PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN SOME
ELEMENTARY CHEVALLEY–DEMAZURE GROUPS

arXiv:1801.05320v2 [math.GR] 14 Feb 2018

YURI SANTOS REGO
Abstract. Given a universal elementary Chevalley–Demazure group
sc
EΦ
(R) for which its (standard) parabolic subgroups are finitely generated, we consider the problem of classifying which parabolics P(R) ≤
sc
EΦ
(R) are finitely presented. We show that, under mild assumptions,
this is equivalent to the finite presentability of a suitable retract of P
which contains the Levi factor. If the base ring R is a Dedekind domain
of arithmetic type, we combine our results with well-known theorems
due to Borel–Serre, Abels, Behr and Bux to give a partial classification of finitely presentable S-arithmetic subgroups of parabolics in split
reductive linear algebraic groups.

1. Introduction
Let R be a commutative ring with unity and let GΦ (R) be a Chevalley–
Demazure group over R, where Φ is the associated (reduced) root system.
Generators and relations for the elementary subgroup EΦ (R) ≤ GΦ (R) and
for related groups from algebraic K-theory were intensively studied in the
last seven decades. Less understood are presentations of their subgroups, the
main examples being the Borel subgroups in the cases where R is a field (or
more generally a semi-local ring) or a Dedekind domain of arithmetic type.
Let P(R) be a non-trivial standard parabolic subgroup of the elementary
sc (R) of a universal Chevalley–Demazure group G sc (R). In this
subgroup EΦ
Φ
work we investigate the following problem: Under which conditions can one
assure that P(R) is finitely presented? Our main result, informally stated,
is the following.
sc (R) are
Theorem A. Suppose the standard parabolic subgroups of EΦ
sc (R),
finitely generated. Then, for “most” parabolic subgroups P(R) ≤ EΦ
there exists a subgroup LE(R) ≤ P(R) such that P(R) is finitely presented
if and only if so is LE(R).

A precise statement of Theorem A will be given in Section 1.3. Before
doing that, we elucidate the origins of the subgroup LE(R) above. Applications to the arithmetic case can be found in Section 1.4.
1.1. Generalities. Our starting point is the Levi decomposition P(R) =
U(R) o L(R), where U and L denote the unipotent radical and the Levi
factor, respectively. Of course, if both U(R) and L(R) are finitely presented,
then so is P(R). It is often the case, however, that U(R) is not even finitely
generated. Since L(R) is a retract of P(R), finite presentability of the latter
implies that of the former, and also that U(R) E P(R) must be finitely
generated as a normal subgroup. Furthermore, L(R) being finitely generated
1

2

Y. SANTOS REGO

implies that R is finitely generated as a ring. With those ingredients at hand,
one might proceed to ask: What about going the other way around, that is,
are those conditions sufficient?
Suppose an arbitrary semi-direct product G = N o Q is given. Even assuming that Q admits a presentation with some “nice” property (e.g. being
finite or compact) and that N is “well-behaved” with respect to the Qaction, there is no general characterization for when the same nice property
holds for G. Even in particular cases, proving that G has a “nice” presentation might be tricky (confer, for instance, the examples given in [Bau+00]).
One then tipically varies the families of groups occurring in the short exact
sequence N ,→ G  Q to observe how (qualitative) properties of presentations of G change with respect to Q and N —a particularly successful case
being that of metabelian groups [BS80; LR04].
For the (split) short exact sequence U(R) ,→ P(R)  L(R), however,
the expectations on the Levi factor L(R) are high: If the base ring R is
“good enough”, then the action of L(R) on the unipotent radical U(R) is
fairly well-understood, and some important structural and representation
theoretical results hold (see e.g. [ABS90; Sta09]). One might then expect
some mild conditions under which a given nice presentation of L(R) can be
enlarged to a nice presentation of P(R). Intuitively, the question is whether
the Levi factor is “too far” from determining the whole parabolic P(R) and
whether this well-understood action of L(R) on the unipotent radical U(R)
is “strong enough”. We aim to make this more precise.
1.2. Detecting finite presentability of parabolics in GLn – an example. The simplest example of universal Chevalley–Demazure group scheme
is the special linear group SLn , which coincides with its elementary subgroup En if n is sufficiently large and the base ring R is e.g. Euclidean,
semi-local or polynomial (or even Laurent polynomial) over a regular ring
with vanishing special K1 group (see, for instance, [HO89]).
Now, if P(R) ≤ SLn (R) is a finitely generated parabolic, then via the
determinant map we see that P(R) is finitely presented only if so is the
corresponding parabolic subgroup P (R) in the general linear group GLn (R).
This allows one to first look at examples of parabolic subgroups of some
GLn (R) as a test case.
Recall that a (standard) parabolic subgroup P of GLn (R) is a subgroup
of generalized upper triangular matrices, that is, a subgroup of the following
form.

GLn1

 0
 .
P =
 ..
 .
 ..

∗

∗

GLn2
..
.

∗
..
.
..
.

···

∗
..
.
..
.






..
 ≤ GLn (R),
.


..
.
∗ 
0
···
0 GLnk
where ni ∈ Z≥1 for all i and n1 + . . . + nk = n. The trivial parabolic
subgroups in this case are GLn (R) itself and the Borel subgroup Bn (R) <
GLn (R), i.e. the group of upper triangular matrices, for which ni = 1 for
all i. Thus, a non-trivial parabolic subgroup P is constructed by starting

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

3

with Bn and enlarging some of the 1 × 1 blocks on the diagonal. Here, each
occurrence of a 1 × 1 block on the diagonal corresponds to a copy of the
multiplicative group of units GL1 (R) = R× of the base ring.
Let then R equal Z[t, t−1 ], the ring of integer Laurent polynomials.
Here, Suslin’s results apply [Sus77, Thm. 7.8 and Cor. 7.10] and so
SLn (R) = En (R) for n ≥ 3. Now, consider the following parabolic subgroups of GL12 (Z[t, t−1 ]).




GL1
∗
···
∗
GL5
∗
···
∗
.. 
.. 
..


.
GL5
. 
GL1
∗
. 
 0
 0
P1 =  .
 , P2 =  .
.
.
 ..
 ..
. . GL
∗ 
0
GL1
∗ 
1
0
···
0
GL5
0
···
0
GL5
Their Levi factors are,

GL1
0

GL5
 0
L1 =  .
..
 ..
.
0
···

respectively, the subgroups



···
0
GL5
0
···
0
.. 
.. 
..

.
. 
GL1
0
. 
 0
 , L2 =  .
.
 ..
GL1
0 
0
GL1
0 
0
GL5
0
···
0
GL5

So both L1 and L2 are isomorphic to the direct product GL1 (Z[t, t−1 ])2 ×
GL5 (Z[t, t−1 ])2 .
We first observe that the necessary conditions for finite presentability
of P1 and P2 are met. To begin with, the Laurent polynomials are additively generated by the set of powers {tn | n ∈ Z}. In other words,
Z[t, t−1 ] is generated, as a ring, by the singleton {t}. Since Z[t, t−1 ] is
a localization of the polynomial ring Z[t], it is a regular noetherian ring
and its stable rank is at most 3 [HO89, Thm. 4.1.11], whence the unstable K-groups K1,5 (Z[t, t−1 ]) and K2,5 (Z[t, t−1 ]) are isomorphic to the Kgroups K1 (Z[t, t−1 ]) and K2 (Z[t, t−1 ]), respectively [HO89, Section 4.2E].
By Quillen’s fundamental theorem [Qui73, Section 6, Corollary to Thm. 8],
it then follows that
K1,5 (Z[t, t−1 ]) ∼
= K1 (Z) ⊕ K0 (Z) and
K2,5 (Z[t, t−1 ]) ∼
= K2 (Z) ⊕ K1 (Z),
so the groups on the left hand side are both finitely generated (see
e.g. [Ros94, p. 75] and [Mil71, Section 10]). As a consequence, the
GL5 (Z[t, t−1 ]) blocks in the Levi factors L1 and L2 are finitely presented.
Since GL1 (Z[t, t−1 ]) = h±ti ∼
= Z o C2 , it follows that L1 and L2 are finitely
presented. The unipotent radicals are given, respectively, by




1 ∗ ··· ∗
I5 ∗ · · · ∗
.
.. 
..


. .. 
∗
.
0 I5
0 1

U1 =  . .
 , U2 =  .
,
 ..
 ..
.. 1 ∗ 
0
1 ∗
0 · · · 0 I5
0 · · · 0 I5
so they are nilpotent groups whose factors are direct sums of the underlying
additive group (Z[t, t−1 ], +). Since L1 and L2 contain the diagonal subgroup
of GL12 (Z[t, t−1 ]), it follows from the conjugation action of diagonal matrices

4

Y. SANTOS REGO

that U1 and U2 are finitely generated as normal subgroups of P1 and P2 ,
respectively.
So far, so good. Let us now look at P1 . Since U1 is nilpotent, one can
make use of its descending central series to construct a presentation for it
whose “most important” relations—besides the ones induced by the additive relations from Z[t, t−1 ]—are just the necessary commutator relations
between elementary matrices (see Section 3). However, these are necessarily
infinite in number as the additive group (Z[t, t−1 ], +) is infinitely generated.
By making use of the diagonal matrices, we shall see in Section 4 how to
reduce those commutator relations to just finitely many. Furthermore, we
will see how to push the remaining additive relations induced by Z[t, t−1 ]
from U1 to L1 so that such relations are actually consequences of analogue
relations found in L1 . It will then follow that P1 is in fact finitely presented,
as our intuition on the “strong” action of L1 on U1 might have predicted.
However, even though the Levi factors L1 and L2 are isomorphic, the
parabolic subgroup P2 is not finitely presented. In fact, a map sending the
GL5 blocks and most of the unipotent radical U2 to the identity induces a
retraction, depicted below, of P2 onto the Borel subgroup of GL2 (Z[t, t−1 ]).




GL5
∗
···
∗
I5
0
··· 0

.. 
..  


GL1
∗
. 
∗
.∼ ∗ ∗
 0
 0 GL1
 .
.
=
0 ∗
 ..
 ..
0
GL1
∗ 
0
GL1 0 
0
···
0
GL5
0 ···
0
I5
Such Borel subgroup clearly contains the matrices


t 0
0 t−1





1 1
and
,
0 1

so it cannot be finitely presented by a result of Krstić–McCool [KM97, Section 4]. Therefore P2 itself cannot be finitely presented.
This example suggests the following. Though the Levi factor alone might
fail to detect whether the whole parabolic is finitely presentable or not, one
could remedy the situation by slightly enlarging it as follows and then ask
if the resulting group encodes the desired information. Let us call regular
the GLni blocks of the Levi factor for which ni ≥ 2. For every sequence
of at least two GL1 blocks in a row, define a triangular block to be the
subgroup generated by the elementary matrices that occur right above those
GL1 blocks. In this set-up, we define the extended Levi factor of the given
parabolic to be its subgroup generated by the diagonal matrices and by both
its regular and its triangular blocks. For P1 and P2 , the respective extended
Levi factors LE1 and LE2 are depicted below.

 
0
GL1
∗
···
∗
GL1
.
.


..
.. 
GL5
GL5
 0
  0
P1 =  .
≥

 .
..
.
 ..
. . GL
.
∗   ..
1
0
···
0
···
0
GL5

···
..
.
GL1
0


0
.. 
. 
 = LE1 ,
0 
GL5

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS




P2 = 


GL5

∗

···

0
..
.

GL1

∗

0
···

GL1
0

0

5

 

0
···
0
∗
GL5
.. 
..  
. 
.   0
GL1
∗
≥ .
 = LE2 .
∗   ..
0
GL1
0 
GL5
0
···
0
GL5

We see that LE1 coincides with the Levi factor L1 because P1 contains no
triangular blocks, whereas L2 is a proper subgroup of LE2 and the latter
contains the obstructive Borel subgroup described above. In particular, LE1
is finitely presented (as well as P1 ), but LE2 , and so P2 , are not.
1.3. Main results. We extend the ideas presented in Section 1.2 to universal elementary Chevalley–Demazure groups and confirm that, in many
cases, the extended Levi factor indeed gives a characterization of finite presentability of parabolics. In this paper we closely follow Steinberg’s notation
for the Chevalley–Demazure groups [Ste16].
Here, Φ denotes a reduced, irreducible root system (see e.g. [Bou02, Chap.
6] or [Hum72, Chap. 3]). Fix a set ∆ ⊆ Φ of simple roots and an arbitrary
total order on ∆ compatible with height of roots. We then speak of standard
parabolic subgroups relative to this arbitrary, but fixed, ordered ∆. We also
do not distinguish between ∆ and the corresponding Dynkin diagram, so
topological (or combinatorial) properties of simple roots, such as adjacency,
are interpreted as properties of vertices in the Dynkin diagram.
sc (R) is the subgroup of G sc (R)
Recall that the elementary subgroup EΦ
Φ
generated by all the unipotent root subgroups Xα = h{xα (r) | α ∈ ∆, r ∈
sc (R). For SL , i.e. the case Φ = A
sc
R}i ≤ GΦ
n
n−1 , the group EAn−1 (R) =:
En (R) is just the subgroup generated by elementary matrices. Given I ⊆ ∆,
sc (R) the parabolic subgroup associated to it (see
denote by PI (R) ≤ EΦ
Section 2 for details).
sc (R) be a (standard) parabolic subgroup. If
Definition. Let PI (R) ≤ EΦ
I 6= ∅, its extended Levi factor, denoted LE I (R), is given by

LE I (R) := hLI (R), Xα : α ∈ ∆\I is not adjacent to any element of Ii.
If I = ∅, then the n = rk(Φ) extended Levi factors of P∅ (R) are given by
LE i (R) := hL∅ (R), Xαi : αi is the i-th root of ∆i.
In the notation of Section 1.2, for the case I 6= ∅ the root subgroups Xα
with α ∈ ∆\I span the triangular blocks of PI (R). The Levi factor LI (R)
is generated by both the regular blocks and the standard torus, which in
the Chevalley–Demazure setting plays the role of the subgroup of diagonal
matrices. The main result of this paper is the following.
sc (R) be a universal elementary Chevalley–
Theorem A (restated). Let EΦ
Demazure group for which its (standard) parabolic subgroups are finitely generated. If the base ring R is QG for Φ, then a standard parabolic subgroup
sc (R) is finitely presented if and only if its extended Levi factors
PI (R) ≤ EΦ
are finitely presented, except possibly in the case where I = {α} with α a
long root in the root system of type G2 .

6

Y. SANTOS REGO

The proof is given in Section 4 using generators and relators à la Steinberg, and is elementary in the sense that it heavily relies only on so-called
“elementary calculations”, i.e. commutator calculus paired with the Chevalley commutator formula for root subgroups.
sc (R) the
Theorem A still needs some explanation. Denote by B20 (R) ≤ EA
1
standard Borel subgroup in type A1 . We say that R is “quite good” for the
root system Φ—or QG for short—if B20 (R) is finitely presented or R is “not
very bad” for Φ (abbreviated NVB), that is to say
(
2 ∈ R× ,
if Φ ∈ {Bn , Cn , F4 };
×
2, 3 ∈ R , if Φ = G2 .
The NVB condition is a common assumption when dealing with elementary calculations (see, for instance, [Sta09; ABS90; Vav82; Suz77; Ste71]).
The point is that both the finite presentability of B20 (R) and the NVB
condition allow one to overcome the technicalities with structure constants
that appear in the commutators. Nevertheless, we strongly suspect that the
equivalence in Theorem A holds for arbitrary (finitely generated) commusc (R) above—with
tative rings (with 1). The exceptional case P{α} (R) ≤ EG
2
R being NVB for Φ but B20 (R) not finitely presented—is the only instance
where our computations with the chosen defining relators were inconclusive,
and the problem there can be made quite explicit; see Remark 6.3 for details. The term “most parabolics” from the previous formulation (Section
1) thus means that the possible exceptions for Theorem A are the parabolic
sc (R), with α long and B 0 (R) not finitely presented,
subgroup P{α} (R) ≤ EG
2
2
sc (R) for R not QG for Φ.
and the parabolics PI (R) ≤ EΦ
For ease of reference, we state below a special case of Theorem A as
sc (R)
a corollary. Recall that a standard parabolic subgroup PI (R) ≤ EΦ
is maximal if the only standard parabolic subgroup properly containing it
sc (R). In particular, every root in ∆ is
is the whole elementary group EΦ
adjacent to I in this case, so we get LE I (R) = LI (R) whenever PI (R) is
maximal. Now, if Φ is simply-laced, that is, if all its roots have the same
length, then every ring is QG for Φ because the NVB condition imposes
no restriction on such root systems. We thus obtain the following.
sc (R) are
Corollary B. Suppose that all (standard) parabolic subgroups of EΦ
finitely generated and that the root system Φ is simply-laced of rank at least
sc (R) is
2. Then a standard, non-trivial, maximal parabolic subgroup of EΦ
finitely presented if and only if its Levi factor is finitely presented.

As stated, the proof of Theorem A is done via elementary calculations,
so similar methods occur in many places in the literature, with different
applications in mind. For instance, there has been a great deal of work on
the structure of normal subgroups of linear groups related to elementary
subgroups (cf. [BMS67; Mat69; Abe69; AS76; Abe89; Vas86; Sta09]). Generators and relators themselves and low-dimensional K-groups have been
investigated e.g. in [Ste62; Coh66; O’M65; Sil73; Ste71; Ste78; RS76; HO89;
KM97] as well as in [Spl86], where, it seems, the computations most closely
resemble the ones we do here. More recently, similar calculations have also

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

7

been employed in the Kac–Moody setting, starting right from Tits’ presentation in [Tit87], and then e.g. in [All16b; CLR16; All16a; AC16]. It is
likely that results analogous to ours can be extended to some subgroups of
Kac–Moody groups.
1.4. Motivation and application – the arithmetic case. There has
been a long quest to understand finitely presentable S-arithmetic groups.
The theory took a serious turn when Nagao showed in [Nag59], in particular,
that SL2 (Fq [t]) is not even finitely generated. Such a phenomenon did not
seem to occur in characteristic zero, and after important developments and
examples established by many mathematicians, A. Borel and J.-P. Serre
[BS76] proved that any S-arithmetic subgroup of a reductive group over an
algebraic number field is finitely presented.
In contrast, the discoveries in the function field case pointed out to a
dependency on both the rank of the underlying reductive group and on
the number of places |S| to achieve finite presentability. A full characterization was finally given by H. Behr in [Beh98] when he established the
2-dimensional rank theorem.
Until the early 80’s, the theory was in poor shape for arbitrary algebraic
subgroups of reductive (or even semi-simple) groups. In a remarkable work,
H. Abels completely classified all finitely presentable S-arithmetic subgroups
in characteristic zero by reducing the problem to the soluble case and establishing necessary and sufficient conditions for finite presentability there
[Abe87]. He showed, in particular, that an S-arithmetic Borel subgroup is
always finitely presented.
Again, the case was different in positive characteristic [Bux97], and K.-U.
Bux later proved, in particular, that such S-arithmetic Borel subgroups are
finitely presented if and only if |S| ≥ 3 [Bux04]. The main motivation for
this work was precisely the natural follow-up question to those classification
results: What happens in between, i.e. what about S-arithmetic subgroups
of parabolic subgroups of reductive groups? We apply Theorem A to obtain
a partial classification of finite presentability in this case.
We say that a linear algebraic group H, defined over a field k, retracts
onto an almost Borel group if there exists a k-retraction r : H  Ga o T
onto a split, connected, soluble k-group Ga o T such that T is a k-split
subtorus of H of rank at least 1 acting non-trivially on Ga . We combine
our results with the well-known theorems of Borel–Serre, Abels, Behr and
Bux mentioned above to, on the one hand, recover a familiar fact in the
number field case and, on the other hand, establish finite presentability of
S-arithmetic groups in new cases.
Theorem C. Let G be a split, connected, reductive, linear algebraic group
defined over a global field K and let S 6= ∅ be a finite set of places of K
containing all the archimedean ones. Suppose |S| > 1 if K is a global function
field and let P ≤ G be an arbitrary proper parabolic subgroup (possibly a
Borel subgroup).
(i) If char(K) = 0, then the S-arithmetic subgroups of P are always
finitely presented;
(ii) Assume char(K) > 0.

8

Y. SANTOS REGO

(a) If P retracts onto an almost Borel group, then its S-arithmetic
subgroups are finitely presented if and only if |S| ≥ 3;
(b) Otherwise, and if K is NVB for the underlying root system of
G, then an S-arithmetic subgroup Γ ≤ P is finitely presented
if and only if an S-arithmetic subgroup Λ of the Levi factor
L ≤ P is finitely presented.
The proof can be found in Section 5 and is a straightforward application
of Theorem A, the theorems of Borel–Serre, Behr, Abels and Bux, and
standard arguments from the theory of arithmetic groups. It should be
stressed that Theorem C also holds for the exceptional parabolic in type G2
which was excluded from Theorem A.
As mentioned, Part (i) is not new. Though not formally stated in [Abe87],
it originally follows from [Abe87, Thms. 5.6.1 and 6.2.3] together with
Kneser’s local-global principle [Kne64] and Borel–Tits’ compactness theorem
[BT65, Prop. 9.3], or more swiftly as a special case of Tiemeyer’s results
[Tie97, Cor. 4.5], which also rely on [BT65, Prop. 9.3]. The use of Theorem
A here and Abels’ strategy, however, point out to an alternative proof of
this that would not depend on [BT65, Prop. 9.3]: Since the Borel subgroups
of SL2 are metabelian, one could mimic the arguments from [Abe87, Chp.
7] in order to apply classical Bieri–Strebel theory [BS80] directly to the
S-arithmetic subgroups of such groups and conclude that they are always
finitely presented. Pairing this with [BS76, Thm. 6.2], the claim would
follow from Theorem A.
Part (iia) contains some new cases and includes, in particular, the above
mentioned theorem of Bux on the finite presentability of S-arithmetic Borel
groups in positive characteristic. For the proof we outline two different
approaches, one of which is independent of [Bux04]; see Section 5 for details.
The stated results for non-minimal proper parabolics over function fields
were, to the best of our knowledge, unknown. They make use of Behr’s rank
theorem [Beh98]. Applying it more explicitly, we can make the characterization of the NVB case in (iib) more precise: The semi-simple part of L
sc ,
is covered by a direct product of universal Chevalley–Demazure groups GΦ
i
each of which has global rank di = |S| · rk(Φi ); putting d := mini {di }, it
follows from [Beh98] that Γ is finitely presented if and only if d ≥ 3.

1.5. Structure of the paper. In the preliminary Section 2.1 we recall the
construction of Chevalley–Demazure group schemes and some key properties. The definition of parabolic subgroups as well as some properties to be
used in the sequel are given in Section 2.2. For convenience, we summarize
in 2.3 the notation to be used throughout. Section 3 recalls retraction arguments for presentations of group extensions and introduces the extended
Levi factor. We then deal with generators and relators for the unipotent
radical and related subgroups. The main result, Theorem A, is proved in
Section 4. The following Section 5 is devoted to the case of algebraic groups
and their S-arithmetic subgroups, including the proof of Theorem C on finite presentability of S-arithmetic parabolics. We finish the paper with some
remarks and questions in Section 6.

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

9

Acknowledgments. I thank my advisor, Prof. Kai-Uwe Bux, for his patience and
guidance, and for introducing me to this topic. I am indebted to Prof. Herbert
Abels for many lively mathematical sessions. Thanks to Stefan Witzel, Dawid
Kielak and Alastair Litterick for many helpful conversations and to Paula Macedo
Lins de Araujo for her support and her help on a previous version of this paper.
This work was supported by the Deutscher Akadamischer Austauschdienst and the
Sonderforschungsbereich 701 in Bielefeld, and is part of the author’s PhD project.

2. Preliminaries
2.1. Chevalley–Demazure group schemes. Chevalley groups play a
paramount role in the theories of algebraic groups and finite simple groups
and have been intensively studied in the last six decades. Roughly speaking,
a Chevalley–Demazure group scheme is a representable functor (cf. [Wat79;
Kos66]) from the category of commutative rings to the category of groups
which is, in some sense, uniquely associated to a complex, connected, semisimple Lie group and to a certain lattice of weights of the corresponding Lie
algebra. We recall the general construction of Chevalley–Demazure group
schemes over Z along the lines of [Abe69] and [Kos66] and state below a
slightly more precise definition of such functors. The material presented
here is standard and we refer e.g. to [Che60; Ree64; Kos66; Ste16; Abe69;
Bor70; DG70] for details, so the familiar reader might prefer to skip most
of this section and refer back to Section 2.3 for notation, if needed.
Let GC be a complex, connected, semi-simple Lie group and let g its
Lie algebra with a Cartan subalgebra h ⊆ g and associated (reduced) root
system Φ ⊆ h∗ . In his seminal Tohoku paper, C. Chevalley established the
following.
Theorem ([Che55]). There exist non-zero elements Xα ∈ g, where α runs
over Φ, with the following properties:
(i) Given α, β ∈ Φ with α 6= −β, if α + β ∈ Φ, then [Xα , Xβ ] =
±(m+1)Xα+β , where m is the largest integer for which β−mα ∈ Φ;
otherwise [Xα , Xβ ] = 0;
(ii) Xα ∈ gα = {X ∈ g | ad(H)X = α(H)X ∀H ∈ h}, i.e. each vector
Xα belongs to the weight space of h under the adjoint representation;
(iii) Setting Hα = [Xα , Xα ] and (α, β) := 2 hα,βi
hβ,βi ∈ Z for α, β ∈ Φ, one
has that Hα ∈ h\{0} and [Hα , Xβ ] = (β, α)Xβ ;
(iv) {Hα }α∈Φ spans h, the set {Hα , Xα }α∈Φ is a basis for g, and there
is a decomposition g = h ⊕ (⊕α∈Φ gα ).
A basis {Hα , Xα }α∈Φ for g as above is known as a Chevalley basis and
the Z-Lie ring gZ generated by it is sometimes called a Chevalley lattice.
Using gZ alone, one may already proceed to construct the first examples
of Chevalley–Demazure groups over fields, namely those of adjoint type,
which in fact yield many infinite families of simple groups. These were
the ones introduced in [Che55], popularized as Chevalley groups (see e.g.
[Car72]). The next step to construct more general group schemes is to allow
for different representations of g.

10

Y. SANTOS REGO

Let Psc = {χ ∈ h | χ(H) ∈ Z ∀H ∈ h} be the lattice of weights of h
and let Pad = spanZ (Φ) ⊆ Psc be the root lattice. If ρ : g → gl(V ) is
a faithful representation of g, then Pad ⊆ Pρ ⊆ Psc , where Pρ = {χ ∈
h∗ | Vχ 6= {0}} denotes the lattice of weights of the representation ρ (recall
that Vχ = {X ∈ V | χ(H)X = ρ(H)X ∀H ∈ h}). Conversely, given P ⊆ h∗
with Pad ⊆ P ⊆ Psc , there exists a faithful representation ρ : g → gl(V )
such that Pρ = P (see, for instance, [Ree64; Bor70; Jac79]).
Fix a lattice P := Pρ as above. From Kostant’s construction [Kos66,
Thm. 1 and Cor. 1], one can define a Z-lattice Bρ of the universal enveloping
algebra U (g) and a certain family F of ideals of Bρ [Kos66, Section 1.3 and
p. 98] such that
Z[GC , P ] := {f ∈ Hom(Bρ , Z) | f vanishes on some I ∈ F }
is a Hopf algebra over Z and the following hold:
(i) Z[GC , P ] is a finitely generated integral domain;
(ii) The coordinate ring C[GC ] is isomorphic to the Hopf algebra
Z[GC , P ] ⊗Z C.
P := Hom (Z[G , P ], −) from
In particular, we get a representable functor GΦ
Z
C
the category of commutative rings with 1 to the category of groups. Since the
Lie group GC and the representation ρ are determined, up to isomorphism,
P in fact
by the root system Φ and the lattice P , respectively, we see that GΦ
depends only on Φ and P up to isomorphism. Moreover, by property (ii)
P (C) as the group of C-points of G P . The functor
above we recover GC ∼
= GΦ
Φ
P also inherits some properties of G , namely, it is semi-simple (in the
GΦ
C
sense of [DG70]) and contains a maximal torus of rank rk(Φ) defined over
P
Z. Demazure’s theorem [DG70, Exposé XXIII, Cor. 5.4] ensures that GΦ
is unique up to isomorphism. A detailed proof of existence is also given in
[DG70, Exposé XXV]. (See also Lusztig’s more recent approach to Kostant’s
construction [Lus09].) We summarize the discussion with the following.
Definition/Theorem ([Che60; Ree64; DG70; Kos66]). Given a reduced
root system Φ and a lattice P with Pad ⊆ P ⊆ Psc , the Chevalley–Demazure
group scheme of type (Φ, P ) is the split, semi-simple, affine group scheme
P defined over Z such that, for any field k, the split, semi-simple, linear
GΦ
P ⊗ k.
algebraic group of type Φ and defined over k is isomorphic to GΦ
Z
P (R) of some
A Chevalley–Demazure group is the group of R-points GΦ
P
Chevalley–Demazure group scheme GΦ for some (commutative) ring R (with
unity). Of course, the two extreme cases of P deserve special names. If
P =: G ad is said to be of adjoint type. If
P = Pad , the root lattice, then GΦ
Φ
P is of simply connected type.
P = Psc , the full lattice of weights of g, then GΦ
Psc
If, moreover, Φ is irreducible, then GΦ
is called universal, and we write
P
sc
P (R) are often reduced to
sc
GΦ := GΦ . Since presentability problems for GΦ
sc .
the universal case, we shall be primarily concerned with GΦ
P
The group scheme GΦ has the following properties. Let y be an independent variable. For each α ∈ Φ we get a monomorphism of the additive
P . Fix a
group scheme Ga = Hom(Z[y], −) into HomZ (Z[GC , P ], −) = GΦ
∼
ring R. Given an element r ∈ (R, +) = Ga (R), we denote its image under
P (R). The unipotent root subgroup associated
the map above by xα (r) ∈ GΦ

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

11

P (R), which is isomorphic to
to α is defined as Xα := hxα (r) | r ∈ Ri ≤ GΦ
P can be chosen so that
Ga (R) = (R, +). Furthermore, the map Ga ,→ GΦ




1 r
1 0
∈ SL2 (R) 7→ xα (r) and
∈ SL2 (R) 7→ x−α (r),
0 1
r 1

so we obtain an isomorphism from the subgroup either of SL2 (R) or of
P (R), the
PGL2 (R) generated by elementary matrices to hXα , X−α i ≤ GΦ
P
sc
former being the case if GΦ = GΦ . We then define the elementary subgroup
P of G P to be its subgroup generated by all unipotent root elements, that
EΦ
Φ
P = hX
P
is EΦ
α : α ∈ Φi ≤ GΦ (R). In the Chevalley–Demazure setting, it
is the analogous of the subgroup of elementary transvections of SLn . The
P (R) and G P (R) need not coincide in general, but they are known
groups EΦ
Φ
to be equal in some important cases—perhaps most prominently in the case
P is universal and R is a field.
where GΦ
P also induce, for each α ∈ Φ, an
The maps from Ga into the Xα ≤ GΦ
embedding of the multiplicative group


∗ 0
P
∼
Gm =
,→ GΦ
.
0 ∗−1
For u ∈ R× we denote by hα (u) the image of the matrix


u 0
∈ SL2 (R)
0 u−1
P (R) a semiunder the map above. We call Hα := h{hα (u) | u ∈ R× }i ≤ GΦ
P
simple root subgroup, and it is clearly a subtorus of GΦ (R). The key feature
of a universal group is that H := hHα | α ∈ Φi is a maximal split torus of
sc (R).
GΦ
Two root subgroups Xα , Xβ with α 6= −β are related by the Chevalley
commutator formula. If xα (r) ∈ Xα and xβ (s) ∈ Xβ , then
 Y
α,β

xmα+nβ (rm sn )Cm,n if α + β ∈ Φ;


m,n>0
(1)
[xα (r), xβ (s)] =
mα+nβ∈Φ



1
otherwise,
α,β
where the powers Cm,n
, called structure constants, always belong to
{0, ±1, ±2, ±3} and do not depend on r nor on s, but rather on α, β and on
the chosen total order on the set of simple roots ∆ ⊂ Φ.
Steinberg derives in [Ste16, Chapter 3] a series of consequences of the
commutator formulae, known as Steinberg relations. Among these, we highlight the ones that relate the subtori Hβ to the root subgroups Xα . Given
hβ (u) ∈ Hβ and xα (r) ∈ Xα , the following conjugation relation holds.

(2)

hβ (u)xα (r)hβ (u)−1 = xα (u(α,β) r),

where (α, β) ∈ {0, ±1, ±2, ±3} is the corresponding Cartan integer from
Chevalley’s Theorem.
Let W be the Weyl group associated to Φ. The conjugation relations
above behave well with respect to both the action of W on the roots and
the conjugation action of (the “canonical” image of) W on semi-simple and

12

Y. SANTOS REGO

unipotent root elements. More precisely, let α be a root and rα ∈ W be the
P (R) given by
associated reflection, and consider the element wα ∈ EΦ


0 1
−1
wα := xα (1)x−α (1) xα (1) = image of the matrix
∈ SL2 (R)
−1 0
under the map E2 (R) → hXα , X−α i above. Then, given arbitrary roots
β, γ ∈ Φ, one has
(3)

hrα (γ) (v)xrα (β) (s)hrα (γ) (v)−1 = wα (hγ (v)xβ (s)±1 hγ (v)−1 )wα−1
= xrα (β) (v (β,γ) s)±1 ,

where the sign ±1 above does not depend on v ∈ R× nor on s ∈ R.
2.2. Parabolic subgroups. In the structure theory of Chevalley–
Demazure and algebraic groups, their parabolic subgroups play an important role [Tit74; DG70; MT11]. They allow for different characterizations
depending on the base ring [Suz77; Vav82; Bor91]. When defined over fields,
sc is called parabolic whenever the variety G sc /P is coma subgroup P ≤ GΦ
Φ
plete. In the theory of buildings, standard parabolic subgroups arise as
stabilizers of panels of a fixed fundamental chamber and are intimately related to parabolic subgroups of the corresponding Weyl group. Equivalent
to those definitions over fields, P is said to be parabolic if it contains a Borel
sc .
subgroup, which is a maximal, connected, soluble algebraic subgroup of GΦ
They always contain a maximal split torus. In this work, we consider those
“classical” parabolics, most easily described via sets of simple roots.
Definition 2.1. A standard parabolic subgroup P(R) = PI (R) of a universc (R) is a group of the form
sal elementary Chevalley–Demazure group EΦ
PI (R) = hH, Xδ : δ ∈ Φ+ ∪ ΦI i
sc (R) =
for some subset of simple roots I ⊆ ∆. The parabolic groups EΦ
P∆ (R) and BΦ (R) = P∅ (R) are called trivial, the latter also being known
sc (R).
as a standard Borel subgroup of EΦ

It is well-known that PI (R) admits a Levi decomposition [DG70, Exp.
XXVI, Prop. 1.6], that is, it splits as a semi-direct product PI (R) = UI (R)o
LI (R) with
UI (R) = hXγ : γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦI i,
LI (R) = hH, Xα : α ∈ ΦI i.
The normal subgroup UI (R) is called the unipotent radical of PI (R)—it is
always nilpotent and admits a filtration via levels of roots with respect to the
defining subset I ⊆ ∆ (see, for instance, [MT11] for the case of algebraically
closed fields or [DG70, Exp. XXVI, Sec. 2] for the general case). The group
LI (R) is called the Levi factor of PI (R). When defined over a field, LI is a
reductive algebraic group and its derived subgroup will be simply-connected
sc is universal. A good example to keep in mind is that of the
because GΦ
parabolic subgroups in type An .
Example 2.2. Suppose R is a field and rk(Φ) = n − 1 ≥ 2. Then
sc
EA
(R) = SLn (R) with a set of simple roots given by ∆ = {α1 , . . . , αn−1 }
n−1
for αi = ei − ei+1 , 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, where {ej }nj=1 ⊆ Rn is the canonical basis.

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

13

If i 6= j, we denote by Eij (r) the matrix of SLn (R) whose only non-zero
entry is r ∈ R in the position ij. The corresponding elementary matrix is
defined as eij (r) := In + Eij (r). Commutators between elementary matrices
have the following properties that are easily checked:
[eij (r), ekl (s)−1 ] = [eij (r), ekl (s)]−1 and
(
eil (rs) if k = l;
[eij (r), ekl (s)] =
1
if i =
6 l, k 6= j.
Via the usual identification ei,i+1 (r) ←→ xαi (r) of elementary matrices with
unipotent root elements and making use of the above, we iteratively recover
all unipotent root subgroups as well as the commutator formulae (1) in type
An−1 . For instance, we can see that xαi +αi+1 (r) = [ei,i+1 (r), ei+1,i+2 (1)], and
the commutator formulae assume the simpler form
(
xα+β (rs) if α + β ∈ Φ;
[xα (r), xβ (s)] =
1
otherwise.
We thus obtain that the standard parabolic subgroups of SLn (R) are of the
form


L1 ∗
∗ ··· ∗
. 

 0 L2 ∗ · · · .. 
PI (R) =  .
 ≤ SLn (R),
..
 ..
.
∗
0 ··· 0
Lk
i.e. PI (R) is a subgroup of “block upper triangular matrices”. The letters Li
together represent possible matrix entries (not necessarily subgroups!) that
will constitute the “generalized block diagonal” of the given parabolic subgroup, and the Levi factor LI (R) is the subgroup generated by the diagonal
matrices of SLn (R) and the Li blocks. The condition I ( ∆ would imply
that the number of blocks, k, is at least 2. If I = ∅, all the blocks have
size 1 and so P∅ (R) is the group of upper triangular matrices of SLn (R). If
I 6= ∅, then at least one block Li is a square of size ≥ 2, so it consists of
invertible square matrices with determinant 1. In other words, it is isomorphic to some SLni with ni < n.
For instance, suppose n = 6 and I = {α1 , α3 }. Then PI (R) = P{α1 ,α3 } (R) ≤
SL6 (R) is given by

∗
∗

0
P{α1 ,α3 } (R) = 
0

0
0

∗
∗
0
0
0
0

∗
∗
∗
∗
0
0

∗
∗
∗
∗
0
0

∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
0


∗
∗

∗
.
∗

∗
∗

14

Y. SANTOS REGO

Its unipotent radical and

1 0 ∗
0 1 ∗

0 0 1
U{α1 ,α3 } (R) = 
0 0 0

0 0 0
0 0 0

Levi factor are given, respectively,


∗ ∗ ∗
∗ ∗
∗ ∗
∗ ∗ ∗



0 ∗ ∗
 , L{α ,α } (R) = 0 0
1 3

0 0
1 ∗ ∗


0 0
0 1 ∗
0 0
0 0 1

We observe that the Levi
subgroups of SL6 (R).

∗ ∗ 0 0
∗ ∗ 0 0

0 0 1 0
L1 = 
0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0

0 0 ∗ ∗
L3 = 
0 0 ∗ ∗

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

by
0
0
∗
∗
0
0

0
0
∗
∗
0
0

0
0
0
0
∗
0


0
0

0
.
0

0
∗

factor L{α1 ,α3 } (R) is generated by the following
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0



1
0
0
0



0
 , H2 = 0

0
0

0
0
1
0


0
1
0
0



0
 , H4,5 = 0

0
0


0
0
1
0

0 0
 0
0 −1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
∗
0
0

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
∗
0


0
0

0
,
0

0
1

0
0

0
.
0

0
∗

In this case (recall that R is a field!), we have the following identifications
using the notation from Section 2.1.
L1 = hXα , X−α i ∼
= SL2 (R), H2 = Hα ∼
= Gm (R)
1

1

2

L3 = hXα3 , X−α3 i ∼
= SL2 (R), H4,5 = hHα4 , Hα5 i ∼
= Gm (R)2
and
U{α1 ,α3 } (R) = hXα2 , Xα4 , Xα5 , Xα1 +α2 , Xα2 +α3 , Xα3 +α4 , Xα4 +α5 ,
Xα1 +α2 +α3 , Xα2 +α3 +α4 , Xα3 +α4 +α5 ,
Xα1 +α2 +α3 +α4 , Xα2 +α3 +α4 +α5 ,
Xα1 +α2 +α3 +α4 +α5 i.
The decomposition for the Levi factor L{α1 ,α3 } (R) from the example above
holds, of course, in a more general context. Recall that the root system Φ has
an arbitrary, but fixed, choice of (totally ordered) simple roots ∆. Given
a subset X ⊆ Φ, we let ΦX ⊆ Φ denote the subsystem generated by X.
Viewing ∆ as the set of vertices of its Dynkin diagram D∆ , if I is a subset
of simple roots, we write Adj(I) for the set of simple roots not in I that are
adjacent to some (not necessarily the same) element of I. In symbols,
Adj(I) := {δ ∈ ∆\I | ∃α ∈ I for which there is an edge in D∆
connecting δ and α}.
Now, let ∅ 6= I ( ∆. This subset I of simple roots generates a subdiagram
I in the Dynkin diagram D∆ . Denote by I1 , . . . , Ik the (pairwise disjoint)

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

15

subsets of I that span the connected components of I in D∆ . We observe
that
ΦI = ΦI1 ∪· ΦI2 ∪· · · · ∪· ΦIk .
It then follows from Chevalley’s formula (1) and Steinberg’s relations (2)
sc (R) is in fact an extension of a
that the Levi factor LI (R) ≤ PI (R) ≤ EΦ
direct product of elementary Chevalley–Demazure groups, of rank smaller
than rk(Φ), by a torus. Namely,


k
Y
sc
sc
LI (R) = EΦ
(R) o hHα : α ∈ ∆\Ii = 
EΦ
(R) o hHα : α ∈ ∆\Ii.
I
I
j

j=1

If I = ∅, then LI (R) coincides with the standard torus H = hHα : α ∈ ∆i.
2.3. Terminology. For convenience, we collect below the notation to be
used throughout the remainder of this paper.
If X is a subset of a group G, we denote by hXi the subgroup of G
generated by X. Similarly, given a set X and a set R of (reduced) words on
the alphabet over X, we denote by hX | Ri the group with generating set X
and defining relators R. That is, hX | Ri ∼
= FX /hhRii, where FX is the free
group with basis X and hhRii is the normal closure of R ⊆ FX . Standard
results on group presentations, in particular von Dyck’s theorems, will be
used freely without further references (see e.g. [Coh89; Joh97]).
• R always denotes a commutative ring with 1;
• Ga and Gm denote, respectively, the additive and the multiplicative
affine group schemes over Z (see e.g. [Wat79]). So, given a ring R,
we have Ga (R) = (R, +) and Gm (R) = (R× , ·);
• The inner product of a Euclidean space is denoted by h·, ·i;
• Φ is a reduced, irreducible root system with an arbitrary, but fixed,
choice of subset ∆ ⊆ Φ of simple roots with a total order compatible
with heights of roots (see e.g. [MT11, p. 13.11]) that extends to
the whole Φ;
• Using the order above, given a subset X ⊆ Φ we write X + (respectively, X − ) for the subset of positive (respectively, negative) roots
of X;
• If X ⊆ Φ, then ΦX ⊆ Φ denotes the root subsystem of Φ generated
by X, i.e. ΦX = spanZ (X) ∩ Φ ⊆ Rrk(Φ) ;
• Given two roots α, β ∈ Φ ⊂ Rrk(Φ) , the Cartan integer (α, β) is
given by (α, β) = 2 hα,βi
hβ,βi ;
sc
• GΦ denotes the universal Chevalley–Demazure group scheme over
sc ;
Z with elementary subgroup EΦ
sc (R) is the
• For α ∈ Φ, the unipotent root subgroup Xα ≤ EΦ
sc
subgroup of GΦ (R) generated by the unipotent root elements
sc (R) = hX
xα (r), r ∈ R, so EΦ
α : α ∈ Φi;
sc (R) is the subgroup of
• The semi-simple root subgroup Hα ≤ EΦ
sc
GΦ (R) generated by the semi-simple root elements hα (u), u ∈ R× .
sc (R), which
They define the standard torus H = hHα | α ∈ Φi in EΦ
has maximal rank;
• I always denotes denotes a subset of the simple roots ∆;

16

Y. SANTOS REGO

• Viewing I ⊆ ∆ as a vertex subset of the Dynkin diagram of Φ, we let
Adj(I) ⊆ ∆\I be the set of simple roots α ∈
/ I which are adjacent to
some (not necessarily the same) element of I. We define further the
non-adjacent roots as the complement NAdj(I) = ∆\(I ∪ Adj(I))
and the extension of I to be Ext(I) := ∆\ Adj(I) = I ∪ NAdj(I);
sc is the corresponding standard parabolic subgroup of E sc
• PI ≤ EΦ
Φ
sc of rank rk(Φ);
(Def. 2.1). It always contains the torus H ≤ EΦ
• PI = UI oLI is the Levi decomposition of PI , i.e. UI is its unipotent
radical and LI denotes its Levi subgroup;
• The minimal parabolic P∅ (R) is also denoted by BΦ (R), called the
sc (R). The standard Borel subgroup
standard Borel subgroup of EΦ
0
in type A1 is denoted by B2 (R) := BA1 (R) = P∅ (R) ≤ SL2 (R).
3. Retracts and the extended Levi factor
An object Y in a category C is called a retract of X ∈ Obj(C) if there exists
a morphism r ∈ HomC (X, Y ) which admits a morphism ι ∈ HomC (Y, X) as
a section. For pointed, path-connected, topological spaces, the existence of
a retraction r : X → Y implies, intuitively, that the fundamental group
of Y cannot be “worse” than the fundamental group of X. For categories
of algebraic objects such as R-modules or groups, retractions correspond
precisely to split short exact sequences. So for groups, a retraction r : G →
Q is just another name for the semi-direct product G ∼
= N o Q, where
N = ker(r) and Q acts on N via conjugation.
H. Åberg observed in the 80’s that a retract Q of a group G inherits
certain homological properties of G. For generators and relations, a similar
inheritance has been long known: the image of a finitely generated group is
obviously finitely generated, and if G is finitely presented, then so is Q by
the following result due to J. Stallings.
Lemma 3.1 ([Wal65, Lemma 1.3]). If Q is a retract of a finitely presented
group, then Q is finitely presented.
So the existence of “nice” (e.g. finite or compact) generating sets or
presentations of Q is a necessary condition to obtain “nice” generating sets
or presentations of G. In particular, Lemma 3.1 implies that the Levi factor
LI (R) is always finitely presented whenever the whole parabolic PI (R) is
so, and we obtain from the description of LI (R) given at the end of Section
2.2 that, in our set-up, the torus H (and whence Gm (R) = R× ) is finitely
generated.
Going the other direction, however, is in general a delicate problem. For
the parabolic PI (R) = UI (R) o LI (R), the example in Section 1.2 shows
that LI (R) might fail to detect qualitative properties of PI (R) such as finite
or compact presentability. To remedy the situation, we instead consider a
slightly larger retract of PI (R).
Recall that Adj(I) ⊆ ∆\I is the set of simple roots α ∈
/ I adjacent to
some (not necessarily the same) element of I. The non-adjacent roots are
the complement
NAdj(I) = ∆\(I ∪ Adj(I)) = {α ∈ ∆\I | α is adjacent to no element of I},

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

17

and the extension of the given set I is defined as Ext(I) = ∆\ Adj(I) =
I ∪ NAdj(I).
Definition 3.2. An extended Levi factor, denoted LE n (R) or LE I (R), is a
sc (R) which is generated by the
subgroup of a standard parabolic PI (R) ≤ EΦ
standard torus H and either by a single root subgroup Xα with α ∈ ∆, in
case I is empty, or by the root subgroups Xα for α ∈ ΦI together with the
non-adjacent positive root subgroups Xβ with β ∈ Φ+
NAdj(I) , if I 6= ∅. In
symbols,
(
LE n (R) := hH, Xαn : αn is the n-th root of ∆i, if I = ∅;
LE I (R) := hH, Xα , Xβ : α ∈ ΦI , β ∈ Φ+
otherwise.
NAdj(I) i
We reserve the notation LE I (R) for the case I 6= ∅. Of course, by the very
definition there is a unique extended Levi factor when I 6= ∅ and there exist
rk(Φ) extended Levi factors if I = ∅. Since LI (R) = hH, Xα : α ∈ ΦI i
and L∅ (R) = H, one has LE I (R) ⊇ LI (R) and LE n (R) ) L∅ (R), and
we see that the definition given above coincides with the one given in the
introduction. Furthermore, we get the following split short exact sequences.
Xαn ,→ LE n (R)  L∅ (R) = H ∼
= LE n (R)/Xαn
and
+
∼
hXβ : β ∈ Φ+
NAdj(I) i ,→ LE I (R)  LI (R) = LE I (R)/hXβ : β ∈ ΦNAdj(I) i.

By Lemma 3.1, if an extended Levi factor is finitely presented, then so is
the Levi factor itself.
In the language of Sections 1.2 and 1.3, for the case I 6= ∅, the root subgroups Xβ with β ∈ NAdj(I) are the generators of the triangular blocks of
PI (R), whereas LI (R) is generated by both the regular blocks —generated
by the Xα with α ∈ ΦI —and the torus H.
Example 3.3. We describe the extended Levi
group

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

0 0 ∗ ∗ ∗
P{α1 ,α3 } (R) = 
0 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 0 0 0 ∗
0 0 0 0 0

factor for the parabolic sub
∗
∗

∗
 ≤ SL6 (R)
∗

∗
∗

from Example 2.2 (R a field). As observed before, we have two subgroups
which are generated by root subgroups with roots from Φ{α1 ,α3 } , namely
L1 = hXα1 , X−α1 i and L3 = hXα3 , X−α3 i. Those are precisely the regular
blocks from P{α1 ,α3 } (R). Now, the only simple root which is not adjacent
to I = {α1 , α3 } is the last one, α5 . So NAdj(I) is the singleton {α5 } and one
has ΦNAdj(I) = {±α5 } and Φ+
NAdj(I) = {α5 }, whence the triangular block

18

of P{α1 ,α3 } (R) is

∗
∗

0
L1 = 
0

0
0

1 0
0 1

0 0
Xα5 = 
0 0

0 0
0 0

Y. SANTOS REGO

just the root subgroup Xα5 . Pictorially,


∗ 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0


∗ 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0
 , L 3 = 0 0 ∗ ∗ 0

0 0 ∗ ∗ 0
0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0
∗ ∗
∗ ∗
0 0 0 0



1 0 0 0
 , so LE {α ,α } (R) = 0 0
1 3

0 0
0 1 0 0

0 0
0 0 1 ∗
0 0
0 0 0 1


0
0

0
 and
0

0
1
0
0
∗
∗
0
0

0
0
∗
∗
0
0

0
0
0
0
∗
0


0
0

0

0

∗
∗

because, besides containing the regular and triangular blocks, an extended
Levi factor also contains the torus—which in this case corresponds to the
subgroup of diagonal matrices of SL6 (R).
Of course, we still have to show that LE I (R) fits our framework of retracts
with respect to PI (R).
Proposition 3.4. Suppose I 6= ∅. There is a retract r : PI (R) 
LE I (R) with kernel KI (R) = hXγ : γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) i. If I = ∅, then
one has a retract r : P∅ (R) = BΦ (R)  LE n (R) with kernel Kn (R) =
hXγ : γ ∈ Φ+ \{αn }i.
Proof. Assume first that I = ∅. By Chevalley’s commutator formula (1)
and Steinberg’s relations (2), we see that Kn (R) E BΦ (R) and LE n (R) =
Xαn o H ∼
= BΦ (R)/Kn (R). Suppose I 6= ∅. Again from (1) and (2)
it follows that KI (R) E PI (R). Since Ext(I) is the disoint union of I
and NAdj(I), we have that the unipotent root subgroups of LE I (R) do not
involve any Xγ ≤ KI (R) and are furthermore partitioned into blocks which
pairwise have only non-adjacent roots between them. Hence, LE I (R) is
a complement of KI (R) in PI (R) with trivial intersection, so the natural
projection PI (R)  PI (R)/KI (R) yields the desired retraction.

It follows from Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 3.4 that the finite presentability of LE I (R) (or of all the LE n (R)) is a necessary condition for the finite
presentability of the whole parabolic PI (R). Proposition 3.4 also implies
that we can make use of the usual presentation of a semi-direct product to
build a presentation for PI out of presentations of LE I and KI . For the
Borel subgroup BΦ (R), i.e. the case I = ∅, we will instead make use of
a presentation for its unipotent radical U∅ (R) = hXγ : γ ∈ Φ+ i. We shall
therefore need convenient presentations for U∅ (R) and KI (R) for the proof
of Theorem A, which we describe in the sequel.
Recall that the unipotent radical UI (R)—for arbitrary I—admits a wellknown presentation obtained as follows. The unipotent root elements xγ (r),
with γ running over Φ+ \ΦI and r ∈ R, form the generating set; the defining relators are given by the Chevalley commutator formulae (1) and the

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

19

additive condition xγ (r) · xγ (s) = xγ (r + s) for all γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦI , r, s ∈ R. For
a geometric proof of this in the context of RGD systems one might proceed
as in [AB08, Chapter 8.10]. A more straightforward proof can be obtained
by mimicking the arguments in [ABS90, Thm 2.a, see also closing remark 1]
to describe a central series for UI (R) as a nilpotent group (see also [MT11,
Prop. 17.3]).
Such presentation usually involves many more generators then needed (in
fact, copies of the whole base ring R) and many relations. The additive
structure of R is encoded in the unipotent root subgroups, and its multiplicative structure shows up in the commutators. Picking a generating set
for Ga (R) = (R, +), one can rewrite such a presentation by replacing the
additive conditions by (copies of) defining relators of Ga (R) and then keeping only commutator formulae that involve the chosen generators of Ga (R).
The drawback is that the commutators might become quite messy. These
methods are explicitly illustrated, for instance, in [BD01] for the unipotent
radical of Borel subgroups in type An , though in that work in a very economical way. Since we are considering qualitative rather than quantitative
properties, we make no attempt to decrease the numbers of generators and
relators used.
Lemma 3.5. Let T ⊆ R be a generating set for the underlying additive
group Ga (R) of the ring R. For every pair ti , sj with t, s ∈ T and i, j ∈ Z,
fix an additive expression m(ti , sj ) in terms of T for the product ti sj , that
is, m(ti , sj ) is of the form
X
m(ti , sj ) =
au u(ti , sj ), with u = u(ti , sj ) ∈ T and au ∈ Z,
where all but finitely many au ’s are 0, and (the image of ) m(ti , sj ) in R
equals ti sj .
The unipotent radical UI (R) admits a presentation with generating set
Y = {xγ (t) | t ∈ T, γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦI }
and a set of defining relators S given as follows. For all γ, η ∈ Φ+ \ΦI ,
(4)

!
Y
Y

γ,η

m n au ·Cm,n

xmγ+nη (u(t , s ))
, if γ + η ∈ Φ;
[xγ (t), xη (s)] = mγ+nη∈Φ+ u


1 otherwise,
where u = u(tm , sn ) is as above, and
(5)

n
Y
i=1

xγ (tλi )ai = 1 whenever

n
X

ai tλi = 0 in R, where ai ∈ Z, tλi ∈ T.

i=1

This gives us, in particular, a presentation for the unipotent radical U∅ (R)
sc (R). Our next remark is that K (R)
of the Borel subgroup BΦ (R) ≤ EΦ
I
admits a presentation very similar to that of UI (R) described above. The
proof is analogous to that of the previous lemma and we include it here for
the sake of completeness. The reader unfamiliar with the proof of Lemma
3.5 might just adapt the proof of the lemma below to the set-up of 3.5.

20

Y. SANTOS REGO

Lemma 3.6. Let T ⊆ R and let the expressions m(ti , sj ) be as in Lemma
3.5 and suppose I 6= ∅. Then the kernel KI (R) of the retraction r : PI (R) 
LE I (R) of Proposition 3.4 admits a presentation with generating set
Y = {xγ (t) | t ∈ T, γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) }
and a set of defining relators S given by the same formulae (4) and (5) of
Lemma 3.5, but now for all γ, η ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) .
Proof. Given a positive root α ∈ Φ+ , we can write (uniquely)
X
X
qγ γ, with pδ , qγ ∈ Z≥0 .
pδ δ +
α=
γ∈Adj(I)

δ∈Ext(I)

We definePthe adjacency level of α, denoted alvl(α), to be the integer
alvl(α) = γ∈Adj(I) qγ from the equation above. Let
Kj = hXγ : γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) has alvl(γ) ≥ ji.
By the commutator formuale (1), we see that each Kj is normal in KI (R)
and each factor Kj /Kj+1 is canonically isomorphic to
Y
Y
Xγ ∼
Ga (R).
=
γ∈Φ+ \ΦExt(I)

γ∈Φ+ \ΦExt(I)

alvl(γ)=j

alvl(γ)=j

Hence, the subgroups Kj give a terminating central series for KI (R) (though
it may not coincide with the lower central series).
e I (R) be the group defined by the presentation stated in the
Now let K
lemma, with the decoration e above the elements of the generating set (e.g.
x
eγ (t) instead of xγ (t)). Define analogously
e j = h{e
K
xγ (t) | t ∈ T and γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) of alvl(γ) ≥ j}i.
By von Dyck’s theorem, the obvious map
f : Y −→ KI (R)
x
eγ (t) 7→ xγ (t)
e I (R)  KI (R)—which we also call f by abuse of
induces a surjection K
notation—because the defining relations (4) and (5) hold in KI (R) and
each Xγ ∼
= Ga (R) is generated by the {xγ (t) | t ∈ T }. By (4) we also
ej E K
e I (R) for every j, and f restricts to surjections K
e j  Kj .
see that K
e j /K
e j+1 is isomorphic to
Furthermore, (4) and (5) imply that each factor K
Y
Y
eγ ∼
X
Ga (R),
=
γ∈Φ+ \ΦExt(I)

γ∈Φ+ \ΦExt(I)

alvl(γ)=j

alvl(γ)=j

fγ are defined in the obvious way. Such maps are all induced by
where the X
e I (R) and KI (R) are nilpotent groups with isomorphic (terminating)
f . So K
central series via isomorphisms induced by the same surjection. It then
follows by induction on the nilpotency class that f is an isomorphism. 

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

21

4. Proof of the main result
The standing assumption of Theorem A—and thus of this whole section—
is that the standard parabolic subgroups of the universal elementary
sc (R) are finitely generated. We fix once and for
Chevalley–Demazure EΦ
all an arbitrary total order on the set of simple roots ∆ ⊂ Φ which extends
to a total order on Φ.
As seen in Section 3, finite presentability of PI (R) implies that of LE I (R)
(or of all the LE n (R) in case I = ∅) by Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 3.4. It
therefore remains to prove the converse to Theorem A, stated below.
sc (R) be a standard parabolic subgroup and
Theorem 4.1. Let PI (R) ≤ EΦ
let R be QG for Φ. Assume I 6= {α}, α long, in case Φ = G2 . If I 6= ∅,
suppose the (unique) extended Levi factor LE I (R) is finitely presented. In
case I = ∅, we assume each extended Levi factor LE n (R) to admit a finite
presentation. Then PI (R) is finitely presented.

The strategy to prove Theorem 4.1 is as follows. We first discuss the
structure of the base ring R under our standing assumptions. Now, recall
that a semi-direct product G = N oϕ Q, with N = hY | Si, Q = hX | Ri
ϕ
and ϕ the homomorphism Q −
→ Aut(N ) determining the action, admits the
following presentation.
(*)

G = hX ∪ Y | S ∪ R ∪ {xyx−1 ϕ(y) | x ∈ X, y ∈ Y }i.

We then consider the two cases, I = ∅ and I 6= ∅. In the former, PI (R) =
P∅ (R) = BΦ (R) = U∅ (R) o H. Since H is a finitely generated abelian
group, we can take a finite presentation for H with finitely many semisimple root elements as generators. Combining this with the presentation for
U∅ (R) from Lemma 3.5 and Steinberg’s relations (2), we get a “canonical”
(in general infinite) presentation for BΦ (R) as in (*). On the other hand,
using the fact that the extended Levi factors LE n (R) are finitely presented,
we obtain finite presentations for each subgroup Xγ o H ≤ BΦ (R), γ ∈
Φ+ . Starting from those presentations, we appropriately add unipotent
root elements and Chevalley and Steinberg relations to construct a finitely
presented group BeΦ (R). Finally, we apply von Dyck’s theorem twice to show
that BeΦ (R) is isomorphic to BΦ (R).
For I 6= ∅, we start by taking a finite presentation for the extended Levi
factor LE I (R), with generating set given by appropriately chosen unipotent
and semi-simple root elements. The “canonical” presentation for PI (R) is
now given by the chosen presentation for LE I (R) together with the presentation of KI (R) from Lemma 3.6 and, of course, Chevalley and Steinberg
relations. Then, we break down the proof in two further cases given by the
QG condition: If B20 (R) is finitely presented, we get finite presentations for
each Xγ o H, γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) , and then proceed similarly to the previous
case of BΦ (R); If R is NVB for Φ, we construct a finitely presented group
eI (R) from LE I (R) adding just the obvious generators from KI (R) as a norP
mal subgroup of PI (R) and the necessary Chevalley and Steinberg relations,
eI (R) ∼
then proceed to show via commutator computations that P
= PI (R).
We aim to state the intermediate results distinguishing as little as possible the different types of root systems, which means we shall often write

22

Y. SANTOS REGO

commutator formulae in their full generality. We therefore warn the reader
to be armed with patience to face the lengthy notation battle ahead.
Let us begin with the following elementary results on root systems and
root subgroups that will be needed in the sequel.
Lemma 4.2 ([Hum72, 10.2 A]). Given a positive, non-simple root γ ∈
Φ+ \∆, there exist a simple root α ∈ ∆ and a positive root β ∈ Φ+ such that
α + β = γ.
Lemma 4.3. If ∅ 6= I ( ∆ and α ∈ Adj(I), then there exist α
e ∈ ΦI and
+
e
e
β ∈ Φ such that α
e + β = α.
Proof. Take δ ∈ I adjacent to α. Then βe := δ + α ∈ Φ+ and the claim
follows for α
e := −δ.

sc (R) be distinct root subgroups with β 6= −α.
Lemma 4.4. Let Xα , Xβ ≤ GΦ
There exist a one-dimensional subtorus Hα,β (R) ≤ H, say given by h :
∼
=

Gm (R) −
→ Hα,β , u ∈ R× 7→ h(u), and an integer n = n(α, β) 6= 0 such that
Hα,β (R) centralizes Xα and h(u)xβ (r)h(u)−1 = xβ (un r) for all xβ (r) ∈ Xβ
and all h(u) ∈ Hα,β (R).
Proof. Without loss of generality we may assume α and β to be simple via
the action of the Weyl group. If α is orthogonal to β, define Hα,β to be the
semi-simple root subgroup Hβ and the claim follows. If rk(Φ) ≥ 3, this is
also easy to achieve: Choose another simple root γ which is adjacent to β and
non-adjacent to α and set Hα,β (R) = Hγ . For the general case, pick integers
p, q ∈ Z\{0} such that 2p − q · (α, β) = 0 and set h(u) := hβ (u)−q hα (u)p and
Hα,β (R) := h{h(u) | u ∈ R× }i ≤ H. By Steinberg’s relations (2), we have
that Hα,β (R) centralizes Xα . A simple computation shows that n(α, β) :=
p · (β, α) − 2q 6= 0, and the result follows again from (2).

From the proof of Lemma 4.4 one can see that, in many cases, n(α, β) can
be taken to be ±1 or ±2, though this needs not occur in general. Furthermore, the torus Hα,β (R) need not be unique, so the integers n(α, β) may
vary. Clearly n(−α, β) = −n(α, β).
Definition 4.5. Given a base ring R and two roots α, β ∈ Φ, we define
their toral constant to be
cα,β (R) = min{|n(α, β)| : Hα,β (R) and n(α, β) are as in Lemma 4.4}.
The toral constant of Φ and R is defined as cΦ (R) = max{cα,β (R) | α, β ∈
Φ}.
The toral constant shall be used soon in order to define an appropriate
(finite) generating set for R as a ring. We now proceed with some notation
and remarks necessary to construct our presentations.
Fix A ⊆ Gm (R) = R× a generating set for the multiplicative (abelian)
sc (R) are finitely generated,
group of units of R. Since the parabolics of EΦ
so are its torus H and its Borel subgroup BΦ (R) and we may thus assume
that A is finite, say A = {v1 , . . . , vξ }. Looking at the action of H on each
root subgroup (2) and from the finiteness of A, we conclude that the Borel
sc (R), must also be finitely generated.
subgroup in type A1 , i.e. B20 (R) ≤ EA
1

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

23

Now, B20 (R) is isomorphic to the semi-direct product Ga (R)oGm (R), where
the action is given by
Gm (R) × Ga (R)

/ Ga (R)

R× × R 3 (u, r) 

/ u2 r.

We may therefore choose a finite set T0 = {x0 = 1, x1 , . . . , xν } ⊆ R such that
R× · T0 := {uxi | 0 ≤ i ≤ ν and u ∈ hAi} additively generates R. Given a
ε
positive integer c ∈ N, let A[c] denote the set of monomials {v1ε1 · · · vξ ξ | −c ≤
εj ≤ c ∀j} over A with powers of the letters bounded by ±c (notice that
1 ∈ A[c] ). Using the action of R× on R given above, we have that A[2] · T0
generates R as a Z[R× ]-module. Setting cΦ := cΦ (R) ∈ N the toral constant
of Φ and R, one still has that Te := A[cΦ ] · T0 is a generating set for R as a
Z[R× ]-module. Hence, the set T := hA[cΦ ] i · T0 additively generates the ring
R.
Using the notation above, for every pair xm
, xnj with xi , xj ∈ T0 and
iP
ν
m
n
m, n ∈ N, we fix an expression p(xi , xj ) =
l=0 al vl xl in terms of T ,
[c
]
Φ
where the vl ∈ hA i are uniquely determined and al ∈ Z, for the product
n
m n
m n
xm
i xj . That is, the image of p(xi , xj ) in R equals the product xi xj .
Since hA[cΦ ] i · T0 additively generates R we can, given r, s ∈ R, extend
n
×
the product p(xm
i , xj ) distributively and Z[R ]-linearly in order to obtain a
unique expression p(rm , sn ) in terms of T for rm sn ∈ R after decompositions
of both r and s in terms of T . In particular, this product map p(·, ·) has the
following properties.
(6)

u · p(rm , sn ) = p(u · rm , sn ) = p(rm , u · sn ) for all u ∈ hA[cΦ ] i,

(7)

p(r, s) = p(r0 , s) + p(r0 , s) = p(r, s0 ) + p(r, s0 )

whenever r = r0 + r0 and s = s0 + s0 . Because hA[cΦ ] i = R× is a finitely
generated abelian group, we can furthermore decompose the units vl occurring in p above uniquely as vl = wl2kl ul for some wl ∈ hA[cΦ ] i, kl ∈ Z and
ul ∈ A[cΦ ] . In this way, p(rm , sn ) becomes
(8)

m

n

p(r , s ) =

ν
X

al wl2kl ul xl , where al ∈ Z, wl ∈ hA[cΦ ] i, ul xl ∈ Te.

l=0

For a pair of roots γ, η ∈ Φ, powers rm , sn and the fixed expression p(rm , sn )
above, we define the formal expression
(9)

m

n

ζ(γ, η, r , s ) =

ν
Y

γ,η

hmγ+nη (wl )kl xmγ+nη (ul xl )al Cm,n hmγ+nη (wl )−kl ,

l=0
γ,η
Cm,n

the
being the structure constants from the commutator formula (1).
In what follows we shall make repeated use of the following easy commutator identity.
Lemma 4.6. Let G be a group and let a, b, c ∈ G. Then
[ab, c] = a[b, c]a−1 [a, c].

24

Y. SANTOS REGO

The next observation is our key starting point. When we construct our
finite presentations, it will allow us to discard most of the commutator relations occurring in the unipotent radical of PI (R).
Lemma 4.7. Let R, T and Te be as above, let γ0 , η0 ∈ Φ be distinct roots of
the same sign and let Xγ0 = h{xγ0 (r) | r ∈ R}i and Xη0 = h{xη0 (s) | s ∈ R}i
sc (R). Then the Chevalley
be the corresponding unipotent root subgroups in GΦ
commutator formula

 Y 
γ,η
m n Cm,n

x
(r
s
)
, if γ + η ∈ Φ;

mγ+nη

[xγ (r), xη (s)] =

mγ+nη∈Φ

m,n>0



1

otherwise,

for γ, η ∈ Φ+
{γ0 ,η0 } distinct, and Steinberg’s conjugation relations
hβ (u)xα (r)hβ (u)−1 = xα (u(α,β) r)
sc
in hHδ , Xδ : δ ∈ Φ+
{γ0 ,η0 } i ≤ GΦ (R) are consequences of the following
relations.

For all α ∈ Φ+
{γ0 ,η0 } ,
ξ
Y

(10)

hα (vi )εi = 1

i=1
ε

for each arbitrary, but fixed, defining relator v1ε1 · · · vξ ξ = 1 of hA[cΦ ] i as an
abelian group;
For all u, v ∈ A and α, β ∈ Φ+
γ0 ,η0 ,
(11)

hα (v) and hβ (u) commute;

For all v ∈ A, uxi ∈ Te and α, β, γ ∈ Φ+
{γ0 ,η0 } ,
(12)

hα (v)xγ (uxi )hα (v)−1 = hβ (v)k xγ (u0 xi )hβ (v)k ,

where k ∈ Z and u0 ∈ A[cΦ ] are unique such that v (γ,α) u = v k(γ,β) u0 ;
For all r, s ∈ R and γ ∈ Φ+
{γ0 ,η0 } ,
(13)

xγ (r) and xγ (s) commute;

For all t1 , t2 ∈ Te,
(14)

[xγ (t1 ), xη (t2 )] =






Y

n
ζ(γ, η, tm
1 , t2 ),

m,n>0
mγ+nη∈Φ


1

if γ + η ∈ Φ;
otherwise,

n
m n
where p(tm
1 , t2 ) is a fixed expression for the product t1 t2 in terms of T as
described in (8) and ζ is as in (9).

Proof. First of all, some clarification. To say that the commutator formula
and conjugation relations follow from the relations given above means that,
if one can write the hδ (u), u ∈ R× , and xδ (r), r ∈ R and δ ∈ Φ+
{γ0 ,η0 } ,
as (appropriate) products of elements for which the given relations (10) –

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

25

(14) hold, then the commutator formula and the conjugation relations are
in fact formal consequences of (10) – (14). From the previous discussion
on the generating set for R, we know that every element r ∈ R decomposes
as
ν
X
r=
al wl2kl ul xl , where al ∈ Z, wl ∈ hA[cΦ ] i, ul xl ∈ Te.
l=0

We may then write
xγ (r) =

ν
Y

hγ (wl )kl xγ (ul xl )al hγ (wl )−kl .

l=0
n
v1n1 · · · vξ ξ ,

then hγ (wl ) = hγ (v1 )n1 · · · hγ (vξ )nξ . We now
If furthermore wl =
break the proof into several steps.
Step 0. Steinberg’s relations hold. Moreover,
!
!−1
!
n
n
n
Y
Y
Y
εi ·(α,βi )
εi
εi
(15)
hβi (ui )
xα (r)
hβi (ui )
= xα r
ui
.
i=1

i=1

i=1

Indeed, the relations (10) and (11) together imply that each subgroup
×
Hα = h{hα (v) | v ∈ A}i ≤ hHδ , Xδ : δ ∈ Φ+
{γ0 ,η0 } i is isomorphic to R
and the whole torus hHδ : δ ∈ Φ+
{γ0 ,η0 } i is in fact abelian. This combined
with (12) yield Steinberg’s relations. Equation (15) is just an iterated
application of said relations. In particular, the following identity holds.
!−1
!
n
n
Y
Y
εi
εi
=
xα (r)
hβ (ui )
(16)
hβ (ui )
i=1

i=1

hβ

n
Y

!
uεi i

xα (r)hβ

i=1

n
Y

!−1
uεi i

=

i=1

xα

r

n
Y

!
ε ·(α,β)
ui i

.

i=1

Step 1. Let r = w2k uxi , s = z 2l vxj ∈ T . Then the commutator formula
holds.
To prove this, we identify xγ (r) = hγ (w)k xγ (uxi )hγ (w)−k and xη (s) =
hη (z)l xη (vxj )hη (z)−l . By Lemma 4.4, there exist roots α, β ∈ Φ+
{γ0 ,η0 } such
that (γ, α) 6= 0 6= (η, β) and (η, α) = 0 = (γ, β). Choose u0 , v0 ∈ A[cΦ ] and
k0 , l0 ∈ Z such that w2k u = wk0 (γ,α) and z 2l v = z l0 (η,β) v0 . By (12),
xγ (r) = hα (w)k0 xγ (u0 xi )hα (w)−k0 and xη (s) = hβ (z)l0 xη (v0 xj )hβ (z)−l0 .
Pν
n
2ke
Write p(xm
i , xj ) =
e=0 ae we ue xe as in (8). By property (6) we obtain
m

n

2k

m

2l

n

p(r , s ) = p((w uxi ) , (z vxj ) ) =

ν
X

ae (w2km um z 2ln v n we2ke ue )xe

e=0

and
m

n

p((u0 xi ) , (v0 xj ) ) =

ν
X
e=0

n 2ke
ae (um
0 v0 we ue )xe .

26

Y. SANTOS REGO

For every e let zee , w
ee ∈ hAi[cΦ ] , vee , u
ee ∈ A[cΦ ] and e
le , e
ke ∈ Z be unique such
that
e
e
n 2ke
w2km um z 2ln v n we2ke ue = zee2le vee and um
ee2ke u
ee .
0 v0 we ue = w
By definition of the expression (9) we have, on the one hand,
[xγ (r), xη (s)] =






Y

ν
Y

γ,η

ze )−le , if γ + η ∈ Φ;
hmγ+nη (e
ze )le xmγ+nη (e
ve xe )ae ·Cm,n hmγ+nη (e
e

e

mγ+nη∈Φ e=0


m,n>0


1 otherwise.
On the other hand,
[xγ (r), xη (s)] = hα (w)k0 hβ (z)l0 [xγ (u0 xi ), xη (v0 xj )]hβ (z)−l0 hα (w)−k0 =
 Y

hα (w)k0 hβ (z)l0 ζ(γ, η, (u0 xi )m , (v0 xj )n )hβ (z)−l0 hα (w)−k0 ,



 m,n>0
mγ+nη∈Φ



if γ + η ∈ Φ;



1 otherwise,
and
ζ(γ, η, (u0 xi )m , (v0 xj )n ) =
ν
Y

γ,η

hmγ+nη (w
ee )ke xmγ+nη (e
ue xe )ae ·Cm,n hmγ+nη (w
ee )−ke .
e

e

e=0
0
00
Pick u
ee , u
ee ∈ A[cΦ ] and l00 , k00 ∈
0 00
k
·(γ,α)·m
w 0
u
e0e = w2k0 u
ee . By (12),

0

Z such that z l0 ·(η,β)·n u
ee = z 2l0 u
e0e and
(15) and (16), the equation above be-

comes

hα (w)k0 hβ (z)l0 [xγ (u0 xi ), xη (v0 xj )]hβ (z)−l0 hα (w)−k0 =








Y

ν
Y

0

γ,η

0

0

0

hmγ+nη (w
eeke z 2l0 w2k0 )xmγ+nη (e
u00e xe )ae ·Cm,n hmγ+nη (w
eeke z 2l0 w2k0 )−1 ,
e

e

m,n>0 e=0
mγ+nη∈Φ




if γ + η ∈ Φ;



1 otherwise,
But
0

0

0

w
ee2ke z 2l0 w2k0 u
e00e = w
ee2ke wk0 ·(γ,α)·m z 2l0 u
e0e
e

e

= wk0 ·(γ,α)·m z l0 ·(η,β)·n w
ee2ke u
ee
e

= wk0 ·(γ,α)·m um z l0 ·(η,β)·n v n w2ke ue
= ze2le vee ,
e

so the claim follows from (12) and (15).
/ Φ.
Step 2. The commutator relation holds whenever γ + η ∈
Pν
Pν
2jl
2kl
l=0 al wl ul xl and s =
l=0 bl zl vl xl and let N :=
PνWrite r =
l=0 (|al | + |bl |). We proceed by induction on N . We observe that Step
1 gives the base case. We have that
[xγ (r), xη (s)] =

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

"
k0

a0

= hγ (w0 ) xγ (u0 x0 ) hγ (w0 )

−k0

ν
Y

27

hγ (wl )kl xγ (ul xl )al hγ (wl )−kl

l=1

,

ν
Y

#
hη (zl )jl xη (vl xl )bl hη (zl )−jl =

l=0

"
hγ (w0 )k0 xγ (u0 x0 )a0 hγ (w0 )−k0

ν
Y

hγ (wl )kl xγ (ul xl )al hγ (wl )−kl ,

l=1
ν
Y

#
hη (zl )jl xη (vl xl )bl hη (zl )−jl hγ (w0 )k0 xγ (u0 x0 )−a0 hγ (w0 )−k0 ×

l=0

"
k0

a0

× hγ (w0 ) xγ (u0 x0 ) hγ (w0 )

−k0

,

ν
Y

#
jl

bl

−jl

.

hη (zl ) xη (vl xl ) hη (zl )

l=0

By induction hypothesis, we have commutator relations for the terms in the
commutators above, which in the case γ + η ∈
/ Φ mean that all commutators
above vanish, thus proving the claim.
Step 3. The commutator relations hold whenever the height ht(γ + η) is
maximal in Φ+
{γ0 ,η0 } .
This is very similar to the previous case. Recall that the height of a root
δ = aγ0 + bη0 ∈ Φ+
{γ0 ,η0 } is the integer a + b. Take expressions for r and s
as before and define N in the same way. Again, Step 1 gives the base case.
Proceed as before to obtain the exact last expression above. By induction
hypothesis, we have commutator relations for the terms in the commutators
above, so the considered expression becomes
hγ (w0 )k0 xγ (u0 x0 )a0 hγ (w0 )−k0 xγ+η (r0 s)×
×hγ (w0 )k0 xγ (u0 x0 )−a0 hγ (w0 )−k0 xγ+η (u0 x0 s),
where r0 ∈ R is represented (via p and ζ) by the double product in the left
hand side commutator. Now, by Lemma 4.4 and (12), we may rewrite
0

0

hγ (w0 )k0 xγ (u0 x0 )a0 hγ (w0 )−k0 = hα (w0 )k0 xγ (u00 x0 )a0 hα (w0 )−k0 ,
where (γ + η, α) = 0. In particular, hα (w0 ) commutes with xγ+η (r0 s). But,
since ht(γ + η) is maximal, xγ (u00 x0 ) also commutes with xγ+η (r0 s). Thus,
hγ (w0 )k0 xγ (u0 x0 )a0 hγ (w0 )−k0 vanishes from the expression above and the
claim follows by linearly expanding the expression p for the products above
and repeatedly applying (6), (7) together with (13).
Step 4. We can now finish the proof of the lemma. Notice that Step 3
implies the result for simply-laced root systems. Suppose γ + η ∈ Φ and
ht(γ + η) is not maximal. Again taking expressions for r and s and defining
N as in Step 2, proceed by induction on N and reverse induction on ht(γ+η),
that is, we first prove the result on roots of maximal height and then descend
to minimal roots. Without loss of generality, assume γ is long and η is short.
The base case consists of Steps 1 and 3. Assuming the commutator relations
hold for roots of all heights at least ht(γ + η), we may proceed analogously
as in the last part of Step 3 because γ is long. The lemma follows.


28

Y. SANTOS REGO

Apart from the remaining commutator relations, we will have to deal with
the additive relations coming from R. We chose Te = A[cΦ ] · T0 as generating
set for R as a ring and T = hA[cΦ ] i · T0 as the corresponding generating set
for Ga (R), so we may fix A an arbitrary set of additive defining relators for
R such that every expression a ∈ A is of the form
ν
X
a=
al wl2kl ul xl , where al ∈ Z, wl ∈ hA[cΦ ] i, ul xl ∈ Te.
l=0

L
[cΦ ] i] · x, with elements
In other words, A is a fixed subset of
x∈T0 Z[hA
given in the form above, and with the property that
L
[cΦ ] i] · x
x∈T0 Z[hA
Ga (R) ∼
.
=
span(A)
4.1. Proof of Theorem 4.1 for I = ∅. Recall that the Levi decomposition
for BΦ (R) is just BΦ (R) = U∅ (R) o H, where H = hHα : α ∈ Φi is the
standard torus and U∅ (R) = hXγ : γ ∈ Φ+ i.
Consider the following sets of relations. For all α ∈ Φ, γ ∈ Φ+ , v ∈ A, t ∈
T,
(17)

hα (v)xγ (t)hα (v)−1 = xγ (v (γ,α) t).

For all t1 , t2 ∈ T, γ, η ∈ Φ+ ,
 Y
n
ζ(γ, η, tm

1 , t2 ),
(18)
[xγ (t1 ), xη (t2 )] = mγ+nη∈Φ+

1

if γ + η ∈ Φ;
otherwise,

n
m n
[cΦ ] i
where p(tm
1 , t2 ) is a fixed expression for the product t1 t2 in terms of hA
and Te as described in (8) and ζ is as in (9).
P
For all a = νl=0 al wl2kl ul xl ∈ A and γ ∈ Φ+ ,

(19)

ν
Y

xγ (wl2kl ul xl )al = 1.

l=0

Let SB be the set of all relations (17), (18) and (19) given above.
Since the torus H is a finitely generated abelian group, we may fix a
presentation
H∼
= h{hα (v) | α ∈ Φ, v ∈ A} | T i,
where T is finite. Combining this with Lemma 3.5 and the given descriptions
of R, A and SB , we obtain a presentation
(20) BΦ (R) ∼
= h{hα (v), xγ (t) | α ∈ Φ, γ ∈ Φ+ , v ∈ A, t ∈ T } | T ∪ SB i.
Suppose the extended Levi factors LE n (R) of BΦ (R) are finitely presented.
By definition, they consist just of a single unipotent root subgroup acted
upon non-trivially by the standard torus. The point now is that, in fact,
every subgroup Xγ o H ≤ BΦ (R), γ ∈ Φ+ , is finitely presented, not just the
LE n (R) = Xαn o H. This is due to the following lemma, which in turn is an
easy consequence of (3).
Lemma 4.8. Let γ be a positive root. Then there exist a simple root α ∈ ∆
∼
=
and an isomorphism w : Xγ o H −
→ Xα o H.

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

29

Proof. Due to the action of the Weyl group W of Φ, we can find a root β
and a simple root α such that rβ (γ) = α, where rβ ∈ W is the reflection
sc (R) is as in
associated to β. Let w be conjugation by wβ , where wβ ∈ GΦ
the end of Section 2.1. The result follows from (3).

For each γ ∈ Φ+ , let then Xγ o H = hXγ | Sγ i be a finite presentation
with generating set
Xγ = {hα (v), xγ (t) | v ∈ A, t ∈ Te, α ∈ Φ}.
Let Ye be the finite set of generators
Ye = {e
xγ (t) | t ∈ Te, γ ∈ Φ+ }.
We define the following finite sets of relations. For all v ∈ A, uxi ∈ Te, α, β ∈
Φ, γ ∈ Φ+ ,
(21)

hα (v)e
xγ (uxi )hα (v)−1 = hβ (v)k x
eγ (u0 xi )hβ (v)−k ,

where k ∈ Z and u0 ∈ A[cΦ ] are unique such that v (γ,α) u = v k(γ,β) u0 .
For all t1 , t2 ∈ Te, γ, η ∈ Φ+ ,
 Y
e η, tm , tn ), if γ + η ∈ Φ;
ζ(γ,

1
2
(22)
[e
xγ (t1 ), x
eη (t2 )] = mγ+nη∈Φ+

1
otherwise,
n
m n
[cΦ ] i
where p(tm
1 , t2 ) is a fixed expression for the product t1 t2 in terms of hA
and Te as in (8) and ζe is obtained from ζ in (9) by formally replacing xmγ+nη
by x
emγ+nη .
Finally, let SeB be the union of the sets Sγ (with γ running over Φ+ ) and the
sets of all relations (21), (22) given above. Notice that we did not add any
defining relators coming from the underlying additive group Ga (R), except
for those possibly contained in the Sγ .
Let BeΦ (R) be the group given by the presentation

(23)

BeΦ (R) ∼
= h{hα (v) | α ∈ Φ, v ∈ A} ∪ Ye | T ∪ SeB i.

By construction, BeΦ (R) is finitely presented. We claim that BeΦ (R) ∼
= BΦ (R).
e
Consider the map hα (v) 7→ hα (v), x
eγ (t) 7→ xγ (t) from BΦ (R) to BΦ (R).
Since (the images of) all the relations T ∪ SeB hold in BΦ (R) and the latter
is generated by H and the xγ (t), t ∈ Te, we get a natural epimorphism
BeΦ (R)  BΦ (R) by von Dyck’s theorem. To prove that this is also injective,
let F be the free group on the generating set {hα (v), xγ (t) | α ∈ Φ, γ ∈
Φ+ , v ∈ A, t ∈ T } of (20) and consider the homomorphism f given by
f :F

/ BeΦ (R)

hα (v) 

/ hα (v)

xγ (t) 

/ hγ (w)e
xγ (uxi )hγ (w)−1 ,

where w ∈ hA[cΦ ] i and uxi ∈ Te are unique such that t = w2 uxi . It suffices
to show that the set of relations SB given in (20) is contained in ker(f ).

30

Y. SANTOS REGO

We first consider the relations (17). Let α ∈ Φ, γ ∈ Φ+ , v ∈ A and
t = w2 uxi ∈ T . Let w0 ∈ hA[cΦ ] i and u0 ∈ A[cΦ ] be unique such that
v (γ,α) w2 u = w02 u0 , and choose further k ∈ Z and u00 ∈ A[cΦ ] unique such that
v (γ,α) u = v 2k u00 . By (21), we obtain
f (hα (v)xγ (t)hα (v)−1 xγ (v (γ,α) t)−1 ) =
= hγ (w)hα (v)e
xγ (uxi )hα (v)−1 hγ (w)−1 hγ (w0 )e
x( u0 xi )−1 hγ (w0 )−1
= hγ (w)hγ (v)k x
eγ (u00 xi )hγ (v)−k hγ (w)−1 hγ (w0 )e
xγ (u0 xi )−1 hγ (w0 )−1 .
But
v 2k w2 u00 = v (γ,α) w2 u = w02 u0 , so u00 = u0 , w0 = v k w,
whence
x
eγ (u00 xi ) = x
eγ (u0 xi ) and hγ (w0 ) = hγ (v)k hγ (w),
and so
f (hα (v)xγ (t)hα (v)−1 xγ (v (γ,α) t)−1 ) = 1.
We now want to show that
f ([xγ (t1 ), xγ (t2 )]) = 1.
This is essentially trivial, for f restricted to hXγ , Hi ≤ BΦ (R) yields a surjection onto
e γ , Hγ i = h{e
hX
xγ (t), hγ (v) | t ∈ Te, v ∈ A}i
by definition of f and because SeB from (23) contains (the copy of) Sγ . With
the relations above at hand, we can now apply Lemma 4.7 and the relations
(22) and recover the remaining commutator relations. It then follows that
all relations (18) are contained in ker(f ).
Similarly, we see that the relations (19) are in ker(f ). Indeed, if γ ∈ Φ+
P
and a = νl=0 al wl2kl ul xl ∈ A, then f maps
ν
Y
l=0

xγ (wl2kl ul xl )al

=

ν
Y

hγ (wl )xγ (ul xl )al hγ (wl )−1

l=0

e γ , Hi ≤
to 1 in BeΦ (R), for this holds in hXγ , Hi, which surjects onto hX
BeΦ (R), and this concludes the proof.
4.2. Proof of Theorem 4.1 for I 6= ∅. Recall from Section 3 that
sc (R),
PI (R) = KI (R) o LE I (R) ≤ EΦ
KI (R) = hXγ : γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) i and
LE I (R) = hHη , Xα : η ∈ Φ and α ∈ ΦI ∪ Φ+
NAdj(I) i.
By hypothesis, we may fix a presentation LE I (R) = hX | Ri with (finite)
generating set
e
X = {hβ (v), xα (t) | β ∈ Φ, α ∈ ΦI ∪ Φ+
NAdj(I) , v ∈ A and t ∈ T }
and R finite. Now consider the following sets of relations. For all β ∈ Φ, γ ∈
Φ+ \ΦExt(I) , v ∈ A, t ∈ T,
(24)

hβ (v)xγ (t)hα (v)−1 = xγ (v (γ,β) t).

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

31

+
For all t ∈ Te, s ∈ T, α ∈ ΦI ∪ Φ+
NAdj(I) , γ ∈ Φ \ΦExt(I) ,
 Y

ζ(α, γ, tm , sn ), if α + γ ∈ Φ;


m,n>0
(25)
[xα (t), xγ (s)] = mα+nγ∈Φ


1
otherwise,

where p(tm , sn ) is a fixed expression for the product tm sn in terms of hA[cΦ ] i
and Te as described in (8) and ζ is as in (9).
For all t1 , t2 ∈ T, γ, η ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) ,
 Y
n
ζ(γ, η, tm

1 , t2 ), if γ + η ∈ Φ;
(26)
[xγ (t1 ), xη (t2 )] = mγ+nη∈Φ+

1
otherwise,
n
m n
[cΦ ] i
where p(tm
1 , t2 ) is a fixed expression for the product t1 t2 in terms of hA
and Te as described in (8) and ζ is as in (9).
P
For all a = νl=0 al wl2kl ul xl ∈ A and γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) ,

(27)

ν
Y

xγ (wl2kl ul xl )al = 1.

l=0

Let SI be the set of all relations (24), (25), (26) and (27). Then
(28)
PI (R) ∼
= hX ∪ {xγ (t) | γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) , t ∈ T } | R ∪ SI i.
We break the proof in two, according to the cases of the QG condition.
Let
Ye = {e
xγ (t) | t ∈ Te, γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) }
and define the following (finite) sets of relations. For all v ∈ A, uxi ∈
Te, α, β ∈ Φ, γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) ,
(29)

hα (v)e
xγ (uxi )hα (v)−1 = hβ (v)k x
eγ (u0 xi )hβ (v)−k ,

where k ∈ Z and u0 ∈ A[cΦ ] are unique such that v (γ,α) u = v k(γ,β) u0 .
+
For all t, s ∈ Te, α ∈ ΦI ∪ Φ+
NAdj(I) , γ ∈ Φ \ΦExt(I) ,
 Y
e γ, tm , sn ), if α + γ ∈ Φ;

ζ(α,


m,n>0
(30)
[xα (t), xγ (s)] = mα+nγ∈Φ


1
otherwise,
where p(tm , sn ) is a fixed expression for the product tm sn in terms of hA[cΦ ] i
and Te as described in (8) and ζe is obtained from ζ in (9) by formally
replacing xmγ+nη by x
emγ+nη .
e
For all t1 , t2 ∈ T , γ, η ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) ,
 Y
e η, tm , tn ), if γ + η ∈ Φ;
ζ(γ,

1
2
(31)
[e
xγ (t1 ), x
eη (t2 )] = mγ+nη∈Φ+

1
otherwise,
n
m n
[cΦ ] i
where p(tm
1 , t2 ) is a fixed expression for the product t1 t2 in terms of hA
e
e
and T as in (8) and ζ is as above.

32

Y. SANTOS REGO

Case 1 – B20 (R) is finitely presented. Similarly to the proof of the previous
case 4.1, we fix a finite presentation
sc
(R)
B20 (R) = h{hα0 (v), xα0 (t) | v ∈ A, t ∈ Te} | S0 i ≤ EA
1

and, for each γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) , let Sγ be the set obtained from S0 by formally
S
replacing α0 by γ. Define SeB,I as γ∈Φ+ \ΦExt(I) Sγ together with the sets
of all relations (29), (30) and (31). We claim that the finitely presented
group
(32)

eI (R) = hX ∪ Ye | R ∪ SeB,I i
P

is isomorphic to the parabolic group PI (R).
eI (R)
It is clear that the natural map hα (v) 7→ hα (v), x
eγ (t) 7→ xγ (t) from P
eI (R)  PI (R). Let F be the free group
to PI (R) induces an epimorphism P
on the generating set X ∪ {xγ (t) | γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) , t ∈ T } of (28) and
eI (R) given by x ∈ X 7→ x, xγ (t) 7→
consider the homomorphism f : F → P
hγ (w)e
xγ (uxi )hγ (w)−1 , where w ∈ hA[cΦ ] i and uxi ∈ Te are unique such that
eI (R)  PI (R) by
t = w2 uxi . We prove that f induces a left-inverse of P
showing that the set of relations SI given in (28) is contained in ker(f ).
But this is essentially a reprise of the previous case 4.1.
In effect, the proof that the relations (24) are contained in ker(f ) is
exactly the one given in 4.1, so we won’t repeat it here. Since SeI contains
copies of the Sγ that define B20 (R), the commutativity between x
eα (t1 ) and
x
eγ (t2 ) is dealt with exactly like in 4.1. The relations (25) and (26) for
γ 6= η belong to ker(f ) by Lemma 4.7. Finally, the additive relations (27)
e γ , Hγ i ≤ P
eI (R)
belong to ker(f ) because hXγ , Hγ i ∼
= B20 (R) surjects onto hX
via f . Therefore SI ⊆ ker(f ).
Case 2 – R is not very bad. This time, we add no further relations besides
the “obvious” ones already given to obtain a finite presentation of PI (R).
The standing assumptions that the NVB condition allows us to make is
that the structure constants of the commutator formulae are all invertible
and we assume them to be in the generating set A[cΦ ] of the group of units
γ,η ±1
R× . In particular, (Cm,n
) · xi ∈ Te for every xi ∈ T0 . Now, let SeI be the
set of all relations (29), (30) and (31) from the previous section together
with the following relations regarding the structure constants.
γ,η

(33)

γ,η −1
x
eδ ((Cm,n
) · xi )Cm,n = x
eδ (1 · xi ),

(34)

γ,η
γ,η −1
hα (Cm,n
)e
xδ (xi )hα (Cm,n
) =x
eδ (xi ) whenever (δ, α) = 1.

We shall prove that the finitely presented group
eI (R) = hX ∪ Ye | R ∪ SeI i
P
is isomorphic to PI (R). The set-up is the same as in the previous section,
the goal being to show that the relations SI live in ker(f ). Following the
previous cases, most of the relations in SI were already dealt with. For
the commutator relations, it suffices to prove that, for all t, s ∈ R and
γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) ,
f ([xγ (t), xγ (s)]) = 1,

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

33

since the remaining commutator relations will then follow from Lemma 4.7,
as done in the previous cases. For this purpose, we first redefine unipotent
eI (R), and recover the
root subgroups, now in the finitely presented group P
analogue of Lemma 4.4.
We remark that, since the torus H is contained in the extended Levi factor
eI (R), we freely can (and
LE I (R), whose presentation is included in that of P
eI (R) of relations between the semi-simple root elements
do) make full use in P
n
and simplify expressions. In particular, if u = v1n1 · · · vξ ξ ∈ R× = hA[cΦ ] i,
we write hδ (u) = hδ (v1 )n1 · · · hδ (vξ )nξ . Given γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) , we let
e γ = h{he
eI (R).
X
xγ (t)h−1 | t ∈ Te, h ∈ H}i ≤ P
The
next
lemma
shows,
e, hγ ∈ Hγ }i.
h{hγ x
eγ (t)h−1
|
t
∈
T
γ

in

particular,

that

=

eγ
X

Lemma 4.9. Given two distinct roots α, β with β 6= −α, there exist a
subtorus Hα,β (R) ≤ H and a non-zero integer mα,β such that Hα,β (R) centralizes Xα and
0

0

h(u)e
xβ (vxi )h(u)−1 = hβ (u)m x
eβ (v 0 xi )hβ (u)−m ,
where m0 = m0 (mα,β , v) ∈ Z and v 0 = v 0 (mα,β , v) ∈ A[cΦ ] are unique such
0
that umα,β v = u2m v 0 .
Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 4.4, take p, q ∈ Z with 2p − q · (α, β) = 0
eI (R), Hα,β (R) := h{h(u) | u ∈ R× }i ≤
and set h(u) := hβ (u)−q hβ (u)p ∈ P
eI (R) and mα,β := p · (β, α) − 2q 6= 0. The equation stated follows from
P
iterated applications of (29). As for the first claim, by induction and (29)
0
there exist unique v 0 ∈ A[cΦ ] and n0 ∈ Z such that u−q(α,β) v = u2n v 0 , thus
h(u)e
xα (vxi )h(u)−1 = hα (u)p hβ (u)−q x
eα (vxi )hβ (u)q hα (u)−p
0

0

= hα (u)p+n x
eα (v 0 xi )hα (u)−p−n .
On the other hand, by our choice of p and q, we have that 2p = q(α, β) =
0
−2n0 . Therefore hα (u)p+n = hα (u)p−p = 1 and the lemma follows.

In the sequel we simplify the proofs by making use of more explicit Chevalley commutator formulae, though with no loss of generality since the proofs
are analogous if the ordering of the roots (and thus the formulae) change.
We refer the reader to [Ste16, Chapter 10] for explicit formulae and structure constants in types B and G. We shall often simplify the notation on
γ,η
α,β
the structure constants, writing e.g. B, C, D, E, ... instead of Cm,n
, Ca,b
, ...
and so on.
Let r, s ∈ R and γ ∈ Φ+ \ΦExt(I) . We want to show that
" ν
Y
1 = f ([xγ (r), xγ (s)]) =
hγ (wl )kl x
eγ (ul xl )al hγ (wl )−kl ,
(**)

l=0
ν
Y
m=0

#
hγ (zm )em x
eγ (vm xm )bm hγ (zm )−em ,

34

Y. SANTOS REGO

where
r=

ν
X

al wl2kl ul xl with al ∈ Z, wl ∈ hA[cΦ ] i, ul xl ∈ Te

l=0

and
s=

ν
X

2em
bm zm
vm xm , with bm ∈ Z, zm ∈ hA[cΦ ] i, vm xm ∈ Te.

m=0

Relations (31) already give us [e
xγ (t), x
eγ (s)] = 1 for all t, s ∈ Te. Since
+
γ ∈ Φ \ΦExt(I) , we may choose α ∈ ΦI ∪Φ+ and β ∈ Φ+ such that α+β = γ,
which exist either by Lemma 4.2 or by Lemma 4.3. Now, for each s ∈ Te,
using the commutator relations (30) and (31) at our disposal, together
with (33), we obtain from the explicit commutator formulae the following
equations (which not necessarily cover all possibilities!) for x
eγ (s), depending
on the type of the subsystem Φ{α,β} .
(35)

[e
xα (s), x
eβ (C −1 )]±1 , if (mα + nβ ∈ Φ{α,β} ⇐⇒ m = n = 1);



[e
xα (s), x
eβ (1)]e
xα+2β (s)∓1 , if γ, γ + β ∈ Φ{α,β} = B2 ;
x
eγ (s) =
[e
xα (s), x
eβ (D−1 )]e
xα+γ (s2 D−1 )−3 x
eγ+β (sD−2 )3 , if γ is short and



Φ{α,β} is of type G2 ,
where C, D are shortenings for the appropriate structure constants involved
in each type. (Warning: Here we are slightly misusing notation. In fact, the
powers of s or of D−1 and their products are not necessarily allowed in x
eγ (·),
0
e
for they need not be elements of T . We should instead write he
xγ (v y 0 )h−1
0
0
for some v y ∈ Te and some h ∈ H in each misused occurrence in the above.
However, since we are dealing in the sequel with commutators of products of
the form he
xγ (v 0 y 0 )h−1 , this abuse of notation does not affect our arguments.)
Applying (35) to (**) only in the expression of f (xγ (s)), we conclude
that (**) holds once we prove the following. For all h, g ∈ Hγ and t, s ∈ Te,
[he
xγ (s)h−1 , ge
xg −1 ] = 1,

(36)

where x
e is a product of the form of (one of the cases of) the right hand side
of (35). For the proof we shall need the following.
Remark 4.10. For all δ1 , δ2 ∈ Φ with δ1 + δ2 being the only linear combination of those roots which lies in Φ, one has


n
m
Y
Y
 hi x
=1
eδ1 (ti )h−1
hj x
eδ2 (tj )h−1
i ,
j
i=1

j=1

for all hi , hj ∈ H and ti , tj ∈ Te.
To see this, just apply the proof of Steps 0, 1 and 2 of Lemma 4.7 to the
eI (R), replacing the use of Lemma 4.4 there by Lemma
set-up above for P
4.9—observe that Steps 0, 1 and 2 do not depend on the commutativity
relations (13) and thus can be carried over almost verbatim to the present
context. We now prove (36) based on the three cases of (35).

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

35

Case 1 Suppose γ = α + β is the only linear combination of α and β in
Φ{α,β} . We have
f ([hxγ (t)h−1 , gxγ (s)g −1 ]) = [he
xγ (t)h−1 , ge
xγ (s)g −1 ]
= [he
xγ (t)h−1 , g[e
xα (s), x
eβ (C −1 )]±1 g −1 ] = 1,
by Remark 4.10.
Case 2 Suppose Φ{α,β} is of type B2 with γ, γ + β ∈ Φ{α,β} . By (35)
and Remark 4.10, one has
he
xγ (t)h−1 ge
xγ (s)g −1 =
= he
xγ (t)h−1 g(e
xα (s)±1 x
eβ (1)±1 x
eα (s)∓1 x
eβ (1)∓1 x
eγ+β (s)∓1 )g −1
()

= ge
xα (s)±1 g −1 he
xγ (t)h−1 g(e
xβ (1)±1 x
eα (s)∓1 x
eβ (1)∓1 x
eγ+β (s)∓1 )g −1 .

By Lemma 4.9, we can find h1 , g1 ∈ H and t0 , a ∈ Te such that
(?)

xβ (1)g −1 = g1 x
eβ (a)g1−1 ,
he
xγ (t)h−1 = h1 x
eγ (t0 )h−1
1 , ge
h1 x
eβ (a) = x
eβ (a)h1 and g1 x
eγ (t0 ) = x
eγ (t0 )g1 .

Applying (?) and Relations (30), (31) to (), we obtain
() =ge
xα (s)±1 g −1 ge
xβ (1)±1 g −1 h1 g1 x
eγ+β (t0 a)±2 g1−1 h−1
xγ (t)h−1 ×
1 he
× g(e
xα (s)∓1 x
eβ (1)∓1 x
eγ+β (s)∓1 )g −1
xα (s)∓1 g −1 ×
=g(e
xα (s)±1 x
eβ (1)±1 )g −1 h1 g1 x
eγ+β (t0 a)±2 g1−1 h−1
1 ge
xγ (t)h−1 ge
xγ+β (s)∓1 g −1
× ge
xβ (1)∓1 g −1 h1 g1 x
eγ+β (t0 a)∓2 g1−1 h−1
1 he
=g(e
xα (s)±1 x
eβ (1)±1 x
eα (s)∓1 x
eβ (1)∓1 x
eγ+β (s)∓1 )g −1 he
xγ (t)h−1
=ge
xγ (s)g −1 he
xγ (t)h−1 ,
because the h0 x
eγ+β (r)h0−1 commute with the other terms above by Remark
4.10 and the previous case. If, on the other hand, γ + β ∈
/ Φ{α,β} , then we
are back in the situation of Case 1, so Case 2 is concluded.
Case 3 Assume Φ{α,β} to be of type G2 . If γ is long we may take α, β as in
sc (R), δ
the situation of Case 1. Otherwise, and since the case Pδ (R) ≤ EG
2
long, is excluded, we may take α, β such that the third equality of (35)
apply. We thus have
a
( )
he
xγ (t)h−1 ge
xγ (s)g −1 =he
xγ (t)h−1 ×
×g([e
xα (s), x
eβ (D−1 )]e
xα+γ (s2 D−1 )−3 x
eγ+β (sD−2 )3 )g −1 .
The rest of the proof is entirely analogous to the previous case. Indeed, pick
h1 , g1 , h2 , g2 ∈ H and t0 , s0 , t00 , s00 ∈ Te such that
he
xγ (t)h−1 = h1 x
eγ (t0 )h−1
xα (s)g −1 = g1 x
eα (s0 )g1−1 ,
1 , ge
(†)

h1 x
eα (s0 ) = x
eα (s0 )h1 , g1 x
eγ (t0 ) = x
eγ (t0 )g1
he
xγ (t)h−1 = h2 x
eγ (t00 )h−1
xβ (D−1 )g −1 = g2 x
eβ (s00 )g2−1 ,
2 , ge
h2 x
eβ (s00 ) = x
eβ (s00 )h2 and g2 x
eγ (t00 ) = x
eγ (t00 )g2 ,

36

Y. SANTOS REGO

which exist by Lemma 4.9. Since γ + γ + α, γ + γ + β ∈
/ Φ{α,β} , we obtain
from Equalities (†), Relations (30), (31) and Remark 4.10 that
i
( ) =h1 g1 x
eγ+α (t0 s0 )−3 g1−1 h−1
xα (s)g −1 h2 g2 x
eγ+β (t00 s00 )−3 g2−1 h−1
1 ge
2 ×
×ge
xβ (D−1 )g −1 h1 g1 x
eγ+α (t0 s0 )3 g1−1 h−1
xα (s)−1 g −1 ×
1 ge
×h2 g2 x
eγ+β (t00 s00 )3 g2−1 h−1
xβ (D−1 )−1 g −1 ge
xγ+α (s2 D−1 )−3 g −1 ×
2 ge
×ge
xγ+β (sD−2 )3 g −1 he
xγ (t)h−1
=ge
xγ (s)g −1 he
xγ (t)h−1 ,
as required.
From the three cases above, we conclude that all relations (26) are in
ker(f ).
It remains to show that the additive relations (27) also lie in ker(f ). It
suffices to prove this for the simple roots β in Φ+ \ΦExt(I) . Such a simple
root is necessarily adjacent to an element of I, so by Lemma 4.3 we may
e β lies in the unipotent radical of a parabolic
assume that the root subgroup X
subgroup in type A2 , B2 or G2 , whose Levi factor is generated by Xα , X−α
and Hβ for some α ∈ I. Moreover, {α, β} is a basis for the underlying root
subsystem.
From now on, we make full use of the commutator relations without further references, for they were already obtained from the previous steps of
the proof together with Lemma 4.7. The point now is that the additive
relations hold in hXα , X−α , Hβ i because they do in LE I (R). Consequently,
they also hold in Xδ , where δ ∈ Φ{α,β} is a root of maximal height. Let
a ∈ A be a defining additive relation. We want to show that x
eβ (a) = 1. If
Φ{α,β} is of type A2 or if α is a short in A2 , B2 or G2 then, since R is not
very bad for Φ, we can write
x
eβ (a) = [e
x±α (a), x
eη (C)]
for some η ∈ Φ{α,β} , where C is (an inverse of) a structure constant (possibly
1). This implies that x
eβ (a) = 1, since x
e±α (a) = 1.
Suppose β is short and Φ{α,β} = G2 . This is actually the case of the
sc (R), α long (recall that we are
excluded parabolic subgroup P{α} (R) ≤ EG
2
assuming the commutator relations hold). We include it here because the
arguments also illustrate the proof for the remaining case, type B2 , β short.
We have then the following equations.
x
eα+β (a)e
xα+2β (a)−1 = 1;
x
eβ (a)±B x
eα+2β (a)±C .
Since x
eη (a) vanishes for η of large height, the first equation implies
x
eα+2β (a)±D = 1.
Here, B, C, D are shortenings for structure constants. Observe that α + 2β
belongs to a root subsystem of type A2 so that we can find a root γ such
that (α + 2β, γ) = 1. Since the structure constants are invertible, there is a
u ∈ A[cΦ ] such that
hγ (u)e
xα+2β (a)±1 hγ (u)−1 = x
eα+2β (a)±D = 1.

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

37

Hence x
eα+2β (a), and so x
eβ (a)±B , vanish. Since β also lies in a root subsystem of type A2 , it follows that x
eβ (a) = 1.
If Φ{α,β} = B2 , an entirely analogous argument shows that x
eβ (a) = 1
in that case too. Therefore SI ⊆ ker(f ), which concludes the proof of the
theorem.
5. Proof of Theorem C
We begin by reducing the problem to the case of Chevalley–Demazure
groups. Let G be a split, connected, reductive, linear algebraic group defined
over a global field K, let OS ⊂ K be a ring of S-integers—i.e. a Dedekind
domain of arithmetic type—and let P be a proper parabolic subgroup. Since
every parabolic in G is conjugate to a standard one, we may restrict ourselves
to the standard parabolic subgroups with respect to an arbitrary, but fixed,
maximal split torus. The group G fits into the following diagram.
G
Goo

f2

RG × G0



f1

/ / G0

Here G0 is semi-simple, the maps f1 and f2 are central isogenies, RG is
the radical of G and the upper group G is simply connected. By taking
the corresponding diagram restricted to parabolic subgroups, it follows that
S-arithmetic subgroups of P ≤ G are finitely generated (resp. finitely presented) if and only if so are the S-arithmetic subgroups of the corresponding
parabolic P ≤ G (see e.g. [Beh98, p. 91]). Since G is split, connected, simply
connected and semi-simple, it is in fact a Chevalley–Demazure group scheme
of simply connected type, so the group G(OS ) of OS -points is well-defined
and is in fact S-arithmetic since it fixes the OS -lattice acted upon by G(K).
As S-arithmetic subgroups of a given algebraic group are commensurable,
we may restrict ourselves to the group P(OS ) ≤ G(OS ). Finally, the condition |S| > 1, if K is a global function field, guarantees that the parabolic
subgroups of P(OS ) are finitely generated by O’Meara’s structure theorem
[O’M65, Thm. 23.2].
Let Γ ≤ P be S-arithmetic. We now break the proof in three, according
to the given hypotheses of Theorem C.
5.1. Part (i). If char(K) = 0, Abels’ theorem [Abe87] implies that B02 (OS )
is always finitely presented, so OS satisfies the QG condition. Now, the
extended Levi factor is an extension, by a torus, of a direct product of
Borel subgroups or reductive groups (cf. Section 3). From Abels’ theorem
and [BS76, Thm. 6.2], the extended Levi factors in characteristic zero are
always finitely presented, so Part (i) follows from Theorem A.
5.2. Part (iia). The following remark gives meaning to the statement of
Theorem C, Part (iia).
Lemma 5.1. Let r : H  B be a k-retract of k-split, connected, linear
algebraic groups. If Λ ≤ B is S-arithmetic, then Λ is finitely presented

38

Y. SANTOS REGO

(resp. finitely generated) whenever an S-arithmetic subgroup ∆ ≤ H is
finitely presented (resp. finitely generated).
Proof. Since r : H  B is a k-retract, we may (and do) identify B with
a k-closed subgroup of H. Without loss of generality, fix a k-embedding
H ,→ GLn , for some n, so that both H and its subgroup B are seen as
k-closed subgroups of the same GLn . Let Λ be the S-arithmetic subgroup
B ∩ GLn (OS ) of B, and set ∆ := r−1 (Λ). Then r induces a group retract
r|∆ : ∆  Λ. Now,
∆ =r−1 (B ∩ GLn (OS )) = {g ∈ H | r(g) ∈ B and r(g) has entries in OS }
=H ∩ GLn (OS ),
so ∆ is also S-arithmetic. Since S-arithmetic subgroups of a linear algebraic
group are commensurable, the claim follows from Lemma 3.1 together with
the retract r|∆ .

We first prove the necessity part of (iia). From now on we assume
char(K) > 0. Under the hypothesis of (iia), we have that the soluble group
Ga (OS ) o T(OS ) is finitely presented. We claim that B20 (OS ) is also finitely
presented, so that OS is QG for Φ.
To see this, consider Ga o T as a subgroup of a Borel subgroup in a
(universal) Chevalley–Demazure group, with Ga being the unipotent root
subgroup associated to the first simple root. Viewing this as the base root
as in [Bux04, p. 625], the proofs of the lemmata given in [Bux04, Section 5]
carry over to our case and it follows from K. Brown’s criterion [Bro87] and
[Bux04, Lemma 5.7] that Ga (OS ) o T(OS )—whence Γ—is finitely presented
only if |S| ≥ 3.
Let us now point out an alternative proof to the fact that B20 (OS ) is
finitely presented which does not depend on the results of [Bux04]. For this
we need the following observation. If the group of units Gm (R) is finitely
generated, then the finite presentability of the groups




∗ ∗
∗ ∗
0
B1 (R) :=
≤ GL2 (R) and B2 (R) =
≤ SL2 (R)
0 1
0 ∗
is equivalent. In effect, suppose B20 (R) is finitely presented. Then Ga (R) is
a tame Z[Gm (R)]-module (see [BS80]) with action given as in the beginning
of Section 4. Now look at the induced action from the group of squares
(Gm (R))2 := {g 2 | g ∈ Gm (R)} given by
(Gm (R))2 × Ga (R)

/ Ga (R)

(u2 , r) 

/ u2 r.

Since every character v : (R× )n → R extends to a character v̄ : R× → R,
it follows that Ga (R) is a tame Z[(Gm (R))2 ]-module, so Ga (R) o (Gm (R))2
is finitely presented. Since Ga (R) o (Gm (R))n has finite index in Ga (R) o
Gm (R) ∼
= B1 (R), it follows that B1 (R) itself is finitely presented. The
converse is clear.
Adapting the retraction arguments from [Bux04, Section 4], we prove in
[SR18] using fairly simple arguments that, in particular, the finiteness length

PRESENTATIONS OF PARABOLICS IN CHEVALLEY GROUPS

39

of B20 (OS ) bounds that of Ga (OS ) o T(OS ) from above. We thus have the
following.
Proposition 5.2. Let B = Ga o T be a K-split, connected, (non-nilpotent)
soluble linear algebraic group, and let Λ ≤ B be S-arithmetic. If Λ is finitely
generated (resp. finitely presented), then so is B20 (OS ).
By the remark above for B1 (OS ), by Proposition 5.2 and by [Bux97], it
follows that Γ is finitely presented only if |S| ≥ 3.
Conversely, if |S| ≥ 3 then the S-arithmetic Borel subgroups are finitely
presented, either by the remark above for B1 (OS ) and by the arguments
from Section 4.1 for Theorem A in case I = ∅, or by [Bux04]. Furthermore,
the reductive part of an extended Levi factor will always be finitely presented
as well, by Behr’s rank theorem [Beh98]. Thus, Γ is finitely presented by
Theorem A.
5.3. Part (iib). Assume char(K) > 0 and that K is not very bad for the
underlying root system of G. Then the subring OS is also NVB since it
contains the (finite) prime field by [O’M65, 23.1 and 23.2]. Recall that
P = U o L ≤ G is a standard parabolic subgroup of the simply connected,
semi-simple group G, where
U is the unipotent radical and L the Levi factor.
Q
We then have L = ( i GΦi ) o H, where H is a torus and each GΦi is a
Chevalley–Demazure group scheme (cf. Section 2.2). Furthermore, U(OS )
admits a presentation as given in Lemma 3.6.
Suppose rk(GΦi ) ≥ 2 for all i. In this case, we know from [Mat69, Cor. 4.6]
and [BMS67, Thm. 14.1] that each GΦi (OS ) equals its elementary subgroup
EΦi (OS ), so P(OS ) has the form given in Section 2.2 and thus Theorem A
applies directly, and we are done.
Assume then that rk(GΦi ) = 1, possibly the exceptional case from Theorem A where P(OS ) = P{α} (OS ) ≤ GG2 (OS ), α long. Here, P(OS ) is finitely
presented only if so is GΦi (OS ), which in turn is finitely presented if and only
0 (O ) by the diagram from the beginning of Section 5. But the
if so is GΦ
S
i
latter group is isomorphic to SL2 (OS ), which is finitely presented only if
|S| ≥ 3 by Behr’s theorem [Beh98]. In this case, the Borel subgroup B20 (OS )
is also finitely presented as seen above, so the arguments from Section 4.2
apply and thus Theorem A holds in this case, too. This concludes the proof
of Theorem C.
6. Concluding remarks
6.1. The reader might have noticed that we “forgot” the case of the general linear group along the text. Considering the general elementary group
GEn ≤ GLn (see e.g. [Sil73]), we may define the extended Levi factor for
GEn just as in Section 1.2 or as in Definition 3.2, replacing the torus H by the
subgroup Dn ≤ GEn of diagonal matrices. Since Dn contains the standard
torus of SLn , the same methods from Section 4 apply and we obtain analogous results—in fact, GEn fits the characterization given in Corollary B. The
extra generators and relations that will occur pose no extra problems—they
are analogous to those of Steinberg and are well-known [Sil73].

40

Y. SANTOS REGO

6.2. As seen in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, the assumption that B20 (R) be finitely
presented allows for a result with no restrictions on the root system nor
on the characteristic of the base ring. In particular, the exceptional case
sc (R), α long, only shows up if B 0 (R) is not finitely presented.
P{α} (R) ≤ EG
2
2
Theorem A could be restated as follows.
sc (R) be a universal elementary Chevalley–
Theorem A (rewritten). Let EΦ
Demazure group for which its (standard) parabolic subgroups are finitely generated.
• If B20 (R) is finitely presented, then a standard parabolic subgroup
sc (R) is finitely presented if and only if so are its exPI (R) ≤ EΦ
tended Levi factors;
• Otherwise, and if R is NVB for Φ, then PI (R) is finitely presented
if and only if so are its extended Levi factors, except possibly in the
case where I = {α} with α a long root in the root system of type
G2 .

Yet another formulation of Theorem A can be given by reinterpreting
its proof. Recall that a group G is finitely presented with respect to a
subgroup H ≤ G if there exist finite subsets X ⊆ G and R ⊆ H ∗ FX such
that G ∼
= H ∗ FX /hhRii. The constructions from Section 4 imply, under the
assumptions of Theorem A above, that PI (R) is always finitely presented
with respect to any of its extended Levi factors. Hence, a parabolic PI (R)
is finitely presented if and only if so are its extended Levi factors.
6.3. We observe that the only instance of the proof of Theorem A where we
sc (R), α long, was when dealing
had to exclude the parabolic P{α} (R) ≤ EG
2
with commutativity relations for unipotent root elements in Section 4.2. In
the exceptional case, applying the same procedure as in 4.2 to the (short)
root α + β—here, Φ{α,β} = G2 —leads to equations, for instance, of the form
he
xα+β (t)h−1 ge
xα+β (s)g −1 =ge
xα+β (s)g −1 he
xα+β (t)h−1 h1 x
e2α+3β (a)−9 h−1
1 ×
×h2 x
e2α+3β (b)3 h−1
eα+3β (c)6 h−1
2 h3 x
3 ,
where hi , h, g ∈ H. It is likely that the 2α + 3β terms cancel, but it is not
clear how all extra terms should vanish. We do not discard the possibility
that the same methods used here still apply for this exceptional case, though
we could not find an alternative route to verify this. As a test case, one could
consider the following.
Problem 6.1. Prove that the parabolic subgroup P{α} (F5 [t, t−1 ]) ≤
EG2 (F5 [t, t−1 ]), with α a long root in type G2 , is finitely presented if and
only if its Levi factor is finitely presented (even though none of them admits
a finite presentation).
6.4. Theorem A might be strengthened by proving that the finite presentability of the Borel subgroup B20 (R) implies that of (any) universal elesc (R). This holds for Dedekind rings
mentary Chevalley–Demazure group EΦ
of arithmetic type by Borel–Serre’s and Behr’s theorems, and was often
used in the proof of Theorem C. Whether this is true in general is likely
well-known to specialists, though we were unable to find a reference.

REFERENCES

41

Question 6.2. Is there a commutative ring with unity for which the Borel
subgroup B20 (R) of SL2 (R) is finitely presented, but the elementary subgroup
E2 (R) ≤ SL2 (R) itself is not? Equivalently, is the kernel of the natural map
St(A1 , R)  E2 (R) finitely generated as a normal subgroup whenever B20 (R)
is finitely presented? Here, St(Φ, R) denotes the (unstable) Steinberg group
of type Φ over R.
6.5. Apart from restrictions on the characteristic, the missing piece for a
complete characterization in the form of Theorem C is the case where K is a
global function field and |S| = 1. It can be shown that a maximal parabolic
P(Fq [t]) ≤ SLn (Fq [t]) is finitely presented if and only if so is its Levi factor,
and this is likely extendable to the other simply-laced root systems. Whether
this holds for types B, C, F and G is unknown to us.
References
[Abe69]
[Abe89]

[AS76]

[Abe87]

[AB08]

[All16a]

[All16b]

[AC16]

[ABS90]

[BMS67]

E. Abe. “Chevalley groups over local rings”. In: Tohoku Math.
J. (2) 21 (1969), pp. 474–494. doi: 10.2748/tmj/1178242958.
E. Abe. “Normal subgroups of Chevalley groups over commutative rings”. In: Algebraic K-theory and algebraic number theory
(Honolulu, HI, 1987). Vol. 83. Contemp. Math. Amer. Math.
Soc., Providence, RI, 1989, pp. 1–17. isbn: 0-521-22729-1.
E. Abe and K. Suzuki. “On normal subgroups of Chevalley
groups over commutative rings”. In: Tohoku Math. J. (2) 28
(1976), pp. 185–198. doi: 10.2748/tmj/1178240833.
H. Abels. Finite presentability of S-arithmetic groups. Compact
presentability of solvable groups. Vol. 1261. Lecture Notes in
Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987, pp. vi+178. doi:
10.1007/BFb0079708.
P. Abramenko and K. S. Brown. Buildings. Theory and applications. Vol. 248. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New
York, 2008, pp. xxii+747. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-78835-7.
D. Allcock. “Presentation of affine Kac-Moody groups over
rings”. In: Algebra Number Theory 10.3 (2016), pp. 533–556.
doi: 10.2140/ant.2016.10.533.
D. Allcock. “Steinberg groups as amalgams”. In: Algebra Number
Theory 10.8 (2016), pp. 1791–1843. doi: 10.2140/ant.2016.
10.1791.
D. Allcock and L. Carbone. “Presentation of hyperbolic KacMoody groups over rings”. In: J. Algebra 445 (2016), pp. 232–
243. doi: 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2015.08.012.
H. Azad, M. Barry, and G. Seitz. “On the structure of parabolic
subgroups”. In: Comm. Algebra 18.2 (1990), pp. 551–562. doi:
10.1080/00927879008823931.
H. Bass, J. Milnor, and J.-P. Serre. “Solution of the congruence
subgroup problem for SLn (n ≥ 3) and Sp2n (n ≥ 2)”. In: Inst.
Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. 33 (1967), pp. 59–137. issn:
0073-8301.

42

REFERENCES

[Bau+00] G. Baumslag, M. R. Bridson, C. F. Miller III, and H. Short.
“Fibre products, non-positive curvature, and decision problems”.
In: Comment. Math. Helv. 75.3 (2000), pp. 457–477. doi: 10.
1007/s000140050136.
[Beh98]
H. Behr. “Arithmetic groups over function fields. I. A complete characterization of finitely generated and finitely presented
arithmetic subgroups of reductive algebraic groups”. In: J. reine
angew. Math. 495 (1998), pp. 79–118. doi: 10.1515/crll.1998.
023.
[BS80]
R. Bieri and R. Strebel. “Valuations and finitely presented
metabelian groups”. In: Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 41.3
(1980), pp. 439–464. doi: 10.1112/plms/s3-41.3.439.
[BD01]
D. K. Biss and S. Dasgupta. “A presentation for the unipotent
group over rings with identity”. In: J. Algebra 237.2 (2001),
pp. 691–707. doi: 10.1006/jabr.2000.8604.
[Bor70]
A. Borel. “Properties and linear representations of Chevalley
groups”. In: Seminar on Algebraic Groups and Related Finite Groups (The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J.,
1968/69). Vol. 131. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer,
Berlin, 1970, pp. 1–55.
[Bor91]
A. Borel. Linear algebraic groups. 2nd ed. Vol. 126. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991,
pp. xii+288. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-0941-6.
[BS76]
A. Borel and J.-P. Serre. “Cohomologie d’immeubles et de
groupes S-arithmétiques”. In: Topology 15.3 (1976), pp. 211–
232. doi: 10.1016/0040-9383(76)90037-9.
[BT65]
A. Borel and J. Tits. “Groupes réductifs”. In: Inst. Hautes
Études Sci. Publ. Math. 27 (1965), pp. 55–150. issn: 0073-8301.
[Bou02]
N. Bourbaki. Lie groups and Lie algebras. Chapters 4–6. Elements of Mathematics (Berlin). Translated from the 1968
French original by Andrew Pressley. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
2002, pp. xii+300. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89394-3.
[Bro87]
K. S. Brown. “Finiteness properties of groups”. In: Proceedings of the Northwestern conference on cohomology of groups
(Evanston, Ill., 1985). Vol. 44. 1-3. 1987, pp. 45–75. doi:
10.1016/0022-4049(87)90015-6.
[Bux97]
K.-U. Bux. “Finiteness properties of certain metabelian arithmetic groups in the function field case”. In: Proc. London
Math. Soc. (3) 75.2 (1997), pp. 308–322. doi: 10 . 1112 /
S0024611597000361.
[Bux04]
K.-U. Bux. “Finiteness properties of soluble arithmetic groups
over global function fields”. In: Geom. Topol. 8 (2004), pp. 611–
644. doi: 10.2140/gt.2004.8.611.
[CLR16] I. Capdeboscq, A. Lubotzky, and B. Rémy. “Presentations:
from Kac-Moody groups to profinite and back”. In: Transform.
Groups 21.4 (2016), pp. 929–951. doi: 10.1007/s00031-0169411-8.

REFERENCES

[Car72]

[Che55]
[Che60]

[Coh89]

[Coh66]

[DG70]

[HO89]

[Hum72]

[Jac79]

[Joh97]

[Kne64]

[Kos66]

[KM97]

[LR04]

43

R. W. Carter. Simple groups of Lie type. Pure and Applied
Mathematics, Vol. 28. John Wiley & Sons, London-New YorkSydney, 1972, pp. viii+331. isbn: 978-0-471-50683-6.
C. Chevalley. “Sur certains groupes simples”. In: Tohoku Math.
J. (2) 7 (1955), pp. 14–66. doi: 10.2748/tmj/1178245104.
C. Chevalley. “Certains schémas de groupes semi-simples”. In:
Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 6. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1960-1961,
Exp. No. 219, 219–234. isbn: 2-85629-039-6.
D. E. Cohen. Combinatorial group theory: a topological approach.
Vol. 14. London Mathematical Society Student Texts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989, pp. x+310. doi:
10.1017/CBO9780511565878.
P. M. Cohn. “On the structure of the GL2 of a ring”. In: Inst.
Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. 30 (1966), pp. 5–53. issn: 00738301.
M. Demazure and A. Grothendieck. Schemas en Groupes. Tome
III: Structure des Schemas en Groupes Reductifs (Séminaire
de Géometrie Algébrique du Bois Marie 1962/1964 SGA3).
Vol. 153. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, BerlinHeidelberg, 1970, pp. viii+529. doi: 10.1007/BFb0059027.
A. J. Hahn and O. T. O’Meara. The classical groups and
K-theory. Vol. 291. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften. With a foreword by J. Dieudonné. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1989, pp. xvi+576. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-13152-7.
J. E. Humphreys. Introduction to Lie algebras and representation
theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 9. Springer-Verlag,
New York-Berlin, 1972, pp. xii+169.
N. Jacobson. Lie algebras. Republication of the 1962 original.
Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1979, pp. ix+331. isbn:
0-486-63832-4.
D. L. Johnson. Presentations of groups. 2nd ed. Vol. 15. London Mathematical Society Student Texts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997, pp. xii+216. doi: 10 . 1017 /
CBO9781139168410.
M. Kneser. “Erzeugende und Relationen verallgemeinerter Einheitengruppen”. In: J. reine angew. Math. 214/215 (1964),
pp. 345–349. doi: 10.1515/crll.1964.214-215.345.
B. Kostant. “Groups over Z”. In: Algebraic Groups and Discontinuous Subgroups (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Boulder, Colo.,
1965). Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1966, pp. 90–98.
S. Krstić and J. McCool. “The non-finite presentability of IA(F3 )
and GL2 (Z[t, t−1 ])”. In: Invent. Math. 129.3 (1997), pp. 595–606.
doi: 10.1007/s002220050174.
J. C. Lennox and D. J. S. Robinson. The theory of infinite soluble groups. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon
Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004, pp. xvi+342. doi:
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198507284.001.0001.

44

[Lus09]

[MT11]

[Mat69]

[Mil71]

[Nag59]
[O’M65]

[Qui73]
[Ree64]

[RS76]

[Ros94]

[SR18]
[Sil73]

[Spl86]

[Sta09]

[Ste71]

REFERENCES

G. Lusztig. “Study of a Z-form of the coordinate ring of a reductive group”. In: J. Amer. Math. Soc. 22.3 (2009), pp. 739–769.
doi: 10.1090/S0894-0347-08-00603-6.
G. Malle and D. Testerman. Linear algebraic groups and finite
groups of Lie type. Vol. 133. Cambridge Studies in Advanced
Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011,
pp. xiv+309. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511994777.
H. Matsumoto. “Sur les sous-groupes arithmétiques des groupes
semi-simples déployés”. In: Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 2
(1969), pp. 1–62. issn: 0012-9593.
J. Milnor. Introduction to algebraic K-theory. Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 72. Princeton University Press, Princeton
N.J.; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1971, pp. xiii+184.
H. Nagao. “On GL(2, K[x])”. In: J. Inst. Polytech. Osaka City
Univ. Ser. A 10 (1959), pp. 117–121.
O. T. O’Meara. “On the finite generation of linear groups over
Hasse domains”. In: J. reine angew. Math. 217 (1965), pp. 79–
108. doi: 10.1515/crll.1965.217.79.
D. Quillen. “Higher algebraic K-theory. I”. In: (1973), 85–147.
Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 341.
R. Ree. “Construction of certain semi-simple groups”. In: Canad.
J. Math. 16 (1964), pp. 490–508. doi: 10.4153/CJM-1964-0516.
U. Rehmann and C. Soulé. “Finitely presented groups of matrices”. In: Algebraic K-theory (Proc. Conf., Northwestern Univ.,
Evanston, Ill., 1976). Vol. 551. Lecture Notes in Mathematics.
Springer, Berlin, 1976, pp. 164–169. doi: 10.1007/BFb0079990.
J. Rosenberg. Algebraic K-theory and its applications. Vol. 147.
Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York,
1994, pp. x+392. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4314-4.
Y. Santos Rego. “ On the finiteness length of some soluble linear
groups”. In preparation, 2018.
J. R. Silvester. “On the K2 of a free associative algebra”. In:
Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 26 (1973), pp. 35–56. doi: 10 .
1112/plms/s3-26.1.35.
S. Splitthoff. “Finite presentability of Steinberg groups and related Chevalley groups”. In: Applications of algebraic K-theory
to algebraic geometry and number theory, Part I, II (Boulder,
Colo., 1983). Vol. 55. Contemp. Math. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1986, pp. 635–687. doi: 10 . 1090 / conm / 055 . 2 /
1862658.
A. K. Stavrova. “Normal structure of maximal parabolic subgroups in Chevalley groups over rings”. In: Algebra Colloq. 16.4
(2009), pp. 631–648. doi: 10.1142/S1005386709000595.
M. R. Stein. “Generators, relations and coverings of Chevalley
groups over commutative rings”. In: Amer. J. Math. 93 (1971),
pp. 965–1004. doi: 10.2307/2373742.

REFERENCES

[Ste78]

[Ste62]

[Ste16]

[Sus77]

[Suz77]

[Tie97]

[Tit74]

[Tit87]

[Vas86]

[Vav82]

[Wal65]
[Wat79]

45

M. R. Stein. “Stability theorems for K1 , K2 and related functors
modeled on Chevalley groups”. In: Japan. J. Math. (N.S.) 4.1
(1978), pp. 77–108.
R. Steinberg. “Générateurs, relations et revêtements de groupes
algébriques”. In: Colloq. Théorie des Groupes Algébriques (Bruxelles, 1962). Librairie Universitaire, Louvain; Gauthier-Villars,
Paris, 1962, pp. 113–127.
R. Steinberg. Lectures on Chevalley groups. Vol. 66. University
Lecture Series. Notes prepared by John Faulkner and Robert
Wilson, revised and corrected edition of the 1968 original, with
a foreword by Robert R. Snapp. American Mathematical Society,
Providence, RI, 2016, pp. xi+160. doi: 10.1090/ulect/066.
A. A. Suslin. “The structure of the special linar group over
rings of polynomials”. In: Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 41.2
(1977), pp. 235–252. issn: 0373-2436.
K. Suzuki. “On parabolic subgroups of Chevalley groups over
commutative rings”. In: Sci. Rep. Tokyo Kyoiku Daigaku Sect.
A 13.366-382 (1977), pp. 225–232.
A. Tiemeyer. “A local-global principle for finiteness properties of
S-arithmetic groups over number fields”. In: Transform. Groups
2.2 (1997), pp. 215–223. doi: 10.1007/BF01235942.
J. Tits. Buildings of spherical type and finite BN-pairs. Vol. 386.
Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New
York, 1974, pp. x+299.
J. Tits. “Uniqueness and presentation of Kac-Moody groups
over fields”. In: J. Algebra 105.2 (1987), pp. 542–573. doi:
10.1016/0021-8693(87)90214-6.
L. N. Vaserstein. “On normal subgroups of Chevalley groups
over commutative rings”. In: Tohoku Math. J. (2) 38.2 (1986),
pp. 219–230. doi: 10.2748/tmj/1178228489.
N. A. Vavilov. “Parabolic subgroups of the Chevalley group
over a commutative ring”. In: Zap. Nauchn. Sem. Leningrad.
Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (LOMI) 116 (1982). Integral lattices
and finite linear groups, pp. 20–43, 161. issn: 0373-2703.
C. T. C. Wall. “Finiteness conditions for CW-complexes”. In:
Ann. of Math. (2) 81 (1965), pp. 56–69. doi: 10.2307/1970382.
W. C. Waterhouse. Introduction to affine group schemes. Vol. 66.
Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New YorkBerlin, 1979, pp. xi+164. isbn: 0-387-90421-2.

Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Bielefeld, Postfach 100131, D33501, Deutschland
E-mail address: ysantos@math.uni-bielefeld.de

