A lattice in a residually non-Desarguesian Ã2-building
Nicolas Radu∗

arXiv:1602.00588v3 [math.GR] 12 Oct 2016

October 12, 2016

Abstract
We build a building of type Ã2 and a discrete group of automorphisms acting
simply transitively on its set of vertices. The characteristic feature of this building
is that its rank 2 residues are isomorphic to the Hughes projective plane of order 9,
which is non-Desarguesian. This solves a problem asked by W. Kantor in 1986, as
well as a question asked by J. Howie in 1989.

Contents
1 Introduction

2

2 Previous work on the subject
2.1 Point-line correspondences and triangle presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Building associated to a triangle presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3
3
5

3 The
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

strategy
The graph associated to a point-line correspondence . .
The score of a point-line correspondence . . . . . . . . .
Scores of correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Estimated score for a general point-line correspondence
Scores in the Hughes plane of order 9 . . . . . . . . . . .
Improving a point-line correspondence . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

5
6
7
8
10
11
12

4 The
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

building and its lattice
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Torsion in ΓT . . . . . . . . . . . .
A perfect subgroup of ΓT . . . . .
Partition of ∆T into sub-buildings
Automorphism group of ∆T . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

13
14
15
15
15
16

∗

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 51E24 (primary), 20F65, 22E40, 51A35 (secondary)
F.R.S.-FNRS Research Fellow.

1

A The Hughes plane of order 9

18

B The triangle presentation

19

1

Introduction

An Ã2 -building can be characterized as a simply connected simplicial complex of dimension 2 such that all simplicial spheres of radius 1 around vertices are isomorphic to the
incidence graph of a projective plane. Given an Ã2 -building, we will call these projective
planes the residue planes of the building.
The residue planes of an Ã2 -building associated to an algebraic group are always
Desarguesian. On the other hand, the existence of locally finite Ã2 -buildings with nonDesarguesian residue planes has been known since 1986. M. Ronan indeed gave in [Ron86]
a general construction affording all possible Ã2 -buildings and from which it is clear that
any projective plane can appear in an Ã2 -building. However, this point of view does not
provide any information on the automorphism groups of the buildings. A natural problem
which was asked by W. Kantor in [Kan86, Page 124] is therefore the following.1
Problem (Kantor, 1986). Construct an Ã2 -building ∆ with finite non-Desarguesian residue
planes and admitting a cocompact lattice, i.e. a group Γ ≤ Aut(∆) with finite vertex stabilizers and such that Γ\∆ is compact.
Independently, J. Howie also asked the next more specific question [How89, Question 6.12].2
Question (Howie, 1989). Does there exist a group acting simply transitively and by typerotating automorphisms (as defined in Theorem 1.1 (3) below) on the vertices of an Ã2 building whose residue planes are non-Desarguesian?
Some constructions in [VM87] and [BP07] yield Ã2 -buildings with exotic residues, but
without any lattice (or, as the case may be, without information on its possible existence).
In this paper, we solve the above problem and question by proving the following.
Theorem 1.1. There exist an Ã2 -building ∆ and a group Γ ≤ Aut(∆) satisfying the
following properties:
(1) All residue planes of ∆ are isomorphic to the Hughes plane of order 9.3
1
The original statement is “Construct finite Ã2 -SCABs with non-Desarguesian residues” and is equivalent to ours. See §2.2 for the definition of Ã2 -SCABs.
2
The original question is “Is there a special presentation with star graph isomorphic to the incidence
graph of a finite non-Desarguesian projective plane?”. As mentioned in [EV10], the notion of a special
presentation from [How89] is equivalent to the notion of a triangle presentation from [CMSZ93a] (see
§2 below for the definition of a triangle presentation). The latter is in turn related to Ã2 -buildings, as
explained in §2.
3
The Hughes plane of order 9 was actually first constructed by O. Veblen and J. Wedderburn in
1907, see [VW07]. This was the first discovered finite non-Desarguesian projective plane, and the role
of D. Hughes in [Hug57] has been to generalize their construction to get an infinite family of finite nonDesarguesian planes (with order p2n for p an odd prime).

2

(2) The group Γ acts simply transitively on the set of vertices of ∆.
(3) Each element of Γ is type-rotating, i.e. its induced action σ on the set of types of
vertices {0, 1, 2} satisfies σ(i) = i + c mod 3 for some c.
(4) The index 3 subgroup Γ0 of Γ consisting of the type-preserving automorphisms is
torsion-free.
.
(5) The derived subgroup [Γ, Γ] of Γ is perfect and Γ [Γ, Γ] ∼
= C2 × C3 .
(6) There exists an infinite family {∆n0 }n of disjoint isomorphic sub-buildings of ∆ whose
residue planes are isomorphic to PG(2, 3) and such that each vertex of ∆ is contained
in (exactly) one sub-building ∆n0 .
(7) The stabilizer of a vertex in Aut(∆) has order 96, i.e. [Aut(∆) : Γ] = 96. In
particular, Aut(∆) equipped with the topology of pointwise convergence is discrete.
Moreover, as any unimodular locally compact group acting continuously, properly and
cocompactly on an Ã2 -building, Γ satisfies Kazhdan’s Property (T) (see [BdlHV08, Theorem 5.7.7]). Groups with Property (T) are deeply studied in [BdlHV08].

Acknowledgements
I thank Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace for suggesting me this problem and for all his precious
advice during the writing of this paper. I am also very grateful to Tim Steger for his
interest in this work and for sharing some of his unpublished codes that helped in describing
the full automorphism group of the discovered building. I finally want to thank Donald
Cartwright and William Kantor for their comments on a previous version of this text, and
Alina Vdovina for making me realize that I had answered a question of Howie.

2

Previous work on the subject

In [CMSZ93a], Cartwright, Mantero, Steger and Zappa were interested in groups acting
simply transitively on the vertices of an Ã2 -building. We will make great use of their work
and give in this section the essential definitions and results.

2.1

Point-line correspondences and triangle presentations

For our needs, the most important definition from [CMSZ93a] is the following.
Definition 2.1. Let P and L be the sets of points and lines respectively in a projective
plane Π. A bijection λ : P → L is called a point-line correspondence in Π. A subset
T ⊆ P 3 is then called a triangle presentation compatible with λ if the two following
conditions hold:

3

1. For all x, y ∈ P , there exists z ∈ P such that (x, y, z) ∈ T if and only if y ∈ λ(x) in
Π. In this case, z is unique.
2. If (x, y, z) ∈ T , then (y, z, x) ∈ T .
Example 2.2. The projective plane PG(2, 2) can be defined by P = L = Z /7 Z with line
x ∈ L being adjacent to the points x + 1, x + 2 and x + 4 in P . Consider the point-line
correspondence λ : P → L : x ∈ P 7→ x ∈ L in Π. Then
T := {(x, x + 1, x + 3), (x + 1, x + 3, x), (x + 3, x, x + 1) | x ∈ P }
is a triangle presentation compatible with λ. Indeed, (ii) is obviously satisfied and, for
x, y ∈ P , it is apparent that there exists (a unique) z ∈ P such that (x, y, z) ∈ T if and
only if y ∈ {x + 1, x + 2, x + 4}, which is exactly the set of points on the line λ(x).
Now suppose we have an Ã2 -building ∆ and a group Γ ≤ Aut(∆) acting simply transitively on V (∆), where V (∆) is the set of vertices of ∆. We make the further assumption
that Γ only contains type-rotating automorphisms, as defined in Theorem 1.1 (3). In this
context, the following theorem shows how one can associate to Γ a point-line correspondence and a triangle presentation compatible with it.
Theorem 2.3 (Cartwright–Mantero–Steger–Zappa). Let Γ ≤ Aut(∆) be a group of typerotating automorphisms of an Ã2 -building which acts simply transitively on V (∆). Let P
(resp. L) be the set of neighbors of type 1 (resp. 2) of a fixed vertex v0 of type 0, and
denote by Π the residue plane at v (with P and L as sets of points and lines). For each
x ∈ P , let gx be the unique element of Γ such that gx (v0 ) = x. Then there exist a point-line
correspondence λ : P → L in Π and a triangle presentation T compatible with λ such that
Γ has the following presentation:
Γ = h{gx }x∈P | gx gy gz = 1 for each (x, y, z) ∈ T i.
Proof. See [CMSZ93a, Theorem 3.1].
What makes triangle presentations really interesting is the fact that a reciprocal result
exists. Given a projective plane Π, a point-line correspondence λ : P → L in Π and
a triangle presentation compatible with λ, one can construct an Ã2 -building ∆ locally
isomorphic to Π and a group acting simply transitively on V (∆).
Theorem 2.4 (Cartwright–Mantero–Steger–Zappa). Let P and L be the sets of points
and lines in a projective plane Π, let λ : P → L be a point-line correspondence in Π and
let T be a triangle presentation compatible with λ. Define
ΓT := h{ax }x∈P | ax ay az = 1 for each (x, y, z) ∈ T i,
where {ax }x∈P are distinct letters. Then there exists an Ã2 -building ∆T whose residue
planes are isomorphic to Π and such that ΓT acts simply transitively on V (∆T ), by typerotating automorphisms.
4

Proof. See [CMSZ93a, Theorem 3.4], or §2.2 below.
Example 2.5. From Example 2.2 and Theorem 2.4, we get an Ã2 -building ∆ whose
residue planes are isomorphic to PG(2, 2) and a group acting simply transitively on the
set of vertices of ∆. The building ∆ is actually the Bruhat-Tits building associated to
PGL(3, F2 ((X))) (see [CMSZ93b, Section 4] and [CMSZ93a, Theorem 4.1]).

2.2

Building associated to a triangle presentation

In [CMSZ93a, Theorem 3.4], the authors gave an explicit construction of the Ã2 -building
∆T associated to a triangle presentation T (see Theorem 2.4 above). In this section we
show a geometric way to construct ∆T and ΓT . The following discussion can also be seen
as an alternative proof of Theorem 2.4.
Following [Kan86], an Ã2 -SCAB is a connected chamber system of rank 3 whose
residues of rank 2 are generalized 3-gons (i.e. incidence graphs of projective planes). We
will always think of an Ã2 -SCAB as a set of triangles, representing the chambers, glued
together so that two chambers are adjacent if and only if they share an edge.
Suppose we are given a point-line correspondence λ : P → L in a projective plane Π
and a triangle presentation T compatible with λ. Let us first define a finite Ã2 -SCAB
CT as follows. Consider three vertices v1 , v2 , v3 : those will be the only vertices of CT .
Then, for each x ∈ P , put an edge ex between v1 and v2 , an edge e′x between v2 and v3
and an edge e′′x between v3 and v1 . Finally, for each (x, y, z) ∈ T , attach a triangle to the
three edges ex , e′y and e′′z . One readily checks that the definition of a triangle presentation
ensures that the three rank 2 residues of CT are incidence graphs of the projective plane
Π, and hence that CT is indeed an Ã2 -SCAB. Note that CT is not a simplicial complex in
the usual sense as all simplices of dimension 2 have the same three vertices.
We then consider the universal covering Ã2 -SCAB C˜T of CT , as defined in [Kan86,
Definition B.3.3, Proposition B.3.4]. This universal covering C˜T is a simply connected
simplicial complex of dimension 2 whose simplicial spheres of radius 1 are isomorphic to
the incidence graph of Π, so it is an Ã2 -building (see [Kan86, Theorem B.3.8] for a more
rigorous proof of this fact). We therefore set ∆T := C˜T . Moreover, because of (2) in
Definition 2.1, there is an automorphism α ∈ Aut(CT ) sending ex to e′x , e′x to e′′x and e′′x
to ex for each x ∈ P . In other words, there is a natural action of the group C3 of order 3
on CT . This automorphism group C3 then lifts to an automorphism group C̃3 of ∆T
(see [Kan86, Corollary B.3.7]), and C̃3 acts simply transitively on the set of vertices of
∆T (and by type-rotating automorphisms). The group ΓT can thus be taken to be C̃3 .
The presentation of ΓT given in Theorem 2.4 can finally be found by applying Theorem 2.3
to ΓT ≤ Aut(∆T ).

3

The strategy

A way to construct an Ã2 -building with non-Desarguesian residues and admitting a lattice
is, in view of Theorem 2.4, to consider a non-Desarguesian projective plane Π and to find
a point-line correspondence in Π and a triangle presentation compatible with it. The
5

smallest non-Desarguesian projective planes are the Hughes plane of order 9, the Hall
plane of order 9 and the dual of the Hall plane. The Hughes plane is self-dual, so there
exist some natural point-line correspondences in it: the correlations (also called dualities).
For this reason, we decided to work on the Hughes plane of order 9. It will appear later
that the correlations do not actually admit a triangle presentation, but they will still be
helpful in our search for a suitable point-line correspondence.
For each Desarguesian projective plane, Cartwright-Mantero-Steger-Zappa gave in
[CMSZ93a, §4] an explicit formula for one point-line correspondence admitting a triangle
presentation. Of course, they use the finite field from which the projective plane is constructed, and it is not clear how to find a similar formula for a particular non-Desarguesian
projective plane.
Since we are searching for purely combinatorial objects, the use of a computer could be
considered. In [CMSZ93b], the authors used a computer to find all triangle presentations
in the projective planes of order 2 and 3. The number of points in these projective planes
being not too large (i.e. 7 and 13), they could do a brute-force computation. However,
already for order 3 they needed to use some symmetries of the problem so as to reduce the
search space. Even if computers are now more powerful than in the 1990s, such a method
would still be far too slow for a projective plane of order 9.
The key point is that we are not searching for all triangle presentations in the Hughes
plane: we only want to find one. In this section, we describe our strategy in order to do so.

3.1

The graph associated to a point-line correspondence

In the context of triangle presentations, it is natural to associate a particular graph to
each point-line correspondence λ : P → L of a projective plane Π.
Definition 3.1. Let λ : P → L be a point-line correspondence in a projective plane Π.
The graph Gλ associated to λ is the directed graph with vertex set V (Gλ ) := P and
edge set E(Gλ ) := {(x, y) ∈ P 2 | y ∈ λ(x)}.
For λ, admitting a triangle presentation can now be rephrased as a condition on its
associated graph Gλ . In order to state this reformulation, we first define what we will call
a triangle in a directed graph.
Definition 3.2. Let G be a directed graph. A set {e1 , e2 , e3 } of edges in G such that the
destination vertex of e1 (resp. e2 and e3 ) is the origin vertex of e2 (resp. e3 and e1 ) is
called a triangle. If two of the three edges e1 , e2 and e3 are equal, then they are all equal.
In this case, the triangle contains only one edge and is also called a loop.
The next definition will also be convenient.
Definition 3.3. Let λ : P → L be a point-line correspondence in a projective plane Π. A
triple (x, y, z) ∈ P 3 is called λ-admissible if y ∈ λ(x), z ∈ λ(y) and x ∈ λ(z).
By definition, a triangle presentation compatible with λ only contains λ-admissible
triples. Thanks to these definitions, there is now an obvious bijection between triangles
6

of Gλ and (triples of) λ-admissible triples. Indeed, for x, y, z ∈ P , (x, y, z) is λ-admissible
if and only if there is a triangle {e1 , e2 , e3 } in Gλ with x, y and z being the origins of e1 ,
e2 and e3 respectively. Note that the triangle {e1 , e2 , e3 } then corresponds to the three
λ-admissible triples (x, y, z), (y, z, x) and (z, x, y) (which are equal when x = y = z, i.e.
when e1 = e2 = e3 or equivalently when the triangle is a loop).
This observation directly gives us the next result.
Lemma 3.4. Let λ : P → L be a point-line correspondence in a projective plane Π. There
exists a triangle presentation compatible with λ if and only if there exists a partition of
the set of edges E(Gλ ) of Gλ into triangles.
Proof. Via the above bijection, a partition of E(Gλ ) into triangles exactly corresponds to
a triangle presentation compatible with λ.

3.2

The score of a point-line correspondence

Most point-line correspondences λ in a projective plane do not admit a triangle presentation, i.e. the set of edges E(Gλ ) of the graph Gλ can generally not be partitioned into
triangles. We would still like to measure if a correspondence λ is “far from admitting”
a triangle presentation or not. We therefore introduce the notion of a triangle partial
presentation compatible with λ.
Definition 3.5. Let λ : P → L be a point-line correspondence in a projective plane Π. A
subset T ⊆ P 3 is called a triangle partial presentation compatible with λ if the two
following conditions hold:
(1) For all x, y ∈ P , if there exists z ∈ P such that (x, y, z) ∈ T then y ∈ λ(x) and z is
unique.
(2) If (x, y, z) ∈ T , then (y, z, x) ∈ T .
We directly have the following.
Lemma 3.6. Let λ : P → L be a point-line correspondence in a projective plane Π of
order q. A subset T ⊆ P 3 is a triangle presentation compatible with λ if and only if it is
a triangle partial presentation compatible with λ and |T | = (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1).
Proof. This is clear from the definitions, since there are exactly (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) pairs
(x, y) ∈ P 2 with y ∈ λ(x).
We now define the score of a point-line correspondence as follows.
Definition 3.7. Let λ : P → L be a point-line correspondence in a projective plane Π of
order q. The score S(λ) of λ is the greatest possible size of a triangle partial presentation
compatible with λ.
Thanks to the bijection between triangles of Gλ and (triples of) λ-admissible triples
(see §3.1), we can restate this definition in the following terms.
7

Definition 3.8. Let λ : P → L be a point-line correspondence in a projective plane Π of
order q. The score S(λ) of λ is the maximal number of edges of Gλ that can be covered
with disjoint triangles.
A point-line correspondence then admits a triangle presentation if and only if its score
reaches the maximal theoretical value (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1).
Lemma 3.9. Let λ : P → L be a point-line correspondence in a projective plane Π of
order q. There exists a triangle presentation compatible with λ if and only if S(λ) =
(q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1).
Proof. This follows from Lemma 3.6.

3.3

Scores of correlations

When λ : P → L, L → P is a correlation of a (self-dual) projective plane Π of order q,
i.e. a map such that λ(p) ∋ λ(ℓ) if and only if p ∈ ℓ, there is an explicit formula for the
score of the point-line correspondence λ : P → L.
Proposition 3.10. Let λ : P → L, L → P be a correlation in a projective plane Π of
order q. Let a(λ) be the number of points p ∈ P such that λ3 (p) ∋ p and let b(λ) be the
number of points p ∈ P such that λ3 (p) ∋ p and λ6 (p) = p. Then
S(λ) = (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) − (2q − 3) · a(λ) − b(λ).
Proof. For fixed x, y ∈ P with y ∈ λ(x) (i.e. (x, y) is an edge of Gλ ), a point z ∈ P
is such that (x, y, z) is λ-admissible if and only if z ∈ λ(y) ∩ λ−1 (x). We call the edge
(x, y) unpopular if λ(y) 6= λ−1 (x) and popular if λ(y) = λ−1 (x). This means that an
unpopular edge of Gλ is contained in exactly one triangle while a popular edge is contained
in exactly (q + 1) triangles.
(i) There are exactly a(λ) popular edges in Gλ .
Proof: By definition, (x, y) is popular if y = λ−2 (x), so a vertex x ∈ P is the origin
of a (unique) popular edge if and only if λ−2 (x) ∈ λ(x), i.e. x ∈ λ3 (x). There are
exactly a(λ) such x and hence a(λ) popular edges.
(ii) There are exactly (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) + q · a(λ) λ-admissible triples.
Proof: By (i), there are (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) − a(λ) unpopular edges and a(λ) popular
edges in Gλ . As each unpopular edge (resp. popular edge) is the beginning of one
(resp. (q + 1)) λ-admissible triple(s), we get
[(q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) − a(λ)] · 1 + a(λ) · (q + 1)
λ-admissible triples.
(iii) There are exactly (q + 1) · a(λ) λ-admissible triples (x, y, z) with (x, y) popular (resp.
(y, z) popular, (z, x) popular).
Proof: There are a(λ) popular edges by (i), each one being the beginning of (q + 1)
λ-admissible triples.
8

(iv) There are exactly a(λ) λ-admissible triples (x, y, z) with (x, y) and (y, z) popular
(resp. (y, z) and (z, x) popular, (z, x) and (x, y) popular).
Proof: If (x, y, z) is λ-admissible with (x, y) and (y, z) popular, then y = λ−2 (x), z =
λ−2 (y) and x ∈ λ3 (x). Moreover, these conditions are sufficient to be λ-admissible
with (x, y) and (y, z) popular. Since there are a(λ) points x such that x ∈ λ3 (x),
there are exactly a(λ) such triples.
(v) There are exactly b(λ) λ-admissible triples (x, y, z) with (x, y), (y, z) and (z, x) popular.
Proof: Such triples satisfy x ∈ λ3 (x), y = λ−2 (x), z = λ−2 (y) and x = λ−2 (z), so in
particular x = λ6 (x). Moreover, if x ∈ λ3 (x) and x = λ6 (x), then (x, λ−2 (x), λ−4 (x))
is λ-admissible with three popular edges, so there are exactly b(λ) such triples.
(vi) There are exactly (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) − 2q · a(λ) − b(λ) λ-admissible triples (x, y, z)
with (x, y), (y, z) and (z, x) unpopular.
Proof: By the inclusion-exclusion principle, the number of such triples is
[(q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) + q · a(λ)] − 3(q + 1) · a(λ) + 3 · a(λ) − b(λ).
We now prove that S(λ) ≤ (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) − (2q − 3) · a(λ) − b(λ). Let T be a triangle
partial presentation with |T | = S(λ), i.e. a set of disjoint triangles of Gλ covering S(λ)
edges. By maximality, all λ-admissible triples (i.e. triangles) (x, y, z) with (x, y), (y, z) and
(z, x) unpopular are in T (because each of these 3 edges is only covered by this particular
triangle). By (vi), this means we already have (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) − 2q · a(λ) − b(λ) triples in
T . The other triangles in T all contain at least one popular edge. There are a(λ) popular
edges (by (i)), so we obtain
S(λ) ≤ (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) − 2q · a(λ) − b(λ) + 3 · a(λ).
Let us now show that S(λ) ≥ (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) − (2q − 3) · a(λ) − b(λ), by covering
that number of edges of Gλ with disjoint triangles. We first cover exactly (q + 1)(q 2 + q +
1) − 2q · a(λ) − b(λ) edges of Gλ thanks to the triangles only containing unpopular edges.
By definition of an unpopular edge, these triangles are all disjoint. Now, for each popular
edge (x, y), there are (q + 1) values of z such that (x, y, z) is λ-admissible. Among these
(q + 1) ≥ 3 values of z, choose z0 different from λ−2 (y) and λ2 (x). In this way, (y, z0 ) and
(z0 , x) are unpopular. We then add the triangle (x, y, z0 ) to our covering. This triangle
is not a loop since (x, y) is popular and (y, z) is unpopular, so it covers three new edges.
Doing so for each popular edge (x, y), we cover 3 · a(λ) new edges and get
S(λ) ≥ (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) − 2q · a(λ) − b(λ) + 3 · a(λ).
It follows from Proposition 3.10 that a correlation λ admits a triangle presentation if
and only if λ3 sends no point to an adjacent line. However, the following nice result of
Devillers, Parkinson and Van Maldeghem shows that this never happens.
Theorem 3.11 (Devillers–Parkinson–Van Maldeghem). Let λ : P → L, L → P be a
correlation in a finite projective plane Π. Then there exists p ∈ P such that p ∈ λ(p).
9

Proof. See [DPVM13, Proposition 5.4]. The case of polarities (i.e. correlations which are
involutions) goes back to [Bae46].
Corollary 3.12. Let λ : P → L, L → P be a correlation in a finite projective plane Π.
Then there is no triangle presentation compatible with λ.
Proof. Applying Theorem 3.11 to the correlation λ3 , we get a(λ) > 0 and hence S(λ) <
(q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1) by Proposition 3.10. The conclusion then follows from Lemma 3.9.
Remark 3.13. In the semifield plane of order 16 and with kernel GF(4), we could observe
a correlation λ such that a(λ) = b(λ) = 1. This means that there is exactly one point p
of the plane such that p ∈ λ3 (p). The score of this correlation λ is thus S(λ) = 4611, the
maximal theoretical score being (16 + 1)(162 + 16 + 1) = 4641.

3.4

Estimated score for a general point-line correspondence

It does not seem possible to get a general formula for the score of all point-line correspondences. One can however obtain (good) lower bounds for the score, simply by trying to
cover the most possible edges of Gλ with triangles. There are different algorithms that
could be used. Our principal goal being to know whether E(Gλ ) admits a partition into
triangles, we should design an algorithm that will find such a partition when it exists.
The idea is simple: if an edge of Gλ is not yet covered and if there is only one triangle
containing this edge and disjoint from the already chosen ones, then this triangle must be
part of the (possible) partition. Our algorithm to cover as many edges as we can in Gλ is
thus the following:
While there exists e ∈ E(Gλ ) such that there is a unique triangle t in Gλ containing e,
choose this triangle t, remove the edge(s) of t from Gλ and start again this procedure.
If, at the end, there is no more triangles in Gλ , then we say that the score-algorithm
succeeds and that the estimated score s(λ) of λ is the number of edges that
are covered by the chosen triangles. Otherwise, there still are triangles in Gλ but
all edges are contained in 0 or at least 2 triangles. In this case, we say that the
score-algorithm fails. For a pseudo-code, see Algorithm 1.
One should note that the value of s(λ) (and whether the score-algorithm succeeds or
not) may depend on the choice made for e ∈ E(Gλ ) at each step. We will still talk about
the estimated score s(λ) of λ, assuming that an order is fixed once and for all on the set
E(Gλ ) for each λ.
Lemma 3.14. Let λ : P → L be a point-line correspondence in a projective plane Π of
order q. Assume that the score-algorithm succeeds. Then s(λ) ≤ S(λ) and, if S(λ) =
(q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1), then s(λ) = (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1).
Proof. This follows from the discussion in the description of the algorithm.

10

Algorithm 1: Computing the estimated score s(λ) of λ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15
16

score ← 0;
edgesInOneTriangle ← true;
while edgesInOneTriangle = true do
edgesInOneTriangle ← f alse;
for e in E(Gλ ) do
if e is contained in exactly one triangle t of Gλ then
edgesInOneTriangle ← true;
remove the edge(s) of t from E(Gλ );
if t is a loop then
score ← score + 1;
else
score ← score + 3;
if there still are triangles in Gλ then
return FAIL
else
return score

When the score-algorithm fails, it cannot conclude whether there exists a partition
of E(Gλ ) into triangles. Actually, we never encountered a point-line correspondence for
which the algorithm fails for the Hughes plane of order 9. We therefore did not need to
treat this particular case. Note however that, for a Desarguesian plane, we are aware of
some point-line correspondences for which the algorithm fails and which indeed admit a
triangle presentation, so this case should not in general be forgotten.

3.5

Scores in the Hughes plane of order 9

By Corollary 3.12, we know that a correlation never reaches the score of (q + 1)(q 2 + q + 1).
A naive approach to find a point-line correspondence of the Hughes plane of order 9 with
a score of (9 + 1)(92 + 9 + 1) = 910 is to simply evaluate s(λ) for a lot of random
correspondences λ and to cross one’s fingers. This idea is however not successful at all.
Indeed, we computed the estimated score of 100000 random point-line correspondences
and got, on average, an estimated score of 486.6 (with a standard deviation of 17.3). The
best estimated score we could observe was only 561, very far from 910.
Compared with these pretty low values, the formula given by Proposition 3.10 for
correlations seems to give better scores. In the Hughes plane of order 9, there are 33696
correlations. Their scores, computed thanks to Proposition 3.10, are given in Table 3.1.
Note that, as soon as two correlations λ and λ′ are conjugate (in the sense that λ = αλ′ α−1
for some automorphism α of the plane), we have a(λ) = a(λ′ ), b(λ) = b(λ′ ) and S(λ) =
S(λ′ ). (Actually, Gλ and Gλ′ are isomorphic.)
We also computed the estimated scores of all these correlations: they are also given
11

# of concerned λ
6318
4212
6318
4212
6318
6318

a(λ)
4
10
10
16
16
22

b(λ)
4
2
10
0
16
22

S(λ)
846
758
750
670
654
558

s(λ) (mean)
846.00
757.97
750.00
669.92
654.00
558.00

Table 3.1: Scores of the correlations of the Hughes plane of order 9.
in Table 3.1. They show that, at least for correlations, the estimated score is almost
always equal to the real score. As expected, correlations have higher estimated scores
than random point-line correspondences: they reach 846. This fact will be helpful for our
final strategy to find a correspondence with score 910, described in the next subsection.

3.6

Improving a point-line correspondence

In order to find a point-line correspondence with a score greater than what we already
obtained, it is natural to try to slightly modify a point-line correspondence with a high
score. The smallest change we can make is to swap the images of two points. The next
lemma shows that the score function is somewhat continuous.
Lemma 3.15. Let λ : P → L be a point-line correspondence in a projective plane Π of
order q and let a, b ∈ P . Define λa,b : P → L by λa,b (x) := λ(x) for all x ∈ P \ {a, b},
λa,b (a) := λ(b) and λa,b (b) := λ(a). Then |S(λa,b ) − S(λ)| ≤ 6(q + 1).
Proof. The graph Gλa,b can be obtained from Gλ by deleting the edges having a or b
as origin and replacing them by other edges. In total, 2(q + 1) edges are deleted and
2(q + 1) edges are added. Since a triangle contains at most 3 edges, we directly deduce
that |S(λa,b ) − S(λ)| ≤ 6(q + 1).
In Lemma 3.15, it is even reasonable to think that |S(λa,b ) − S(λ)| will often be much
smaller than 6(q + 1). In other words, the score should not vary too much when replacing
λ by λa,b , and we can in general hope to have S(λa,b ) > S(λ) for some a, b ∈ P .
Based on this observation, our idea is simple. Start with a correlation λ, whose score is
known to be higher than for a random correspondence (see §3.5). For all distinct a, b ∈ P ,
consider λa,b (as defined above) and compute its estimated score s(λa,b ). Then choose
ã, b̃ ∈ P such that s(λã,b̃ ) = max{s(λa,b ) | a, b ∈ P }. Now replace λ by λã,b̃ and start this
procedure again! We just need to keep track of the correspondences we already tried so as
to avoid being blocked in a local maximum of the score function. This idea is explained
in Algorithm 2. If after some time the algorithm does not seem able to produce a score of
910, then we stop it and start it again from another correlation.
This procedure is pretty slow: with our implementation, one step (i.e. computing
s(λa,b ) for all a, b ∈ P so as to find ã and b̃) takes ∼1.25 seconds. For this reason and
because we could still not reach 910, we have decided not to try all possible pairs a, b ∈ P .
12

Algorithm 2: Finding a point-line correspondence λ with s(λ) = 910
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

λ ← some correlation of the Hughes plane;
while s(λ) < 910 do
visited[λ] ← true;
bestA ← −1; bestB ← −1;
bestScore ← −1;
for a in P and b in P do
if visited[λa,b ] = false and s(λa,b ) > bestScore then
bestScore ← s(λa,b );
bestA ← a;
bestB ← b;
λ ← λbestA,bestB ;
return λ;

Instead, we can observe which points seem to be the worst, where the badness of p ∈ P is
the number of edges containing p in Gλ which were not covered by a triangle in Algorithm 1.
Then, it is natural to only try the pairs a, b ∈ P where a is one of the worst points (for
instance the 5 worst points) and b is arbitrary. Obviously, with this change Algorithm 2
does not visit the same correspondences as before, but it has the advantage that a step
only takes ∼0.13 seconds.
After three weeks of slight changes in the algorithm (e.g. the definition of a bad point,
the number of worst points we consider, the condition under which we stop and start with
another correlation, etc), the computer eventually shouted (at least wrote) victory. The
starting correlation had a score equal to 750, and the evolution of the estimated score
until 910 is shown in Figure 1.
Remark 3.16. The last change we made to the algorithm before it could solve the problem
was actually mistaken! Whereas we wanted to speed up the computation of the five worst
points, we made an error in the implementation of that idea resulting in the fact that the
five computed points were actually not the worst ones. This mistake still led us to the
discovery of a (valid) point-line correspondence λ with a score of 910. The funny part of
the story is that if we correct this implementation error and start the algorithm with the
same correlation, then it misses the correspondence λ.

4

The building and its lattice

In this section, we first give the description of the building and the lattice that we discovered (see Section 3 for the methods we used). We then give various properties of these
objects (i.e. we prove (4), (5), (6) and (7) in Theorem 1.1).

13

910

Estimated score

865

820

775

730
0

50

Step

100

150

Figure 1: Evolution of the estimated score with Algorithm 2.

4.1

Description

The structure of the Hughes plane of order 9 is given in Table A.1 and comes from [GEM].
Points and lines are numbered from 0 to 90 (let us call them p0 , . . . , p90 and ℓ0 , . . . , ℓ90 ),
and the nth row (with 0 ≤ n ≤ 90) gives the indices of the 10 points incident to ℓn .
The reader may be skeptical that the structure of incidence Π defined by these point-line
incidences is indeed the Hughes plane, but this is not so hard to verify by analyzing its
properties. It is at least really easy to implement a program checking that Π satisfies the
axioms of a projective plane. Moreover, we can see by hand that Π is not Desarguesian.
For instance, consider the triangle T1 with points {p1 , p10 , p34 } and the triangle T2 with
points {p2 , p11 , p35 }. The lines of T1 are {ℓ10 , ℓ20 , ℓ11 } and the lines of T2 are {ℓ27 , ℓ35 , ℓ19 }.
Now the line passing through the points {p1 , p2 } (resp. {p10 , p11 } and {p34 , p35 }) is ℓ0
(resp. ℓ1 and ℓ2 ), and these three lines intersect in p0 . On the other hand, the common
point of the lines {ℓ10 , ℓ27 } (resp. {ℓ20 , ℓ35 } and {ℓ11 , ℓ19 }) is p19 (resp. p66 and p42 ), and
these three points do not lie on a common line (the line through {p19 , p66 } is ℓ48 , which
does not contain p42 ). This shows that Desargues’ theorem is not satisfied in Π. Moreover,
our computations show that Π is self-dual (since there are correlations), so it can only be
the Hughes plane (see, for instance, [LKT91]).
Relative to this numbering of points and lines, the point-line correspondence λ : P → L
which we have found is given in Table B.1. For the image of p10x+y by λ, one should look
at the intersection of rows x and y. The triangle presentation T compatible with λ is
then given in Table B.2. In this table, the appearance of (x, y, z) means that (x, y, z),
(y, z, x) and (z, x, y) all belong to T . There are, in Table B.2, 298 triples (x, y, z) with

14

x, y, z not all equal and 16 triples (x, x, x), which means that T contains 298 · 3 + 16 = 910
elements as required. While a computer helped to find T , it can once again be checked
by hand (or with a trivial program) that T is indeed a triangle presentation compatible
with λ. Indeed, one only needs to check that for each (x, y, z) ∈ T , the line λ(x) contains
y and there exists no z ′ 6= z such that (x, y, z ′ ) ∈ T . This suffices to show that T is a
triangle presentation compatible with λ, since |T | = 910.
It follows from Theorem 2.4 that the building ∆T and the group ΓT ≤ Aut(∆T ) satisfy
(1), (2) and (3) in Theorem 1.1. In the next four subsections we prove (4), (5), (6) and (7).

4.2

Torsion in ΓT

The group ΓT has elements of order 3: when (x, x, x) ∈ T for some x ∈ P , we have
the relation a3x = 1 in the presentation of ΓT . However, the subgroup Γ0T of ΓT consisting of the type-preserving automorphisms is torsion-free. Indeed, let γ be a torsion
element of Γ0T , say of order n. If v0 is a fixed vertex of ∆T , then γ stabilizes the set
{v0 , γ(v0 ), γ 2 (v0 ), . . . , γ n−1 (v0 )}. By [BT72, Proposition 3.2.4], γ must fix a point of ∆T ,
i.e. it stabilizes a simplex of ∆T . Since γ preserves the types, it fixes this simplex pointwise and thus fixes its vertices. But Γ0T acts freely on the set of vertices of ∆T , so γ must
be the identity element.

4.3

A perfect subgroup of ΓT

Clearly, Γ0T is a normal subgroup of index 3 of ΓT . We find that ΓT also has a subgroup of
index 2. Indeed, if we define A ⊂ P by A = ℓ3 ∪ ℓ11 ∪ ℓ62 ∪ ℓ64 ∪ ℓ87 , then one can check that
for each (x, y, z) ∈ T , either one or three of the points x, y, z belong to A. Equivalently,
either none or two of the points x, y, z belong to P \ A. Hence, there is a well-defined
group homomorphism f : ΓT → C2 defined on the generators {ax }x∈P by f (ax ) := 0 if
x ∈ A and f (ax ) := 1 if x 6∈ A. The kernel ker(f ) of f is then a subgroup of index 2 of ΓT .
The intersection Γ0T .
∩ ker(f ) of these two subgroups is thus a normal subgroup of
∼ C2 × C3 ). We checked using the GAP system
index 6 of ΓT (with ΓT Γ0 ∩ ker(f ) =
T

that Γ0T ∩ ker(f ) is a perfect group, so that [ΓT , ΓT ] = Γ0T ∩ ker(f ).

4.4

Partition of ∆T into sub-buildings

A Baer subplane of a projective plane Π is a proper projective subplane Π0 of Π with
the property that every point of Π is incident to at least one line of Π0 and every line of
Π is incident to at least one point of Π0 . Let us take for Π the Hughes plane of order 9.
Then Π has a (Desarguesian) Baer subplane Π0 of order 3, which has the property that all
automorphisms and all correlations of Π preserve Π0 (see [Dem68, 5.4.1]). With respect
to our numbering of the points and lines of the Hughes plane (see Table A.1), the sets of
points and lines of Π0 are
P0 := {pn | n ∈ {9, 17, 20, 33, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 56, 59, 64, 70}}

15

and
L0 := {ℓn | n ∈ {3, 11, 22, 34, 46, 53, 62, 64, 70, 79, 84, 87, 89}}
(see the red-colored numbers in Table A.1).
What is surprising is that our point-line correspondence λ also preserves Π0 . This is
indeed clear from Table B.1. Even better, if we call λ0 the restriction of λ to P0 , then the
triangle presentation T can be restricted to a triangle presentation T0 compatible with λ0 .
In other terms, for each (x, y, z) ∈ T , if x ∈ P0 and y ∈ P0 then z ∈ P0 . This can also
be simply observed by inspecting Table B.2. The author does not know any theoretical
reason why these properties are true (and whether they must be true for any point-line
correspondence admitting a triangle presentation).
This observation has different consequences. First, we have a point-line correspondence
λ0 in the Desarguesian projective plane Π0 of order 3, and a triangle presentation T0
compatible with it. Theorem 2.4 thus gives an Ã2 -building ∆T0 whose projective plane at
each vertex is isomorphic to Π0 and a group ΓT0 acting simply transitively on V (∆T0 ). The
triangle presentations in the projective plane of order 3 have all been given by CartwrightMantero-Steger-Zappa in [CMSZ93b], so T0 must be one of their list. It turns out that T0
is equivalent (as defined in [CMSZ93b, Section 2]) to their triangle presentation numbered
14.1 (see [CMSZ93b, Appendix B] ; one such equivalence takes the pn , in the order listed
in the definition of P0 , to 12, 2, 5, 0, 8, 11, 10, 3, 1, 9, 6, 4 and 7, respectively). In particular,
this means by [CMSZ93b, Section 8] that ∆T0 is a non-linear building, i.e. is not the
building of PGL(3, K) for some local field K.
The group ΓT0 and the building ∆T0 also appear as subgroups and sub-buildings of ΓT
and ∆T , respectively. With the notation of §2.2, there is a clear embedding e : CT0 ֒→ CT .
Now ∆T0 and ∆T are the universal coverings of CT0 and CT respectively, so by fixing some
vertices v0 ∈ V (∆T0 ) and v ∈ V (∆T ) such that p(v) = e(p0 (v0 )) (where p : ∆T → CT
and p0 : ∆T0 → CT0 are the natural projections), we get an embedding ẽ : ∆T0 ֒→ ∆T with
ẽ(v0 ) = v. We can then see ΓT0 as the subgroup of ΓT such that ΓT0 (v) is exactly the
set of vertices of ẽ(∆T0 ). Moreover, for each g ∈ ΓT the set gΓT0 (v) ⊂ V (∆T ) is also
the 0-skeleton of a building isomorphic to ∆T0 . This means that the vertices of ∆T are
partitioned into sub-buildings isomorphic to ∆T0 (where each sub-building corresponds to
a left coset of ΓT0 in ΓT ).
One should note that these sub-buildings isomorphic to ∆T0 cover all the vertices of
∆T , but this is not true for edges and chambers: some edges (and chambers) of ∆T do
not belong to any of the sub-buildings.

4.5

Automorphism group of ∆T

The automorphism group Aut(∆T ) of ∆T contains ΓT , which acts simply transitively on
the vertices of the building. In order to know whether Aut(∆T ) is substantially larger
than ΓT , we should try to see what the stabilizer of a vertex in Aut(∆T ) looks like. This
can be done by making use of the GAP system. I am very thankful to Tim Steger, who
had done the same work for triangle presentations in the projective plane of order 3, and
who gave me all his source codes and a great deal of advice.
16

Let v be a vertex of ∆T . In the next discussion, XT will denote the sub-building of
∆T containing v and isomorphic to ∆T0 (see §4.4). We have the following facts.
(i) Any automorphism of ∆T fixing v must preserve the sub-building XT .
Explanation: For a vertex x contained in XT , there are 2 · 91 = 182 vertices adjacent
to x in ∆T , and exactly 2 · 13 = 26 of them belong to XT . Those 26 vertices are
characterized by the fact that, in the local Hughes plane Π associated to x, they
correspond to the 13 points and 13 lines of the Baer subplane Π0 of Π. Hence, if
α ∈ Aut(∆T ) is such that α(x) = y with x, y belonging to XT , then α must send the
26 neighbors of x in XT on the 26 neighbors of y in XT because all automorphisms
and correlations of Π preserve Π0 . Starting with x = v, we obtain step by step that
any automorphism of ∆T fixing v must stabilize XT .
(ii) There are exactly 16 automorphisms of XT stabilizing v.
Explanation: This was previously done by Steger with the help of GAP.
(iii) For each x ∈ V (∆T ), the only automorphism of the ball of radius 2 centered at x
which pointwise stabilizes the ball of radius 1 is the trivial automorphism.
Explanation: This was proved with GAP.
Point (iii) implies that the pointwise stabilizer of a ball of radius 1 in Aut(∆T ) is
trivial, and hence that an automorphism of ∆T is completely determined by its action on
the ball of radius 1 centered at v. In particular, the stabilizer of v in Aut(∆T ) is finite
and Aut(∆T ) is discrete (for the topology of pointwise convergence).
(iv) There are exactly 6 automorphisms of Π that pointwise stabilize Π0 .
Explanation: This can be checked with a computer, but one can also see [Lün76,
Corollary 5] or [Ros58] for a more theoretical approach.
The four first points imply that there are at most 16 · 6 = 96 automorphisms of ∆T
stabilizing v. Denote by G1 the set of the 96 automorphisms of the ball of radius 1 centered
at v which could maybe be extended to automorphisms of the whole building.
(v) Each automorphism in G1 can be extended to an automorphism of the ball of radius
2 centered at v.
Explanation: This was proved with GAP.
Now denote by G2 the set of these extended automorphisms.
(vi) Each automorphism in G2 can be extended to an automorphism of ∆T .
Explanation: This could be checked with a clever GAP program written by Steger.
These steps actually gave us the explicit description of the 96 automorphisms of ∆T
fixing v. Six of them pointwise stabilize the sub-building XT . The file describing these
automorphisms is pretty big so we do not append it to this text.
17

A

The Hughes plane of order 9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
5
3
6
9
8
7
5
4
3
9

1
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
13
14
12
18
16
15
17
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
14
13
16
12

2
11
34
27
33
30
28
29
31
32
19
34
28
31
33
29
27
32
30
35
29
31
33
28
27
30
32
19
21
22
24
20
26
25
23
22
21
26
20
23
24
25
19
19
19
19

3
12
35
42
48
43
44
45
46
47
20
42
35
41
36
37
38
39
40
42
34
38
40
41
37
39
36
27
34
37
39
41
40
36
38
35
39
36
40
37
38
41
42
47
43
45

4
13
36
55
54
49
50
51
52
53
21
43
55
54
50
52
51
49
53
49
56
48
47
43
45
46
44
28
57
48
47
45
44
43
46
58
50
52
51
54
49
53
63
51
54
53

5
14
37
56
61
63
69
64
62
65
22
44
61
56
58
59
66
57
60
50
61
57
59
58
65
55
60
29
62
60
58
61
56
55
59
66
56
57
62
55
60
59
67
55
60
57

6
15
38
57
76
68
70
73
67
66
23
45
62
74
68
71
72
69
67
51
66
63
64
71
70
73
62
30
70
64
67
75
63
66
65
70
65
64
68
67
61
63
71
69
65
68

7
16
39
58
78
72
77
74
75
71
24
46
63
80
73
76
77
75
70
52
67
81
72
83
78
76
74
31
71
69
80
77
76
78
68
74
79
77
78
72
71
69
74
79
73
76

8
17
40
59
89
79
81
83
85
87
25
47
64
82
85
79
86
78
84
53
68
84
75
86
80
77
79
32
72
86
81
79
83
82
74
75
84
80
81
83
82
73
77
85
75
82

9
18
41
60
90
80
82
84
86
88
26
48
65
88
87
81
89
83
90
54
69
87
82
90
85
88
89
33
73
88
89
87
85
84
90
76
86
90
88
87
85
89
78
90
81
86

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90

6
7
8
5
3
8
7
9
6
4
5
6
9
8
7
4
3
8
9
7
6
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
7
9
6
6
7
9
8
7
9
8
8
6

15
17
18
18
13
14
15
16
17
14
17
12
15
16
18
15
12
13
17
16
18
12
16
18
17
13
12
15
16
14
18
17
15
13
13
13
14
14
14
12
12
18
15
17
16

19
19
19
23
24
25
21
20
26
20
25
22
24
23
26
23
25
26
21
22
24
26
21
25
24
22
20
26
24
23
21
22
20
20
25
23
21
24
26
21
23
22
22
20
25

46
44
48
29
30
32
31
33
27
30
28
32
27
31
33
32
33
28
30
29
31
29
28
27
33
27
31
30
32
27
32
31
28
32
29
33
29
28
31
27
30
28
33
29
30

49
52
50
35
35
35
35
35
35
34
34
34
34
34
34
40
38
37
41
39
36
41
36
39
37
36
37
38
41
41
37
40
39
38
40
39
38
40
39
40
36
38
41
36
37

56
58
59
43
44
45
47
46
48
52
51
54
50
53
49
42
42
42
42
42
42
46
45
44
43
46
44
45
48
47
46
45
48
43
48
45
44
46
43
43
48
47
44
47
47

64
61
62
57
59
56
60
69
67
65
60
59
63
58
55
61
70
68
64
62
65
50
49
54
53
53
49
54
52
49
51
50
53
50
49
52
53
54
51
52
51
52
51
54
50

70
72
66
85
78
72
68
71
73
82
76
77
75
64
74
73
79
75
66
82
69
60
59
64
56
61
66
58
55
62
58
55
72
64
58
60
55
57
59
69
56
56
57
63
57

87
84
80
88
86
81
77
80
79
83
80
84
88
78
81
80
83
84
81
87
72
72
67
68
62
81
73
62
68
76
63
71
74
67
65
63
75
66
61
74
71
73
65
70
61

89
88
83
89
87
90
83
84
82
89
87
85
90
79
86
86
88
89
85
90
76
78
88
71
77
83
90
69
70
84
82
89
85
76
77
66
80
79
70
87
75
78
67
86
74

Table A.1: Incidence relation of the Hughes plane of order 9, from [GEM].

18

B

The triangle presentation
λ
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

0
20
54
70
73
56
25
36
89
6
49

1
0
39
82
4
2
14
27
35
21

2
44
30
42
83
87
63
31
17
1

3
75
8
23
22
84
72
29
19
52

4
78
88
38
58
26
7
79
5
74

5
77
68
90
28
45
32
33
47
40

6
50
18
81
59
53
62
16
67
12

7
76
34
13
55
11
86
71
10
48

8
37
65
61
64
80
51
85
66
9

9
3
57
69
60
41
46
24
43
15

Table B.1: Point-line correspondence λ.
(0,3,41)
(0,69,80)
(1,9,27)
(2,81,63)
(4,20,37)
(5,31,33)
(6,35,21)
(7,46,69)
(8,64,50)
(9,59,46)
(10,79,69)
(12,12,12)
(13,31,48)
(14,22,63)
(15,36,34)
(16,60,84)
(17,68,40)
(19,32,79)
(20,53,37)
(21,80,77)
(23,86,28)
(25,47,48)
(26,66,77)
(28,42,52)
(30,54,74)
(32,54,64)
(34,50,39)
(36,53,44)
(38,66,66)
(43,43,43)
(45,68,69)
(49,53,73)
(51,87,66)
(58,72,75)
(70,70,70)

(0,10,82)
(1,1,1)
(2,3,62)
(3,3,3)
(4,28,15)
(5,40,60)
(6,44,10)
(7,58,32)
(8,80,70)
(9,60,11)
(11,11,11)
(12,24,68)
(13,46,35)
(14,33,82)
(15,45,82)
(16,67,46)
(17,74,72)
(19,34,75)
(20,56,70)
(22,71,74)
(23,90,57)
(25,50,77)
(27,31,61)
(28,61,32)
(30,62,61)
(32,66,72)
(34,63,37)
(36,64,67)
(38,81,81)
(43,51,68)
(45,86,62)
(49,69,85)
(52,75,84)
(60,79,85)
(71,75,88)

(0,29,54)
(1,2,16)
(2,19,12)
(3,14,8)
(4,39,81)
(5,45,53)
(6,59,19)
(7,63,64)
(8,90,85)
(10,17,23)
(11,23,71)
(12,39,86)
(13,52,26)
(14,41,37)
(15,49,59)
(16,70,36)
(18,22,42)
(19,54,45)
(20,62,77)
(22,74,63)
(24,40,34)
(25,57,56)
(27,41,34)
(28,73,42)
(30,69,37)
(33,33,33)
(34,88,47)
(36,78,65)
(38,85,85)
(43,59,64)
(46,46,46)
(49,73,53)
(52,84,68)
(60,86,63)
(72,78,76)

(0,34,9)
(1,3,47)
(2,43,61)
(3,23,6)
(4,48,29)
(5,50,30)
(6,78,24)
(7,82,18)
(9,20,43)
(10,26,33)
(11,37,82)
(12,47,45)
(13,62,79)
(14,44,32)
(15,59,89)
(16,84,55)
(18,29,39)
(19,59,87)
(20,77,24)
(22,78,42)
(24,51,85)
(25,61,29)
(27,54,29)
(28,86,61)
(31,54,83)
(33,40,51)
(34,90,35)
(36,79,51)
(39,49,41)
(43,70,47)
(46,71,76)
(49,89,59)
(53,90,88)
(63,69,70)
(79,79,79)

(0,56,88)
(1,4,72)
(2,54,73)
(3,27,56)
(4,53,20)
(5,55,40)
(6,87,59)
(8,11,87)
(9,42,38)
(10,27,82)
(11,54,24)
(12,58,56)
(13,67,27)
(14,51,58)
(15,67,83)
(16,90,18)
(18,42,78)
(19,77,22)
(21,21,38)
(23,28,80)
(24,81,84)
(25,74,49)
(27,74,68)
(29,44,89)
(31,76,78)
(33,47,46)
(35,57,71)
(37,52,89)
(39,74,43)
(44,44,44)
(46,80,50)
(50,55,76)
(54,84,70)
(65,66,86)
(79,90,89)

(0,61,31)
(1,5,89)
(2,60,65)
(3,49,7)
(4,74,79)
(5,71,22)
(7,18,39)
(8,26,52)
(9,55,44)
(10,35,73)
(11,55,85)
(12,67,53)
(13,75,52)
(14,57,51)
(15,88,65)
(17,17,38)
(18,62,87)
(19,84,41)
(21,29,68)
(23,41,36)
(24,88,32)
(26,39,55)
(27,80,69)
(29,64,76)
(31,78,36)
(33,59,56)
(35,62,41)
(37,89,52)
(40,76,41)
(44,62,75)
(48,48,48)
(50,73,51)
(55,56,79)
(65,78,69)
(80,81,87)

(0,66,1)
(1,6,86)
(2,65,55)
(3,76,4)
(4,85,71)
(6,13,25)
(7,21,75)
(8,36,58)
(9,56,42)
(10,48,77)
(11,67,61)
(12,80,82)
(13,85,82)
(14,65,43)
(16,18,82)
(17,46,20)
(18,87,62)
(19,85,61)
(21,44,60)
(23,43,26)
(25,25,25)
(26,45,76)
(27,88,66)
(29,71,70)
(31,89,81)
(33,72,39)
(35,70,86)
(38,41,41)
(40,87,48)
(44,74,80)
(48,49,63)
(50,76,60)
(55,63,86)
(66,89,71)
(83,83,83)

(0,67,13)
(1,7,51)
(2,73,35)
(3,84,5)
(5,17,90)
(6,24,78)
(7,32,57)
(8,52,68)
(9,57,48)
(10,67,81)
(11,72,49)
(12,81,57)
(13,86,64)
(14,67,22)
(16,40,25)
(17,59,70)
(18,90,29)
(20,24,62)
(21,53,31)
(23,58,90)
(25,30,58)
(26,60,39)
(28,32,40)
(30,30,38)
(31,90,43)
(33,75,61)
(35,71,58)
(38,42,56)
(42,47,47)
(44,79,47)
(48,58,81)
(50,88,87)
(56,83,60)
(68,87,83)
(88,88,88)

Table B.2: Triangle presentation T compatible with λ.
19

(0,68,74)
(1,8,77)
(2,75,17)
(4,15,28)
(5,22,67)
(6,30,26)
(7,37,83)
(8,57,36)
(9,58,45)
(10,73,50)
(11,83,47)
(12,89,76)
(14,15,21)
(15,16,30)
(16,53,66)
(17,65,82)
(19,22,77)
(20,33,64)
(21,55,83)
(23,83,77)
(25,37,65)
(26,63,88)
(28,40,80)
(30,45,57)
(32,46,84)
(34,34,34)
(35,72,83)
(38,64,64)
(42,73,52)
(45,45,45)
(48,65,84)
(51,73,54)
(57,75,72)
(69,78,72)

References
[Bae46] Reinhold Baer, Polarities in finite projective planes, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 52 (1946), 77–93.
[BP07] Sylvain Barré and Mikaël Pichot, Sur les immeubles triangulaires et leurs automorphismes, Geom.
Dedicata 130 (2007), 71–91.
[BdlHV08] Bachir Bekka, Pierre de la Harpe, and Alain Valette, Kazhdan’s Property (T), New Mathematical Monographs, vol. 11, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008.
[BT72] François Bruhat and Jacques Tits, Groupes réductifs sur un corps local, I. Données radicielles
valuées, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. 41 (1972), 5–251.
[CMSZ93a] Donald I. Cartwright, Anna M. Mantero, Tim Steger, and Anna Zappa, Groups acting simply
transitively on the vertices of a building of type Ã2 , I, Geom. Dedicata 47 (1993), 143–166.
[CMSZ93b] Donald I. Cartwright, Anna M Mantero, Tim Steger, and Anna Zappa, Groups acting simply
transitively on the vertices of a building of type Ã2 , II, Geom. Dedicata 47 (1993), 167–223.
[Dem68] Peter Dembowski, Finite Geometries, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, vol. 44,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1968.
[DPVM13] Alice Devillers, James Parkinson, and Hendrik Van Maldeghem, Automorphisms and opposition
in twin buildings, J. Aust. Math. Soc. 94 (2013), 189–201.
[EV10] Martin Edjvet and Alina Vdovina, On the SQ-universality of Groups with Special Presentations,
J. Group Theory 13 (2010), 923–931.
[How89] James Howie, On the SQ-universality of T (6)-groups, Forum Math. 1 (1989), 251–272.
[Hug57] Daniel R. Hughes, A class of non-Desarguesian projective planes, Canad. J. Math. 9 (1957),
378–388.
[Kan86] William M. Kantor, Generalized polygons, SCABs and GABs, Buildings and the Geometry of
Diagrams (Proc. C.I.M.E. Session, Como 1984; L. A. Rosati ed.), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1181,
Springer-Verlag, 1986, pp. 79–158.
[LKT91] Clement W. H. Lam, Galina Kolesova, and Larry H. Thiel, A computer search for finite projective
planes of order 9, Discrete Math. 92 (1991), 187–195.
[Lün76] Heinz Lüneburg, Characterizations of the generalized Hughes planes, Canad. J. Math. 28 (1976),
no. 2, 376–402.
[GEM] G. Eric Moorhouse, Projective Planes of Small Order, consulted on October 30, 2015.
[Ron86] Mark A. Ronan, A construction of Buildings with no rank 3 residues of spherical type, Buildings
and the Geometry of Diagrams (Proc. C.I.M.E. Session, Como 1984; L. A. Rosati ed.), Lecture Notes
in Math., vol. 1181, Springer-Verlag, 1986, pp. 242–248.
[Ros58] Luigi Antonio Rosati, I gruppi di collineazioni dei piani di Hughes, Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. 13
(1958), no. 4, 505–513.
[VM87] Hendrik Van Maldeghem, Non-classical triangle buildings, Geom. Dedicata 24 (1987), 123–206.
[VW07] Oswald Veblen and Joseph H. M. Wedderburn, Non-Desarguesian and non-Pascalian geometries,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1907), 379–388.

20

