On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

arXiv:1608.07141v2 [math.GR] 17 May 2017

Stefan Witzel

Abstract We study lattices on Ã2 buildings that preserve types, act regularly on each type of edge, and

whose vertex stabilizers are cyclic. We show that several of their properties, such as their automorphism
group and isomorphism class, can be determined from purely combinatorial data. As a consequence we can
show that the number of such lattices (up to isomorphism) grows super-exponentially with the thickness
parameter q .
We look in more detail at the 3295 lattices with q ∈ {2, 3, 4, 5}. We show that with one exception for each
q these are all exotic. For the exotic examples we prove that the automorphism group of the lattice and of
the building coincide, and that two lattices are quasi-isometric only if they are isomorphic.
Mathematics Subject Classification (2010) 20F65 · 51E24
Keywords Lattices · buildings · difference sets · Singer groups

1 Introduction

A simply connected triangle complex X is a building of type Ã2 if every vertex link is isomorphic to the
incidence graph of a projective plane. A group Γ acting on X is a uniform lattice if there are only finitely
many Γ -orbits of cells and if the stabilizer in Γ of any cell is finite. If X admits a uniform lattice, it has to
be locally finite.
There are algebraic ways to construct uniform lattices on buildings as groups of integral points of anisotropic
algebraic groups but it is not easy to understand these explicitly, for example to determine presentations,
fundamental domains, or stabilizers. It is therefore useful to be able to construct a lattice more explicitly
from combinatorial data for example by amalgamating together well-chosen stabilizers. Ronan [Ron84,
Section 3] and Kantor [Kan86, Section C.3] were the first to use difference sets and Singer groups for this
purpose. More recently Essert [Ess13] has determined the complexes of groups that correspond to certain
uniform building lattices. We build on his work and investigate a subclass of his lattices. We call a Singer
lattice a lattice that preserves types and acts regularly (transitively and freely) on the edges of each type.
We call it a Singer cyclic lattice if in addition every vertex stabilizer is cyclic.
The research for this article is part of the DFG project WI 4079/2. It was also supported by the SFB 701.
S. Witzel
Department of Mathematics
Bielefeld University, PO Box 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany E-mail: switzel@math.uni-bielefeld.de

2

Stefan Witzel

Essert shows that Singer cyclic lattices have very nice presentations of the form
Γ = hσ0 , σ1 , σ2 | σiq

2

+q +1

E

E

E

, 0 ≤ i ≤ 2, σ0 j,0 σ1 j,1 σ2 j,2 , 1 ≤ j ≤ qi

and conversely, that every group with such a presentation is a Singer cyclic lattice. Here q is a prime
power and E is what we call a based difference matrix (defined in Section 3). The geometric meaning of the
parameter q is that every edge is contained in q + 1 triangles.
The reason why Singer cyclic lattices can be studied so efficiently is that many of their properties can
be derived from the difference matrix E by combinatorial means. Most importantly, the difference matrix
allows to reconstruct in a very elementary manner large balls in the associated building (see Theorem 9.6),
which is fundamental for most of the results below. More immediately, we define a notion of equivalence of
difference matrices and define a group Aut(E ) that satisfy:
Theorem A There is a bijective correspondence between Singer cyclic lattices up to isomorphism and difference
matrices up to equivalence.
If Γ corresponds to E then Out(Γ ) = Aut(E ).

Estimating the number of difference matrices up to equivalence we get
Theorem B The number of Singer cyclic lattices with parameter q = pη is bounded below by

1
π (q + 1)2q+3
((q + 1)!)2 ∼
.
3
162η
81η 3
e2q+2
In particular, the number grows super-exponentially.

For example, for q = 7 there are more than 108 Singer cyclic lattices.
The rest of the article is concerned with a more explicit study of Singer cyclic lattices with parameter
q ∈ {2, 3, 4, 5}. Of these parameters, the only one that admits Singer lattices that are not Singer cyclic is
q = 4; for the others “Singer cyclic lattice” could be replaced by “Singer lattice” in the following statements.
Most of the results are computer aided although not computationally intensive.
Theorem C The number of Singer cyclic lattices up to isomorphism is
–
–
–
–

2 for q = 2,
7 for q = 3,
17 for q = 4,
3269 for q = 5.

The two lattices for q = 2 are each contained in one of the four well-known chamber regular lattices first
studied by Ronan [Ron84], Tits [Tit85, Tit86], and Köhler–Meixner–Wester [KMW84].
Lattices on two-dimensional euclidean buildings live in an interesting border region for rigidity: the classification of euclidean buildings [Wei09] which implies that a building of type Ãd is Bruhat–Tits, namely that
it comes from PGLd+1 (K ) for some (finite-dimensional division algebra over a) local field K , only applies
for d ≥ 3. In dimension two there are other buildings, which we call exotic. But if a lattice is contained in
PGL3 (K ) then Margulis arithmeticity [Mar91] implies that it actually is an arithmetic subgroup. It is known
(and we explain explicitly) that for every q there is a Singer cyclic lattice that is arithmetic, contained in
PGL3 (Fq ((t))). We provide a general method for finding embeddings of Singer cyclic lattices into PGL3 (K )
but also prove
Theorem D For each q ≤ 5 among the Singer cyclic lattices there is a single arithmetic one while all others act
on exotic buildings.

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

3

We have seen that the automorphism groups of Bruhat–Tits buildings are non-discrete locally compact
groups. In most known cases the automorphism group of an exotic building is discrete and in particular
is a finite extension of any uniform lattice on it (see [?, Section 7] for examples with non-discrete, vertextransitive automorphism groups). We confirm that the same is true here. In fact more is true:
Theorem E Let Γ y X be a Singer cyclic lattice with q ≤ 5 acting on an exotic building. Then Aut(Γ ) =
Aut(X ) and this group is not transitive on types.

One consequence is that none of the exotic Singer cyclic lattices with q ≤ 5 are quasi-isometric (or commensurable) to any of the vertex-regular lattices studied by Cartwright–Steger–Mantero–Zappa [CMSZ93].
Finally, we distinguish the buildings that Singer cyclic lattices can act on. Since buildings are QI-rigid, this
also yields a quasi-isometry classification of Singer cyclic lattices.
Theorem F Singer cyclic lattices with q ≤ 5 acting on isomorphic buildings are isomorphic. As a consequence,
quasi-isometric (or commensurable) Singer cyclic lattices with q ≤ 5 are isomorphic.

Based on Theorems D and F we formulate the following:
Conjecture Almost all Singer cyclic lattices are exotic and pairwise not quasi-isometric in the following sense:

lim

q→∞

|{exotic Singer cyclic lattices with parameter q}/QI|
=1
|{Singer lattices with parameter q}|

where q ranges over prime powers.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall some classical facts about incidence geometry, Singer
groups, and difference sets. Singer lattices and their parametrization through based difference matrices
(leading to Theorem A) are introduced in Section 3. Theorem C and a more precise version of the bound in
Theorem B are proven in Section 4. Section 5 explains how Bruhat–Tits examples can be produced using the
construction in [CMSZ93]. In Section 6 we describe explicitly how the two Singer cyclic lattices for q = 2 can
be extended do become chamber transitive, making the connection with the Köhler–Meixner–Wester/Ronan
lattices. A general method to decide, given a Singer cyclic lattice Γ and a local field K , whether Γ embeds into
PGL3 (K ) is developed in Section 8. As an illustration we provide explicit embeddings (in terms of matrices)
of the Bruhat–Tits Singer cyclic lattices for q ∈ {2, 3}. Sections 9 and 10 are concerned with identifying
the buildings that Singer cyclic lattices act on, and their automorphism groups. We obtain Theorems D, E,
and F as a consequence. The code for the computer experiments, including some documentation, can be
found in the GitHub repository [Wit16]. It is written in Python [Pyt91] and GAP [GAP12] using the library
GRAPE [Soi93] which in turn depends on the library nauty [MP14].
Acknowledgements Linus Kramer first suggested to me to look at Singer lattices. I am especially indebted to PierreEmmanuel Caprace and Hendrik van Maldeghem who made many suggestions that were crucial for the success of the
project. Nicolas Radu suggested to use the software GRAPE to compute stabilizers and pointed out to me the existence of
exotic buildings with indiscrete automorphism group. I would like to thank all of them for their help.

2 Singer cycles and difference sets

We start by introducing some classical concepts from incidence geometry. A good general reference for the
contents of this section is [Dem68]. Let Π = (P, L, I ) be a finite projective plane: P is the set of points, L the
set of lines, and I the incidence relation satisfying the familiar axioms. It is Desarguesian if it is isomorphic
to P2 Fq for some prime power q and in that case |P | = |L| = q 2 + q + 1. We therefore introduce the following
notation that will be used throughout the article:
q = pη ,

p prime,

η ∈ N \ {0},

δ = q2 + q + 1

4

Stefan Witzel

If there is an action of a group S on a projective plane Π that is regular (that is transitive and free) on the
set of points P then Π is a Singer plane and S is a Singer group for Π .
Proposition 2.1 ([Dem68, 4.2.7]) If S is a Singer group on a projective plane Π = (P, L, I ) then the action
of S on the set of lines L is regular as well.

Historically mathematicians (such as Singer) have been most interested in the case where S is cyclic. In
that case any generator of S will be called a Singer cycle.
Theorem 2.2 ([Sin38]) Every finite Desarguesian projective plane admits a Singer cycle.
Proof If Π is finite Desarguesian it is isomorphic to the projective geometry of a 3-dimensional Fq -vector
space for some q . Taking the Fq -vector space to be Fq3 we get an action of the cyclic group F×
q 3 on Π that is
×
×
× ∼
t
transitive on projective points. The stabilizer of a point is Fq so the group Fq3 /Fq = Cq2 +q+1 acts freely. u

This construction has the following generalization due to Ellers and Karzel [EK64]. Since their work substantially uses Dickson–Veblen near-fields we give a description that avoids these (but does not recover the
classification result).
×
Lemma 2.3 Let n be a divisor of gcd(3η, δ ) and put η0 := 3η/n and q0 := pη0 . Let ξ be a generator of F×
q 3 /F q
×
and let ϕ ∈ Gal(Fq3 /Fq0 ) be the Frobenius automorphism. The subgroup S = hg, hi of Gal(Fq3 /Fq0 ) n F×
q 3 /F q
n
generated by g := (1, ξ ) and h := (ϕ, ξ ) is a Singer group.

Proof Define a := δ/n = (q 2 + q + 1)/n and b = (q0n−1 + . . . + q0 + 1)/n. First note that
ζ ϕ = ζ q0

(2.1)

×
for any ζ ∈ F×
q 3 /Fq .

Now we verify relations of S . Trivially
ga = 1

From (2.1) we also see
g h = g q0 .

Finally iterated applications of (2.1) yield
n−1

hn = (ϕξ )n = ϕn ξ 1+q0 +...+q0

= gb .

From this we see that S has the right order a · n = δ and that hgi is normal in S . Since hgi acts transitively on
∼ hϕi acts transitively on (F×3 /F×
itself, it remains to see that S/hgi =
q )/hgi. This is the case by (2.1) because
q
×
×
q0 is a power of p and (Fq3 /Fq )/hgi has order n which is relatively prime to p (since n divides δ ).
u
t
The case where S is cyclic is recovered with n = 1. Note that S is linear over Fq if and only if n ∈ {1, 3}.
Taking n = 3 is possible whenever q ≡ 1 mod 3. The least prime power where η and δ are not relatively
prime is 128.
We can now state a consequence of [EK64, Sätze 5,6] as:
Theorem 2.4 Every Singer group on a finite Desarguesian projective plane is equivalent to one as in Lemma 2.3.

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

5

If S is a Singer group on a projective plane Π we can fix a point x ∈ P and a line y ∈ L and define the
difference set D = {s ∈ S | s.x I y} (this is not the most general notion of a difference set, see [Dem68,
§2.3.29]). It is clear that Π can be recovered (up to S -equivariant isomorphism) from S and D. In this article
we will only be interested in the case where S is cyclic of order δ := q 2 + q + 1 for some prime q . In fact,
given a Singer cycle s ∈ S we will identify S with Z/δ Z via Z/δ Z → S, i 7→ si . Then for D ⊆ Z/δ Z to be
a difference set (in our sense) it is necessary and sufficient that every s ∈ Z/δ Z \ {0} can be written in a
unique way as d − d0 with d, d0 ∈ D (which also explains the name).
There are manipulations of the difference set D that do not essentially change the projective plane it defines.
One is translation: for a ∈ Z/δ Z the set a + D = {a + d | d ∈ D} clearly is again a difference set; it is obtained
from the action of Z/δ Z on Π by choosing the base line −a.` instead of `. The other operation is acting
by automorphisms: for m ∈ Z/δ Z× the set m · D = {m · d | d ∈ D} is a difference set; from our perspective
−1
this is best interpreted as replacing the Singer cycle s by sm . In summary we have an action of the
group AGL1 (Z/δ Z) = (Z/δ Z)× n Z/δ Z on the difference sets in Z/δ Z. We say that two difference sets are
equivalent if they lie in the same AGL1 (Z/δ Z)-orbit. A difference set D is based if 0 ∈ D; every difference
set is equivalent to a based one. For future reference we record the following easy fact:
Lemma 2.5 Let D ⊆ Z/δ Z be a difference set and let a ∈ D. Then D − a := {d − a | d ∈ D} does not equal D.
Proof Obviously D − a is based so if D is not based, we are done. If D is based, then it contains 0 and a
and D − a contains 0 and −a. So D and D − a cannot be equal because a difference set cannot contain all
three of −a, 0, and a at the same time.
u
t

A difference set is Desarguesian if the projective plane that it gives rise to is Desarguesian. It is a longstanding open conjecture that every finite projective plane admitting a point-transitive group of automorphisms is Desarguesian. In particular, this would apply to finite projective planes admitting a cyclic Singer
group but the problem is open even for these. A result in this direction is that if a finite projective plane
admits two distinct cyclic Singer groups then it is Desarguesian [Ott75].
All the projective planes that we will concretely be concerned with are Desarguesian by virtue of being
small:
Theorem 2.6 ([Dem68, Theorem 3.2.15]) Every projective plane of order ≤ 8 is Desarguesian.

For the set of Desarguesian difference set we have the following:
Theorem 2.7 ([Ber53]) The group AGL1 (Z/δ Z) acts transitively on the Desarguesian difference sets in Z/δ Z.

In what follows, we will talk about buildings of type A2 rather than projective planes which is just a shift
in notation: if Π = (P, L, I ) is a projective plane, the corresponding building ∆ (of type A2 ) is the graph
with vertex set P t L and edge set {{x, y} | x I y}. Conversely, every building of type A2 gives rise to a
projective plane.

3 Singer lattices

A 2-dimensional simplicial complex is a building of type Ã2 if it simply connected and the link of every
vertex is a building of type A2 (this uses [Tit81, Theorem 1], see also [Ron89, Theorem 4.9]). The triangles
are called chambers, the edges are called panels. The vertices can be colored (but not canonically) by elements
of Z/3Z and then the type of a simplex is the set of colors of its vertices. Let X be a locally finite building of
type Ã2 and let Γ be a group acting on X . We say that X is a Singer lattice if the action preserves types and
is regular (transitive and free) on the three sets of edges of a given type. Note that this implies in particular
that the action is transitive on vertices of each type.

6

Stefan Witzel

Observation 3.1 Let Γ be a Singer lattice on X.
1. For every vertex x ∈ X the stabilizer Γx acts as a Singer group on the building lk x.
2. If {x, y, z} is a chamber in X then Γ is generated by Γx , Γy , and Γz .

We say that Γ is a Singer cyclic lattice if it is a Singer lattice and in addition the vertex stabilizer of each
(type of) vertex is cyclic.
The goal of this section is to understand in detail the relationship between Singer cyclic lattices and difference
matrices. Throughout the section we fix a prime power q and, as always, put δ = q 2 + q + 1. A difference
matrix is a (q + 1) × 3-matrix with entries in Z/δ Z such that each column (as a set) forms a difference set.
A difference matrix is based if some row is (0, 0, 0). Difference matrices naturally arise in the following way:
Lemma 3.2 Let Γ be a Singer cyclic lattice on X, let x0 , x1 , x2 be the vertices of a chamber, and let σj generate
Γxj for j ∈ {0, 1, 2}. Associated to these data is a based difference matrix E such that the relations
E

E

E

σ0 i,0 σ1 i,1 σ2 i,2 = 1

1≤i≤q+1

(3.1)

hold in Γ . The matrix is uniquely determined up to row permutations. The relations
σjδ = 1

0≤j≤2

(3.2)

also hold.

When Γ acts as a Singer cyclic lattice on X and σ0 , σ1 , σ2 are the generators of the vertex stabilizers of a
chamber, we will call the triple (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 ) a chamber triple.
Proof Let q + 1 be the order of the building X . Then the link of an edge has q + 1 elements and the link of
a vertex has v = q 2 + q + 1 vertices of each type.

In order for a relation σ0e0 σ1e1 σ2e2 = 1 to hold, it is necessary that x := σ0e0 .x1 = σ0e0 σ1e1 .x1 = σ2−e2 .x1 . Clearly
x is adjacent to both x0 and x2 . Since Γ is regular on panels of type {0, 1} as well as on panels of type
{1, 2}, such elements σ0e0 and σ2−e2 do in fact exist for any vertex x in the link of [x0 , x2 ] and are uniquely
determined by it. Finally σ1e1 = σ0−e0 σ2−e2 ∈ Γ1 is uniquely determined by the other two elements. The zero
row is the one corresponding to the vertex x = x1 .
The second statement is clear because Γxj is cyclic and acts regularly on the points of each type in the link
of xj .
u
t
Remark 3.3 The columns of difference matrices will be indexed by numbers 0, 1, 2 throughout (as in Lemma 3.2).
These are really representatives for the type set Z/3Z so the reader who prefers positive indices may just

identify the indices 0 and 3.
The following is Essert’s classification result in the formulation for Singer cyclic lattices, see [Ess13, Theorems 5.6, 5.8]:
Theorem 3.4 (Essert’s theorem) If Γ is a Singer cyclic lattice then the generators σj together with the
relations (3.1) and (3.2) form a presentation for Γ .
Conversely if E is a based difference matrix then the group presented by the generators σj subject to the relations
(3.1) and (3.2) is a Singer cyclic lattice.

Another result that will be of fundamental importance throughout the paper is the following, see [KL97,
Theorem 1.1.3], [KW14, Theorem III]:

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

7

Theorem 3.5 (QI-rigidity for buildings) Let X and Y be thick, irreducible Euclidean buildings of dimension
at least 2.
1. Any quasi-isometry X → Y is at bounded distance from an isomorphism.
2. Two isomorphisms X → Y that are at a bounded distance are the same.

We call a triple (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 ) in an abstract group Γ (without action) a presenting triple if there is a difference
matrix E such that the generators σ0 , σ1 , σ2 together with the relations (3.1) and (3.2) present Γ . Thus
Essert’s theorem can be phrased as saying that every chamber triple for Γ y X is a presenting triple in Γ
and that for every presenting triple in Γ there is an action Γ y X for which it is a chamber triple. The
following lemma allows us to completely drop the distinction.
Lemma 3.6 If Γ y X is a presenting triple in Γ then it is a chamber triple for the action.
Proof Let (σi )0≤i≤2 be the presenting triple in question. The second part of Essert’s theorem tells us that
there is an action Γ y Y for which (σi )0≤i≤2 is a chamber triple. Now Γ acting cocompactly on X as well
as on Y we obtain quasi-isometries
X ←Γ →Y.

By Theorem 3.5 there exists an isomorphism α : X → Y at bounded distance from this quasi-isometry (in
particular X and Y are isomorphic). Furthermore looking at the diagram
X 
σi

?
X 

Γ
σi

- Y
σi

?
Γ

?
- Y

we see that σi ◦ α and α ◦ σi are two isomorphisms at bounded distance from each other. By the uniqueness
statement of Theorem 3.5 this means they are equal. In other words the actions of σi on X and on Y are
conjugate to each other via α, irrespective of i. Thus if (σi )0≤i≤2 is a chamber triple for Γ y Y then it is
one for Γ y X .
u
t
As a corollary we obtain the following rigidity statement.
Proposition 3.7 Let Γ be a Singer cyclic lattice. The building X that Γ acts on can be recovered (up to Γ equivariant isomorphism) from Γ . In particular, Aut(Γ ) is naturally a subgroup of Aut(X ).
Proof Every finite subgroup of Γ needs to fix a point of X by the Bruhat–Tits fixed point theorem [BT72,

Lemme 3.2.3] (see also [BH99, Corollary II.2.8]). But the action preserves types and is free on panels, so
the only fixed point sets of non-trivial subgroups of Γ are vertices. Hence every maximal finite subgroup of
Γ is a vertex stabilizer.
Since the action of Γ preserves types and is transitive on vertices of each type, there are three conjugacy
classes of maximal finite subgroups, one for each vertex type.
It remains to recover edges or equivalently (since X is flag and every edge is contained in a chamber) the
chambers. By Lemma 3.6 the vertices fixed by the maximal finite subgroups hσ0 i, hσ1 i, hσ2 i span a chamber
if and only if (σi )0≤i≤2 is a presenting triple.
u
t
Remark 3.8 It would be nice to find a more elementary way to recover the edges. One might expect that
hσ0 i and hσ1 i fix adjacent vertices if any only if there is a vertex such that hσ0 i.v ∩ hσ1 i.v has at least q + 1

elements (the only “only if” part is clear by construction). However we have not managed to prove this.

8

Stefan Witzel

Whenever a Singer cyclic lattice Γ is equipped with a presenting triple (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 ) (for example because it
is given by a difference matrix), we equip the associated building X with a type function such that the fixed
point set of σi has type i.
Before we move on, we record two basic facts.
Observation 3.9 Let E be a based difference matrix and let Γ be the associated Singer cyclic lattice. Then
H1 (Γ ) = (Z/δ Z)3 / im E T .
Proof This follows by abelianizing the presentation (3.1), (3.2).

u
t

A similar argument shows that a Singer lattice has trivial center, but more is true:
Lemma 3.10 ([CM09, Corollary 2.7]) A Singer cyclic lattice has no non-trivial normal amenable subgroup.

We have seen that a Singer cyclic lattice together with a presenting triple determines a based difference
matrix and conversely a difference matrix gives rise to a Singer cyclic lattice with a distinguished presenting
triple. We want to pin down this correspondence more precisely mainly to obtain two pieces of information:
the isomorphism classes of Singer cyclic lattices, and for each Singer cyclic lattice its automorphism group.
For this purpose it will be useful to employ the language of groupoids. We refer to [Hig71] as a reference but
we will not need much theory. The only non-trivial concept that we will make use of is that of a quotient
groupoid, see [Hig71, Chapter 12]. Rather than introducing the concepts in general, we will discuss an
elementary example.
Example 3.11 A group H acting on a set M gives rise to a groupoid H M in an obvious way: the objects of
H
M are the elements of M and the morphisms m → n are the elements h ∈ H with h.m = n. If h is one of
them, the set of these elements Hm,n equals hHm and also Hn h. In particular, the automorphisms group of
an object m is just its stabilizer Hm .
H
Now suppose that K < H is a subgroup with the property that the normal span of all stabilizers hKm
, m ∈ Mi
K
H
K
is contained in K (i.e. an automorphism in M conjugated by a morphism in M is in M ). Then there is a
groupoid K\H M whose elements are orbits in K\M and the morphisms Km → Kn are equivalence classes of
morphisms modulo precomposition by Km or (equivalently) postcomposition by Kn (the equivalence comes
from the fact that if h.m = n then h Km = Kn ). Thus the set of morphisms corresponds to Hm,n /Km =
Kn \Hm,n . The assumption on K asserts that composition is well-defined.

An important special case is when the action of K on M is free. Then the normality condition of the
last paragraph is automatically satisfied. Moreover, the natural map on morphisms homH M (m, n) →
homK\H M (Km m, Kn n) is a bijection.
The phenomenon in the last paragraph of the example generalizes as follows:
Observation 3.12 Let G be a groupoid and let N be a full subgroupoid of G (meaning it contains all the objects
of G) that has no automorphisms other than identity morphisms. Then N is normal in G and the quotient map
q : G → N \G induces isomorphisms homG (x, y ) → homN \G (q (x), q (y )).

The first groupoid we want to construct will be denoted ST .
The objects of ST are equivalence classes of pairs (Γ, T ) where Γ is a Singer cyclic lattice and T ⊆ Γ is
a presenting triple. (The reader who is concerned with this not becoming a small category will fix his or
her favorite countable set and take “Singer cyclic lattice” to mean “group structure isomorphic to a Singer
cyclic lattice on that set”.) Two pairs (Γ, T ) and (Γ 0 , T 0 ) are equivalent if there is an isomorphism α : Γ → Γ 0
that takes T to T 0 (as ordered triples). Note that such a morphism, if it exists, is unique since T and T 0

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

9

generate Γ . Note also, that it exists precisely if (Γ, T ) and (Γ, T 0 ) give rise to the same difference matrix.
We denote the equivalence class of (Γ, T ) by [Γ, T ].
A morphism consists of a Singer cyclic lattice Γ together with two presenting triples T and T 0 and we write
them as Γ, T → Γ, T 0 . The symbols Γ, T → Γ, T 0 and Λ, S → Λ, S 0 represent the same morphism if there is an
isomorphism α : Γ → Λ that takes T to S and T 0 to 0 S (again, as ordered tuples). We denote the morphism
defined by Γ, T → Γ, T 0 as [Γ, T → Γ, T 0 ].
Composition is defined by [Γ, T 0 → Γ, T 00 ] ◦ [Γ, T → Γ, T 0 ] = [Γ, T → Γ, T 00 ]. Thus in terms of general
representatives, if [Γ, T → Γ, T 0 ] and [Λ, S → Λ, S 0 ] are morphisms with [Γ, T 0 ] = [Λ, S ] then the product
[Λ, S → Λ, S 0 ] ◦ [Γ, T → Γ, T 0 ] equals [Λ, α(T ) → Λ, S 0 ] = [Γ, T → Γ, α−1 (S 0 )] where α : Γ → Λ is the
isomorphism taking T 0 to S .
A good way to think about this groupoid is as follows: if α = [Γ, T → Γ, T 0 ] is an automorphism in ST , i.e.
if [Γ, T ] = [Γ, T 0 ], then α in fact represents an automorphism of Γ , namely the one taking T to T 0 . Thus ST
naturally contains the groupoid consisting of automorphism groups of Singer cyclic lattices. The morphisms
between different objects may be thought of as changing the presenting triple.
∼ Aut(Γ ).
Observation 3.13 For every object [Γ, T ] in ST we have AutST ([Γ, T ]) =

Second we consider a subgroupoid IST of ST which has the same objects but whose only morphisms are
inner isomorphisms. That is, [Γ, T → Γ, T 0 ] is in IST if and only if there is a g ∈ Γ with T g = T 0 .
Lemma 3.14 The subgroupoid IST is normal in ST .
Proof We have to verify that if α = [Γ, T → Γ, T 0 ] ∈ ST and β = [Γ, T 00 → Γ, T ] ∈ IST with [Γ, T ] = [Γ, T 00 ]
g
g
then αβα−1 ∈ IST . Let g ∈ Γ be such that T 00 = T . Then αβα−1 = [Γ, T 0 → Γ, T 0 ] ∈ IST .
u
t

The next step is to see how much larger ST is than IST . We have
Lemma 3.15 Any morphism α in ST can be decomposed uniquely as α = α4 α3 α2 α1 where
1. α1 ∈ IST , so α1 = [Γ, (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 ) → Γ, (σ0g , σ1g , σ2g )] for some g ∈ G,
2. α2 = [Γ, (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 ) → Γ, (σπ−1 (0) , σπ−1 (1) , σπ−2 (2) )] for some Γ and π ∈ S3 ,
σ

e1

3. α3 = [Γ, (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 ) → Γ, (σ0 1 , σ1 , σ2 )] Γ where e1 is an entry in the first column of the difference matrix
of Γ with respect to (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 ).
4. α4 = [Γ, (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 ) → Γ, (σ0e0 , σ1e1 , σ2e2 )] Γ and (e0 , e1 , e2 ) ∈ (Z/δ Z× )3 ,

Of course there is nothing special about the 0th element being conjugated by the first in the definition of
α3 , we just make a choice for definiteness.
Proof Let α = [Γ, T → Γ, T 0 ] with T = (σi )0≤i≤2 and T 0 = (σi0 )0≤i≤2 . We will successively multiply by
elements as described in the statement to simplify α until in the end we are left with the identity morphism.

Using Lemma 3.6 we may think of Γ as acting on a building X . In particular, each triple determines an
ordered tuple of vertices of a chamber (the fixed point sets of the triple). At first we will look at what
happens to the chamber (as a coarser version of T as it were). Since Γ acts regularly on chambers of each
type, after multiplying by an inner automorphism we may assume that the vertices fixed by σ1 and σ2 are
also fixed vertices of two of the σi0 .
After permuting T 0 by an appropriate α2 we may assume that the fixed points of σ1 and σ10 and of σ2 and
σ20 are the same; in particular, α is type-preserving at this point.
Let v0 be the vertex fixed by σ0 and let v00 be the vertex fixed by σ00 . Note that both v0 and v00 are adjacent
to the vertices fixed by σ1 and by σ2 . Thus, since hσ1 i and hσ2 i act regularly on vertices of each type in their

10

Stefan Witzel

link, there are unique elements e1 and e2 with σ1−e1 .v0 = v00 and σ2e2 .v0 = v00 . It follows that σ1e1 σ2e2 ∈ hσ0 i,
say it is σ0−e0 and so (e0 , e1 , e2 ) is a row of the difference matrix of Γ with respect to T . Thus composing
with an appropriate α3 we may assume that the chambers of fixed points of T and of T 0 coincide.
Finally replacing each σi by a different generator in its span using α4 we achieve that T = T 0 .
It remains to verify uniqueness. Note that π can be recovered from the action on types: if we assign types
to the vertices of X in such a way that the fixed vertex of σi has type i then π (j ) is the type of the fixed
point vertex of hσj0 i. Since α1 , α3 , and α4 preserve types, this determines α2 .
Similarly, α3 can be recovered from chamber orbits: there are q + 1 orbits of chambers of X under the action
of Γ . Each of the q + 1 choices of e1 in α3 replaces the chamber corresponding to T by one in a different
orbit. Since α1 , α2 , and α4 preserve the chamber orbit, this determines α3 .
It remains to show that α4 α1 = id then α1 and α4 are trivial. If conjugation by g leaves hσi i invariant then
g fixes the chamber whose vertices a fixed by the hσi i. Since Γ acts freely on chambers we deduce that
g = 1.
u
t
With IST being normal in ST there is a canonical quotient groupoid and it is what we are after. We first
describe what we claim to be the quotient groupoid and then prove that it is what we claim in the end.
The following Lemma gives a good idea of where we are heading.
Lemma 3.16 Let Γ be a Singer cyclic lattice acting on X. Let T be a presenting triple in Γ and let E be the
associated based difference matrix
0. which is only well defined up to permutation of rows.
The morphisms in Lemma 3.15 have the following effect on E.
1.
2.
3.
4.

α1
α2
α3
α4

has no effect on E.
amounts to permuting the columns of E by π.
amounts to subtracting the row (e0 , e1 , e2 ) of E from all rows of E.
amounts to multiplying the ith column of E by (ei + δ Z)−1 .

Proof Only the point concerning α3 needs justification. Let (e0 , e1 , e2 ) be the row of E concerning the
exponent in question and let (f0 , f1 , f2 ) be any row of E . We compute the relation
σ2−e2 σ1−e1 σ0−e0 σ0f0 σ1f1 σ2f2 ≈ σ1−e1 σ0f0 −e0 σ1f1 σ2f2 −e2
e1

= (σ0f0 −e0 )σ1 σ1f1 −e1 σ2f2 −e2
e

(σ1 1 ) f0 −e0 f1 −e1 f2 −e2
)
σ1
σ2

= ( σ0

where ≈ means equality up to cyclic permutation (we only care that the expressions are relators). We see
that the difference matrix associated to the generators σ00 , σ1 , σ2 is obtained from E by subtracting the row
(e0 , e1 , e2 ) from all rows. In particular, this row becomes the new zero row.
u
t
Let DM0 be the set of all based difference matrices (for the fixed parameter q ). The effects of the morphisms
α2 and α4 give rise to a right action of the wreath product C := (Z/δ Z× )3 o S3 on DM0 (C for acting on
columns). This action can be thought of as multiplication by 3-by-3 monomial matrices over Z/δ Z from the
right.
Similarly (0) gives rise to an action of Sq+1 on DM0 . In terms of matrices it is multiplication by (q + 1)-by(q + 1) permutation matrices from the left. We let R̄ denote Sq+1 acting on DM0 in this way. In order to
take α3 into account we note the following:

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

11

Lemma 3.17 The subgroup of GLq+1 (Z/δ Z) generated by the matrices




Pi := 




Ii−1




Ii−1
 and Mi := 



01
10
Iq−i

..
.

,
−1

..
. Iq−i+1



is isomorphic to Sq+2 .
q +2
Proof The
preserves the submodule of those vectors (x1 , . . . , xq+2 ) that
P natural action of Sq+2 on (Z/δ Z)
satisfy xi = 0. This submodule has a basis consisting of the vectors (. . . , 0, 1, 0, . . . , 0, −1). The standard
generators with respect to this basis are Pi , 1 ≤ i ≤ q and Mq+1 .
u
t

Note that the matrices Mi in Lemma (3.17) correspond to the effect of α3 in Lemma 3.16. We define R to
be Sq+2 acting on DM0 as above. So all the operations of Lemma 3.16 are induced by an action of R × C
on DM0 .
The third groupoid we want to consider will be denoted DM. It is defined to be R̄\R×C DM0 in the notation
of Example 3.11 (note that since C acts from the right, its elements need to be inverted). Thus objects are
orbits in R̄\DM0 and morphisms are induced by the action of R × C .
We now define a groupoid map q : ST → DM. On objects it takes [Γ, T ] to the difference matrix associated
to the pair (Γ, T ) by Lemma 3.2. On morphisms, it takes α4 α3 α2 α1 as in Lemma 3.15 to the morphism
associated to it via Lemma 3.16.
Theorem 3.18 The sequence

q

IST C ST → DM.
is exact in the sense that q is the quotient morphism of the normal inclusion on the left.
Proof First we need to check that IST is the kernel of q . That IST lies in the kernel is clear by construction.

The converse is true by the uniqueness statement in Lemma 3.16.
Using [Hig71, Proposition 25] it remains to show that two objects in ST having same image in DM lie
in the same component of IST and that q is surjective (meaning that any morphism in DM is the image
of a morphism in ST ). The first part is clear: if [Γ, T ] and [Γ 0 , T 0 ] have same image in DM then [Γ, T ] =
[Γ, T 0 ]. For surjectivity we just have to read Lemma 3.16 backwards: let E be a difference matrix and let
c := ((e0 , e1 , e2 ), π ) ∈ C be an element. We take (Γ, (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 )) to be a Singer lattice with presenting
π − 1 (e − 1 )

π −1 (e−1 )

π −1 (e−1 )

triple obtained from E via Essert’s theorem. Now [Γ, (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 ) → Γ, (σπ−1 (0)0 , σπ−1 (1)1 , σπ−1 (2)2 )] has
image the morphism induced by q . Similarly the morphisms induced by R are images of the morphisms
e
σ 1
[Γ, (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 ) → Γ, (σ0 1 , σ1 , σ2 )] where e1 ranges over the 1st column of E . Since these morphisms generate
the component of R̄.E , this shows surjectivity.
u
t
From this discussion of groupoids we draw two concrete conclusions about Singer lattices. We say that two
based difference matrices are equivalent if they lie in the same R × C orbit. That is the set of equivalence
classes is R\DM0 /C .
Corollary 3.19 There is a bijective correspondence between isomorphism classes of Singer cyclic lattices and
equivalence classes R\DM0 /C.
Proof Isomorphism classes of Singer cyclic lattices correspond to components of ST , the set R\DM0 /C
corresponds to components of DM. Since a quotient morphism of groupoids establishes a bijective correspondence between components, the statement follows from Theorem 3.18.
u
t

12

Stefan Witzel

Table 3.1 For small values of q: the parameter δ = q 2 + q + 1, a difference set, the number of Singer cyclic lattices, and
the bound (as a rounded decimal fraction) of Theorem 4.6.

q
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
11

δ
difference set
#
bound
7= 7
(0, 1, 3)
2
0.4
13= 13
(0, 1, 3, 9)
7
4.1
21= 3 · 7
(0, 1, 4, 14, 16)
17
11.4
31= 31
(0, 1, 3, 8, 12, 18)
3269
3214.3
57= 3 · 19
(0, 1, 3, 13, 32, 36, 43, 52)
10035961.9
73= 73
(0, 1, 3, 7, 15, 31, 36, 54, 63)
30105851.5
91= 7 · 13
(0, 1, 3, 9, 27, 49, 56, 61, 77, 81)
10160648447.9
133= 7 · 19 (0, 1, 3, 12, 20, 34, 38, 81, 88, 94, 104, 109)
1416311939759987.8

To a difference matrix E we want to associate a group Aut(E ) of automorphisms. The natural candidate is
the automorphism group of R̄.E in DM. We will take a further quotient to obtain a more handy description.
Lemma 2.5 implies that the action of R on DM0 is free. Thus by Observation 3.12 we may consider the
∼ C (R\DM0 ). In fact, the observation implies that the quotient DM → C (R\DM0 )
groupoid R\R×C DM0 =
induces isomorphisms in automorphism groups, which on the right hand side are just subgroups of C .
Concretely, this means that we can define Aut(E ) to be the subgroup of C that preserves the R-orbit of E .
Corollary 3.20 Let E be a difference matrix and let Γ be the associated Singer cyclic lattice. There is an exact
sequence of groups
Inn(Γ ) → Aut(Γ ) → Aut(E )
∼ Aut(E ).
thus Out(Γ ) =
Proof Let T be the presenting triple of Γ given by E . It follows from Theorem 3.18 that there is an exact
sequence
homIST ([Γ, T ], [Γ, T ]) → homST ([Γ, T ], [Γ, T ]) → homDM (R̄.E, R̄.E ).

The first two are naturally isomorphic to Inn(Γ ) and Aut(Γ ) by construction. The last one is naturally
isomorphic to Aut(E ) by the discussion above.
u
t

4 Census

The goal of this section is to estimate the number of Singer cyclic lattices up to isomorphism using Corollary 3.19. For this purpose it will be helpful to take non-based difference matrices into view. Let DM be the
set of all difference matrices (based or not) for our fixed parameter q . Dropping the requirement that the
difference matrices be based allows us to extend the action of C to the supergroup C̃ := AGL1 (Z/δ Z)3 o S3 .
Lemma 4.1 There is a well-defined map
R\DM → R\DM0
that induces a bijection
R\DM/C̃ → R\DM0 /C.
Proof The map takes the R-orbit of E to the R-orbit of the based difference matrix E0 that is obtained
from E by subtracting some row from all rows. Clearly this new difference matrix is based. The map is
well-defined because it does not matter, up to the R-action, which row one chooses: if e and f are rows of
E then
E − f = (E − e) − (f − e)

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

13

and (f − e) is a row of E − e (here f − e means the componentwise difference of f and e and E − f means
E with f subtracted from each row).
Clearly adding a constant to some column of E has no effect on E0 thus we get a bijection
R\DM/(Z/δ Z)3 → R\DM0
u
t

and quotienting further the bijection claimed in the statement.

We say that two difference matrices are equivalent if they lie in the same R × C̃ -orbit. Note that this is
consistent with the notion of equivalence for based difference matrices by Lemma 4.1: if two based difference
matrices are equivalent modulo R × C̃ then they already lie in the same R × C -orbit.
The advantage of of this approach lies in the fact that it is easier to list representatives. To obtain representatives of based difference matrices modulo equivalence we would need to list difference sets modulo (Z/δ Z)× ,
which is not so clear how to do. By contrast in order to obtain difference matrices up to equivalence we need
to list difference sets modulo AGL1 (Z/δ Z). At least for Desarguesian ones we know from Theorem 2.7 that
there is only one. We call a difference matrix Desarguesian if all of its columns are Desarguesian difference
sets and get:
Lemma 4.2 Let D be any Desarguesian difference set and let E be a Desarguesian difference matrix. Then E is
equivalent to a difference matrix where each column is equal to D as a set.

So let us take D to be any Desarguesian difference set and let AD < AGL1 (Z/δ Z) be the stabilizer of D.
Denoting by DM(D) the set of difference matrices whose columns setwise equal D, inclusion induces a map
R̄\DM(D)/(A3D o S3 ) → R\DM/C̃ .

(4.1)

Lemma 4.3 The map (4.1) is injective.
Proof It is not hard to see that an element of C̃ taking one difference matrix in DM(D) to another actually
has to lie in A3D o S3 . That two difference matrices in DM(D) that differ by an element of R actually differ
by an element of R̄ follows from Lemma 2.5.
u
t

We want to use (4.3) to bound the number of difference matrices up to equivalence. Lemmas 4.1 and 4.3
imply the last two of the inequalities
|Sq+1 \DM(D)/S3 |
≤ |R̄\DM(D)/(A3D o S3 )| ≤ |R\DM/C̃| = |R\DM0 /C|.
|A3D |

(4.2)

The next two lemmas compute the numerator respectively denominator of the left hand side of the inequality.
Lemma 4.4 Let D be a set of cardinality k. Let C be the set of k × 3-matrices where each column setwise equals
D. Then Sk \C/S3 has cardinality


1
(k!)2 + 3k! + 2(τk + 1)
6
where τk is the number of elements of order (exactly) 3 in Sk .

(4.3)

Proof Let G = Sk × S3 acting on C . The Burnside Lemma gives
|C/G| =

|C|
+
|G|

X
cG∈C/G


1−

1



|Gc |

where Gc is the stabilizer of an element c ∈ C . We have to determine which of the (k!)3 elements (or more
precisely: which of their equivalence classes) have a non-trivial stabilizer.

14

Stefan Witzel

We start by observing that the projection ρ : G → S3 always restricts to an injective morphism on Gc .
Indeed, given two column indices i and j there is a unique permutation πi,j ∈ Sk that takes the ith column
to the j th. We distinguish cases by what ρ(Gc ) is.
If ρ(Gc ) is all of S3 then all columns of c have to coincide. This is because there are 3-cycles (π, (i j k)) ∈ Gc
2
which satisfy π = πi,j = πj,k = πk,i and π 3 = id, and there are elements (πi,j , (i j )) satisfying πi,j
= id from
which we see that πi,j = id for all i, j . Conversely if all columns coincide it is obvious that ρ(Gc ) = S3 .
There are k! such elements in C , which form a single equivalence class.
If ρ(Gc ) = C3 then there is a permutation π (= π1,2 = π2,3 = π3,1 ) of order 3 in Sk such that Gc is generated
by (π, (1 2 3)). The number of these clements is k! · τk , and the number of their equivalence classes is 1/2 · τk .
If ρ(Gc ) = C2 then Gc is generated by an element (π, (i j )) of order 2. Let k be the third index. We see that
πi,j = π = πk,k = id and thus that the ith and the j th columns have to coincide (but the kth must not).
There are (32) · k! · (k! − 1) of these elements and (k! − 1) of their equivalence classes.
The only remaining case is where ρ(Gc ) is trivial so Gc is trivial and we need not count these.
Putting everything together, we find that
|C/G| =

(k!)3
5 2 1
1
+ + · τk + (k! − 1)
6k !
6 3 2
2

which simplifies to the expression in the statement.

u
t

Lemma 4.5 Write q = pη with p prime. If D ⊆ Z/δ Z is a Desarguesian difference set then its stabilizer in
AGL1 (Z/δ Z) has order 3η.
×
Proof The normalizer of the cyclic Singer group F×
q 3 /Fq in the full group of colineations PΓL3 (Fq ) =
×
3
PGL3 (Fq ) o Gal(Fq /Fp ) is N := F×
q 3 /Fq o Gal(Fq /Fp ). This can be seen using [Hup67, II.7.3a] which
×
×
implies that the normalizer in PGL3 (Fq ) is Fq3 /Fq o Gal(Fq3 /Fq ).

Identifying the Singer group with Z/δ Z, the group N is identified with the subgroup Z/δ Zohpi of AGL1 (Z/δ Z).
Let x be a point and ` be a line such that σ i .x I L iff i ∈ D. Since N acts by colineations, there is a line
`0 such that σ pi .x I `0 iff i ∈ D. Say `0 = σ a .`. Thus σ pi−a .x I ` iff i ∈ D, showing that the subgroup of
Z/δ Z o hpi generated by i 7→ pi − a preserves D.
u
t
Combining Lemmas 4.4, 4.5, and Corollary 3.19 with (4.2) we get:
Theorem 4.6 Let q = pη with p prime. The number of Singer cyclic lattices with parameter q up to isomorphism
is bounded below by


1
((q + 1)!)2 + 3(q + 1)! + 2(τq+1 + 1)
3
6 · 27η
where τq+1 is the number of elements of order precisely 3 in Sq+1 . In particular, the number grows superexponentially with q.

Table 3.1 shows that this bound quickly becomes relatively good, and also that it grows very fast.
For q ∈ {2, 3, 4} representatives for difference matrices up to equivalence are shown in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 10.1
together with some invariants of the associated Singer cyclic lattice.

5 Bruhat–Tits examples

This section as well as Section 8 are devoted to investigating which of the Singer cyclic lattices act on
Bruhat–Tits buildings. The Bruhat–Tits buildings relevant for us arise as follows. If K is a local field and

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

15

Table 4.1 Singer cyclic lattices for q = 2. The table shows a difference matrix with fixed difference set, a based difference
matrix, the outer automorphism group (which is the automorphism group of the difference matrix), the abelianization, and
the abelianization of the commutator subgroup.

Name 
Diff mat
DM
Out(Γ ) H1 (Γ ) H1 ([Γ, Γ ])
 Based


000
000
111
111
Γ2,1
C3 o S3 (Z/7Z)2 (Z/2Z)6
3 3 3 3 3 3
000
000
113
113
Γ2,2
C3 o (0, 1) Z/7Z
0
331

331

Table 4.2 Singer cyclic lattices for q = 3. The columns are the same as in Table 4.1.

Name Diff mat
DM
! Based
!
000
000
Γ3,1
Γ3,2
Γ3,3
Γ3,4
Γ3,5
Γ3,6
Γ3,7

1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9

1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
9
3
1
0
3
9
1
0
9
3

1
3
9!
0
1
9
3!
1
0
3
9!
1
0
9
3!
1
0
3
9!
1
3
0
9!
1
3
0
9

1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9

1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
9
3
0
1
4
6
0
1
6
4

Out(Γ )

H1 (Γ )

H1 ([Γ, Γ ])

1
C3 o S3 (Z/13Z)2
3
9!
0
1
C3 o (0, 1) Z/13Z
9
3!
0
1
(0, 1)
Z/13Z
4
6!
0
1
(0, 1)
Z/13Z
6
4!
0
1
1
0
4
6!
0
6
1
0
4
1!
0
4
1
0
1
6

(Z/3Z)6
0
0
0
0
0
0

O is its ring of integers, then there is a Bruhat–Tits building X of type Ã2 on which the group PGL3 (K )
acts strongly transitively. Its vertices are homothety classes of O-lattices in K 3 , and in particular PGL3 (O)
is the stabilizer of a vertex. The full automorphism group of X is (PGL3 (K ) o C2 ) o Aut(K ) where the
non-trivial element of C2 takes a matrix to its transpose inverse.

In this section we will describe for each q one Singer cyclic lattice that is an arithmetic subgroup of
PGL3 (Fq ((t))) and in particular acts on the associated Bruhat–Tits building. The existence of lattices
these was first noted by Tits [Tit86, Section 3.1]. In [CRT] they were recovered in a similar way to how we
will describe them below. The main point will therefore be to work out precisely which difference matrices
produce these arithmetic lattices.
To start with, we need to recall a construction by Cartwright, Mantero, Steger, and Zappa [CMSZ93] (see
also [CS98]) to construct a vertex regular lattice in PGL3 (K ). We begin with a setup as in Section 2: let
q be a prime power and consider the field extension Fq3 /Fq . Let ξ be a generator of F∗q3 /F∗q . Now take
K = Fq (Y ) to be the field of rational functions over Fq and L = Fq3 (Y ) the one over Fq3 . CMSZ consider
the automorphism ϕ of L that takes x ∈ Fq3 to xq and fixes Y and define the cyclic algebra A = L[σ ] with
relations
σ3 = 1 + Y

and

σxσ −1 = ϕ(x).

(5.1)

(this is a central algebra over K ). They define an element b1 ∈ A and for u ∈ F∗q3 /F∗q put bu = ub1 u−1 to
show:

16

Stefan Witzel

Theorem 5.1 The algebra A splits giving rise to an isomorphism
A∗ /Z (A)∗ → PGL3 (Fq ((Y ))).
Under this isomorphism, the group ΓCMSZ generated by all the bu acts regularly on vertices of the associated
building. More specifically, there is a vertex v0 such that the maps u 7→ bu .v0 , u⊥ 7→ bu−1 .v0 induce an isomorphism
of the projective plane Π (Fq3 ) with lk(v0 ).

A vertex regular lattice as above gives rise to the following data: a polarity λ : lk(v0 ) → lk(v0 ) defined by
1
λ(bu .v0 ) = b−
u .v0 and a triangle presentation T which is just a set of triples (u, v, w ) such that bu bv bw = 1.
The lattice Γ then has a presentation
hbu , u ∈ F∗q3 /F∗q | bu bv bw = 1, (u, v, w) ∈ T i.

Let Tr := TrFq3 /Fq denote the relative trace and (x, y ) = Tr(xy ) the associated bilinear form. In Theorem 5.1
the involution (seen as a map of Π (Fq3 )) is λ(uFq ) = u⊥ Fq and the triangle presentation consists of triples
(u, uζ, uζ q+1 ) where u, ζ ∈ F∗q3 and Tr(ζ ) = 0. In other words, (u, v, w) ∈ T if and only if Tr(v/u) = 0 and
wuq = v q+1 .
Note that from the theorem it is obvious that ξ acts a Singer cycle on lk(v0 ). Thus it is natural to look
at the supergroup Γ̂ := hξ, b1 i of ΓCMSZ . One expects that the normal closure Γ := hξ Γ̂ i is a Singer cyclic
lattice. This is indeed the case, and not surprisingly, their difference matrices are the most symmetric ones:
Corollary 5.2 The group Γ is a Singer cyclic lattice with difference matrix E = (d d d)d∈D where D is a
Desarguesian difference set.
Proof First we note that
ξ k bu ξ −k = bξk u .

(5.2)

Thus ξ k takes u.v0 to (ξ k u).v0 and in particular acts as a Singer cycle on lk v0 . Since ΓCMSZ is vertextransitive, it follows that Γ contains a Singer cycle around every vertex.
To check that it is a Singer cyclic lattice and to determine the difference matrix we define the vertices
1
k
k
⊥
w1 := b1 .v0 and let v2 := b−
1 .v0 . Note that ξ .w1 is adjacent to v2 if and only if ξ Fq is adjacent to Fq if
k
0
and only if Tr(ξ ) = 0. The set D of those k is the classical Singer difference set of Fq3 /Fq .
Let ζ ∈ F∗q3 /F∗q be such that Tr(ζ ) = 0 and put v1 := ζ.w1 = bζ .v0 . Note that v0 , v1 , and v2 are pairwise
adjacent. Thus Γ is generated by
t1 := ξ

1
t2 := bζ ξb−
ζ

and

1
t3 := b−
1 ξb1 .

We have to determine the tuples (k, `, m) such that tk1 t`2 tm
3 = 1. Expanding and using the triangle presentation we find that
k
` −1 −1 m
k
`
m
tk1 t`2 tm
3 = ξ bζ ξ bζ b1 ξ b1 = ξ bζ ξ bζ q+1 ξ b1 .
We permute cyclically and apply (5.2) to get
b1 ξ k bζ ξ ` bζ q+1 ξ m = b1 bξk ζ bξ`+k ζ q+1 ξ m+`+k .

The power of ξ on the right fixes v0 , so for the whole expression to be trivial, the left part also has to fix
v0 . But the left part lies in Γ , so if it fixes v0 it is trivial. Thus the whole expression is trivial if and only if
the two factors are trivial individually. This is equivalent to the following relations:
ξ m+`+k ∈ Fq

(1, ξ k ζ, ξ `+k ζ q+1 ) ∈ T .

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

17

If we let r ∈ D0 be such that ζ = ξ r we we can write these as
mod q 2 + q + 1

m+`+k ≡0
k+r ∈D

0

(q + 1)k ≡ (` + k) mod q 2 + q + 1.
The solutions are triples (k, `, m) = (k, qk, (q + 1)k) with k ∈ −r + D0 . Now q and q + 1 are relatively prime
to q 2 + q + 1 (since q 2 + q + 1 = q (q + 1) + 1) so we may replace the above Singer cycles by
s1 := t1

s2 := tq2

and

s3 := tq3+1

and the difference set by D := −r + D0 .

u
t

Note that any two difference matrices of the form E = (d d d)d∈D with D a Desarguesian difference set are
equivalent. So the corollary says that the unique equivalence class of difference matrices that has representatives with all rows constant (and the difference set Desarguesian) parametrizes Bruhat–Tits lattices.

6 Relation to chamber regular lattices

This section is a slight deviation from the general train of thought. After having made the connection
with the vertex regular lattices studied by CMSZ in the last section, we study a similar relationship in
this section. Ronan [Ron84], Tits [Tit85, Tit86] and Köhler–Meixner–Wester [KMW84] (see also [Kan86,
Theorem C.3.6]) have introduced four lattices that act chamber regularly (preserving types) on buildings
of type Ã2 and of order 2. They are:

ΓR1 = ha, b, c | a3 = b3 = c3 = 1, (ab)2 = ba, (bc)2 = cb, (ca)2 = aci
ΓR2 = ha, b, c | a3 = b3 = c3 = 1, (ab)2 = ba, (bc)2 = cb, (ac)2 = cai
ΓR3 = ha, b, c | a3 = b3 = c3 = 1, (ab)2 = ba, (c2 b)2 = bc2 , (ac)2 = cai
ΓR4 = ha, b, c | a3 = b3 = c3 = 1, (ab)2 = ba, (bc2 )2 = c2 b, (ac)2 = cai

Besides these there is one other known family of chamber-regular lattices on Ã2 -buildings. Tits [Tit85,
Section 3.2] describes 44 such lattices for q = 8. Timmesfeld [Tim89] classified chamber-transitive lattices
and in particular showed that these are the only possibilities for type Ã2 :
Theorem 6.1 Let X be a locally finite building of type Ã2 and order q. If X admits a type-preserving chambertransitive lattice Γ then q = 2 or q = 8 and Γ is chamber-regular.

Tits [Tit90] has shown that the buildings that the lattices ΓRi act on are distinct and can be distinguished
by the Hjelmslev planes of level 2 (we will look at Hjelmslev planes in more detail in Section 9; for now we
may just think of them as balls of combinatorial radius 2). He assigns an invariant in Z/2Z to the Hjelmslev
planes of level 2, that evaluates to 0 on the plane of F2 [[t]]/t2 and to 1 on the plane of Z2 /4 (he also shows
that this are the two only possible planes of level 2 for q = 2). Evaluating the invariants on the three types
of vertices he obtains a triple (Z/2Z)3 (up to permutation).
Tits also defines an algebraic invariant in Z/2Z for every generator as follows: first pick generators σab , σbc
and σca for the normal subgroups of order 7 in ha, bi, hb, ci, ha, ci (each vertex stabilizer is isomorphic to
C7 o C3 ). Now the generator a will carry invariant 0 if it conjugates both, σab and σca to their square or both
to their fourth power, and will carry invariant 1 if it conjugates one to its square and the other to its fourth

18

Stefan Witzel

power. The other invariants for b and c are assigned analogously. He then shows that the invariant of the
lattice coincides with the one of the building it acts on. Tits denotes the lattice with invariants (c0 , c1 , c2 )
by G(c0 , c1 , c2 ).
Lemma 6.2 The translation between Ronan’s presentation and Tits’s invariant is: ΓR1 = G(1, 1, 1), ΓR2 =
G(0, 0, 1), ΓR3 = G(0, 0, 0), ΓR4 = G(0, 1, 1).
Proof For ΓR1 we take elements of order 7 to be ab, bc, ab. We find that (ab)a = ba = (ab)2 while (ac)a =
ca = (ac)4 giving a invariant 1. The other generators are similar. We skip the other verifications except for
ΓR4 . Here we take the elements of order 7 to be ab, bc2 , and ac. We see that a takes ab as well as ac to
a square giving invariant 0. On the other hand b takes bc2 to a square but ab to its fourth power, giving
invariant 1. Similarly c takes bc2 to its square but takes ac to its fourth power, giving invariant 1.
u
t

Both Singer cyclic lattices for q = 2 embed into one of the chamber regular lattices. That Γ2,1 embeds into
ΓR3 was already noted by Essert [Ess13, Remark, p. 1559].
Now we consider the lattice
Γ2,2 = hx, y, z | x7 = y 7 = z 7 , xyz 3 = x3 y 3 z = 1i.

We will show that it has an extension that is isomorphic to one of the chamber regular lattices. Note
that z = (xy )2 , z 3 = y −1 x−1 , z 4 = xy , z 6 = x3 y 3 . As a consequence, one sees Γ2,2 admits the following
automorphism of order three: x 7→ x2 , y 7→ y 2 , z 7→ yx. If we take the semidirect product with the group
generated by this automorphism we get the lattice
Γ̂2,2 = hx, y, z, a | the above, a3 , xa = ax2 , ya = ay 2 , za = ayxi

(6.1)

which is chamber regular because a permutes the three Γ2,2 -orbits of chambers. Indeed, it is immediate from
the relations that ha, xi and ha, yi generate Frobenius groups of order 21 (C7 o C3 ) which are the building
blocks of the chamber regular lattices. To recover Ronan’s presentation, we need to find two further elements
of order 3 that normalize x and z respectively y and z . That is, we are looking for conjugates of a by x and
y respectively that normalize z . We find
zx

i

ax−i

2i

= z ax

x−i

i

= (yx)x .

Taking i = −1 we get
zx

−1

ax

= xy = z 4 .

−1

= xy = z 4 .

Similarly one computes that
z yay

So b := x−1 ax and c := ya−1 y −1 work. We note in passing that ba = x and ca = y −1 .
Lemma 6.3 The lattice Γ̂2,2 has the presentation
Γ̂2,2 = ha, b, c | a3 = b3 = c3 = 1, (ab)2 = ba, (ac)2 = ca, c2 b = (bc2 )2 i

(6.2)

and in particular is isomorphic to ΓR4 .
Proof We compute
ab = ax−1 a−1 x = x−4 x = x4 = (ba)4 .

Taking squares we obtain the first relation. The second relation is obtained completely analogously by
evaluating ac. Finally
bc2 = x−1 a−1 xyay −1 = xy = z 4

and

c2 b = yay −1 x−1 ax = y 4 x4 = z

so (bc2 )2 = c2 b.
Since we only needed to verify, which of the chamber regular lattices Γ̂2,2 is, we skip the verification that
conversely the relations in (6.1) follow from those in (6.2).
u
t

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

19

Corollary 6.4 The lattice Γ2,2 acts on a building with non-isomorphic Hjelmslev planes and, in particular, not
on a Bruhat-Tits building.

7 Relation to vertex regular lattices

In this section we briefly discuss when Singer cyclic lattices give rise to vertex regular lattices. By a vertex
regular lattice one could mean two things: a type-preserving lattice acting regularly on one type of vertex
or a lattice acting regularly on all types of vertices. Both kinds will be discussed.
Let Γ be a Singer cyclic lattice and let (σ0 , σ1 , σ2 ) be a presenting triple such that σi fixes a vertex of
type i for each i. Suppose σi maps non-trivially to the abelianization. Then (and only then) there is a
homomorphism Γ → Z/δ Z with σi 7→ 1. Its kernel Λ will obviously act freely on vertices of type i. Since Γ
acts transitively on these vertices with stabilizers of order δ and since Λ has index δ in Γ and acts freely,
one sees that Λ in fact is regular on vertices of type i.
Observation 7.1 The following are equivalent for a Singer cyclic lattice Γ .
1. Γ contains a normal subgroup Λ acting regularly on vertices of type i,
2. some (every) vertex stabilizer of type i maps isomorphically to the abelianization,
3. Γ = Γvi n Λ.

In the situation of Observation 7.1 the lattice Λ is the unique subgroup of Γ that acts regularly on vertices
of type i. Using Theorem 10.5 one can see that it also unique with this property acting on the building. We
do not know if there are subgroups acting transitively on vertices of type i that are not normal in Γ .
The relationship with lattices acting regularly (or in fact transitively) on all vertices is quickly explained.
For the Bruhat–Tits examples it was discussed in Section 5, for the others we have:
Proposition 7.2 Besides the Bruhat–Tits examples no Singer cyclic lattice with q ≤ 5 is quasi-isometric to a
lattice acting transitively on all vertices.
Proof A lattice acting transitively on all vertices in particular acts transitively on types. By Theorem 10.5
no exotic Singer cyclic lattice with q ≤ 5 acts on a building with type-transitive automorphism group. The
statement now follows from Theorem 3.5.
u
t

8 Linearity

Starting with Section 5 we have become interested in when a Singer cyclic lattice acts on the Bruhat–Tits
building X associated to PGL3 (K ) where K is a finite-dimensional division algebra over a local field. Since
Aut(X ) = (PGL3 (K )o C2 )oAut(K ), a natural first step is to wonder whether Γ is a lattice in PGL3 (K ). In
this section we will discuss how this problem can be systematically approached by a kind of Hensel lifting,
which can be (and has been) implemented on a computer.
The method has originally been used to find out which Singer cyclic lattices for q ≤ 3 embed into PGL3 (K ).
However, at the time of this writing, we can answer the question for lattices with q ≤ 5 using different
methods: using the classification from Section 3 we will see in Section 9 using geometric methods that
none of them can be Bruhat–Tits except for those constructed in Section 5. Nonetheless the method was
useful before we had obtained all of these results and we expect that it (or variants) will be useful in future
investigations. The reader who is most interested in learning about concrete examples may want to directly
jump to the examples at the end of the section (starting with paragraph 8.4).

20

Stefan Witzel

8.1 Field automorphisms
From now on we restrict to the case where K is commutative. How closely related the problem of embedding
Γ in PGL3 (K ) is to the problem of making Γ act on the building of PGL3 (K ) depends on the field K :
Lemma 8.1 Let K be a local field of positive characteristic p whose residue field is Fq . Then K is isomorphic to
Fq ((t)) with q = pη . The automorphism group of K is
∼
Gal(Fq /Fp ) n F×
q n P = Cη n Cq−1 n P
where P is a pro-p-group.
Proof The inclusion and projection Fq → Fq ((t)) → Fq which compose to the identity show that Aut(Fq ((t)))
is a semidirect product of Aut(Fq ) = Gal(Fq /Fp ) and the group of automorphisms of Fq ((t)) that fix Fq . This
group is described in [Sch44, Theorem 2] to be pro-p-by-F×
q . There is an automorphism for each power series

of valuation 1 (see [ZS75, Corollary VII.1.1]) and multiplication is evaluation. A splitting of the projection
to F×
u
t
q is given by taking u to the automorphism t 7→ u · t.
Lemma 8.2 Let K be a local field of characteristic 0 whose residue field is Fq , q = pη . Assume that K/Qp
is Galois with Galois group G := Gal(K/Qp ). There is a maximal unramified subextension L/Qp with I :=
Gal(K/L) (inertia group) and a maximal tamely ramified subextension V /Qp with R := Gal(K/V ) (ramification
∼
group). The automorphism group of K is Aut(K ) = G and the Galois groups satisfy R C I C G with G/I =
∼
Gal(Fq /Fp ) and I/R = χ(K/Qp ), the quotient of value groups. Here Gal(Fq /Fp ) is cyclic of order η, the group
χ(K/Qp ) is cyclic, and R is a p-group.
Proof An automorphism of a local field leaves its ring of integers invariant, and an automorphism of the

ring of integers leaves the maximal ideal invariant. Therefore every field automorphism is automatically
continuous. Any automorphism α of Qp leaves the prime field Q invariant and α|Q is trivial. Since Q is dense
in Qp , we see that α is trivial. Similarly, any automorphism of K leaves Qp , the closure of the prime field,
invariant. This shows that Aut(K ) = Gal(K/Qp ).
For the remaining statements see for example [Neu99, Section II.9].

u
t

Lemmas 8.1 and 8.2 impose strong restrictions on what the image of a Singer cyclic lattice in Aut(K ) could
be. In particular we see:
Corollary 8.3 Let q = pη and let K be a local field whose residue field is Fq and assume that gcd(η, δ ) = 1.
Assume further that
1. q 6≡ 1 mod 3 if char K = p > 0
2. gcd(δ, |χ(K/Qp )|) = 1 if char K = 0.
If Γ is a Singer cyclic lattice with parameter q then any morphism Γ → Aut(K ) is trivial.
Proof Let α : Γ → Aut(K ) be a homomorphism. Since Γ is generated by elements of order δ = q 2 + q + 1,
∼ Cη induced by α has to factor through
its abelianization is a Z/δ Z-module. The morphism to Gal(Fq /Fp ) =
the abelianization and since gcd(η, δ ) = 1 it has to be trivial.
2
∼
If char K = p Lemma 8.1 implies that there is an induced homomorphism to F×
q = Cq−1 . Since q + q + 1 −
(q + 2)(q − 1) = 3 the gcd of q − 1 and δ can only be 1 or 3 and the latter is ruled out by assumption. Hence
this morphism is trivial as well. Finally the morphism to a pro-p-group has to be trivial.

If char K = 0 Lemma 8.2 tell us that there is an induced morphism to χ(K/Qp ) which has to be trivial by
assumption. Again we are left with a morphism to a p-group which has to be trivial.
u
t

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

21

We do not know any Singer cyclic lattice on a Bruhat–Tits building that is not contained in PGL3 (K ). Note
however, that a Singer lattice with non-linear vertex stabilizer (cf. Lemma 2.3 and the discussion following
it) cannot be contained in PGL3 (K ).

8.2 Projective groups and splittings
Next we look at the circumstances under which PGL3 (K ) may be replaced by SL3 (K ) which can be more
tractable in practice.
Lemma 8.4 Let K be a local field whose residue field κ has order q. Let O be the ring of integers. The following
are equivalent:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

x 7→ x3 , O× → O× is injective;
K contains no non-trivial 3rd roots of unity;
κ contains no non-trivial 3rd roots of unity;
3 - q − 1;
3 - q 2 + q + 1;

Proof A root of unity must have valuation 0 so (1) and (2) are equivalent. The equivalence of (2) and (3) is
an application of Hensel’s lemma. Since κ× is cyclic of order q − 1 we have (3) ⇔ (4). The equivalence (4)
⇔ (5) follows from the fact that q 2 + q + 1 ≡ (q − 1)2 mod 3.
u
t
Lemma 8.5 Assume q 6≡ 1 mod 3. If σ ∈ PGL3 (K ) is of order q 2 + q + 1 then σ fixes a vertex.
Proof The Bruhat–Tits fixed point theorem [BT72, Lemme 3.2.3] (see also [BH99, Corollary II.2.8]) implies
that σ fixes a point of X , thus it stabilizes a cell A (the carrier of the point). If the cell is an edge or a
triangle then σ acts on it via a morphism to C2 or D3 respectively. But q 2 + q + 1 is odd, so the action on
an edge has to be trivial and on a triangle it can only be by rotation. If in addition q 2 + q + 1 is not divisible
by 3, the action on a triangle has to be trivial as well. Hence σ fixes all vertices of A.
u
t
Lemma 8.6 Assume q 6≡ 1 mod 3. If Γ is a group generated by elements of order q 2 + q + 1 then any morphism
Γ → PGL3 (K ) factors through SL3 (K ).
Proof Let σ be an element of PGL3 (K ) of order q 2 + q + 1. By Lemma 8.5 σ stabilizes a vertex and by
conjugating we may assume that it lies in PGL3 (O). We consider the following commuting diagram with

exact rows and columns:
1

1

1

1

1

?
- PSL3 (O)

- 1

?
?
?
- O× - GL3 (O) - PGL3 (O)

- 1

?
- Z

?
- (O × )3

?
- SL3 (O)

1

?
- O×

?
- O× /(O× )3

?

?

?

1

1

1

- 1

22

Stefan Witzel

The left column consists of homotheties and Z is the group of 3rd roots of unity in O× , which in our case
is trivial by assumption.
The group O× /(O× )3 in the lower right corner is cyclic of order 3. So since q 2 + q + 1 is not divisible by 3,
the image of σ in O× /(O× )3 is trivial. This means that σ ∈ PSL3 (O).
∼ SL3 (K ).
If Γ → PGL3 (K ) is as assumed, we conclude that every generator is mapped into PSL3 (K ) =

u
t

8.3 Finding embeddings
If Γ is a Singer cyclic lattice and (σi )0≤i≤2 is a presenting triple, a homomorphism ι : Γ → G := PGL3 (K )
is determined by the images ι(σi ). Thus to find such a ι it suffices to find three 3 × 3 matrices over K that
satisfy the defining relations of Γ . To ensure that no additional relations are satisfied, we use:
Lemma 8.7 Let Γ be a Singer cyclic lattice, let (σi )0≤i≤2 be a presenting triple and let ι : Γ → PGL3 (K ).
Assume that in the building of PGL3 (K ) there is a chamber with vertices (wi )0≤i≤2 such that ι(σi ) fixes wi and
acts as a Singer cycle on lk vi .
Then ι is injective. Moreover, it defines a unique Γ -equivariant isomorphism between the buildings of Γ and
PGL3 (K ).
Proof Let X denote the building of Γ and Y the building of PGL3 (K ) and let vi be the vertex fixed by σi .
We claim that ι induces a Γ -equivariant simplicial map ῑ : X → Y . On vertices ῑ is defined by ῑ(vi ) = wi .
Since Γ is transitive on each type of vertices, this determines ῑ on the vertices of X . Similarly it is uniquely
determined on edges by taking {vi , vj } to {wi , wj }. To extend to triangles, note that the relations in Γ (that
also hold in ι(Γ )) imply that {w0 , w1 , ι(σ0 )e0 w2 } is a chamber when e0 is an entry of the 0th column of the
difference matrix of Γ with respect to (σi )i . Thus taking {v0 , v1 , σ0e0 } to {w0 , w1 , ι(σ0 )e0 } is well-defined and
completely determines ῑ.

Next we verify that ῑ is surjective: it is clear from the definition that it is an isomorphism on the star of
every vertex and that it is surjective on vertices.
Now let N be the kernel of ι. Note that the action of N on X is free: the only non-trivial elements in Γ that
fix points are conjugate to elements of some hσi i and are mapped non-trivially by ι.
We claim that ῑ is the quotient map X 7→ N \X . Clearly two points in the same N -orbit are identified under
ῑ. Conversely if ῑ(x) = ῑ(g.x) = ι(g )ῑ(x) then g ∈ N .
∼ Y so that N = π1 (Y ) is trivial.
This shows that N \X =

u
t

Remark 8.8 In unpublished work, Yehuda Shalom and Tim Steger prove that any proper quotient of an Ã2 lattice must be finite. Using that fact, the injectivity of ι in Lemma 8.7 could be verified by just checking
that ι(σi )e ι(σj )f has infinite order for appropriate exponents e, f (that are not part of a row of the difference
matrix).

From now on we will make the embedding ι implicit and think of the σi as elements of PGL3 (K ) (also
we identify X with Y , vi with wi , etc.). Let O be the ring of integers in the local field K and let π be a
uniformizing element, so that the residue field is κ = O/(π ) (of order q ).
We take P := PGL3 (O), which is the stabilizer of a vertex and we put


0 0 π −1
ρ := 1 0 0  .
01 0
−i

Then for each i the group Pi := P ρ stabilizes a vertex wi and C := {w0 , w1 , w2 } is a chamber. Since the
automorphism group of the building of PGL3 (K ) acts transitively on ordered vertices of this form, we may

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

23

and do assume that σi ∈ Pi for 0 ≤ i ≤ 2 if they exist. Since in practice, it will be easier to work with
elements of P rather than Pi , we introduce
i

si := σiρ ∈ P, 0 ≤ i ≤ 2.

With these preparations in place our problem of deciding whether the Singer cyclic lattice with difference
matrix E embeds into PGL3 (K ) reduces to the problem of finding elements si ∈ P that project to Singercycles in PGL3 (κ) and satisfy the relations
sδi = 1, 0 ≤ i ≤ 2
Ej,0

πs0

Ej,1

ρs1

Ej,2

ρs2

(8.1)

ρ = 1, 1 ≤ j ≤ q + 1.

(8.2)

We will generally think about matrices in GL3 (K ) but need to keep in mind that relations above have to
be understood up to homotheties if q ≡ 1 mod 3 by Lemma 8.6. The plan to decide whether such si exist
is to regard (8.1) and (8.2) as polynomial equations in the matrix entries of the si and look for solutions in
O. Since this is a local ring, we start by looking for solutions in κ and then successively lift them to O/(π ` )
for increasing `. Geometrically this corresponds to looking for partially defined σi that satisfy the relations
whenever defined. Of course an implementation of this method will only either return that no solution exists
(which in practice happens very quickly), or it will return an approximate solution up to a finite precision.
However, in practice it was always possible to guess an exact solution from the approximate one.
Without further preparations this approach is hopeless for the following reason. Let B := P0 ∩ P1 ∩ P2 be
the pointwise stabilizer of our base chamber C . If σ0 , σ1 , σ2 correspond to a solution of the above equations
then so do the conjugates σ0b , σ1b , σ2b for any b ∈ B . Thus each solution mod π ` will lift to many solutions
mod π `+1 , making it impossible to keep track of all potential solutions. For this reason, the main part of
this section will be devoted to finding additional conditions to impose on the si in order to make solutions
to (8.1) and (8.2) unique.

γ01

γ00

γ10

q1

r0

q2
α20

s0
r1

u1
t2

α21

v2
v0

C

γ21

u0

γ20

v1

u2

α22

γ22

s2

t1

γ11

t0
s1

r2
q0

α12

α11

α10

Fig. 8.1 Some named points and roots inside the apartment Σ.

α00

α01

α02

24

Stefan Witzel

To do so we will use root groups. Let Σ be the apartment stabilized by the torus of diagonal matrices and
∼ (O× )3 be the torus of diagonal matrices over O. Note that this is the pointwise stabilizer of Σ . The
let T =
root groups corresponding to the roots αin , γin , 0 ≤ i ≤ 2, n ∈ N of Σ indicated in Figure 8.1 are

)
( 1 x
)
( 1
Uαn0 =

 1  ν (x) ≥ n + 1
x 1
)
( 1 x 

 1  ν (x) ≥ n
1

)
( 1
= x 1  ν (x) ≥ n + 1
1

)
( 1

Uγ0n =

 1  ν (x) ≥ n
1

)
( 1
=  1 x ν (x) ≥ n
1

Uαn1 =

Uγ1n

Uαn2

Uγ2n =

 1  ν (x) ≥ n + 1 .
x1

By the ball of radius r around C in Σ , denoted Br (C ), we mean the intersection of the βir , β ∈ {α, γ}, 0 ≤
i ≤ 2. Thus B0 (C ) = C and B1 (C ) consists of all chambers that meet C in at least a vertex.
We will denote by Ūβin the quotient Uβin /Uβ n+1 for β ∈ {α, γ}, 0 ≤ i ≤ 2, n ≥ 0. It is isomorphic to (the
i
additive group of) κ.
Proposition 8.9 An element g ∈ B can be written as



g = lim uα00 uα01 uα02 uγ00 uγ10 uγ20 uα10 uα11 uα12 · · · · t
with uβin ∈ Uβin and t ∈ T and this writing is unique in the following sense. If the first k elements of the right
hand side coincide then the (k + 1)st defines a unique element in Ūβin .

Thus we can get unique expressions by fixing a set-theoretic lift κ → O.
Proof Let g ∈ B + be arbitrary. We successively multiply g by root group elements to make it coincide with
the identity on larger and larger neighborhoods of C in Σ . In the process we refer to the vertices named
in Figure 8.1. Since g is in B + it fixes C . Multiplying by an element of Uα00 we get an element g 0 that in
addition takes u0 to itself. Similarly we multiply by elements of Uα01 and of Uα02 to get an element g 00 that
takes u1 and u2 to themselves. Note that the elements by which we multiplied defined unique elements in
the respective quotients Ūα0 .
i

In a similar fashion we can use Uγ00 , Uγ10 , and Uγ20 to get an element g1 that fixes t2 , t1 , and t0 . Note that
g1 fixes B1 (C ). Again we multiplied by elements that were unique in Ūγ 0 .
i
Continuing in this way with Uαni , Uγin , 0 ≤ i ≤ 2 for increasing n, we get elements gn that fix Bn (C ).
The limit exists because B is compact and because Uβir is contained in a small identity neighborhood for
large r. Since the limit fixes all of Σ we conclude that t−1 := lim gn I ∈ T .
u
t
With these facts established we return to our problem of embedding Γ . We need to impose a condition
on the difference matrix E . Namely we call E normalized if it is based and each column of E contains the
entry 1. Not every difference matrix is equivalent to a normalized one: there are difference sets that are not
equivalent to a difference set containing 0 and 1, however the first time this happens is for q = 101 (which
is far beyond the computational scope of this section).
Proposition 8.10 Let Γ be a Singer cyclic lattice and let (σi )i be a presenting triple such that the associated
difference matrix is normalized. If Γ ≤ PGL3 (K ) with σi fixing vi then



eji

si



∗∗∗
∼ ∗ ∗ ∗ mod π for all j.
=
0∗∗

(8.3)

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

25

Up to conjugating by an element of B we can assume that the si are of the form



00∗
si = ∗ ∗ ∗
∗1∗

(8.4)

where the stars indicate elements of O.
Proof We start with some preliminary observations. Consider a relation
σ0e0 σ1e1 σ2e2 = 1

(we suppress the row index for readability). A consequence is that σ0−e0 .v2 = σ1e1 σ2e2 .v2 = σ1e1 .v2 . By cyclically
permuting the relation and acting on the vertices v0 and v1 we find more generally (indices modulo 3) that
−e

σiei .vi+1 = σi−1i−1 .vi+1 .

Since vi+1 is adjacent to vi−1 it follows that the same is true of σiei .vi+1 :
σiei .vi+1 ∼ vi−1

which means

sei i .v1 ∼ v2 .

(8.5)

ej

In fact, vi+1 and the vertices σi i .vi+1 are all the neighbors of the edge vi−1 in the link of vi , recovering the
defining difference set.
The natural identification of the link of v0 with P2 κ is such that v1 gets identified with [e1 ] and v2 gets
identified with [e1 ] + [e2 ]. Thus the relation (8.5) means that sei i .e1 ∈ he1 , e2 i which is precisely (8.3).
The rest of the proof is similar to that of Proposition 8.9. Since the difference matrix is normalized, for
every i there is some j such that Ei,j = 1. Thus relation (8.5) states that σi .vi+1 ∼ vi−1 for all i. We may
now conjugate (all of Γ ) by an element of Uα01 to achieve that σ0 .v1 = u1 . Similarly conjugating by elements
of Uα02 and Uα00 we get σ1 .v2 = u2 and σ2 .v0 = u0 . Note that all of these can be expressed as si .v1 = u1 for
0 ≤ i ≤ 2.
Conjugating by further root groups, we can achieve that si .v2 = t2 , that si .u0 = s0 , that si .t1 = r1 , etc.
Note that each of the root groups preserves the progress made so far by the root group property. Taking
∼ ∂X is taken to the geodesic ray from
the limit, we find that the geodesic ray from v0 to [e1 ] + [e2 ] ∈ P2 K =
v0 to [e2 ] + [e3 ] ∈ P2 K . This explains the two 0s in (8.4).
Now consider the ray ω from v0 to [e2 ] ∈ P2 K . Note that si .u1 is adjacent to t2 but certainly does not lie
in Σ because si is a Singer cycle. Thus si .ω immediately leaves Σ . As above we can use elements of Uα02
and Uγ00 to take si .ω to the ray from v0 to [e3 ]. Conjugating by these elements would destroy the progress
made so far but it shows that si .[e2 ] lies in Uα02 Uγ00 .[e3 ]. In fact, we already know that si .[e2 ] ∈ [e2 ] + [e3 ] so
it lies in Uα02 .[e3 ]. This means that si [e2 ] is of the form [yi e2 + zi e3 ] with yi ∈ O and zi ∈ O∗ . Conjugating
everything by the diagonal matrix with entries (z1−1 , z2−1 , z0−1 ) (which lies in T and thus stabilizes Σ and
preserves everything we have done so far) we get that si takes [e2 ] to a point of the form [yi0 e2 + e3 ]. This
justifies the 1 in (8.4).
u
t
We summarize the content of this section:
Theorem 8.11 Let E be a normalized difference matrix and let Γ be the Singer cyclic lattice defined by E. There
i
is an embedding of Γ into G if and only if there is a solution to the system or relations Xr,s
sδi ≈ I, 0 ≤ i ≤ 2
E

E

E

πs0 0,j ρs1 1,j ρs2 2,j ≈ I, 1 ≤ j ≤ q

26

Stefan Witzel

with



0

X0i ,2
X1i ,2 
X2i ,2 .



0

si =  X1i ,0 X1i ,1
πX2i ,0 1

If p ≡ 1 mod p then “≈” means “up to O∗ ”, otherwise it means “=”.

We end the section by giving examples of embeddings found using the method described above.

8.4 Embedding Γ2,1
Let A be the set of all natural numbers whose binary expansion does not contain the string 00 (including
0). The sequence of elements of A is A003754 in [Slo10]. Let B be the set of odd elements in A. The
corresponding sequence in [Slo10] is A247648. We will need the following:
Lemma 8.12 1. B = {2i + 1 | i ∈ A}
2. A = B ∪ 2B ∪ {0} (disjoint union).
Proof In terms of the binary expansion taking i to 2i + 1 means just extending by 1 on the right. So if i is
in A then 2i + 1 is in Γ and every element of Γ (uniquely) arises in this way.

Similarly, taking i to 2i means extending by 0 on the right. So if i is in B then 2i is in B and is even. Every
element of A but 0 arises in this way.
u
t
Now we consider the elements α =

P

e∈A t

e

and β =

P

e∈B

te of F2 [[t]]. Thus

α = 1 + t + t2 + t3 + t5 + t6 + t7 + t10 + t11 + t13 + t14 + t15 + t21 + . . .
β = t + t3 + t5 + t7 + t11 + t13 + t15 + t21 + . . . .

We find
Lemma 8.13 The elements α and β satisfy the relations tα2 = β and α + β + β 2 = 1.
Proof First note that

X

α2 =

te+f =

(e,f )∈A×A

X

t2e

e∈A

since we are working in characteristic 2 so that the non-diagonal terms cancel. Thus
X 2e+1
X e0
tα2 =
t
=
t =β
e0 ∈B

e∈A

by Lemma 8.12(1).
For the second relation we compute
X e X e
X e
α=
t =
t +
t + t0 = β + β 2 + 1
e∈A

e∈Γ

e∈2Γ

using Lemma 8.12(2). This is the desired relations thanks to characteristic 2.
We consider the matrices (ρ is just the

0 0
s = 1 + tα β
tα 1

special case K = F2 ((t)) of the ρ defined before)



α
0 0 t −1
α ∈ SL3 (F2 ((t))) and ρ = 1 0 0  .
β
01 0

u
t

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

27

Proposition 8.14 The matrices s and ρ satisfy the relations
t(sρ)3 = 1

and

t(s3 ρ)3 = 1
−i

As a consequence Γ2,1 embeds into PGL3 (F2 ((t))) via σi 7→ sρ

and

s7 = 1.

.
u
t

Proof This is just a computation using Lemma 8.13.

8.5 Embedding Γ3,1
To embed Γ3,1 we use the alternative difference matrix


0
1

3
9

0
3
9
1


0
9

1
3

which has the advantage of having smaller row sums.
The polynomial A(X ) = tX 2 + X + 1 has a unique root in F3 [[t]]:
α = −1 − t + t2 + t3 + t4 + t8 + t9 + t10 − t11 − t12 − t13 + O(t20 )

From the defining equation it is clear that its inverse is α−1 = −(α + 1) · t. Consider the matrices



0 0 α
s = α−1 1 0 
0 1 −1

and



0 0 t −1
ρ = 1 0 0  .
01 0

To get an embedding of Γ3,1 as presented by our standard difference matrix we put s0 = s, s1 = s9 , s2 = s3 .
Proposition 8.15 The lattice Γ3,1 embeds into SL3 (F3 ((t))) via σi 7→ sρi
Proof This can be checked using the defining relation for α.

−i

.
u
t

8.6 An alternative embedding of Γ3,1 .
We will now embed the Singer cyclic lattice with difference matrix

0
1
E=
4
6

0
1
4
6


0
1
.
4
6

By Corollary 3.19 this is isomorphic to Γ3,1 , so we already have an embedding from the previous example.
Originally we performed this computation when we were not yet aware of Corollary 3.19 in full generality.
Now it illustrates that how nice the embedding is depends strongly on the chosen difference matrix.

28

Stefan Witzel

The polynomials
A(X ) = t17 X 11 + (t15 + t16 )X 10 + t15 X 9 + t12 X 8 + (t10 + t11 )X 7 + t10 X 6 + (t7 + t9 )X 5

+ (2t5 + t6 + t7 + t8 )X 4 + (t4 + t5 + t7 )X 3 + (t2 + 2t4 + t6 + 2t8 )X 2
+ (2 + t + t2 + 2t3 + t4 + t5 + 2t6 + 2t7 )X + 1 + 2t + 2t2 + t4 + 2t6
B (X ) = t16 X 11 + t15 X 10 + t14 X 9 + t12 X 8 + t11 X 7 + (t9 + t10 )X 6 + t9 X 5 + (t6 + t8 )X 4

+ (2t5 + t6 + t7 )X 3 + (t + t2 + 2t4 + t6 + 2t7 )X 2 + (1 + t + t3 + t5 + 2t6 )X
+ 1 + t3 + t4 + 2t5
+ t5 X 3 + t5 X + t4 X 3 − t4 X 2 + t4 X + t4 − t3 X + t2 X 2 + t2 X − t2 + tX − t − X + 1
C (X ) = t13 X 11 + t12 X 10 + t11 X 9 + 2t10 X 8 + 2t9 X 7 + (t7 + 2t8 )X 6 + (t6 + 2t7 )X 5 + 2t6 X 4

+ (t3 + 2t4 + 2t5 )X 3 + (2t + 2t2 + 2t3 + 2t4 )X 2 + (2 + t + 2t3 )X + 2 + t + 2t2
each have a unique root in F3 [[t]]. They are
α = 1 + t2 + 2t4 + 2t5 + 2t6 + 2t7 + t10 + t11 + 2t12 + 2t14 + 2t15 + 2t16 + 2t17 + O(t20 )
β = 2 + 2t + t2 + 2t3 + 2t4 + 2t5 + 2t7 + t10 + t11 + 2t12 + 2t13 + 2t14 + 2t16 + 2t17 + t18 + O(t20 )
γ = 2 + 2t2 + 2t3 + 2t5 + t8 + 2t9 + 2t11 + 2t12 + 2t14 + 2t17 + 2t18 + O(t20 )

With these series we set




0 tα − 1
s =  −t2 α − 1 + t −tβ − 1 tγ − 1  .
−t2 γ + t
1
tβ
−i

Proposition 8.16 The map σi 7→ sρ
E into SL3 (F3 ((t))).

0

defines an embedding of the Singer cyclic lattice with difference matrix

Proof If we replace α, β, γ by X, Y, Z in the definition of s above, the ideal of F3 (t)[X, Y, Z ] generated by the
equations s13 = I , (sρ)3 = t2 I , (s4 ρ)3 = t2 I and (s6 ρ)3 = t2 I is generated by the three polynomials
t6 X 4 + (2t5 + t4 )X 3 + t3 Y Z 2 + t3 X 2 + t2 XZ + (2t2 )Y Z + (2t3 + t2 + 2t)X + Y + (t + 1)Z + t2 + 2
t4 X 2 Z + t3 Y Z 2 + (2t3 )X 2 + (t3 + t2 )XZ + t2 Y Z + (2t2 )Z 2 + (2t2 + 2t)X + (t + 2)Y + (t2 + t + 1)Z + 2t
t3 Z 3 + (2t2 )X 2 + t2 XZ + (2t)Y Z + (t + 2)X + Y + (2t)Z + 2

(this can be checked on a computer using Gröbner bases) and it contains the three polynomials A(X ), B (Y )
and C (Z ).
An application of Hensel’s lemma [Bou61, Corollaire III.4.2] shows that the three generators of the ideal
have a unique root in F3 ((t))[X, Y, Z ] and so do A(X ), B (Y ), C (Z ). We conclude that the tuple (α, β, γ )
must be the unique root of the generators and therefore a solution to the equations.
u
t

9 Hjelmslev planes

From now on we will be interested in distinguishing the buildings that Singer cyclic lattices act on. Note
that in view of Theorem 3.5 this building is unique for a given lattice, and classifying the buildings amounts
to classifying the lattices up to quasi-isometry. To do so we will compare combinatorial balls of a certain
radius around a vertex. Such balls can be encoded by incidence geometries called Hjelmslev planes [Dem68,
Section 7.2] (see also [Kli55, Art69, Bac78]).

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

29

9.1 Hjelmslev planes
An incidence geometry H = (P, L, I ) is a Hjelmslev plane if any two points lie on at least one common line
and dually, and there is an epimorphism ϕ : H → Π to a projective plane Π = (P, L, I ) such that points
x and x0 lie on more than one common line if and only if ϕ(x) = ϕ(x0 ) and dually. Two elements with
same image under ϕ are called neighbors. A Klingenberg plane is defined just like a Hjelmslev plane with the
difference that the last condition is that x and x0 lie on more than one common line only if ϕ(x) = ϕ(y ) and
dually. The projection ϕ gives rise to an equivalence relation ∼ on points and lines defined by x ∼ x0 if and
only if ϕ(x) = ϕ(x0 ). For Hjelmslev planes this can be recovered from the incidence relation, for Klingenberg
planes it is part of the structure.
Example 9.1 Let R be a local ring with maximal ideal m. Call a vector (x1 , x2 , x3 ) ∈ R unimodular if some xi is
a unit (i.e. not in m). We define a sets of points as P := {R× (x1 , x2 , x3 ) | (x1 , x2 , x3 ) unimodular} and a set of
lines as L := {(y1 , y2 , y3 )R× | (y1 , y2 , y3 ) unimodular}. Incidence is defined by R× (x1 , x2 , x3 ) I (y1 , y2 , y3 )R×
if and only if x1 y1 + x2 y2 + x3 y3 = 0 (which is clearly well-defined). The incidence structure H = (P, L, I )
is a Klingenberg plane and any plane that arises in this way is called Desarguesian.

If in addition every element of m is both a left- and a right zero divisor and for any two elements x, y ∈ m
the left (and right) ideals generated by x and y are contained in each other then R is an H -ring. The
Klingenberg plane associated to an H -ring is a Hjelmslev plane.
In particular, if O is a discrete valuation ring then for any k ∈ N \ {0} the quotient O/mk is a commutative
local principal ideal ring and thus an H -ring. We will be interested in Hjelmslev planes associated to rings
of this form.

9.2 Hjelmslev planes for Singer cyclic lattices
Hjelmslev planes encode neighborhoods in Ã2 buildings and the inverse system of Hjelmslev planes encodes
the whole building, see [VM87, VM88, HVM89]. We consider the building on which a Singer cyclic lattice
acts. For the purpose of exposition we fix the vertex v0 as our center of interest. But since a Singer cyclic
lattice has three vertex orbits, everything we do around v0 can be done around v1 and v2 and give different
answers. The analogous results are obtained by cyclically permuting the indices.
The elements of the Hjelmslev plane of level k are vertices v that are a geodesic edge path of length k away
from v0 (which is unique, being a geodesic). We denote the Hjelmslev plane of level k (including additional
structure to be introduced) by Hk or by Hk (v0 ) if we want to specify the center. Note that H1 consists
just of the vertices in lk v0 . For k ≤ ` there is an obvious projection H` → Hk that takes the end-vertex of
an `-edge geodesic edge path to the end-vertex of its k-edge initial subpath. We say that an element of Hk
is a point or a line respectively if its projection image in H1 is a point or a line, namely if it is of type 1
respectively 2. Thus if v0 = v 0 , . . . , v k = v are the vertices along a geodesic edge path so that v ∈ Hk then
v is a point if typ v 1 = 1 and is a line if typ v 1 = 2. We write P k for the points and Lk for the lines in Hk .
A point x ∈ P k and a line y ∈ Lk are incident if there is a regular triangle with side lengths k and vertices
v0 , x, y . Note that (non-)incidence is preserved under the projection H` → Hk .
Fact 9.2 Let K be a local field and let O be its ring of integers. The Hjelmslev planes of level k inside the building
of PGL3 (K ) are isomorphic to the Hjelmslev planes of O/mk as in Example 9.1.

A useful feature of Singer cyclic lattices is that Hjelmslev planes can be described in an extremely efficient
way. Let Γ be a Singer cyclic lattice with presenting triple (σi )0≤i≤2 and based difference matrix E . We let
Di denote the difference set consisting of entries of the ith column of E . Let X be the associated building
0
1
`−1
and let vi be the vertex fixed by σi . Any vertex of the building is of the form σ0e σie1 · · · σie`−1 vi` for some `
and some ij ∈ {0, 1, 2}, 1 ≤ j ≤ ` and ej ∈ Z/δ Z, 0 ≤ j ≤ ` − 1. This notation is a little cumbersome and since

30

Stefan Witzel

we will have to deal with many expressions of this form, we drop the σij and make its index an index of
1
the exponent, for instance we would write the previous expression as e00 e1i1 . . . ei`−
vi` . See the left hand side
`−1
of Figure 9.1 for an example. The subscripts are always understood modulo 3 and we always assume that
ij 6= ij +1 . We call such an expression an edge path. This is justified by the fact that it uniquely describes
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
`−1
the edge path that has vertices v0 , σ0e vi1 , σ0e σ e vi2 , σ0e σ e σ e vi3 , . . . , σ0e · · · σie`−1 vi` . Pictorially we describe
k−1

k

this edge path by labeling the edge from . . . σiek−1 vk to . . . σiek vk+1 by ek . In the pictorial description the
type ik is again clear from the context (it is just the type of the initial vertex of the edge labeled ek ) and
may be omitted.
Observation 9.3 The two vertices σib .vi+1 and σia .vi+2 are adjacent if and only if b − a ∈ Di .
Proof We assume i = 0. The vertices σ0b .v1 and σ0a .v2 are adjacent if and only if σ0b−a .v1 and v2 are adjacent.
This happens if and only if σ0b−a σ1f = σ2−g for some f and g , which is equivalent to (b − a, f, g ) being a row
of E .
u
t
Observation 9.4 The edge path e00 e1i1 . . . e`i`−1 vi` is geodesic if for 2 ≤ j ≤ ` − 2 either
1. (ij−1 , ij , ij +1 ) = (ij − 1, ij , ij + 1) and −ej 6∈ Dij or
2. (ij−1 , ij , ij +1 ) = (ij + 1, ij , ij − 1) and ej 6∈ Dij .
Proof The first condition (of both items) just says that ij−1 , ij , and ij +1 need to be pairwise distinct,
which is clearly necessary. We only prove the (1) case, the other one is analogous. We fix some j , put
0

j−1

g = σ0e . . . σiej−1 , and check when the edge path is locally geodesic in g.vj . The previous vertex is g.vij −1
j

and the following one is gσiej .vij +1 . Thus we see that the path is locally geodesic in g.vj if and only if vij −1
j

and σiej .vij +1 are opposite in lk vj if and only if they are not adjacent. Using the previous observation we
see that the condition for being locally geodesic is that −ej 6∈ Dij .
u
t
We have just seen that the types along a geodesic edge path can only either cycle forward (0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, . . .)
or cycle backward (0, 2, 1, 0, 2, 1, . . .) so we when specifying an edge path we may even drop the type-indices
(including the terminal vertex) as long as we specify whether it is forward- or backward-cycling. In particular,
elements of P k are forward cycling edge paths and elements of Lk are backward cycling edge paths which
can both be described by a sequence of elements of Z/δ Z of length k. It remains to analyze incidence.
Lemma 9.5 The two expressions σia σiy+2 σir and σib σix+1 σis are equal if and only if there are rows (e0 , e1 , e2 ) and
(f0 , f1 , f2 ) of E such that the following equations hold:
b − a = ei
x = ei+1 − fi+1
y = fi+2 − ei+2
r − s = fi .
Proof We assume i = 0. Suppose the equations hold. Then we verify
σ0b σ1x σ0s = σ0a σ e0 σ1x σ0−f0 σ0r

= σ0a σ0e0 σ1e1 σ1−f1 σ0−f0 σ0r
= σ0a σ2−e2 σ2f2 σ0r
= σ0a σ2y σ0r .

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

1

31

2

0

1

2

e3
0

1

2

0

r
s

e2
2

0

1

y

x
f

e1
1

2

e
b

a

e0
0
Fig. 9.1 The left picture illustrates the graphical description of the path e00 e11 e20 e32 v0 . The right picture illustrates the effect
of the elementary homotopy bi xi+1 si
ai yi+2 ri .

Conversely, if the two expressions are equal then σ0a σ2y v0 = σ0b σ2x v0 thus σ0a v2 and σ0b v1 have to be adjacent
showing the existence of a row (e0 , e1 , e2 ) with b−a = e0 . Similarly we obtain a row (f0 , f1 , f2 ) with r−s = f0 .
Now we compute
σ2−e2 σ1−e1 σ1x = σ0e0 σ1x = σ0b−a σ1x = σ2y σ0r−s = σ2y σ0f0 = σ2y σ2−f2 σ1−f1

showing that
σ1x−e1 +f1 = σ2y+e2 −f2

fixes both v1 and v2 and therefore has to be trivial.

u
t

We call a substitution σia σiy+2 σir
σib σix+1 σis as in Lemma 9.5 (and its inverse) an elementary homotopy, see
σib σix+1 vi . We call
the right hand side of Figure 9.1. This includes the possibility of substituting σia σiy+2 vi
b
a
a substitution σi vi+1
σi vi+2 (and its inverse) a step move.
We are now ready to give a criterion for incidence in Hjelmslev planes of arbitrary level. Let b0 . . . b`−1 be a
forward-cycling edge path (ending in an element of P ` ) and let a0 . . . a`−1 be a backward-cycling edge path
(ending in an element of L` ). We consider a regular triangle of side length ` that is a conceivable filling
triangle with base vertex v0 . We orient the edges along the two sides containing v0 away from v0 and label
them by b0 to b`−1 and by a0 to a`−1 respectively. All other edges receive label 0. The label of an edge e
will be denoted λ(e). There is a caveat: the elements bi and ai do not actually correspond to the edges but
rather to the turns. For practical reasons we still attach them to the edges but note that an elementary
homotopy changes the label of the last edge without changing the edge.
Whether the point and the line are incident will depend on whether it is possible to label the chambers
of the triangle by rows of E subject to certain conditions. The label of a chamber c will be denoted λ(c).
As a final preparation we need to introduce signs (see Figure 9.3). Each chamber c carries a sign εc such
that the chamber containing v0 has positive sign and adjacent chambers have opposite sign. Each oriented
edge e receives a sign εe that is positive if e is forward pointing (i.e. from type i to i + 1) and negative if
it is backward pointing. For a chamber c, an oriented boundary edge e and a vertex v we write e > v if e
contains v and points away from it and c > v if c contains v .

32

Stefan Witzel

+

+

+

+

−

−

0

−

1
+

+

2

+

0

+

+

−

−

2

0
+

−

−

1

+

+
−

1

−

2
+

+

−

0
Fig. 9.2 Signs associated to edges and chambers. Each vertex is labeled by its type (this is relevant for the edge signs).

c`−1
d`−2

d1
c1

d0
c0

Fig. 9.3 Paths used in the proof of Theorem 9.6.

Theorem 9.6 The Hjelmslev plane of level ` is given by the following data. Its points are the end points of
forward-cycling edge paths b0 . . . b`−1 of length `. Its lines are the end points of backward-cycling edge paths
a0 . . . a`−1 of length `. The point given by b0 . . . b`−1 and the line given by a0 . . . a`−1 are incident if there is an
labeling of the chambers by rows of E such that for every vertex v at combinatorial distance < ` from v0

X
c>v

εc λ(c)typ(v) =

X

εe λ(e).

(9.1)

e>v

Proof The proof is by induction on `. Let b0 . . . b`−1 and a0 . . . a`−1 be forward- respectively backward-cycling

paths as in the statement.
We assume that their endpoints are incident in the Hjelmslev plane and consider a triangle that establishes
this incidence. The strategy is as follows, see the right-hand-side of Figure 9.3. Starting with the edge path

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

33

2 `−1
b0 . . . b`−1 v` (red) we perform a step move to obtain a path b00 . . . b`−
`−2 x`−1 v`+1 (green) whose endpoint is

closer to the endpoint of a0 . . . a`−1 (recall that the subscripts are modulo 3). We then apply elementary
k+1
1 k−1 ¯k
`−1
homotopies through paths b00 . . . bk−
v`+1 (yellow) until we end up with a path that
k−1 xk−1 āk+1 āk+2 . . . ā`
0
starts with a0 . We then apply the induction hypothesis to the smaller triangle.
We use the chamber labeling indicated in Figure 9.3. By Observation 9.3 there is a row e`−1 of E such
1
`−1
that bl−1 − xl−1 = e`−
) = e`−1 . Now comes the first elementary homotopy from
l−1 and we put λ(c
2 `−1
`−2 `−1
. . . b`−
v`+1 . By Lemma 9.5 there are rows e`−2 and f `−2 of E such that b`−2 −x`−2 =
`−2 x`−1 v`+1 to . . . x`−2 y`
`−2
`−2
`−2
2
`−1
e`−2 and x
= f`−1 − e`−1 and y `−2 = e`−
− f``−2 (the last relation does not yet show up because the
`
homotopy is so close to the vertex). We assign λ(c`−2 ) = e`−2 and λ(d`−2 ) = f `−2 . From now on we perform
a sequence of elementary homotopies that are all of the form
1 k k+1
. . . bk−
k−1 xk yk+2 . . .

1 k
k+1
. . . xk−
k−1 yk+1 b̄k+2 . . . .

Using again Lemma 9.5 we find rows ek−1 and f k−1 such that
1
bk−1 − xk−1 = ek−
k−1

k

x =
k

y =
b̄

k+1

−y

k+1

=

1
ek−
− fkk−1
k
1
k−1
fkk−
+1 − ek+1
1
fkk−
+2

(9.2)
(9.3)
(9.4)
(9.5)

As before we put λ(ck−1 ) = ek−1 and λ(dk−1 ) = ek−1 .
Eventually we get to the edge path
x00 y21 b̄23 . . . b̄``−1 v`+2

which has x0 = a0 . So we may regard the edge paths y21 b̄2 . . . b̄`−1 and a1 . . . a`−1 as defining a point and a
0
line in the Hjelmslev plane of the vertex σ0a .v2 and a labeling of the remaining triangles from the induction
hypothesis. The equation (9.1) holds for all interior vertices of the smaller triangle by induction hypothesis,
so we need to check it on the vertices on the edge path b0 . . . b`−1 and we need to produce the correcting
terms for vertices on the edge path x00 y21 b̄23 . . . b̄``−1 .
Let us first check the additional relations along the face. The relation (9.1) for v0 reads b0 − a0 = λ(c0 )0 = e00
which is just (9.2) for k = 1. The other instances of (9.1) along the face read bi = λ(ci )k − λ(di−1 )k +
1
λ(ci−1 )k = eik − fki−1 + ei−
which is obtained by summing together (9.2) for k = i + 1 and (9.3) for k = i.
k
As for the correction terms, we first need to show that −y 1 = −λ(d0 )2 + λ(c0 )2 = −f20 + e02 which is (9.4)
for k = 1. For the remaining correction terms we need to show that −b̄i = −λ(di−1 )i+1 + λ(ci−1 )i+1 −
1
i−1
i−2
λ(di−2 )i+1 = −fii−
+1 + ei+1 − di+1 , which is (9.5) for k = i − 1 plus (9.4) for k = i.
Conversely suppose that the chambers of the triangle between b0 . . . b`−1 and a0 . . . a`−1 can be labeled so
that they satisfy (9.1). Then there is a sequence of step moves and elementary homotopies transforming
b0 . . . b`−1 into a0 . . . a`−1 . For each vertex of the triangle there is a subpath of an intermediate path that
ends in this vertex. Thus we obtain an incidence preserving map of the vertices of the triangle to the vertices
of X , showing that an isomorphic triangle exists in X .
u
t
For Hjelmslev planes up to level 3 we give an explicit description that avoids the special notation of this
section, see Figure 9.4 for the chamber labels used. This is the analogue of [Ess13, Lemmas 5.11, 5.12].
Corollary 9.7 The set P ` of points and L` of lines of the Hjelmslev plane of radius ` around v0 are
0

1

2

`−1

3

a
k
P ` = {σ0b σ1b σ2b σ0b · · · σ`−
1 mod 3 v` mod 3 | b0 ∈ Z/δ Z, b ∈ Z/δ Z \ −Dk mod 3 } and
0

1

2

3

`−1

a
k
L` = {σ0a σ2a σ1a σ0a · · · σ−`
+1 mod 3 v−` mod 3 | a0 ∈ Z/δ Z, a ∈ Z/δ Z \ D−k mod 3 }.
0

0

The point σ0b v1 and the line σ0a v2 are incident if and only if

34

Stefan Witzel

b2

m

o

n

k

l

g

h

b1

f

b0

e

a2

a1

a0

Fig. 9.4 Chamber labels used in Corollary 9.7

(C1) there is a row (e0 , e1 , e2 ) of E such that b0 − a0 = e0 .
0

1

0

1

The point σ0b σ1b v2 and the line σ0a σ2a v1 are incident if in addition
(C2) there are rows (f0 , f1 , f2 ), (g0 , g1 , g2 ), and (h0 , h1 , h2 ) of E such that b1 − e1 + f1 − g1 = 0 and a1 + e2 −
f 2 + h2 = 0 .
0

1

2

0

1

2

The point σ0b σ1b σ2b v0 and the line σ0a σ2a σ1a σ1 v0 are incident if in addition
(C3) there are rows (k0 , k1 , k2 ), (`0 , `1 , `2 ), (m0 , m1 , m2 ), (n0 , n1 , n2 ), (o0 , o1 , o2 ) of E such that b22 −g2 +k2 −m2 =
0, a21 + h1 − `1 + n1 = 0, −f0 + g0 + h0 − k0 − `0 + o0 = 0.

Using Theorem 9.6 or Corollary 9.7 it is very easy to get explicit descriptions of Hjelmslev spheres of the
three types of vertices in Singer cyclic lattices. This leaves us with the problem computing meaningful
invariants for them. We will mostly concentrate on two invariants: the Moufang property, and the number
of splittings of H2 → H1 .

9.3 Moufang planes
A Klingenberg plane Hk is Moufang if for every incident point-line pair x I y , x ∈ P, y ∈ L, for every point
x0 I y , x0 6∼ x and for any two lines z, z 0 I x0 , y 6∼ z, z 0 there is a colineation that fixes all lines through x, all
points on y , and takes z to z 0 . The relevance of this property lies in [BLL91, Theorem 3.10] which implies:
Theorem 9.8 The Klingenberg plane associated to a commutative local ring as in Example 9.1 is Moufang.

Together with Fact 9.2 this immediately gives us a way to show that the building associated to a Singer
cyclic lattice is not Bruhat–Tits: we just need to find some Hjelmslev plane that is not Moufang. Tables 9.1,
9.2, 10.2, 10.4 show for which Singer cyclic lattices the Hjelmslev planes of level 2 (and for q ≤ 3 also of
level 3) are Moufang.
Theorem 9.9 For every prime power q ≤ 5 there is only one isomorphism class of Singer cyclic lattices that
acts on a Bruhat–Tits building, all other act on exotic buildings.
Proof In each table only one building has all Hjelmslev planes Moufang, all the others are exotic. We know
that the first lattice acts on a Bruhat–Tits building from Corollary 5.2.
u
t

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

35

Table 9.1 Buildings of Singer cyclic lattices for q = 2. The numbering is the same as that of Table 4.1. The table shows
a based difference matrix, whether the Hjelmslev planes of level 2 respectively 3 are Moufang, in how many ways the
projection H2 → H1 splits, some subquotients Qk1 of the vertex stabilizers, and the normalizer of the Singer cycle on level
2. Each of these latter columns has three entries, one for Hjelmslev planes around v0 , v1 , and v2 .

2

3

# splits of
H
H
|P12 |
Name Based DM Moufang
Moufang H2 →H1


000
256
256
256
111
X2,1
+++ +++
256
256
256
3 3 3
000
0
256
256
113
+++ −−−
X2,2
0
256
256
331

3(2)

|P1
256

|

|NP 2(1) (hσi)/hσi|
256

256
1

256
1

3 3 3
3 3 3

Remark 9.10 Bader, Caprace, and Lécureux [BCL, Appendix D] show that an exotic Singer cyclic lattice
with parameter q0 6≡ 1 mod 3 can be used to deduce that certain Singer cyclic lattices with parameter
q = q03 , e 6≡ 0 mod 3 are exotic as well. Namely, if E0 is a difference matrix for q0 and E is a difference
matrix for q such that E contains the rows of δ/δ0 · E0 then there is an obvious morphism Γ0 → Γ taking
δ/δ
each generator σi to σi 0 . The main result of [BCL] implies that if Γ is Bruhat–Tits then Γ0 needs to have

infinite image in the automorphism group of the field, and in particular have an infinite residually finite
quotient. Thus if Γ0 is (virtually) perfect in addition to being exotic, Γ needs to be exotic as well.
Via this construction Theorem 9.9 gives rise to further exotic lattices, providing some evidence toward the
conjecture formulated in the introduction. However, for a given parameter q the proportion of lattices that
can be seen to be exotic among all Singer cyclic lattices for this parameter, tends to 0 (at least when the
strategy is applied and estimated naively).
Applying the method for q0 = 2 and q = 4 and using that Γ2,2 is exotic, only one lattice in Table 10.1 can
be shown to be exotic, namely Γ4,2 . One of its based difference matrices is
0
3
9
4
11

0
3
9
4
11

0
9
3
4
11

!

and all possibilities to swap entries between the last two rows lead to equivalent difference matrices.
Besides identifying exotic buildings, the Moufang property also allows us to distinguish between nonisomorphic buildings. For example we can see that there are at least three non-isomorphic buildings for
q = 3 by just taking into account how many Hjelmslev planes are Moufang.

9.4 Splittings
Another invariant to distinguish between different Hjelmslev planes is very simple. We know that for k > `
there is a projection Hk → H` . Thus we may wonder whether and in how many ways this projection splits.
This is of course computationally most feasible if k = 2, ` = 1.
Essert formulates a sufficient condition for the projection H2 → H1 to split. The statement is not quite
correct as stated. In the last sentence of [Ess13, Lemma 5.12] the difference sets have to be equal as ordered
difference sets, not as unordered difference sets. If it applied to unordered difference sets then the argument
in [Ess13, Proposition 5.14], saying that the Hjelmslev planes split would apply to all Hjelmslev planes of
Γ2,2 . But we know from Lemma 6.3 and Tits’s invariant that only one of the Hjelmslev spheres of level 2
of Γ2,2 is that of F2 [[t]]/t2 while the other two are those of Z2 /4 which do not split (which is also confirmed
by Table 9.1).

36

Stefan Witzel

Table 9.2 Buildings of Singer cyclic lattices for q = 3. The columns are the same as in Table 9.1. One can check that two
Hjelmslev planes of level 2 are isomorphic if and only if their data in this table coincide, including |NP 2(1) (hσi)/hσi| which
is not a priori an invariant of H2 . All the Hjelmslev planes of level 2 are also self-dual. In particular, only four isomorphism
types of Hjelmslev planes of level 2 appear. The only building that has three different planes of level 2 is X3,6 . The only
exotic building that has all planes of level 2 isomorphic is X3,7 .

Name Based DM
!
000
X3,1
X3,2
X3,3
X3,4
X3,5
X3,6
X3,7

1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9

1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
3
9
0
1
9
3
0
1
4
6
0
1
6
4

1
3
9!
0
1
9
3!
0
1
4
6!
0
1
6
4!
0
1
4
6!
0
6
4
1!
0
4
1
6

# splits of
H2
H3
Moufang Moufang H2 →H1

+++ +++

|P12 |

|P13 |

|NP 2(1) (hσi)/hσi|

6561 6561
13122 258280326 258280326
6561 13122 13122 258280326

−−+ −−−

0

−−+ −−−

0

−−+ −−−

1

−−− −−−

1

−−− −−−

0

−−− −−−

1

6561
0

3
3

6561
0

3
3

1

2
2

1
1

3

1
1

1

2
3

1
1

3

0
1

1

3
2

1
1

13122

0
0

1

2
2

1
1

13122

6561
1

1
13122

1
1

1
2

1
1

3 3 3
3 3 3
1 1 3
1 1 3
1 1 1
3 1 1
1 1 1

On the other hand, looking at Hjelmslev planes around a single vertex separately, the assumption in Essert’s
arguments can be weakened to only depend on two difference sets. We formulate the correct version of [Ess13,
Proposition 5.14] only in our specific context of Singer cyclic lattices.
0

1

Corollary 9.11 If the 1st and the 2nd column of E coincide (as ordered difference sets) then σ0a σ2a .v1 is
1
0
incident with σ0b σ1b v2 if and only if there is a row (e0 , e1 , e1 ) of E such that b0 − a0 = e0 and there is an
1
n ∈ (b − D1 ) ∩ (−a1 − D1 ) ∩ (e1 − D1 ).
In particular, for every m ∈ Z/δ Z \ D1 the map
0

0

0

0

σ0a .v2 7→ σ0a σ2−m .v1
σ0b .v1 7→ σ0b σ1m .v2
is a splitting of H2 (v0 ) → H1 (v0 ) in that case.
Proof Given n as in the statement, the relations for (C2) are satisfied with f1 = e1 − n, g1 = b1 − n,
h2 = −a1 − n.

Given m as in the statement, the target points of the map are actually points and lines of H2 . Incidence
is preserved because (m − D1 ) ∩ (e1 − D1 ) 6= ∅ by the difference set property: to find g1 , f1 ∈ D1 with
m − g1 = e1 − f1 amounts to writing m − e1 = g1 − f1 , which is always possible.
u
t
Remark 9.12 1. Looking at Table 9.2 it is tempting to think that the isomorphism type of the Hjelmslev
sphere of level two around vi might depend only on the (i − 1)st and (i + 1)st column of E . This is not
the case and a counterexample (the only one for q = 3) is given by the Hjelmslev plane around v0 in
X3,2 and the Hjelmslev plane around v2 in X3,5 . The obstruction is the following: a Singer cycle gives

rise to a partition of the edges of the building into orbits. For two different cycles there is generally not
an isomorphism taking one partition to the other.

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

37

2. A more modest guess would be that in the situation of Corollary 9.11, that is, if two columns of E
coincide, the Hjelmslev plane around the third vertex is Moufang. There is no counterexample for q ≤ 4
but there are counterexamples for q = 5, see the third row of Table 10.4.
The number of splittings of H2 → H1 has been computed for all Singer cyclic lattices with q ≤ 4 and all
vertices. The results are shown in Tables 9.1, 9.2, 10.2. It turns out that in the situation of Corollary 9.11
there are in fact always q 8 splittings. The only splittings apart from these exist for q = 3 and are unique.
An interesting example is Γ3,7 where the projection has a unique splitting for each vertex. By taking the
number of splittings into account, we see that for q = 3 there are at least five quasi-isometry classes of
Singer cyclic lattices: only Γ3,2 and Γ3,3 as well as Γ3,5 and Γ3,6 could still be quasi-isometric.

10 Building automorphisms

Let X be the building associated to a Singer cyclic lattice Γ . The goal of this section is to determine the
full automorphism group G := Aut(X ) of X . We start by investigating the subgroup G0 := Aut0 (X ) of type
preserving automorphisms.
Observation 10.1 If v ∈ X is any vertex then G0 = (G0 )v Γ .
u
t

Proof This is because Γ is transitive on each type of vertices.

The observation allows us to reduce our problem to studying vertex stabilizers. So we fix a vertex v and
let P = (G0 )v denote the stabilizer of v in G0 . We introduce the following subquotients. We let Pr be the
pointwise stabilizer in P of the combinatorial ball of radius r around v and we let P (k) be the image of P
in the automorphism group of the ball of radius k around v . Combining both constructions we define the
(k )
(k )
(k )
group Pr to be the image of Pr in P (k) . That is, if r ≤ r0 then Pr0 is a subgroup of Pr and if k ≤ k0
(k )

then Pr

(k 0 )

is a quotient of Pr

. Then for 0 ≤ r ≤ ` ≤ k ≤ ∞ there is an exact sequence
(k )

1 → P`

(k )

→ Pr

(`)

→ Pr

→1

(10.1)

(where the indices r = 0 or k = ∞ are understood to be omitted).
The phenomenon that we are after is the following.
(3)

Lemma 10.2 Assume either that P1
types .

(2)

is trivial for some vertex or that P1

is trivial for vertices of two different

Then P1 is trivial and so the projection P → P (1) is an isomorphism. That is, P acts faithfully on lk v.
(3)

is trivial and let α ∈ P1 . By assumption α fixes the combinatorial 3-ball around v ,
in particular it fixes the full star of the vertices v 0 that are at combinatorial distance 2 from v and of the
same type. Since the automorphism group of X is transitive on vertices of each type, the Lemma also holds
with v replaced by v 0 and so α fixes the 3-balls around all of these vertices. Proceeding inductively one gets
that α = 1.
Proof Assume that P1

(2)

For the second statement assume that P1 is trivial for vertices of types 0 and 1. The argument proceeds
in the same way as before and we need to show that the sequence of subcomplexes defined by K0 := B2 (v ),
[
Ki+1 := {B2 (v 0 ) | v 0 interior vertex of type 0 or 1 of Ki }
exhausts the whole building. This is saying that for every vertex w of X there is an edge path through
vertices v = v0 , v1 , . . . v`−1 , v` = w such that v0 , . . . v`−1 are of type 0 or 1. To see that this statement is true,

38

Stefan Witzel

take a gallery from a chamber containing v to a chamber containing w and note that every panel contains
a vertex of type 0 or a vertex of type 1.
The remaining statement is just the sequence (10.1) in case r = 0, ` = 1, k = ∞.

u
t

Corollary 10.3 If the assumptions of Lemma 10.2 hold then G0 is discrete.
Proof Discreteness means that the stabilizer of a large enough ball is trivial. Lemma 10.2 asserts that
combinatorial balls of radius 3 around vertices are trivial.
u
t

The group P is not accessible to computer experiments but it can be approximated by the group P r of all
automorphisms of the ball of radius k around v :
\ r
P =
P .
r∈N
(k )

k

Prk

In particular P
< P . Similarly, letting
denote the stabilizer of the ball of radius r in P k we get that
(k )
Pr < Prk . Thus the hypothesis of Lemma 10.2 can be checked by verifying that P1k is trivial for k = 2 or
(2)
k = 3. It happens, however, that P1 is trivial while P12 as well as P23 are non-trivial. In these cases we look
3(2)
at the group P1
of isomorphisms on level 2 that fix level 1 and extend to level 3. This is still a supergroup
(2)
of P1 , so it is enough to prove it trivial around two types of vertices. The orders of these groups are shown
for q ≤ 5 in Tables 9.1, 9.2, 10.2, and 10.4.
In cases where Lemma 10.2 applies, it remains to study P (1) . Thanks to the existence of a Singer cyclic
lattice, we already know that P (1) contains a Singer cycle. The remaining possible groups are limited by
the following lemma.
×
Lemma 10.4 The subgroup M := Gal(Fq3 /Fp ) n F×
q 3 /Fq < PGL3 (Fq ) is maximal.

Proof By [Kan80] any proper subgroup of PGL3 (Fq ) that contains the Singer cycle has to normalize it and
by [Hup67, II.7.3a] M is the full normalizer.

Alternatively, one can use Main Theorem 2.1.1 together with Table 8.3 in [BHRD13]. One then has to
read Sections 1.3.1 and 1.7.1 of that reference to see that the maximal subgroup of SL3 (Fq ) gives rise to a
maximal subgroup of PGL3 (Fq ) by moding out the center and then extending by δ .
u
t
Lemma 10.4 tells us that P (1) is either all of PGL3 (Fq ) or it lies between the Singer group Γv and its
normalizer. The former possibility is ruled out in most cases by Theorem 6.1: if G0 is panel transitive and
P (1) = PGL3 (Fq ) then G is chamber-transitive, which can only happen in case q = 2 (where it does happen,
as we have seen in Section 6) or q = 8, which is beyond the scope of this article.
∼ P (1)
Let σ ∈ Γ denote a Singer cycle around our base vertex v . The discussion so far has shown that if P =
(1)
(1)
and if q 6= 2, 8 then P
normalizes hσi. A lower bound for P
is given by Aut(Γ )v . Let ϕ be a generator
of NP (1) (hσi)/hσi (the Frobenius automorphism in the correspondence of the Lemma). The procedure to
produce an upper bound is similar to the stabilizer computations before. We check whether some subgroup
hϕk i of hϕi lifts to an element of P 2 . The normalizer of hσi in P 1(2) is then hσi o hϕk i for the maximal hϕk i.
If q is prime (in particular for p ∈ {2, 3, 5}) then ϕ has order 3 and it suffices to check whether ϕ lifts. If
q = pη with η > 1 then the order of ϕ is 3η and we need to check elements of the various prime powers
separately. For q = 4 the order is 6 and we need to check whether ϕ2 and ϕ3 lift. The results are again listed
in Tables 9.1, 9.2, 10.2, and 10.4.

Comparing them with Tables 4.1, 4.2, 10.1, and 10.3 we find:
Theorem 10.5 Let Γ be a Singer cyclic lattice and let X be its building. If q ≤ 5 and Γ is not one of the
Bruhat–Tits lattices from Section 5 then Aut(Γ ) = Aut(X ), which is never type-transitive.

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

39

Proof Let Aut0 (Γ ) and Aut0 (X ) denote the groups of type preserving automorphisms of Γ and X respec-

tively.
For q = 2 we only need to consider Γ2,2 . Looking at Table 4.1 we see that P13 is trivial for vertices of
type 0 so we can apply Lemma 10.2 to conclude that the stabilizer of v0 acts faithfully on lk v0 . We have
already seen in Section 6 that Aut0 (Γ2,2 ) is chamber regular, so P1 = PGL3 (F2 ) and Aut0 (Γ2,1 ) = Aut0 (X ).
Looking at Table 4.1 we see that Aut(Γ2,2 ) acts by exchanging two types. From Table 9.1 (or the discussion
in Section 6) we see that Aut(X2,2 ) cannot permute all three types since the Hjelmslev planes of level 2 are
non-isomorphic.
For q = 3, we need to consider the lattices Γ3,2 to Γ3,7 . We see in Table 4.2 that for these lattices P13 is
trivial for all vertices so that the stabilizer of any vertex v acts faithfully on lk v . We know from Theorem 6.1
that the vertex stabilizer cannot be all of PGL3 (F3 ) and so by Lemma 10.4 it has to normalize the Singer
cycle in Γ . Since q is prime the order of NP (hσi)/hσi can only be 3 or 1. We see in Table 4.2 that the order
is 3 already within Aut0 (Γ3,2 ) so that Aut0 (Γ3,2 ) = Aut0 (X3,2 ) is an extension of Γ3,2 by C3 . In all the
other cases Table 9.2 shows at least one vertex where the Singer cycle has trivial normalizer at level 2 and
thus Aut0 (Γ3,i ) = Γ = Aut0 (X3,i ) for i > 2.
Toward the full automorphism group, for 2 ≤ i ≤ 4 we see in Table 4.2 that Aut(Γ ) exchanges two types
and from Table 9.2 we see that it cannot exchange more (for example because H2 (v2 ) is Moufang while
H2 (v0 ) and H2 (v1 ) are not). The remaining groups satisfy
Aut0 (X ) = Γ = Aut(Γ ).

(10.2)

We claim that these equations already imply that Aut(X ) = Aut0 (X ). Indeed suppose θ ∈ Aut(X ) \ Aut0 (X )
and consider the group of type-preserving automorphisms hΓ hθi i. If this group equals Γ then θ normalizes Γ
contradicting the right equation of (10.2). If it is strictly larger than Γ the left equation of (10.2) is violated.
3(2)

For q = 4, we look at the lattices Γ4,2 to Γ4,17 . Again we see in Table 10.1 that in each building either P1
is trivial for two vertex types, or that P13 is trivial for some vertex so the vertex stabilizers act faithfully on
the corresponding vertex links. As before Theorem 6.1 and Lemma 10.4 imply that every vertex stabilizer
has to normalize the Singer cycle in Γ . This time the possible values for the order of NP (hσi)/hσi are 1, 3,
and 6, since 4 = 22 . Table 10.1 shows that the order is 6 in Aut0 (Γ4,2 ) and Table 10.2 shows that the order
is 1 in all other cases.
For the full automorphism group the argument is just as for q = 3: the lattices Γ4,i , 2 ≤ i ≤ 5 exchange two
types by Table 10.1 and cannot exchange all types by the number of splits in Table 10.2. The remaining
lattices satisfy (10.2).
For q = 5 (excluding the Bruhat–Tits example in the first row) the same reasoning as before applies
to see that Aut0 (Γ ) = Aut0 (X ) from Tables 10.3 and 10.4. Whenever Aut(Γ ) strictly contains Aut0 (Γ )
only two types are exchanged and it can be seen from the column |P12 | of Table 10.4 that the third type
could not be exchanged with the other two, so that Aut(Γ ) = Aut(X ). When (10.2) holds, we conclude
as before. This leaves us with lattices where Out(Γ ) = C3 . We tweak the previous argument a bit to see
that Aut(X ) = Aut0 (X ) even in these cases: suppose θ was a building automorphism that did not preserve
types. We know that θ cannot normalize Γ so Γ and Γ θ are distinct. Since Γ is generated by Singer cycles,
there has to be one that is not contained in Γ θ . But then the index of Γ in hΓ, Γ θ i is at least 5 contradicting
that Γ has index 3 in Aut0 (X ).
u
t
Corollary 10.6 Let Γ y X and Γ 0 y X 0 be two Singer cyclic lattices with q ≤ 5 acting on their associated
buildings. If Γ is not isomorphic to Γ 0 then X is not isomorphic to X 0 . In particular, Γ and Γ 0 are then not
quasi-isometric.
∼ Γ 0 . The statement is clear if Γ = Aut0 (X ) or (using
Proof We assume X = X 0 and need to show Γ =
Tables 9.1, 9.2, 10.2 and 10.4) if X is Bruhat–Tits. For q ≤ 4 there is only at most one exotic building left
in the tables with Aut0 (X )
Γ . For q = 5 we conclude as at the end of the last proof: if Γ and Γ 0 are

40

Stefan Witzel

distinct Singer cyclic lattices on the same building, then the index of Γ in hΓ, Γ 0 i is at least 5 but the index
in Aut0 (X ) is at most 3.
u
t

The last sentence follows from Theorem 3.5.
Table 10.1: Singer cyclic lattices for q = 4. The columns are the same
as in Table 4.1.
Name
Γ4,1
Γ4,2
Γ4,3
Γ4,4
Γ4,5
Γ4,6
Γ4,7
Γ4,8
Γ4,9
Γ4,10
Γ4,11
Γ4,12
Γ4,13
Γ4,14
Γ4,15
Γ4,16

Diff mat
0 0 0 !
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16

1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
14
16
4
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
14
4
16
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
16
14
4
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
14
16
4
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
14
4
16

1
4
14
16 !
0
1
16
14
4
0 !
1
4
16
14 !
0
1
14
16
4
1 !
0
4
16
14 !
1
0
4
16
14 !
1
0
14
4
16 !
1
4
0
14
16 !
0
1
16
4
14 !
1
0
4
16
14 !
1
4
16
0
14 !
0
1
14
4
16 !
0
1
16
4
14 !
1
0
4
14
16 !
1
0
16
4
14 !
1
0
14
16
4

Based DM
0 0 0 !
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16

1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
14
16
4
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
16
14
4
0
1
14
4
16
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
14
16
4
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
14
4
16

1
4
14
16 !
0
1
16
14
4
0 !
1
4
16
14 !
0
1
14
16
4
0 !
1
8
6
18 !
0
1
18
6
8
0 !
1
8
18
6
0 !
6
18
1
8
0 !
1
16
4
14 !
0
1
8
6
18 !
0
6
1
8
18 !
0
1
14
4
16 !
0
1
16
4
14 !
0
1
18
8
6
0 !
1
6
18
8
0 !
1
8
6
18

Out(Γ )

H 1 (Γ )

H1 ([Γ, Γ ])

C6 o S3

(Z/3Z)2 ⊕ (Z/7Z)2

(Z/2Z)12

C6 o (0, 1)

(Z/3Z)2 ⊕ Z/7Z

0

(0, 1)

Z/3Z ⊕ Z/7Z

0

(0, 1)

Z/3Z ⊕ Z/7Z

0

(0, 1)

Z/3Z ⊕ Z/7Z

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

Z/3Z

0

1

Z/3Z

0

1

Z/3Z

0

1

Z/3Z

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

Γ4,17

0
1
4
14
16

41

0
1
14
16
4

1
0
14
4
16

!

0
1
4
14
16

0
1
14
16
4

Table 10.1: continued
0 !

1
8
18
6

1

0

0

42

Stefan Witzel

Table 10.2: Buildings of Singer cyclic lattices for q = 4. The columns
are the same as in Table 9.1.
Name
X4,1
X4,2
X4,3
X4,4
X4,5
X4,6
X4,7
X4,8
X4,9
X4,10
X4,11
X4,12
X4,13
X4,14
X4,15
X4,16
X4,17

Based DM
0 0 0 !
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16

1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
4
14
16
0
1
14
16
4
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
16
14
4
0
1
14
4
16
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
14
16
4
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
4
16
14
0
1
14
4
16
0
1
14
16
4

1
4
14
16 !
0
1
16
14
4
0 !
1
4
16
14 !
0
1
14
16
4
0 !
1
8
6
18 !
0
1
18
6
8
0 !
1
8
18
6
0 !
6
18
1
8
0 !
1
16
4
14 !
0
1
8
6
18 !
0
6
1
8
18 !
0
1
14
4
16 !
0
1
16
4
14 !
0
1
18
8
6
0 !
1
6
18
8
0 !
1
8
6
18 !
0
1
8
18
6

H2

Moufang

+++
−−+
−−+
−−+
−−+
−−−
−−−
−−−
−−−
−−−
−−−
−−−
−−−
−−−
−−−
−−−
−−−

# splits of

2(3)

|P12 |

H2 →H1

|P1

|

|NP 2 (hσi)/hσi|

65536 65536
196608
65536
196608 196608
0
0
0
0

65536
65536
0
65536 196608
65536
0

1

65536
0

1

65536
0

1

0
0

0

0
0

1
1

0
0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1
1

1
0

0

1

1

0
0

1

1

0
0

1

1

0
0

1

1

0
0

1

1

0
0

1

1

1
1

1

1

1

1 1 1

1
1

16

65536
65536
1

0

0

1
1

1

0

1 1 6

196608

4

0
0

1 1 6

1
4

6 6 6
1 1 6

196608

4

0

65536
262144
65536

1

0

0

1
1

196608

4

0

1

1

0
0

6 6 6

1

1 1 3

1
1

1

1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

43

Table 10.3: Summary of Singer cyclic lattices for q = 5. The leftmost
column shows how many lattices the row represents. The based difference matrix is one example that realizes the indicated properties.
The other columns are the same as in Table 4.1.
#

Based DM
0 0 0

Out(Γ )

H 1 (Γ )

H1 ([Γ, Γ ])

1



C3 o S3

(Z/31Z)2

(Z/5Z)6

C3 o (0, 1)

Z/31Z

0

C3 o (0, 1)

Z/31Z

0

(0, 1)

Z/31Z

0

(0, 1)

Z/31Z

0

(0, 1)

Z/31Z

0

1

Z/31Z

0

1

Z/31Z

0

1

Z/31Z

0

1

Z/31Z

0

C3 o (0, 1)

0

0

C3 o (0, 1)

0

0

C3 o (0, 1)

0

0

(0, 1)

0

0

1

1

1

4

10

5

3

11

55

2

1

6

11

1
3
8
12
18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
18

1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
8
12
18
3
0
1
12
8
18
3
0
1
12
18
8
3
0
1
3
8
18
12

1
3 
8
12
18
0 
18
1 
8
3
12
0 
1
12 
18
3
8
0 
12
1 
8
3
18
0 
1
3 
12
8
18
0 
1
3 
8
18
12
0 
1
12 
18
8
3
0 
3
1 
18
12
8
0 
1
12 
8
18
3
0 
1
3 
12
18
8
0 
18
1 
12
3
8
0 
18
12 
8
3
1
0 
3
12 
1
18
8
0 
1
3 
12
8
18

44

Stefan Witzel

0
1
3
8
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
18


1

2

5

18

24

1

8

10

2

2

8

59

1

19

93



0
1
8
18
3
12
0
1
18
12
8
3
0
1
8
18
3
12
0
1
3
18
12
8
0
1
8
12
3
18
0
1
18
12
8
3
0
1
8
12
3
18
0
1
3
8
18
12
0
1
12
18
3
8
0
1
12
18
8
3
0
1
18
8
12
3
0
1
3
18
12
8
0
1
3
12
18
8
0
1
3
8
18
12
0
1
8
12
3
18

Table 10.3: continued


0
18
1 
3
12
8
0 
8
1 
18
12
3
0 
1
18 
3
12
8
0 
1
8 
12
3
18
0 
1
8 
12
18
3
0 
12
3 
1
8
18
0 
3
12 
8
18
1
0 
3
8 
12
1
18
0 
3
1 
8
18
12
0 
8
3 
18
12
1
0 
8
1 
18
3
12
0 
3
8 
1
18
12
0 
3
12 
8
18
1
0 
3
12 
18
1
8
0 
1
12 
3
8
18

(0, 1)

0

0

(0, 1)

0

0

(0, 1)

0

0

(0, 1)

0

0

(0, 1)

0

0

C3

0

0

C3

0

0

C3

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

45

0
1
3
8
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
18


4

60

661

2179



0
1
12
18
3
8
0
1
12
8
3
18
0
1
3
12
8
18
0
1
3
8
18
12

Table 10.3: continued


0
18
1 
12
8
3
0 
1
12 
8
18
3
0 
1
8 
3
18
12
0 
1
3 
18
8
12

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

46

Stefan Witzel

Table 10.4: Summary of buildings of Singer cyclic lattices for q = 5.
The leftmost column shows how many lattices the row represents.
The based difference matrix is one example that realizes the indicated properties. The other columns are the same as in Table 9.1.
#
1

1

1

1

4

10

5

3

11

55

2

1

6

11

H2

Based DM
0 0 0

Moufang



+++

1
3
8
12
18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
18

1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
3
8
12
18
0
1
8
12
18
3
0
1
12
8
18
3
0
1
12
18
8
3
0
1
3
8
18
12

1
3 
8
12
18
0 
18
1 
8
3
12
0 
1
12 
18
3
8
0 
12
1 
8
3
18
0 
1
3 
12
8
18
0 
1
3 
8
18
12
0 
1
12 
18
8
3
0 
3
1 
18
12
8
0 
1
12 
8
18
3
0 
1
3 
12
18
8
0 
18
1 
12
3
8
0 
18
12 
8
3
1
0 
3
12 
1
18
8
0 
1
3 
12
8
18

−−+

−−−

−−+

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−+

−−−

−−−

−−+

# splits of

|P12 |

H2 →H1

|NP 2 (hσi)/hσi|

390625390625
1562500
390625 1562500 1562500
0

390625
0

3

0

25

1
1

100

390625
0

1

1
1562500

25
0

0

1
1

25
0

0

1

3

0

1

2

1
1

1
1

0
0

100

1

0
0

100

1

0

1
1

1
0

1
1

0

1

1

390625
0

1

1
1562500

3

25
3

0

0

1
1562500

3

0

0

1

1
1

25

100
1

0

1

100

390625
0

1

1
1562500

3 3 3

3 3 3

3 3 3

1 1 3

1 1 3

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

3 3 3

3 3 3

3 3 3

1 1 3

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices

47

Table 10.4: continued
0
1
3
8
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
18



1

2

5

18

24

1

8

10

2

2

8

59

1

19

93



0
1
8
18
3
12
0
1
18
12
8
3
0
1
8
18
3
12
0
1
3
18
12
8
0
1
8
12
3
18
0
1
18
12
8
3
0
1
8
12
3
18
0
1
3
8
18
12
0
1
12
18
3
8
0
1
12
18
8
3
0
1
18
8
12
3
0
1
3
18
12
8
0
1
3
12
18
8
0
1
3
8
18
12
0
1
8
12
3
18

0
18
1 
3
12
8
0 
8
1 
18
12
3
0 
1
18 
3
12
8
0 
1
8 
12
3
18
0 
1
8 
12
18
3
0 
12
3 
1
8
18
0 
3
12 
8
18
1
0 
3
8 
12
1
18
0 
3
1 
8
18
12
0 
8
3 
18
12
1
0 
8
1 
18
3
12
0 
3
8 
1
18
12
0 
3
12 
8
18
1
0 
3
12 
18
1
8
0 
1
12 
3
8
18


−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

2

25
2

1

1
1

25
1

1

1
1

25
1

0

1

25

1

25

1

3

1

3

1

0

1

3

1

3

1

3

1

3

1

2

1

2

1
1

1
2

0

1

1

1
0

1

1

2
0

1

1

0
0

1

1

1
0

1

1

1
0

1

1

2
1

1

1

0
1

100

1

0
0

100

1

3
0

100

1

0
0

100

1

0
0

100

1
1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 3

1 1 1

1 1 3

1 1 1

3 3 3

3 3 3

3 3 3

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

48

Stefan Witzel

Table 10.4: continued
0
1
3
8
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
 18
0
1
 38
12
18



4

60

661

2179



0
1
12
18
3
8
0
1
12
8
3
18
0
1
3
12
8
18
0
1
3
8
18
12

0
18
1 
12
8
3
0 
1
12 
8
18
3
0 
1
8 
3
18
12
0 
1
3 
18
8
12


−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

1

1
1

0

1
1

1
1

0

1
1

1
0

0

1
1

1
0

0

1

1
1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

References
Art69.
Bac78.
BCL.

Benno Artmann, Hjelmslev-Ebenen mit verfeinerten Nachbarschaftsrelationen, Math. Z. 112 (1969), 163–180.
P. Y. Bacon, Desarguesian Klingenberg planes, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 241 (1978).
Uri Bader, Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace, and Jean Lécureux, On the linearity of lattices in affine buildings and
ergodicity of the singular Cartan flow, arXiv:1608.06265, Preprint.
Ber53.
Gerald Berman, Finite projective plane geometries and difference sets, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 74 (1953),
492–499.
BH99.
Martin R. Bridson and André Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Die Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 319, Springer, 1999.
BHRD13. John N. Bray, Derek F. Holt, and Colva M. Roney-Dougal, The maximal subgroups of the low-dimensional
finite classical groups, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 407, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2013, With a foreword by Martin Liebeck.
BLL91.
Catharine A. Baker, Norman D. Lane, and J. W. Lorimer, A coordinatization for Moufang Klingenberg planes,
Simon Stevin 65 (1991), no. 1-2, 3–22.
Bou61.
N. Bourbaki, Éléments de mathématique. Algèbre commutative. Chapitres 3 et 4, Actualités Scientifiques et
Industrielles, No. 1293, Hermann, Paris, 1961.
BT72.
François Bruhat and Jacques Tits, Groupes réductifs sur un corps local: I. Donées radicielles valuées, Inst.
Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. 41 (1972), 5–251.
CM09.
Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace and Nicolas Monod, Isometry groups of non-positively curved spaces: discrete subgroups, J. Topol. 2 (2009), no. 4, 701–746.
CMSZ93. Donald I. Cartwright, Anna Maria Mantero, Tim Steger, and Anna Zappa, Groups acting simply transitively on
the vertices of a building of type Ã2 . I, Geom. Dedicata 47 (1993), no. 2, 143–166.
CRT.
Inna Capdeboscq, Dmitriy Rumynin, and Anne Thomas, Cocompact lattices on Ãn buildings, arXiv:1206.5356,
Preprint.
CS98.
Donald I. Cartwright and Tim Steger, A family of Ãn -groups, Israel J. Math. 103 (1998), 125–140.
Dem68.
P. Dembowski, Finite geometries, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, vol. 44, Springer, 1968.
DGPS12. Wolfram Decker, Gert-Martin Greuel, Gerhard Pfister, and Hans Schönemann, Singular 3-1-6 — A computer
algebra system for polynomial computations, http://www.singular.uni-kl.de, 2012.
EK64.
Erich Ellers and Helmut Karzel, Endliche Inzidenzgruppen, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 27 (1964), 250–264.
Ess13.
Jan Essert, A geometric construction of panel-regular lattices for buildings of types Ã2 and C̃2 , Algebr. Geom.
Topol. 13 (2013), no. 3, 1531–1578.
GAP12. The GAP Group, GAP – Groups, algorithms, and programming, 2012, http://www.gap-system.org/.
Hig71.
Philip J. Higgins, Notes on categories and groupoids, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., London-New York-Melbourne,
1971, Van Nostrand Rienhold Mathematical Studies, No. 32.
Hup67.
B. Huppert, Endliche Gruppen. I, Die Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 134, SpringerVerlag, Berlin-New York, 1967.
HVM89. Guy Hanssens and Hendrik Van Maldeghem, On projective Hjelmslev planes of level n, Glasgow Math. J. 31
(1989), no. 3, 257–261.
Kan80.
William M. Kantor, Linear groups containing a Singer cycle, J. Algebra 62 (1980), no. 1, 232–234.
Kan86.
, Generalized polygons, SCABs and GABs, Buildings and the geometry of diagrams (Como, 1984), Lecture
Notes in Math., vol. 1181, Springer, Berlin, 1986, pp. 79–158.
KL97.
Bruce Kleiner and Bernhard Leeb, Rigidity of quasi-isometries for symmetric spaces and Euclidean buildings,
Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 86 (1997), 115–197.

On panel-regular Ã2 lattices
Kli55.

49

Wilhelm Klingenberg, Desarguessche Ebenen mit Nachbarelementen, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 20
(1955), 97–111.
KMW84. Peter Köhler, Thomas Meixner, and Michael Wester, Triangle groups, Comm. Algebra 12 (1984), no. 13-14,
1595–1625.
KW14.
Linus Kramer and Richard M. Weiss, Coarse equivalences of Euclidean buildings, Adv. Math. 253 (2014), 1–49,
With an appendix by Jeroen Schillewaert and Koen Struyve.
Mar91.
Grigori Alexandrowitsch Margulis, Discrete subgroups of semisimple Lie groups, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und
ihrer Grenzgebiete, 3. Folge, vol. 17, Springer, 1991.
MP14.
Brendan D. McKay and Adolfo Piperno, Practical graph isomorphism, {II}, Journal of Symbolic Computation
60 (2014), no. 0, 94 – 112.
Neu99.
Jürgen Neukirch, Algebraic number theory, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol. 322, Springer, 1999.
Ott75.
Udo Ott, Endliche zyklische Ebenen, Math. Z. 144 (1975), no. 3, 195–215.
Pyt91.
Python Software Foundation, Python, 1991, http://www.python.org/.
Ron84.
Mark A. Ronan, Triangle geometries, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 37 (1984), no. 3, 294–319.
, Lectures on buildings, Perspectives in Mathematics, vol. 7, Academic Press, 1989.
Ron89.
Sag.
Sage, http://www.sagemath.org/.
Sch44.
O. F. G. Schilling, Automorphisms of fields of formal power series, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 50 (1944), 892–901.
Sin38.
James Singer, A theorem in finite projective geometry and some applications to number theory, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 43 (1938), no. 3, 377–385.
Slo10.
Sloane, N.J.A., The on-line encyclopedia of integer sequences, 2010, http://oeis.org.
Soi93.
Leonard H. Soicher, GRAPE: a system for computing with graphs and groups, Topics in Algebraic Graph Theory
(Larry Finkelstein and William M. Kantor, eds.), DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical
Computer Science, vol. 11, American Mathematical Society, 1993, pp. 287–291.
Tim89.
F. G. Timmesfeld, Classical locally finite Tits chamber systems of rank 3, J. Algebra 124 (1989), no. 1, 9–59.
Tit81.
Jacques Tits, A local approach to buildings, The geometric vein: The Coxeter Festschrift, Springer, 1981, pp. 519–
547.
, Résumé de cours: Immeubles affines, groupes arithmétiques et géométries finies, Annuaire du Collège
Tit85.
de France (1984–1985), 93–110.
Tit86.
, Buildings and group amalgamations, Proceedings of groups—St. Andrews 1985 (Cambridge), London
Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 121, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986, pp. 110–127.
Tit90.
, Spheres of radius 2 in triangle buildings. I, Finite geometries, buildings, and related topics (Pingree
Park, CO, 1988), Oxford Sci. Publ., Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1990, pp. 17–28.
VM87.
H. Van Maldeghem, Nonclassical triangle buildings, Geom. Dedicata 24 (1987), no. 2, 123–206.
VM88.
Hendrik J. Van Maldeghem, Valuations on PTRs induced by triangle buildings, Geom. Dedicata 26 (1988), no. 1,
29–84.
Wei09.
Richard Weiss, The structure of affine buildings, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 168, Princeton University
Press, 2009.
Wit16.
Witzel, Stefan, Singer lattice GitHub repository, 2016, (https://github.com/switzel/singer_lattice).
ZS75.
Oscar Zariski and Pierre Samuel, Commutative algebra. Vol. 1, Springer, 1975.

