A FACTORIZATION RESULT FOR CLASSICAL AND SIMILITUDE GROUPS

arXiv:1607.06647v1 [math.RT] 22 Jul 2016

ALAN ROCHE AND C. RYAN VINROOT
Abstract. For most classical and similitude groups, we show that each element can be written
as a product of two transformations that a) preserve or almost preserve the underlying form and
b) whose squares are certain scalar maps. This generalizes work of Wonenburger and Vinroot.
As an application, we re-prove and slightly extend a well-known result of Mœglin, Vignéras and
Waldspurger on the existence of automorphisms of p-adic classical groups that take each irreducible
smooth representation to its dual.

Introduction
For many classical groups G, we show that each element is a product of two involutions. The
e containing G such that [G
e : G] ≤ 2. We also prove a similar
involutions belong to a group G
factorization for elements of the corresponding similitude groups. Our interest in such factorizations
stems from an application to the representation theory of reductive groups over non-archimedean
local fields. We are interested in involutary automorphisms of such groups that take each irreducible
smooth representation to its dual. Echoing [1], we call these dualizing involutions. They do not always
exist in our setting (we give an example in §8). They do exist, however, for many classical p-adic
groups by a result of Mœglin, Vignéras and Waldspurger ([14] Chap. IV § II). We re-prove this result
and slightly extend its scope as explained below.
To make more precise statements, we need to define the classical and similitude groups we consider.
Let E/F be a field extension with E = F or [E : F ] = 2. We assume in the quadratic case that E/F
is a Galois extension. In all cases we write τ for the generator of Gal(E/F ), so that τ has order two
when [E : F ] = 2 and τ = 1 when E = F . Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over E with a
non-degenerate ǫ-hermitian form h , i (ǫ = ±1) which we take to be linear in the first variable. Thus
hαu + βv, wi = αhu, wi + βhv, wi and hv, wi = ǫ τ (hw, vi)
for all α, β ∈ E and u, v, w ∈ V . It follows that h , i is τ -linear in the second variable:
hu, αv + βwi = τ (α)hu, vi + τ (β)hu, wi.
In the case char F = 2 and E = F we assume also that hv, vi = 0 for all v ∈ V , that is, h , i is
symplectic.
We write U(V ) for the isometry group (or unitary group) of h , i and GU(V ) for the corresponding
similitude group. That is,
U(V ) = {g ∈ AutE (V ) : hgv, gv ′ i = hv, v ′ i, ∀ v, v ′ ∈ V },
GU(V ) = {g ∈ AutE (V ) : hgv, gv ′ i = βhv, v ′ i, for some scalar β, ∀ v, v ′ ∈ V }.
For g ∈ GU(V ), applying τ to both sides of hgv, gv ′ i = βhv, v ′ i gives τ (β) = β, so that β ∈ F × . We
write µ(g) = β. It is called the multiplier of g and the resulting homomorphism µ : GU(V ) → F × is
the multiplier map.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 20G15, 22E50.
1

2

A. ROCHE AND C. RYAN VINROOT

Definition. Let h ∈ AutF (V ). We say that h is anti-unitary if
hhv, hv ′ i = hv ′ , vi,

∀ v, v ′ ∈ V.

When E = F and char F 6= 2, the form h , i is orthogonal (ǫ = 1) or symplectic (ǫ = −1). In the
orthogonal case, an anti-unitary map is simply an orthogonal transformation. In the symplectic case,
an anti-unitary map is a skew-symplectic transformation (hhv, hv ′ i = −hv, v ′ i).
We also need the corresponding notion for similitude groups.
Definition. Let h ∈ AutF (V ). We say also that h is an anti-unitary similitude if, for some scalar β,
hhv, hv ′ i = βhv ′ , vi,

∀ v, v ′ ∈ V.

Thus an anti-unitary map is an anti-unitary similitude for which β = 1.
We can now state our factorization result.
Theorem A. Let g ∈ GU(V ) with µ(g) = β. Then there is an anti-unitary involution h1 and an
anti-unitary similitude h2 with h22 = β such that g = h1 h2 . In particular, for any g ∈ U(V ), there
exist anti-unitary elements hi with h2i = 1 (for i = 1, 2) such that g = h1 h2 .
For example, Theorem A says that any orthogonal transformation is a product of two orthogonal
involutions and that any symplectic transformation is a product of two skew-symplectic involutions.
This was originally proved by Wonenburger [25] (under the assumption char F 6= 2). While we
ultimately obtain a new proof of her results, we borrow heavily from her approach. In particular,
the arguments in §3 below are in essence those of [25] but rephrased in the language of modules. For
E = F and char F 6= 2, Theorem A is due in the case of similitude groups to Vinroot [23, 24] (by an
adaptation of Wonenburger’s arguments).
Our framework does not accommodate orthogonal groups in even characteristic (defined as the
stabilizers of suitably non-degenerate quadratic forms) or the corresponding similitude groups. If F is
perfect, then it follows readily from work of Gow [8] or Ellers and Nolte [6] that Theorem A continues
to hold in this setting.
Suppose now that F is a non-archimedean local field and that G is the group of F -points of a
reductive F -group. Let π be an irreducible smooth representation of G. For any continuous automorphism α of G, we write π α for the (smooth) representation of G given by π α (g) = π(α g) for g ∈ G.
We write π ∨ for the smooth dual or contragredient of π.
Definition. Let ι be a continuous automorphism of G of order at most two. We say that ι a dualizing
involution of G if π ι ∼
= π ∨ for all irreducible smooth representations π of G.
We fix an anti-unitary involution h ∈ AutF (V ) and set ι g = µ(g)−1 hgh−1 for g ∈ GU(V ). Then
ι defines a continuous automorphism of GU(V ) of order two. Further ι|U(V ) gives the automorphism
g 7→ hgh−1 of U(V ) which for simplicity we again denote by ι. Our application of Theorem A hinges
on the following immediate consequence.
Corollary. For any g ∈ GU(V ), the elements ι g and g −1 are conjugate by an element of U(V ).
Proof. Let a ∈ GU(V ) with µ(g) = β. By Theorem A, we have g = h1 h2 for an anti-unitary involution
−1
h1 and an anti-unitary similitude h2 with h22 = β. Thus h−1
h2 and g −1 = β −1 h2 h1 . Hence
2 =β
(h1 h) ι g (h1 h)−1 = h1 h (β −1 h(h1 h2 ) h−1 ) hh1
= β −1 h2 h1
= g −1 .
That is, ι g and g −1 are conjugate by h1 h ∈ U(V ).



A FACTORIZATION RESULT FOR CLASSICAL AND SIMILITUDE GROUPS

3

For the classical groups U(V ), this is part of [14] Chap. 4 Prop. I.2 and the early part of our proof
of Theorem A mirrors the corresponding part of the proof in loc. cit. Our overall proof, on the other
hand, can easily be adapted to give an alternative route to the full statement in loc. cit.
Our main result is the following.
Theorem B. The maps ι : U(V ) → U(V ) and ι : GU(V ) → GU(V ) are dualizing involutions.
In the case of the classical groups U(V ), this is essentially [14] Chap. IV Théorème II.1. Given
Harish-Chandra’s theory of characters [10, 3] as recalled in §7, Theorem B is an immediate consequence
of the Corollary.
The argument in [14] does not rely on existence of characters. Instead it adapts a geometric method
used by Gelfand and Kazhdan to show that transpose-inverse is a dualizing involution of GLn (F )
[7]. As above, Gelfand and Kazhdan’s result follows immediately from the existence of characters.
Indeed, by elementary linear algebra, any square matrix is conjugate to its transpose. It follows that
if θ g = ⊤ g −1 for g ∈ GLn (F ) then, for any irreducible smooth representation π, the characters of π θ
and π ∨ are equal, whence π θ ∼
= π ∨ . Tupan found a clever and completely elementary proof of Gelfand
and Kazhdan’s result [22]. We will report in a sequel on a similarly elementary proof of Theorem B
that builds on Tupan’s approach [19].
Finally, let G be the isometry group of a non-degenerate hermitian or anti-hermitian form over a
p-adic quaternion algebra. By [13], there is no automorphism θ of G such that θ g is conjugate to g −1
for all g ∈ G. Thus the Corollary above is false in this setting which means surely that Theorem B
does not extend to classical groups over p-adic quaternion algebras. In this spirit, let D be a central
(finite-dimensional) division algebra over F . By a straightforward argument involving only central
characters, due to the first-named author and Steven Spallone, the group GLn (D) can admit an
automorphism that takes each irreducible smooth representation to its dual only in the known cases
D = F and when D is a quaternion algebra over F [15, 17]. In particular, in contrast to the case of
connected reductive groups over the reals [1], dualizing involutions in our sense do not always exist.
Organization. The proof of Theorem A takes up §§1 through 5. We record some special cases and
applications in §6. In §7 we briefly recall some character theory and prove Theorem B. Finally in
§8 we show that the unit groups of (finite-dimensional) central simple algebras over F do not admit
dualizing involutions except in the two cases noted above.
1. Proof of Theorem A: Initial Setup and First Reduction
Notation. Let R be a ring with identity. We write R× for the group of units of R. For any R-module
M (which for us is always a unital left R-module), we write annR M for the annihilator of M . That
is,
annR M = {r ∈ R : rm = 0, ∀ m ∈ M }.
T
For m ∈ M , we also write annR m = {r ∈ R : rm = 0}. Thus annR M = m∈M annR m. Note
that annR m is the kernel of the surjective R-module homomorphism r 7→ rm : R → Rm, so that
R/annR m ∼
= Rm as R-modules.
1.1. Let g ∈ GU(V ) with µ(g) = β. The space V is a module over the polynomial ring E[T ] via
f (T )v = f (g)v. Let p = p(T ) denote the minimal polynomial of g. We have
p = pe11 · · · penn
for distinct monic irreducible elements p1 , . . . , pn ∈ E[T ] and positive integers e1 , . . . , en .
We set A = E[T ]/(p). The ideal (p) is simply the annihilator of V as an E[T ]-module. In particular, V carries an induced A-module structure. The Chinese Remainder Theorem gives a canonical

4

A. ROCHE AND C. RYAN VINROOT

isomorphism of E-algebras
e
E[T ]/(p) ∼
= E[T ]/(p11 ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ E[T ]/(penn ).

Thus
A = A1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ An ,
for ideals Ai in A with Ai ∼
=

E[T ]/(pei i )

(1.1.1)

(i = 1, . . . , n). Setting Vi = Ai V (i = 1, . . . , n), we have
V = V1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Vn .

Each Vi is an E[T ]-submodule and as such has annihilator (pei i ). More concretely, each Vi is g-stable
and the minimal polynomial of g on Vi is pei i .
1.2. As g is invertible, the E[T ]-module structure on V extends to a module structure over the ring
of Laurent polynomials E[T, T −1 ]. It follows that each Vi in (1.1.1) is an E[T, T −1]-submodule. We
have
annE[T,T −1 ] V = p E[T, T −1] and annE[T,T −1 ] Vi = pei i E[T, T −1 ] (i = 1, . . . , n).
The inclusion E[T ] ⊂ E[T, T −1 ] induces canonical E-algebra isomorphisms
E[T ]/(p) ∼
= E[T, T −1 ]/pei i E[T, T −1]
= E[T, T −1 ]/p E[T, T −1] and E[T ]/(pei i ) ∼

(i = 1, . . . , n).

We use these to identify A with E[T, T −1]/p E[T, T −1] and each Ai with E[T, T −1 ]/pei i E[T, T −1].
The F -automorphism τ of E extends to an involution
X
X
τ (ai )β i T −i
ai T i 7−→
i

i

on E[T, T

−1

] which we continue to denote by τ . This satisfies the adjoint relation

(1.2.1)

hv, f wi = hτ (f )v, wi,

∀ v, w ∈ V, ∀ f ∈ E[T, T −1 ].

It follows that τ (p E[T, T −1 ]) = p E[T, T −1 ]. Hence there is a u ∈ E[T, T −1]× such that τ (p) = up
and thus τ induces an involution on A.
Further, for i = 1, . . . , n,
(I) τ (pi ) = ui pi′ for i′ 6= i
with each ui ∈ E[T, T
an involution on Ai .
By (1.2.1),
(1.2.2)

or (II) τ (pi ) = ui pi

] . In case (I) τ induces an isomorphism Ai ∼
= Ai′ while in case (II) it induces

−1 ×

Vk ⊥ Vl unless τ (pk ) = upl for some u ∈ E[T, T −1]× .

It follows that
V = W1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Wm
where for a given Wj we have Wj = Vi ⊕ Vi′ for some i and i′ as in (I) above or Wj = Vi with i as
in (II). In particular, each Wj is an E[T, T −1 ]-submodule and the restriction of h , i to each Wj is
non-degenerate. Thus g ∈ GU(V ) decomposes as g = g1 ⊕· · ·⊕gm with gj ∈ GU (Wj ) for j = 1, . . . , m.
It suffices to prove the result for each gj . This means we are reduced to two basic cases.
Case I. The minimal polynomial of g is pe1 pe2 for some positive integer e and monic irreducible
polynomials p1 , p2 ∈ E[T ] such that τ (p1 ) = up2 for some u ∈ E[T, T −1]× . We have A = A1 ⊕ A2
with
Ai = E[T ]/(pei ) = E[T, T −1 ]/ pei E[T, T −1 ]
(i = 1, 2).
The space V decomposes as V = V1 ⊕ V2 where Vi = Ai V (i = 1, 2). Moreover, by (1.2.2), each Vi is
a totally isotropic subspace of V .

A FACTORIZATION RESULT FOR CLASSICAL AND SIMILITUDE GROUPS

5

Case II. The minimal polynomial of g is pe for some positive integer e and some monic irreducible
element p ∈ E[T ] such that τ (p) = up for some u ∈ E[T, T −1]× . In this case,
A = E[T ]/(pe ) = E[T, T −1 ]/ pe E[T, T −1 ].
2. Proof of Theorem A: Case I
2.1. As V = V1 ⊕ V2 is non-degenerate and each Vi is totally isotropic, it follows that h , i induces
an isomorphism between V1 and the conjugate dual of V2 . That is, if we write V2τ for the vector space
structure on V2 obtained by twisting by τ so that V2τ = V2 as abelian groups and scalar multiplication
on V2τ is given by a.v = τ (a)v (for a ∈ E and v ∈ V2 ), then
v 7→ hv, −i : V1 −→ HomE (V2τ , E)
is an isomorphism of E-vector spaces.
Let e1 , . . . , en be any basis of V1 . By the preceding paragraph, V2 (or V2τ ) admits a dual basis
f1 , . . . , fn such that
(
1, if i = j,
hei , fj i =
0, if i 6= j.
Thus with respect to the basis e1 , . . . , en , f1 , . . . , fn , the matrix of h , i is given in block form by


0 ǫIn
.
J=
In
0
For any matrix a = [aij ] with entries in E, we set τ (a) = [τ (aij )] and write ⊤ a for the transpose of a. Below we often view E-linear maps on V as (block) matrices with respect to the basis
e1 , . . . , en , f1 , . . . , fn .
Consider the F -linear map c : V → V given by
n
X
i=1

ai e i +

n
X
j=1

c

bj fj 7−→

n
X
i=1

ǫ τ (ai )ei +

n
X

τ (bj )fj .

j=1


 
b1
a1

 

a
ǫ τ (a)
c
 .. 
 .. 
. The map c is
7−→
Setting a =  .  and b =  . , we can write c in matrix form as
b
τ (b)
bn
an
anti-unitary (that is, hc(v), c(v ′ )i = hv ′ , vi, for all v, v ′ ∈ V ) and c2 = 1.
Any anti-unitary h1 ∈ AutF (V ) can be written as h1 = s1 c with s1 ∈ U (V ). Now h1 = s1 c is an
involution if and only if s1 c s1 = 1 where c s1 = cs1 c−1 . Similarly, an anti-unitary similitude h2 can
be written as h2 = cs2 with s2 ∈ GU(V ). Again h22 = β if and only if s2 c s2 = β with c s2 = cs2 c−1 .
In this notation, we have h1 h2 = s1 s2 (as c2 = 1). It follows that Theorem A in Case I is equivalent
to the following:


(∗) if g ∈ GU(V ) with µ(g) = β then g = s1 s2 for elements s1 ∈ U (V ) and s2 ∈ GU(V ) such that
s1 c s1 = 1 and s2 c s2 = β.


a 0
. The condition g ∈ GU(V )
2.2. We now prove (∗). Since g preserves V1 and V2 , we have g =
0 b
says ⊤ gJτ (g) = βJ with β = µ(g). A short matrix calculation shows that this means b = β ⊤ τ (a)−1 ,
so that


a
0
.
g=
0 β ⊤ τ (a)−1

6

A. ROCHE AND C. RYAN VINROOT

We set



0
s1 = ⊤
ǫ τ (d1 ) −1



0
d1
, s2 =
d2
0


ǫ β ⊤ τ (d2 )−1
,
0

for elements d1 , d2 ∈ GLn (E). It is routine to check that ⊤ s1 Jτ (s1 ) = J and
s1 ∈ U(V ) and s2 ∈ GU(V ).
 
x
c
as above, we have
To calculate s1 , note that for all column vectors
y

 


x c ǫ τ (x) s1
0
7−→
7−→ ⊤
ǫ τ (d1 ) −1
y
τ (y)

That is,
c





0
s1 = ⊤ −1
d1

A similar computation gives
c

d1
0

s2 =



0
ǫ τ (d2 )

⊤

s2 Jτ (s2 ) = β J. Thus


 
d1 τ (y)
ǫ τ (x)
= ⊤
τ (d1 ) −1 τ (x)
τ (y)
 

0
ǫ τ (d1 ) y
c
= ⊤ −1
7−→ ⊤ −1
d1
d1 x

ǫ τ (d1 )
0

 
x
.
y


ǫ τ (d1 )
= ǫ τ (s1 ).
0

β ⊤ d2−1
= ǫ τ (s2 ).
0

By direct matrix calculations, the conditions s1 c s1 = 1 and s1 c s1 = β are equivalent to
d1 ⊤ d1−1 = In and d2 ⊤ d2−1 = In ,
that is, d1 and d2 are symmetric. Since g = s1 s2 is equivalent to a = d1 d2 , we are reduced to the
matrix statement:
(∗)′ For any (invertible) n × n matrix a (with entries in E), there exist (invertible) symmetric n × n
matrices d1 and d2 (with entries in E) such that a = d1 d2 .
Now it is well-known that any square matrix is conjugate to its transpose by a symmetric matrix (see,
for example, [12] page 76). Thus
d −1 ad = ⊤ a
with d ∈ GLn (E) symmetric. This means d −1 a = ⊤ a d −1 , so ⊤ (d −1 a) = ⊤ a d −1 = d −1 a. Therefore
a = d · d −1 a
expresses a as product of symmetric matrices (with entries in E). This completes the proof of Theorem A in Case I.
3. Proof of Theorem A: Case II and Second Reduction
In this case, the minimal polynomial of g is pe (for some positive integer e) where p is irreducible
and τ (p) = up for some u ∈ E[T, T −1]× . Let A = E[T, T −1]/pe E[T, T −1 ]. As annE[T,T −1 ] V =
pe E[T, T −1 ], the space V is naturally an A-module and as such is faithful, that is, annA V = {0}.
Note that A is a local ring with unique maximal ideal p = pE[T, T −1 ]/pe E[T, T −1]. More strongly,
the ideals in A form a chain
A % p % · · · % pe−1 % pe = {0}.

A FACTORIZATION RESULT FOR CLASSICAL AND SIMILITUDE GROUPS

7

3.1. As annA V = {0}, there is some v ∈ V such that annA v = {0}. Below we will need to consider
the restriction of h , i to the submodule Av generated by such an element and will make use of the
following non-degeneracy criterion.
Lemma. Let v ∈ V with annA v = {0} (equivalently, annE[T,T −1 ] v = pe E[T, T −1 ]). The cyclic
submodule Av is non-degenerate if and only if hpe−1 v, vi =
6 {0}.
Proof. (⇒) Suppose Av is non-degenerate. By hypothesis, pe−1 v 6= 0. Thus there is an f ∈ E[T, T −1 ]
such that hpe−1 v, f vi 6= 0, so that hτ (f ) pe−1 v, vi =
6 0 and hence hpe−1 v, vi 6= {0}.
(⇐) Suppose now that hpe−1 v, vi =
6 {0}. We write rad Av for the radical of h , i on restriction to
Av. It is immediate that rad Av is an A-submodule. The map a 7→ av : A → Av is an isomorphism
of A-modules. It follows that rad Av = pc v for some non-negative integer c (as the only ideals in A
are the powers of p). Our assumption hpe−1 v, vi =
6 {0} implies that c > e − 1. Thus rad Av = {0},
that is, Av is non-degenerate.

3.2. Let x ∈ V with annA x = {0} (equivalently, annE[T,T −1 ] x = pe E[T, T −1 ]) and set X = Ax.
Now pe−1 x 6= 0, so there is a y ∈ V with hpe−1 x, yi 6= 0. Assume that the subspace X is degenerate, so
that y ∈
/ X (by Lemma 3.1). Setting Y = Ay, we claim that if X ∩ Y 6= {0} then Y is non-degenerate.
To prove this, let z ∈ X ∩ Y . We have
′

z = pc gx = pc g ′ y
for integers c and c′ with 0 ≤ c < e, 0 ≤ c′ < e and elements g, g ′ ∈ E[T ] that are prime to p. Thus
′

annE[T ] z = (pe−c ) = (pe−c )
and so c = c′ .
Now there are elements a, b ∈ E[T ] such that ag + bpe = 1. Hence
pe−c−1 az = pe−c−1 a(pc gx)
= pe−1 agx
= pe−1 (1 − bpe )x
= pe−1 x

(as pe x = 0).

In addition,
pe−c−1 az = pe−c−1 a(pc g ′ y)
= pe−1 ag ′ y,
so that
pe−1 x = pe−1 ag ′ y.
As hpe−1 x, yi 6= 0, it follows that hpe−1 ag ′ y, yi 6= 0. Therefore hpe−1 y, yi 6= {0}. Hence, by Lemma 3.1,
Y = Ay is non-degenerate
3.3. We now show that if V does not admit a non-degenerate cyclic submodule (generated by an
element v such that annA v = {0}) then it must contain a non-degenerate non-cyclic submodule of a
very special kind.
Lemma. Suppose that for any v ∈ V such that annA v = {0} the submodule Av is degenerate. Then
there exist x and y in V such that hpe−1 x, yi 6= {0}. We have Ax ∩ Ay = {0} and the submodule
Ax ⊕ Ay is non-degenerate.

8

A. ROCHE AND C. RYAN VINROOT

Proof. As in §3.2, we choose x and y in V such that annA x = {0} and hpe−1 x, yi 6= 0. It follows that
annA y = {0}. As above, we set X = Ax and Y = Ay. By hypothesis, X and Y are degenerate, so
Lemma 3.1 gives
hpe−1 x, xi = hpe−1 y, yi = {0}.
Further, by the argument in §3.2, X ∩ Y = {0}. We need to show that X ⊕ Y is non-degenerate.
′
Any non-zero element z ∈ X ⊕ Y can be written as z = pc gx + pc g ′ y for integers c and c′ with
0 ≤ c < e, 0 ≤ c′ < e and elements g, g ′ ∈ E[T ] that are prime to p. Switching the roles of x and y if
necessary, we may assume that c′ ≤ c.
To prove non-degeneracy of X ⊕ Y , we will show that hpe−c−1 x, zi 6= {0}. Writing f¯ for the image
of f ∈ E[T, T −1 ] under the canonical quotient map from E[T, T −1] to A = E[T, T −1 ]/ pe E[T, T −1 ],
we have
′
hpe−c−1 x, zi = hpe−c−1 x, p̄c ḡx + p̄c ḡ ′ yi.
Now p̄c pe−c−1 = pe−1 and ḡ ∈ A× , so
hpe−c−1 x, p̄c ḡxi = hpe−1 x, xi
= {0}.
Thus
′

hpe−c−1 x, zi = hpe−c−1 x, p̄c ḡ ′ yi
′

= hpe−c+c −1 x, yi

(using ḡ ′ ∈ A× )

⊃ hpe−1 x, yi (as c′ ≤ c, so e − c + c′ − 1 ≤ e − 1)
6= {0}.
In particular, hpe−c−1 x, zi 6= {0}, as claimed.



3.4. We have established that V contains an A-submodule of one of the following types:
(A) a non-degenerate A-submodule Av with annA v = {0};
(B) a non-degenerate A-submodule as in Lemma 3.3.
Now if W is any non-degenerate A-submodule of V then V = W ⊕ W ⊥ as A-modules. Moreover
annA W ⊥ = pc for some non-negative integer c ≤ e. If Theorem A holds for W and W ⊥ then it also
holds for V . Thus we can complete the proof in Case II by induction on dimE V provided we can
establish the result in the two special cases (A) and (B).
4. Proof of Theorem A: Case II-A
4.1. This is the cyclic case in which V = Av with annA v = {0}. That is, the map
(4.1.1)

a 7→ av : A → V

is an isomorphism of A-modules. We’ll show that there is an anti-unitary involution t : V → V such
that, for all a ∈ A,
(4.1.2)

t a = τ (a) t

as elements of EndF V . Now the element T ∈ E[T ], and so also its image in A, acts on V via
g ∈ GU(V ). Thus if we take a to be the image of T in A, then (4.1.2) gives tg = βg −1 t, or (tg)2 = β.
Hence
g = t · tg
gives the requisite factorization.

A FACTORIZATION RESULT FOR CLASSICAL AND SIMILITUDE GROUPS

9

4.2. To establish (4.1.2), we define t : V → V by
t(av) = τ (a)v,

∀ a ∈ A.

Thus t is simply the involution τ of A transported to V via the isomorphism (4.1.1). It is therefore
immediate that t is an involution and that (4.1.2) holds. To check that t is anti-unitary, let a, b ∈ A.
By (1.2.1),
ht(av), t(bv)i = hτ (a)v, τ (b)vi
= hbτ (a)v, vi
= hbv, avi.
5. Proof of Theorem A: Case II-B
We have V = Ax ⊕ Ay with hpe−1 x, yi 6= {0}. Further, Ax and Ay are both degenerate, so
Lemma 3.1 gives
hpe−1 x, xi = hpe−1 y, yi = {0}.
This case requires a more elaborate argument.
5.1. We observe first that the subspaces Ax and Ay are in duality via h , i. That is, the map
ay 7→ (a′ x 7→ ha′ x, ayi) : Ay → HomE (Ax, E)

(5.1.1)

is a bijection. More precisely, if as in §2.1 we write (Ay)τ for the E-vector space structure on Ay
obtained by twisting by τ , then (5.1.1) is an isomorphism of E-vector spaces between (Ay)τ and
HomE (Ax, E).
To prove this, note that the kernel of the given map is an A-submodule and so equals pc y for some
non-negative integer c. Now hpe−1 x, yi 6= {0} and hence c > e − 1. As pe = {0}, the kernel must be
trivial and thus (5.1.1) is injective. Since dimE Ax = dimE Ay (= dimE A), the map is also surjective.
5.2. The map ax 7→ hy, τ (a)xi = hay, xi belongs to HomE (Ax, E). Thus by §5.1, there is a unique
γ ∈ A such that
(5.2.1)

hay, xi = hax, γyi,
×

∀ a ∈ A.

e−1

We claim that γ ∈ A . Indeed, hp x, yi =
6 {0} and τ (p) = p, so hpe−1 y, xi 6= {0}. It follows that
hpe−1 x, γyi 6= {0}, or equivalently hτ (γ)pe−1 x, yi =
6 {0}. As pe = {0}, we see that τ (γ) ∈
/ p. Therefore
×
×
τ (γ) ∈ A , whence also γ ∈ A .
5.3. We claim next that γ τ (γ) = 1. Rewriting (5.2.1) as
hx, aγyi = hy, axi,
we have
hx, aγyi = ǫ τ (hax, yi)
= ǫ τ (hax, γ −1 γyi)
= ǫ τ (hτ (γ −1 )ax, γy)
= ǫ τ (hτ (γ −1 ay, xi)
= hx, τ (γ

−1

)ayi,

(by (5.2.1))
∀ a ∈ A.

It follows that
hax, γyi = hax, τ (γ −1 )yi,
By bijectivity of (5.1.1), τ (γ

−1

)y = γy, whence τ (γ

−1

∀ a ∈ A.

) = γ, that is, γ τ (γ) = 1.

10

A. ROCHE AND C. RYAN VINROOT

5.4. Define t : Ax ⊕ Ay → Ax ⊕ Ay by
t(ax + by) = τ (a)u + τ (b)γy,

∀ a, b ∈ A.

We claim that t is an anti-unitary involution such that, for all a ∈ A,
(5.4.1)

t a = τ (a) t

as elements of EndF (Ax ⊕ Ay). Once this is established, we can complete the argument exactly as in
§4. That is, (tg)2 = β, and thus as above g = t · tg gives the requisite factorization.
Applying t twice, we obtain
t

ax + by 7−→ τ (a)x + τ (b)γy
t

7−→ ax + bτ (γ) γy = ax + by

(as τ (γ) γ = 1),

and so t is an involution.
The identity (5.4.1) is immediate. In detail, for all a, a′ , b′ ∈ A,
ta(a′ x + b′ y) = t(aa′ x + ab′ y)
= τ (a)τ (a′ )x + τ (a)τ (b′ )γy
= τ (a)t(a′ x + b′ y).
Finally, to show that t is anti-unitary, it suffices to verify the following four identities (for all a, b ∈ A):
(1) ht(ax), t(bx)i = hbx, axi;
(2) ht(ay), t(by)i = hby, ayi;
(3) ht(ax), t(by)i = hby, axi;
(4) ht(by), t(ax)i = hax, byi.
Applying τ to both sides of (3) gives (4), so it’s enough to check (1), (2), (3). We can verify (1)
directly as in §4.2. The argument for (2) is similarly straightforward using γ τ (γ) = 1. To check (3),
note
ht(ax), t(by)i = hτ (a)x, τ (b)γyi
= hbτ (a)x, γyi
= hbτ (a)y, xi

(using (5.2.1))

= hby, axi.
This completes the proof in Case II-B and so concludes the proof of Theorem A.



6. Some Examples and Applications
6.1. Suppose that E = F and ǫ = −1, so that U(V ) = Sp(V ) and GU(V ) = GSp(V ). Assume also
that char(F ) 6= 2. As noted in the introduction, Theorem A for the symplectic group Sp(V ) was
proved by Wonenburger [25] and the case of the similitude group GSp(V ) was treated in [23]. Assume
now that char(F ) = 2. Then the case of symplectic groups was proved by Gow [8] and Ellers and
Nolte [6]. If F is perfect, the similitude case follows readily (as every element of F is a square). The
similitude case for char(F ) = 2 and F imperfect appears to be new.

A FACTORIZATION RESULT FOR CLASSICAL AND SIMILITUDE GROUPS

11

6.2. Suppose now that [E : F ] = 2 and ǫ = 1. Let V = E n and view the elements of V as column
vectors. Consider the non-degenerate hermitian form h , i on V given by hx, yi = ⊤ x τ (y). Here, as
in §2.1, τ (y) is obtained by applying the automorphism τ to each coordinate of y. Similarly, for any
matrix a = [aij ] with entries in E, we set τ (a) = [τ (aij )]. We write U(n) for the isometry group of
h , i. Thus
U(n) = {g ∈ GLn (E) : ⊤ g τ (g) = 1}.
c

The map x 7−→ τ (x) : V → V is an anti-unitary involution for h , i. For any a ∈ Mn (E) (viewed an
an E-linear map on V via left multiplication), we have c a = cac−1 = τ (a).
The calculation that gave (∗) of §2.1 shows that Theorem A for U(n) is equivalent to the statement:
(∗∗) if g ∈ U(n) then g = s1 s2 for elements si ∈ U(V ) such that si c si = 1 for i = 1, 2.
From si c si = 1 and si ∈ U(n), we see that
s−1
= c si = τ (si ) = ⊤ s−1
i
i .
Thus each si ∈ U(n) is symmetric as an element of GLn (E). Hence

⊤

g = ⊤ s2 ⊤ s1 = s2 s1 and

⊤
s−1
1 g s1 = g.

In particular, we obtain the following unitary group version of the result of Frobenius (used in §2.2)
that any matrix is conjugate to its transpose by a symmetric matrix.
Corollary. For any g ∈ U(n), there exists a symmetric matrix s ∈ U(n) such that sgs−1 = ⊤ g.
When E/F = C/R, the Corollary follows immediately from the fact that any unitary matrix is
unitarily diagonalizable. In the case that E/F is an extension of finite fields, the Corollary is proved
in Lemma 5.2 of [9].
6.3. Let E = F = Fq be a finite field with q elements with q odd and let ǫ = 1, so that GU(V )
is a finite group of orthogonal similitudes. We restrict attention to the case that dim(V ) = 2m is
even. In this setting there are two equivalence classes of non-degenerate symmetric forms on V , giving
two distinct finite orthogonal similitude groups. We denote these groups by GO± (2m, Fq ), and write
O± (2m, Fq ) for the corresponding orthogonal groups. For U(V ) = O± (2m, Fq ), the element h1 in
Theorem A can be chosen so that det(h1 ) = (−1)m (see Lemma 4.7 of [20]). For use in later work,
we now extend this observation to the case GU(V ) = GO± (2m, Fq ).
Proposition. Let G = GO± (2m, Fq ) with q odd and let g ∈ G with µ(g) = β. Then there exist
h1 , h2 ∈ G such that g = h1 h2 , µ(h1 ) = 1, µ(h2 ) = β, h21 = 1, h22 = β, and det(h1 ) = (−1)m .
Proof. The case µ(g) = 1 is implied by Lemma 4.7 of [20]. If µ(g) = β is a square in Fq , say β = γ 2 ,
then g ′ = γ −1 g satisfies µ(g ′ ) = 1, so we may write g ′ = h1 h′ with h1 and h′ orthogonal involutions,
and det(h1 ) = (−1)m . Now let h2 = γh′ , so that g = h1 h2 satisfies the desired conditions. We now
assume that µ(g) = β with β a non-square in Fq .
We proceed by considering Cases I, II-A, and II-B, as in the main result proved above. In Case I,
we have V = V1 ⊕ V2 , where dim(V1 ) = dim(V2 ) = m. In this scenario, we have E = F and ǫ = 1, and
in 2.2, the element s1 satisfies det(s1 ) = (−1)m since d1 is symmetric. Taking s1 = h1 and s2 = h2
gives the desired factorization in this case.
To handle Case II, we appeal to the description of conjugacy classes in GO± (2m, Fq ), as described
by Shinoda in Section 1 of [21]. In particular, it is proven there that Case II-B occurs if and only if
the minimal polynomial p(T )e of g on V is of the form (T 2 − β)e where e = 2k − 1 is an odd positive
integer. This statement is contained in (1.18.2) of [21]. Note that Wonenburger makes mention of the
parallel exceptional cases which occur for the β = 1 case in Remark I of [25].

12

A. ROCHE AND C. RYAN VINROOT

We now apply some calculations made in [23, 24]. Consider first Case II-A, where we have V = Av
is cyclic, and the minimal polynomial for g on V is of the form p(T )e , and which is not of the form
(T 2 − β)2k−1 . In particular, it follows from the fact that τ (p) = up for some u ∈ F [T, T −1 ]× that
p(T ) has even degree, and let 2m = e deg(p) = dim(V ). Now define
P = span{(g i + β i g −i )v | 0 ≤ i < m},

and

Q = span{(g i − β i g −i )v | 0 < i ≤ m}.

In Proposition 3(i) of [23] and in Theorem 1 of [24], it is shown that V = P ⊕ Q, and if we define h1 to
have +1-eigenspace P and −1-eigenspace Q and h2 = h1 g, then we have h1 , h2 ∈ G with µ(h1 ) = 1,
µ(h2 ) = β, h21 = 1, and h22 = β. Since dim(Q) = (−1)m = det(h1 ), this gives the desired factorization.
Finally, consider Case II-B, where we have V = Ax ⊕ Ay, and as mentioned above, the minimal
polynomial for g must be of the form (T 2 − β)2k−1 . In this case, we have dim(V ) = 2m, where
m = 4k − 2. Define
Px = span{(g i + β i g −i )x | 0 ≤ i ≤ 2k − 1}

and

Qx = span{(g i − β i g −i )x | 0 < i < 2k − 1},

and define Py and Qy analogously. In Proposition 3(i) and (iii) of [23] and in Theorem 1 of [24],
it is shown that if P = Px ⊕ Qy and Q = Qx ⊕ Py , and we define h1 to have +1-eigenspace P
and −1-eigenspace Q and h2 = h1 g, then we again have h1 , h2 ∈ G with µ(h1 ) = 1, µ(h2 ) = β,
h21 = 1, and h22 = β. Since dim(Py ) = 2k and dim(Qx ) = 2k − 2, then dim(Q) = 4k − 2 = m, so
det(h1 ) = (−1)m .

7. Proof of Theorem B
Recall that h ∈ AutF (V ) is an anti-unitary involution and that ι g = µ(g)−1 hgh−1 for g ∈ GU(V ).
Thus ι is a continuous automorphism of GU(V ) of order two. The restriction ι|U(V ) gives the automorphism g 7→ hgh−1 of U(V ) which we again denote by ι. We restate our main result.
Theorem B. The maps ι : U(V ) → U(V ) and ι : GU(V ) → GU(V ) are dualizing involutions.
We recall some character theory in §7.1. Using this, we will see in §7.2 that Theorem B follows
almost immediately from Theorem A.
7.1. Let G be the F -points of a reductive algebraic F -group. As usual, we write Cc∞ (G) for the space
of complex-valued functions on G that are locally constant and of compact support. Let (π, V ) be a
smooth representation of G. For f ∈ Cc∞ (G), the operator π(f ) : V → V is given by
Z
π(f )v =
f (g)π(g)v dg,
v ∈ V,
G

where the integral is with respect to a Haar measure on G which we fix once and for all. Assume
now that (π, V ) is irreducible. It is well-known that (π, V ) is then admissible [11], that is, the space
V K of K-fixed vectors has finite dimension for any open subgroup K of G. It follows that the image
of π(f ) has finite dimension and thus π(f ) has a well-defined trace. The resulting linear functional
f 7→ tr π(f ) : Cc∞ (G) → C is called the distribution character of π. It determines the irreducible
representation π up to equivalence ([4] 2.20).
It is straightforward to check that tr π ∨ (f ) = tr π(f ∨ ) where f ∨ (g) = f (g −1 ) for g ∈ G.
Let Greg denote the set of regular semisimple elements in G. By [10, 3], the distribution character
of π is represented by a locally constant function Θπ on Greg called the character of π. That is,
Z
f (g) Θπ (g) dg,
f ∈ Cc∞ (G).
(7.1.1)
tr π(f ) =
G

A FACTORIZATION RESULT FOR CLASSICAL AND SIMILITUDE GROUPS

13

Remark. Existence of Θπ is established in [10] for arbitrary connected reductive F -groups based on
the submersion principle of its title. Harish-Chandra, however, only gave a proof of the principle in
characteristic zero with a comment that a general proof was known. A full proof (due to G. Prasad)
appears in Appendix B to [2]. In [3] §13, Adler and Korman explain how to extend Harish-Chandra’s
and Prasad’s arguments to non-connected reductive F -groups.
By (7.1.1), the function Θπ determines the distribution character of π and thus π is determined
up to equivalence by Θπ . In the same way, Θπ is constant on (regular semisimple) conjugacy classes.
From tr π ∨ (f ) = tr π(f ∨ ) for f ∈ Cc∞ (G), we also have Θπ∨ (g) = Θπ (g −1 ) for g ∈ Greg , again by
(7.1.1).
7.2. For π a smooth representation of G and α a continuous automorphism of G, we write π α for
the smooth representation given by π α (g) = π(α g) for g ∈ G.
For any g ∈ GU(V ), we noted in the introduction that the elements ι g and g −1 are conjugate by
an element of U(V ). To prove Theorem B, it suffices therefore to observe the following.
Lemma. Let α be a continuous automorphism of G such that α g is conjugate to g −1 for any g ∈ G.
Then π α ∼
= π ∨ for any irreducible smooth representation π of G.
Proof. The main detail to check is that a continuous automorphism γ of G preserves the Haar measure
µG on G. We have µG ◦ γ = cγ µG for some cγ > 0. Writing Autc (G) for the group of continuous
automorphisms of G and R×
pos for the multiplicative group of positive real numbers, the assignment
γ 7→ cγ : Autc (G) → R×
is
a homomorphism. Let K be a compact subgroup of G of maximal volume.
pos
(Note K exists as G has a finite non-zero number of conjugacy classes of maximal compact subgroups.)
For any γ ∈ Autc (G), we have µG (γ(K)) = cγ µG (K), so that cγ ≤ 1. Similarly cγ −1 = c−1
γ ≤ 1.
Hence cγ = 1, as required.
In particular, α preserves the Haar measure on G. Thus, for any irreducible smooth representation
π of G,
Z
f (g) π(α g) dg
π α (f ) =
G
Z
−1
f (α g) π(g) dg,
f ∈ Cc∞ (G).
=
G

−1

Cc∞ (G)

That is, π (f ) = π( f ) for f ∈
where α f (g) = f (α g). It follows that tr π α (f ) = tr π(α f ),
so that
Z
Z
−1
f (α g) Θπ (g) dg
f (g) Θπα (g) dg =
G
ZG
f (g) Θπ (α g) dg, ∀ f ∈ Cc∞ (G).
=
α

α

G

α

Therefore Θπα (g) = Θπ ( g) for g ∈ Greg . As characters are constant on conjugacy classes, it follows

that Θπα (g) = Θπ (g −1 ) for g ∈ Greg . Thus Θπα = Θπ∨ and π α ∼
= π∨ .
7.3. We record a direct consequence of Theorem B, well-known to experts (see, for example, [16] page
305). Suppose E = F so that h , i is orthogonal or symplectic. We change notation slightly and write
O(V ) and GO(V ) or Sp2n (F ) and GSp2n (F ) (where dimF V = 2n) for the resulting isometry and
similitude groups. The center of each similitude group consists of scalar transformations. Dividing by
this center gives the corresponding projective groups PGO(V ) and PGSp2n (F ).
Corollary. a. Every irreducible smooth representation of O(V) is self-dual.
b. If −1 ∈ (F × )2 then every irreducible smooth representation of Sp2n (F ) is self-dual.

14

A. ROCHE AND C. RYAN VINROOT

c. For any irreducible smooth representation π of GO(V) or GSp2n (F ), π ∨ ∼
= π ⊗ ωπ ◦ µ−1 where
ωπ denotes the central character of π. In particular, every irreducible smooth representation of
PGO(V) or PGSp2n (F ) is self-dual.
Proof. Part a is immediate as h ∈ O(V ), so ι : O(V ) → O(V ) is inner.
For part b, it suffices to note that ι(g) = hgh−1 defines an inner automorphism of Sp2n (F ) for
any anti-unitary (i.e., skew-symplectic) h ∈ GSp2n (F ). Given i ∈ F × with i2 = −1, the homothety i
satisfies µ(i) = i2 = −1 and thus ih ∈ Sp2n (F ). Since ι g = (ih)g(ih)−1 for g ∈ Sp2n (F ), we see that
ι is inner.
For part c, observe that g 7→ µ(g)−1 g defines a dualizing involution of each similitude group.

8. Dualizing involutions do not always exist
Let D be a central F -division algebra of dimension m2 over F . Let n be a positive integer and
set G = GLn (D). We show that G can admit an automorphism that takes each irreducible smooth
representation to its dual only in the known cases m = 1 [7, 22] and m = 2 [15, 17]. Thus it is only in
these two cases that G can admit an automorphism θ such that θ g is conjugate to g −1 for all g ∈ G,
an observation also made by Lin, Sun and Tan ([13] Remark (c) page 83). In fact, the two statements
– non-existence of automorphisms that take each irreducible smooth representation to its dual and
non-existence of automorphisms that invert each conjugacy class – must surely be equivalent.
Proposition. Suppose there exists an automorphism θ of G such that π θ ≃ π ∨ for all irreducible
smooth representations π of G. Then D = F or D is a quaternion algebra over F (equivalently,
m = 1 or 2).
8.1. We need a preliminary observation.
Let oF denote the valuation ring in F and pF the unique maximal ideal in oF .
Lemma. Any field automorphism of F preserves pF . In particular, field automorphisms of F are
automatically continuous.
Proof. Write q for the cardinality of the residue field oF /pF and vF for the normalized valuation on F .
The ideals pkF (for k a positive integer) form a neighborhood basis of 0 ∈ F . Thus an automorphism
that preserves pF is continuous.
Writing p for the residual characteristic of F , the set 1 + pF can be characterized algebraically as
follows:
x ∈ 1 + pF if and only if x admits an n-th root (i.e., there is a y ∈ F × with y n = x) for any
n such that p ∤ n .
Indeed, using Hensel’s Lemma or simply that 1 + pF is a pro-p-group, one sees that each element
of 1 + pF admits an n-th root for any n such that p ∤ n. In the other direction, suppose x has this
property. Then n divides vF (x) for infinitely many integers n, whence vF (x) = 0, i.e., x ∈ o×
F . Let y
q−1
be a (q − 1)-th root of x. Then y ∈ o×
and
the
relation
y
=
x
implies
x
∈
1
+
p
.
F
F
It follows that any field automorphism of F preserves 1 + pF and so also pF .

8.2. Proof of Proposition. We use the isomorphism x 7→ x1n : F × → Z(G) to view the central
character ωπ of any smooth irreducible representation π of G as a smooth character of F × .
Suppose first that D is not isomorphic to its opposite Do . We appeal to Dieudonné’s description of
the automorphism groups of general linear groups over division algebras [5]. In the case at hand, this
gives a) a homomorphism η : G → F × , b) an automorphism σ of D acting on G via σ (aij ) = (σ aij )
and c) an element h ∈ G such that
(8.2.1)

θ

g = η(g) h σ g h−1 ,

g ∈ G.

A FACTORIZATION RESULT FOR CLASSICAL AND SIMILITUDE GROUPS

15

(See [5] Theorems 1 and 3 for the case n ≥ 3 and the end of ibid. §12 for the case n = 2.)
As π θ ≃ π ∨ , we have ωπ ◦ θ = ωπ−1 (for all smooth irreducible representations π). It follows that
θ

a = a−1 ,

a ∈ F ×.

Thus, by (8.2.1),
a−1 = η(a) σ a,

a ∈ F ×.

We have G/(G, G) ≃ D× /(D× , D× ) via Dieudonné’s non-commutative determinant Det. Further,
the reduced norm Nrd from D to F induces an isomorphism D× /(D× , D× ) ≃ F × . Thus there is a
character η1 : F × → F × such that η(g) = η1 (Nrd ◦ Det g), for g ∈ G. Using Det a = an (D× , D× ) and
Nrd a = am , for a ∈ F × , it follows that
a−1 = η1 (a)mn σ a,

a ∈ F ×.

Taking a = ̟, a uniformizer in F , and applying vF , we obtain
−1 = mnvF (η1 (̟)) + vF (σ ̟)
By Lemma 8.1, vF (σ ̟) = 1, and hence m | 2. Thus D = F or D is a quaternion algebra over F which
contradicts our assumption that D is not isomorphic to Do .
It follows that there is an isomorphism α : D → Do . If α is F -linear, then D represents an element
of order at most two in the Brauer group of F . As the only such elements are the class of F and
the class of the unique quaternion division algebra over F , the result follows. In general, however, we
can only say that α preserves the center F of D. By Lemma 8.1, it must also preserve oF . The ring
D contains a unique maximal oF -order O consisting of the elements of D that are integral over oF .
From this description, we see that α preserves O. Thus α also preserves the unique maximal (left or
right) ideal q in O, and hence induces an automorphism of the quotient O/q, a finite field of order
q m . Let ̟D be a generator of q, i.e., q = ̟D O = O ̟D . Then, for D 6= F , there is a unique integer
r with 1 < r < m and (r, m) = 1 such that
(8.2.2)

̟D x ̟D −1 ≡ xq

r

(mod q),

x ∈ O.

Moreover the congruence is independent of the choice of generator ̟D . (This all follows, for example,
from [18] 14.5.) Applying α to (8.2.2) and rearranging (and using the fact that O/q has order q m ),
we obtain
m−r
α(̟D ) x α(̟D )−1 ≡ xq
(mod q),
x ∈ O.
Since (8.2.2) holds for all generators of q, we deduce that r = m − r or 2r = m, whence r = 1 and
m = 2. Thus D is a quaternion algebra over F and we have completed the proof.

References
[1] J. Adams, The real Chevalley involution. Compositio Math. 150 (2014), 2127-2142.
[2] J. Adler and S. DeBacker, Murnaghan-Kirillov theory for supercuspidal representations of tame general linear
groups, with appendices by G. Prasad and R. Huntsinger. J. Reine Angew. Math. 575 (2004), 1-35.
[3] J. Adler and J. Korman, The local character expansion near a tame, semisimple element. Amer. J. Math. 129
(2007), no. 2, 381-403.
[4] J. Bernstein and A. Zelevinsky, Representations of the group GL(n, F ) where F is a non-Archimedean local field.
Russian Math. Surveys 31:3 (1976), 1-68.
[5] J. Dieudonné, On the automorphisms of the classical groups. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. (2). Corrected reprint of the
1951 original. AMS, Providence, R.I., 1980. viii+123 pp.
[6] E. W. Ellers and W. Nolte, Bireflectionality of orthogonal and symplectic groups. Arch. Math., Vol. 39 (1982),
113-118.
[7] I. M. Gelfand and D. A. Kazhdan, Representations of the group GL(n, K) where K is a local field. Lie groups and
their representations (Proc. Summer School, Bolyai János Math. Soc., Budapest, 1971) pp. 95-118. Halsted, New
York, 1975.

16

A. ROCHE AND C. RYAN VINROOT

[8] R. Gow, Products of two involutions in classical groups of characteristic 2. J. Algebra 71 (1981), no. 2, 583-591.
[9] R. Gow and C. R. Vinroot, Extending real-valued characters of finite general linear and unitary groups on elements
related to regular unipotents. J. Group Theory 11 (2008), no. 3, 299-331.
[10] Harish-Chandra, A submersion principle and its applications. Geometry and Analysis: Papers Dedicated to the
Memory of V. K. Patodi, Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, 1980, pp. 95-102.
[11] H. Jacquet, Sur les représentations des groupes réductifs p-adiques. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A-B 280 (1975),
Aii, A1271-A1272.
[12] I. Kaplansky, Linear Algebra and Geometry: a second course. 2nd. edition. Chelsea Publishing Company, New
York, 1974.
[13] Y. Lin, B. Sun and S. Tan, MVW-extensions of quaternionic classical groups. Math. Z. 277 (2014), 81-89.
[14] C. Mœglin, M.-F. Vignéras, and J.-L. Waldspurger, Correspondences de Howe sur un corps p-adique. Lecture
Notes in Mathematics, 1291. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
[15] G. Muić and G. Savin, Complementary series for Hermitian quaternionic groups, Canad. Math. Bull. 43 (2000),
no. 1, 90–99.
[16] D. Prasad, On the self-dual representations of finite groups of Lie type, J. Algebra 210 (1998), no. 1, 298–310.
[17] A. Raghuram, On representations of p-adic GL2 (D), Pacific J. Math. 206 (2002), no. 2, 451–464.
[18] I. Reiner, Maximal orders. Corrected reprint of the 1975 original. With a foreword by M. J. Taylor. London Math.
Soc. Monographs. New Series, 28. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003.
[19] A. Roche and C. R. Vinroot, Dualizing involutions for classical and similitude groups over local non-archimedean
fields. In preparation.
[20] A. A. Schaeffer Fry and C. R. Vinroot, Real classes of finite special unitary groups. J. Group Theory, to appear.
[21] K.-I. Shinoda, The characters of Weil representations associated to finite fields. J. Algebra 66 (1980), no. 1,
251-280.
[22] A. Tupan, A triangulation of GL(n, F ). Represent. Theory 10 (2006), 158-163.
[23] C. R. Vinroot, A factorization in GSp(V ). Linear and Multilinear Algebra 52 (2004), no. 6, 385-403.
[24] C. R. Vinroot, A note on orthogonal similitude groups. Linear and Multilinear Algebra 54 (2006), no. 6, 391-396.
[25] M. J. Wonenburger, Transformations which are products of two involutions. J. Math. Mech. 16, 1966, 327-338.
Dept. of Mathematics, University of Oklahoma, Norman OK 73019-3103.
E-mail address: aroche@math.ou.edu
Dept. of Mathematics, College of William and Mary, P.O. 8795, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795.
E-mail address: vinroot@math.wm.edu

