2
2 2
2
nλ 2
2
2
n1
n2
nλ
=
+
− 2 −
2
2
2
4
nλ 2
n1 nλ − n1
nλ
2
−2
−
=
2
2
2
4
( n2λ − n1 )2
nλ
−
=
2
4
2
 n

( r )ar an−r
n−1

− r−1 ar an−r
n
2
r ar an−r
=
−
2
4
!

n
( nr ( 21 − nr ))2
ar an−r − r
= ar an−r
2
4
 
 

ar an−r n
n
2r − n 2
=
(2ar an−r
) −1 .
r
4
2n
r

2
> 1. Using the branching rule and the hook formula,
This shows that A > 0 if and only if 2ar an−r nr (2r−n)
4n2
16!
we get : a1 = 1, a4 = 2, a9 = 42, a16 = 7×62 ×53 ×4
=
24024 > 81 × 162 , a25 = 701149020 > 81 × 252 and
4 ×33 ×22
a36 > 81 × 362 . Let k ≥ 6, assume ak2 > 81(k 2 )2 . The branching rule shows that a(k+1)2 > 2ak2 > 81(2k 4 ) >
81(k 4 + 4k 3 + 6k 2 + 4k + 1) = 81((k + 1)2 )2 , the last inequality being true because k ≥ 6. It follows that for
all k ≥ 4, we have that ak2 > 81 × (k 2 )2 . In our case, we have that r ≥ 16 or r = 9 and n − r = 4. If r ≥ 16
and n − r ≥ 2 then we have ar anr ≥ r2 (n − r)2 ≥ 4r2 ≥ 2r2 + 2r(n − r) ≥ (r + n − r)2 ≥ n2 . It follows

A =

29

(nr)


2
n−1
> 1. If r ≥ 16 and n − r = 1, then 2ar an−r nr (2r−n)
= 8na
=
4n2
4n2


2
2
2an−1
n (2r−n)
13 (18−13)
> 162 > 1. If r = 9 and n − r = 4, then 2ar an−r r 4n2 = 2 × 42 × 2 9 4×132 > 1. This shows that
n
independently of r and n − r, we have that A > 0. This proves that 3. is excluded.

that 2ar an−r


n (2r−n)2
4n2
r

≥ 2n2

1

n 1
r 4n2



=

2

nλ nλ
(
−1)
2
2

2
2
We have that |Ω+
. The previous arguments show that 2. is also impossible.
nλ (q )|p = q
1
The only remaining possibility is 1 and using again the same arguments, we get q ′ > q 2 so q ′ = q and this
concludes the proof of Theorem 3.4.


In the unitary case, i.e. Fq = Fp (α) = Fp (α + α−1 ), all the arguments are analogous.
References
[1] R. Brauer and C. Nesbitt. On the modular characters of groups. Ann. of Math. (2), 42:556–590, 1941.
[2] J. N. Bray, D. F. Holt, and C. M. Roney-Dougal. The maximal subgroups of the low-dimensional finite classical groups, volume
407 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. With a foreword by
Martin Liebeck.
[3] O. Brunat, K. Magaard, and I. Marin. Image of the braid groups inside the finite Iwahori-Hecke algebras. arXiv:1401.0913v1,
to appear in J. Reine Angew. Math. (Crelles Journal). 10.1515/crelle-2015-0004, June 2015, 2014.
[4] O. Brunat and I. Marin. Image of the braid groups inside the finite Temperley-Lieb algebras. Math. Z., 277(3-4):651–664,
2014.
[5] J. H. Conway, R. T. Curtis, S. P. Norton, R. A. Parker, and R. A. Wilson. Atlas of finite groups. Oxford University Press,
Eynsham, 1985. Maximal subgroups and ordinary characters for simple groups, With computational assistance from J. G.
Thackray.
[6] C. W. Curtis and I. Reiner. Methods of representation theory. Vol. I. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1981. Pure and
Applied Mathematics, A Wiley-Interscience Publication.
[7] A. Esterle. Groupes d’Artin et algèbres de Hecke sur un corps fini. PhD thesis, Université Picardie Jules Verne, in preparation.
[8] M. Geck and G. Pfeiffer. Characters of finite Coxeter groups and Iwahori-Hecke algebras, volume 21 of London Mathematical
Society Monographs. New Series. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000.
[9] E. Goursat. Sur les substitutions orthogonales et les divisions régulières de l’espace. Annales Scientifiques de l’ENS 3ème série
tome 6, pages 9–102, 1889.
[10] R. M. Guralnick and J. Saxl. Generation of finite almost simple groups by conjugates. J. Algebra, 268(2):519–571, 2003.
[11] A. Hatcher. Algebraic topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
[12] P. N. Hoefsmit. Representations of Hecke algebras of finite groups with BN-pairs of classical type. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor,
MI, 1974. Thesis (Ph.D.)–The University of British Columbia (Canada).
[13] B. Huppert. Endliche Gruppen. I. Die Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 134. Springer-Verlag, BerlinNew York, 1967.
[14] W. M. Kantor. Subgroups of classical groups generated by long root elements. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 248(2):347–379, 1979.
[15] G. Karpilovsky. The Schur multiplier, volume 2 of London Mathematical Society Monographs. New Series. The Clarendon
Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1987.
[16] G. Malle and B. H. Matzat. Inverse Galois theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[17] I. Marin. Irréductibilité générique des produits tensoriels de monodromies. Bull. Soc. Math. Fr., 132:201–232, 2004.
[18] I. Marin. L’algèbre de Lie des transpositions. J. Algebra, 310(2):742–774, 2007.
[19] I. Marin. Infinitesimal Hecke algebras II. arXiv:0911.1879, 2009.
[20] I. Marin. Branching properties for the groups G(de, e, r). J. Algebra, 323(4):966–982, 2010.
[21] J. Mulholland and D. Rolfsen. Local indicability and commutator subgroups of Artin groups. arXiv:math/0606116, 2008.
[22] H. Pollatsek. Irreducible groups generated by transvections over finite fields of characteristic two. J. Algebra, 39(1):328–333,
1976.
[23] K. Strambach and H. Völklein. Generalized braid groups and rigidity. J. Algebra, 175(2):604–615, 1995.
[24] R. A. Wilson. The finite simple groups, volume 251 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London,
2009.
[25] A. E. Zalesskiı̆ and V. N. Serežkin. Linear groups generated by transvections. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 40(1):26–49,
221, 1976.
Laboratoire Amiénois de Mathématiques Fondamentales et Appliquées, CNRS-UMR 7352, Université de Picardie
Jules Verne, 33 rue Saint Leu, 80039 Amiens Cedex 1, France.
E-mail address: alexandre.esterle@u-picardie.fr

30

