arXiv:1708.02565v2 [math.GR] 20 Mar 2018

DUAL ORE’S THEOREM ON DISTRIBUTIVE
INTERVALS OF FINITE GROUPS
SEBASTIEN PALCOUX
Abstract. This paper gives a self-contained group-theoretic
proof of a dual version of a theorem of Ore on distributive intervals
of finite groups. We deduce a bridge between combinatorics and
representations in finite group theory.

1. Introduction
Øystein Ore proved in 1938 that a finite group is cyclic if and only if
its subgroup lattice is distributive, and he extended one side as follows,
where [H, G] will be an interval in the subgroup lattice of the group G
(idem throughout the paper).
Theorem 1.1 ([4]). Let [H, G] be a distributive interval of finite
groups. Then there is g ∈ G such that hHgi = G.
This paper first recalls our short proof of Theorem 1.1 and then gives a
self-contained group-theoretic proof of the following dual version, where
G(V H ) will be the pointwise stabilizer subgroup of G for the fixed-point
subspace V H (see Definition 3.1).
Theorem 1.2. Let [H, G] be a distributive interval of finite groups.
Then there exists an irreducible complex representation V of G such
that G(V H ) = H.
We deduce a bridge between combinatorics and representations:
Corollary 1.3. The minimal number of irreducible components for
a faithful complex representation of a finite group G is at most the
minimal length ℓ for an ordered chain of subgroups
{e} = H0 < H1 < · · · < Hℓ = G
such that [Hi , Hi+1 ] is distributive (or better, bottom Boolean).
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 20D30, 05E15, 20C15, 06C15.
Key words and phrases. finite group; complex representation; subgroup lattice;
distributive; Boolean.
1

2

SEBASTIEN PALCOUX

It is a non-trivial upper bound involving the subgroup lattice only.
These results were first proved by the author as applications to finite
group theory of results on planar algebras [5, Corollaries 6.10, 6.11].
For the convenience of the reader and for being self-contained, this
paper reproduces some preliminaries of [1] and [5].
2. Ore’s theorem on distributive intervals
2.1. Basics in lattice theory. We refer to [7] for the notions of finite
lattice L, meet ∧, join ∨, subgroup lattice L(G), sublattice L′ ⊆ L,
interval [a, b] ⊆ L, minimum 0̂, maximum 1̂, atom, coatom, distributive
lattice, Boolean lattice Bn (of rank n) and complement b∁ (with b ∈ Bn ).
The top interval of a finite lattice L is the interval [t, 1̂], with t the
meet of all the coatoms. The bottom interval of a finite lattice L is the
interval [0̂, b], with b the join of all the atoms. A lattice with a Boolean
top interval will be called top Boolean; idem for bottom Boolean.
Lemma 2.1. A finite distributive lattice is top and bottom Boolean.
Proof. See [7, items a-i p254-255] which uses Birkhoff’s representation
theorem (a finite lattice is distributive if and only if it embeds into
some Bn ).

2.2. The proof.
Øystein Ore proved the following result in [4, Theorem 4, p267].
Theorem 2.2. A finite group G is cyclic if and only if its subgroup
lattice L(G) is distributive.
Theorem 1.1 is an extension by Ore of one side of Theorem 2.2 to any
distributive interval of finite groups [4, Theorem 7, p269].
Definition 2.3. An interval of finite groups [H, G] is said to be Hcyclic if there is g ∈ G such that hH, gi = G. Note that hH, gi = hHgi.
We will give our short alternative proof of Theorem 1.1 by extending
it to any top Boolean interval (see Lemma 2.1) as follows:
Theorem 2.4. A top Boolean interval [H, G] is H-cyclic.
Proof. The proof follows from the claims below.
Claim: Let M be a maximal subgroup of G. Then [M, G] is M-cyclic.
Proof: For g ∈ G with g 6∈ M, we have hM, gi = G by maximality. 
Claim: A Boolean interval [H, G] is H-cyclic.

DUAL ORE’S THEOREM ON DISTRIBUTIVE INTERVALS

3

Proof: Let M be a coatom in [H, G], and M ∁ be its complement. By
the previous claim and induction on the rank of the Boolean lattice,
we can assume [H, M] and [H, M ∁ ] both to be H-cyclic, i.e. there are
a, b ∈ G such that hH, ai = M and hH, bi = M ∁ . For g = ab, a = gb−1
and b = a−1 g, so hH, a, gi = hH, g, bi = hH, a, bi = M ∨ M ∁ = G.
Now, hH, gi = hH, gi ∨ H = hH, gi ∨ (M ∧ M ∁ ) but by distributivity hH, gi ∨ (M ∧ M ∁ ) = (hH, gi ∨ Mi) ∧ (hH, gi ∨ M ∁ i). So
hH, gi = hH, a, gi ∧ hH, g, bi = G. The result follows.

Claim: [H, G] is H-cyclic if its top interval [K, G] is K-cyclic.
Proof: Consider g ∈ G with hK, gi = G. For any coatom M ∈ [H, G],
we have K ⊆ M by definition, and so g 6∈ M, then a fortiori hH, gi 6⊆
M. It follows that hH, gi = G.


The converse is false because hS2 , (1234)i = S4 whereas [S2 , S4 ] is not
top Boolean.
3. Dual Ore’s theorem on distributive intervals
3.1. Basics in Galois connections.
Definition 3.1. Let W be a representation of a group G, K a subgroup
of G, and X a subspace of W . We define the fixed-point subspace
W K := {w ∈ W | kw = w , ∀k ∈ K},
and the pointwise stabilizer subgroup
G(X) := {g ∈ G | gx = x , ∀x ∈ X}.
Lemma 3.2. Let G be a finite group, H, K two subgroups, V a representation of G and X, Y two subspaces of V . Then
(1) H ⊆ K ⇒ V K ⊆ V H ,
(2) X ⊆ Y ⇒ G(Y ) ⊆ G(X) ,
(3) V H∨K = V H ∩ V K ,
(4) H ⊆ G(V H ) ,
(5) V G(V H ) = V H ,
(6) [H ⊆ K and V K ( V H ] ⇒ K 6⊆ G(V H ) .
Proof. (1) and (2) are immediate.
(3) First H, K ⊆ H ∨ K, so V H∨K is included in V H and V K , so in
V H ∩ V K . Now take v ∈ V H ∩ V K , then ∀h ∈ H and ∀k ∈ K, hv =
kv = v, but any element g ∈ H ∨K is of the form h1 k1 h2 k2 · · · hr kr with
hi ∈ H and ki ∈ K, it follows that gv = v and so V H ∩ V K ⊆ V H∨K .
(4) Take h ∈ H and v ∈ V H . Then by definition hv = v, so H ⊆ G(V H ) .
(5) From (1) and (4) we deduce that V G(V H ) ⊆ V H . Now take v ∈ V H

4

SEBASTIEN PALCOUX

and g ∈ G(V H ) , by definition gv = v, so V H ⊆ V G(V H ) also.
(6) Suppose that K ⊆ G(V H ) , then V K ⊇ V G(V H ) = V H by (1) and (5).
Hence V K = V H by (1), contradiction with V K ( V H .

3.2. Induced representation.
Definition 3.3. Let G be a finite group and H a subgroup. Consider
the set G/H = {g1 H, . . . , gs H}, with g1 = e. Let V be a complex
representation
of H. The induced representation IndG
H (V ) is a space
L
i gi V (we identify eV with V ) on which G acts as follows:
X
X
g·(
gi vi ) =
gτ (i,g) (hi,g · vi )
i

i

with ggi = gτ (i,g) hi,g , τ (i, g) ∈ {1, . . . , s} and hi,g ∈ H.
Let h·, ·iG be the usual normalized inner product of finite dimensional
complex representations (up to equivalence) of a finite group G.
Lemma 3.4 (Frobenius reciprocity, [3] p62). Let G be a finite group
and H a subgroup. Let V (resp. W ) be a finite dimensional complex
representation of G (resp. of H). Let Ind(W ) be the induction to G
and Res(V ) the restriction to H, then hV, Ind(W )iG = hRes(V ), W iH .
Lemma 3.5. Let [H, G] be an interval of finite groups. Let V1 , . . . , Vr
be the irreducible complex representations of G (up to equivalence).
Then
r
X
|G : H| =
dim(Vi ) dim(ViH ).
i=1

Proof. The following proof is due to Tobias Kildetoft. Let 1G
H be the
trivial representation of H induced to G. On one hand, it has dimension
|G : H|, and on the other hand, this dimension is also
X
X
X
dim(Vi )hVi , 1G
dim(Vi )hVi , 1H iH =
dim(Vi ) dim(ViH ).
H iG =
i

i

i

The first equality follows from Frobenius reciprocity.



Lemma 3.6. Let [H, G] be an interval of finite groups with H 6= G.
Then there is a non-trivial irreducible complex representation V of G
such that V H 6= 0.
P
H
Proof. By Lemma 3.5,
i dim(Vi ) dim(Vi ) = |G : H| ≥ 2 because
H 6= G. The result follows.


DUAL ORE’S THEOREM ON DISTRIBUTIVE INTERVALS

5

Lemma 3.7. Let G be a finite group, K a subgroup and U a finite
dimensional complex representation of K. For any irreducible component V of the induction W = IndG
K (U), there exists Ũ ⊆ V equivalent
to U as a representation of K.
Proof. Direct by Frobenius reciprocity because hV, W iG = hV, UiK . 
Lemma 3.8. Let [H, G] be an interval of finite groups, K ∈ [H, G] and
U a finite dimensional complex representation of K such that U H 6= 0.
Let W be the induction IndG
K (U). Let V be an irreducible component
of W . Then
(1) G(W H ) ⊆ K(U H ) ,
(2) V H =
6 0 and K(V H ) ⊆ K(U H ) ,
(3) if K(U H ) = H then G(W H ) = K(V H ) = H.
Proof. (1) U H ⊆ W H , so by Lemma 3.2(2), G(W H ) ⊆ G(U H ) . Now,
U H 6= 0, so by definition of the induction, g · U H ⊆ U if and only
if gK = K, if and only if g ∈ K. Thus G(U H ) ⊆ K(U H ) , and so
G(W H ) ⊆ K(U H ) .
(2) Take Ũ as for Lemma 3.7. Then 0 6= Ũ H ⊆ V H and K(V H ) ⊆
K(Ũ H ) = K(U H ) .
(3) By (1) and Lemma 3.2(4),
H ⊆ G(W H ) ⊆ K(U H ) = H,
so G(W H ) = H. Idem, by (2) and Lemma 3.2(4), K(V H ) = H.



3.3. The proof.
Definition 3.9. The group G is called linearly primitive if it admits an
irreducible complex representation V which is faithful, i.e. G(V ) = {e}.
Definition 3.10. The interval [H, G] is called linearly primitive if
there is an irreducible complex representation V of G such that G(V H ) =
H.
Lemma 3.11. A maximal interval [H, G] is linearly primitive.
Proof. By Lemma 3.6, there is a non-trivial irreducible complex representation V of G with V H 6= 0. By Lemma 3.2(4), H ⊆ G(V H ) . If
G(V H ) = G then V must be trivial (by irreducibility), so by maximality
G(V H ) = H.

Lemma 3.12. The interval [H, G] is linearly primitive if its bottom
interval [H, K] is so.

6

SEBASTIEN PALCOUX

W
Proof. Let [H, K] be the bottom interval of [H, G], i.e. K = i Ki with
K1 , . . . , Kn the atoms of [H, G]. By assumption, there is an irreducible
complex representation U of K such that K(U H ) = H. Let V be an
irreducible component of IndG
K (U). By Lemma 3.8(3), K(V H ) = H.
H
Ki
Now if ∃i such that V = V , then
Ki ⊆ K(V Ki ) = K(V H ) = H,
contradiction with H ( Ki . So ∀i V Ki ( V H . By Lemma 3.2(6), we
deduce that Ki 6⊆ G(V H ) ∀i, so by minimality G(V H ) = H.

A dual version of Theorem 2.4 is the following:
Theorem 3.13. A bottom Boolean interval [H, G] is linearly primitive.
Proof. By Lemma 3.12, we can reduced to Boolean intervals. We make
an induction on the rank of the Boolean lattice. The rank one case is
handled in Lemma 3.11. Assume that it is true at rank < n. We will
write a proof at rank n ≥ 2. Let K be a coatom of [H, G]. Then [H, K]
is Boolean of rank n − 1, so by assumption, it is linearly primitive,
thus there is an irreducible complex representation U of K such that
K(U H ) = H. For any irreducible component V of W = IndG
K (U), we
have
K ∧ G(V H ) = K(V H ) = H
by Lemma 3.8(3). Thus, by the Boolean structure, G(V H ) ≤ K ∁ because
K ∁ = K ∁ ∨H = K ∁ ∨(K∧G(V H ) ) = (K ∁ ∨K)∧(K ∁ ∨G(V H ) ) = K ∁ ∨G(V H ) .
But K is a coatom of [H, G], so K ∁ is an atom and then
G(V H ) ∈ {H, K ∁ }.
Assume that every irreducible component V of W satisfies G(V H ) = K ∁ .
ThereL
are irreducible complex representations V1 , . . . , Vr of G such that
W = i Vi , then by Lemma 3.8(3)
^
H = G(W H ) =
G(ViH ) = K ∁ ,
i

thus H = K ∁ , contradiction. So there is an irreducible component V
of W such that G(V H ) = H, and the result follows.

Theorem 1.2 follows directly from Theorem 3.13 and Lemma 2.1.

DUAL ORE’S THEOREM ON DISTRIBUTIVE INTERVALS

7

4. A bridge between combinatorics and representations
We restate Corollary 1.3 by using the notation H i instead of Hi because
it will be more convenient for the proof.
Corollary 4.1. The minimal number of irreducible components for
a faithful complex representation of a finite group G is at most the
minimal length ℓ for an ordered chain of subgroups
{e} = H 0 < H 1 < · · · < H ℓ = G
such that [H i , H i+1 ] is distributive (or better, bottom Boolean).
Proof. By Theorem 3.13 and Lemma 3.8(3), there are irreducible complex representations V1 , . . . , Vℓ of G such that H i H i−1 = H i−1 . Take
(Vi
)
L
W = ℓi=1 Vi . Then
ker(πW ) =

ℓ
^

ker(πVi ) =

=

i=1

G(Vi ) ≤

H ℓ−1H i−1
(Vi
)

= ··· =

ℓ
^

G(V H i−1 ) = (
i

ℓ−s
^
i=1

ℓ−1
^

G(V H i−1 ) )∧H ℓ−1
i

i=1

i=1

i=1

i=1
ℓ−1
^

ℓ
^

H ℓ−sH i−1 = · · · = H 0 = {e}.
(Vi

)

So W is faithful with ℓ irreducible components. The result follows. 
Note that this upper bound involves the subgroup lattice only.
Remark 4.2. The modular maximal-cyclic group M4 (2) and the
abelian group C8 × C2 have the same subgroup lattice, but the first
is linearly primitive whereas the second is not. So the minimal number
in Corollary 4.1 cannot be determined by the subgroup lattice only.
Lemma 4.3. For H core-free, G is linearly primitive if [H, G] is so.
Proof. Let V be an irreducible complex representation of G such that
G(V H ) = H. Now, V H ⊆ V so G(V ) ⊆ G(V H ) , but ker(πV ) = G(V ) ,
it follows that ker(πV ) ⊆ H; but H is a core-free subgroup of G, and
ker(πV ) a normal subgroup of G, so ker(πV ) = {e}.

By Lemma 4.3, we can improve the bound of Corollary 4.1 by taking
for H 0 any core-free subgroup of H 1 (instead of just {e}), and we can
wonder whether it is the right answer in general, in particular:
Question 4.4. Is a finite group G linearly primitive if and only if there
is a core-free subgroup H with [H, G] bottom Boolean?

8

SEBASTIEN PALCOUX

It is true for any finite simple group S, because any proper subgroup
M is core-free, and by choosing it maximal, [M, S] is Boolean of rank
one. Moreover, we have checked by GAP [2] that it is also true for any
finite group G of order less than 512.
Remark 4.5. A normal subgroup N E G is a modular element in
L(G), see [6, p43]. If H is a subgroup of G such that ∀K ∈ (1, H],
K is not modular in L(G), then H is core-free. It follows that we can
also improve the bound of Corollary 4.1 completely combinatorially.
Nevertheless, by Remark 4.2, it cannot be the right answer in general.
5. Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Chennai. The author thanks an anonymous referee who suggested to
write this group-theoretic proof of dual Ore’s theorem.
References
[1] Mamta Balodi and Sebastien Palcoux, On Boolean intervals of finite groups, J.
Comb. Theory, Ser. A 157 (2018), 49-69, DOI 10.1016/j.jcta.2018.02.004.
[2] The GAP Group, GAP – Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.8.3,
2016. URL: http://www.gap-system.org.
[3] I. Martin Isaacs, Character theory of finite groups, Dover Publications, Inc.,
New York, 1994. MR1280461
[4] Øystein Ore, Structures and group theory. II, Duke Math. J. 4 (1938), no. 2,
247–269, DOI 10.1215/S0012-7094-38-00419-3. MR1546048
[5] Sebastien Palcoux, Ore’s theorem on subfactor planar algebras,
arXiv:1704.00745, 14pp. Under review.
[6] Roland Schmidt, Subgroup lattices of groups, De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, vol. 14, 1994.
[7] Richard P. Stanley, Enumerative combinatorics. Volume 1, 2nd ed., Cambridge
Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 49, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, India
E-mail address: sebastienpalcoux@gmail.com

