THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

arXiv:1712.08214v1 [math.GR] 21 Dec 2017

TIMOTHY C. BURNESS, MARTIN W. LIEBECK, AND ANER SHALEV
Abstract. Let G be a connected algebraic group. An unrefinable chain of G is a chain
of subgroups G = G0 > G1 > · · · > Gt = 1, where each Gi is a maximal connected
subgroup of Gi−1 . We introduce the notion of the length (respectively, depth) of G,
defined as the maximal (respectively, minimal) length of such a chain. Working over an
algebraically closed field, we calculate the length of a connected group G in terms of the
dimension of its unipotent radical Ru (G) and the dimension of a Borel subgroup B of
the reductive quotient G/Ru (G). In particular, a simple algebraic group of rank r has
length dim B + r, which gives a natural extension of a theorem of Solomon and Turull on
finite quasisimple groups of Lie type. We then deduce that the length of any connected
algebraic group G exceeds 12 dim G.
We also study the depth of simple algebraic groups. In characteristic zero, we show
that the depth of such a group is at most 6 (this bound is sharp). In the positive
characteristic setting, we calculate the exact depth of each exceptional algebraic group
and we prove that the depth of a classical group (over a fixed algebraically closed field
of positive characteristic) tends to infinity with the rank of the group.
Finally we study the chain difference of an algebraic group, which is the difference
between its length and its depth. In particular we prove that, for any connected algebraic
group G, the dimension of G/R(G) is bounded above in terms of the chain difference of
G.

1. Introduction
The length of a finite group G, denoted by l(G), is the maximum length of a chain of
subgroups of G. This interesting invariant was the subject of several papers by Janko
and Harada in the 1960s, culminating in Harada’s description of the finite simple groups
of length at most 7 (see [10]). In more recent years, the notion of length has arisen
naturally in several different contexts. For example, Babai [1] considered the length of
the symmetric group Sn in relation to the computational complexity of algorithms for
finite permutation groups (a precise formula for l(Sn ) was later determined by Cameron,
Solomon and Turull in [6]). Motivated by applications to fixed-point-free automorphisms
of finite soluble groups, Seitz, Solomon and Turull studied the length of finite groups of
Lie type in a series of papers in the early 1990s [16, 17, 18]. Let us highlight one of their
main results, [18, Theorem A*], which states that if G = Gr (pk ) is a finite quasisimple
group of Lie type and k is sufficiently large (with respect to the characteristic p), then
l(G) = l(B) + r,

(1)

where B is a Borel subgroup of G and r is the twisted Lie rank of G.
In [4], we introduced the dual notion of the depth of a finite group G, denoted by λ(G),
which is the minimal length of a chain of subgroups
G = G0 > G1 > · · · > Gt−1 > Gt = 1,
The third author acknowledges the hospitality and support of Imperial College, London, while part of
this work was carried out. He also acknowledges the support of ISF grant 1117/13 and the Vinik chair of
mathematics which he holds.
Date: December 25, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 20E32, 20E15; Secondary 20G15, 20E28.
1

2

TIMOTHY C. BURNESS, MARTIN W. LIEBECK, AND ANER SHALEV

where each Gi is a maximal subgroup of Gi−1 . We proved several results on the depth of
finite simple groups and we studied the relationship between the length and depth of simple
groups (see [5] for further results on the length and depth of finite groups). For instance,
[4, Theorem 1] classifies the simple groups of depth 3 (it is easy to see that λ(G) > 3 for
every non-abelian simple group G) and [4, Theorem 2] shows that alternating groups have
bounded depth (more precisely, λ(An ) 6 23 for all n, whereas l(An ) tends to infinity with
n). Upper bounds on the depth of each simple group of Lie type over Fq are presented in
[4, Theorem 4]; the bounds are given in terms of k, where q = pk with p a prime.
In this paper, we extend the above notions of length and depth to connected algebraic
groups over algebraically closed fields. Let G be a connected algebraic group over an
algebraically closed field of characteristic p > 0. An unrefinable chain of length t of G is
a chain of subgroups
G = G0 > G1 > · · · > Gt−1 > Gt = 1,
where each Gi is a maximal closed connected subgroup of Gi−1 (that is, Gi is maximal
among the proper connected subgroups of Gi−1 ). We define the length of G, denoted
by l(G), to be the maximal length of an unrefinable chain. Similarly, the depth λ(G) of
G is the minimal length of such a chain. Notice that we impose the condition that the
subgroups in an unrefinable chain are connected, which seems to be the most natural (and
interesting) definition in this setting.
In the statements of our main results, and for the remainder of the paper, we assume
that the given algebraic group is connected and the underlying field is algebraically closed
(unless stated otherwise). Also note that our results are independent of any choice of
isogeny type. Our first result concerns the length of an algebraic group.
Theorem 1. Let G be an algebraic group and let B be a Borel subgroup of the reductive
group Ḡ = G/Ru (G). Then
l(G) = dim Ru (G) + dim B + r,
where r is the semisimple rank of Ḡ.
Corollary 2. Let G be a simple algebraic group of rank r and let B be a Borel subgroup
of G. Then
l(G) = dim B + r.
Moreover, every unrefinable chain of G of maximum length includes a maximal parabolic
subgroup.
The last sentence of the corollary is justified in Remark 3.1.
By Lemma 2.2, the solubility of B implies that l(B) = dim B, so Corollary 2 is the
algebraic group analogue of the aforementioned result of Solomon and Turull [18, Theorem
A*] for finite quasisimple groups (see (1) above).
Next, we relate the length of arbitrary algebraic groups G to their dimension. We clearly
have l(G) 6 dim G.
Theorem 3. Let G be a connected algebraic group.
(i) l(G) > 12 dim G.
(ii) l(G) = dim G if and only if G/R(G) ∼
= At1 for some t > 0, where R(G) is the
soluble radical of G.
The lower bound in part (i) of Theorem 3 is essentially best possible. For example, if
G = Cr is a symplectic group of rank r > 1, then Corollary 2 implies that
1
3
1
l(G)
= +
→ as r → ∞.
dim G
2 4r + 2
2

THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

3

We now turn to the depth of simple algebraic groups. Our first result shows that simple
algebraic groups in characteristic zero have bounded depth.
Theorem 4. Let G be a simple algebraic group in characteristic zero. Then

3 if G = A1



5 if G = Ar (r > 3, r 6= 6), B3 , Dr or E6
λ(G) =
6 if G = A6



4 in all other cases.

Our next result shows that the depth of simple groups in the positive characteristic
setting is rather different. In particular, the depth can be arbitrarily large. To state this
result, we need some additional notation. Given a prime p, define a sequence en (p) (n ∈ N)
as follows: e1 (p) = p, and for l > 1,
2

el+1 (p) = pel (p) .
Now define a function ψp : R → N by

ψp (x) = min (l : el (p) > x) .

Theorem 5. Let G be a simple algebraic group in characteristic p > 0 with rank r.
(i) If G is an exceptional group then λ(G) 6 8, with equality if and only if p = 2 and
G = E8 , E7 or F4 .
(ii) If G is a classical group, then λ(G) 6 2(log2 r)2 + 12.
(iii) For any G, we have λ(G) > ψp (r). In particular, λ(G) → ∞ as r → ∞.
Part (i) of Theorem 5 is an immediate corollary of Theorem 3.3, which gives the exact
depth of each exceptional algebraic group. For parts (ii) and (iii), see Theorems 3.4 and
Theorem 3.10, respectively. We also give an example (Example 3.11) to show that the
lower bound ψp (r) in (iii) is of roughly the correct order of magnitude.
By a well-known theorem of Iwasawa [11], the length and depth of a finite group G are
equal if and only if G is supersoluble. This result does not extend directly to algebraic
groups. However, it follows from our results on length and depth that the only simple
algebraic group with λ(G) = l(G) is G = A1 (see Lemma 3.12). More generally, we prove
the following result on arbitrary connected groups with this property, which can be viewed
as a partial analogue of Iwasawa’s theorem.
Theorem 6. Let G be an algebraic group satisfying λ(G) = l(G) and let R(G) be the
radical of G. Then either G is soluble, or G/R(G) ∼
= A1 .
In fact it follows from our arguments that λ(G) = l(G) if and only if λ(G) = dim G.
This is proved in Section 3.7. Note that the converse is false: for example, if G = U A1 ,
a semidirect product where U is a nontrivial irreducible KA1 -module, then A1 is maximal
in G, so λ(G) 6 1 + λ(A1 ) = 4, while l(G) = dim U + l(A1 ) > 4. On the other hand,
if G = U × A1 , or if G is a nonsplit extension of the irreducible module U by A1 , then
λ(G) = l(G).
More generally, we can consider the chain difference of G, which is defined by
cd(G) = l(G) − λ(G).

The following result will be proved in Section 3.8.

Theorem 7. Let G be an algebraic group and set Ḡ = G/R(G). Then
dim Ḡ 6 (2 + o(1)) cd(G),
where o(1) = ocd(G) (1). More precisely,
p
dim Ḡ 6 2 cd(G) + 40 400 + 2cd(G) + 800.

4

TIMOTHY C. BURNESS, MARTIN W. LIEBECK, AND ANER SHALEV

We also consider the chain ratio cr(G) = λ(G)/l(G) of an algebraic group G, and show
in Section 4 that in contrast to the chain difference, the dimension of G/R(G) is not in
general bounded in terms of cr(G).
2. Preliminaries
As stated in Section 1, for the remainder of the paper we assume G is a connected
algebraic group over an algebraically closed field (unless stated otherwise). We start with
the following elementary observation.
Lemma 2.1. Let G be an algebraic group and let N be a connected normal subgroup.
(i) λ(G) 6 l(G) 6 dim G.
(ii) l(G) = l(N ) + l(G/N ).
(iii) λ(G/N ) 6 λ(G) 6 λ(N ) + λ(G/N ).
Proof. Parts (i) and (iii) are obvious, and part (ii) is proved just as [6, Lemma 2.1].



Recall that if U is a connected unipotent algebraic group, then the Frattini subgroup
Φ(U ) of U is the intersection of the closed subgroups of U of codimension 1 (see [9]).
Lemma 2.2. If G is a soluble algebraic group, then λ(G) = l(G) = dim G.
Proof. It is sufficient to show that any connected maximal subgroup M of G has codimension 1. Write G = U T , where U = Ru (G) and T is a maximal torus. If U 6 M then
M = U S, where S is a connected maximal subgroup of T , and the result follows since
dim S = dim T − 1. Now assume U 66 M , so M = (M ∩ U )T and M ∩ U is a maximal
T -invariant subgroup of U . Now Φ(U ) 6 M , so by factoring out Φ(U ) we can assume that
Φ(U ) = 1. Then U ∼
= K n , an n-dimensional vector space over the underlying algebraically
closed field K (see [9, Proposition 1]). Moreover, T acts linearly on U , and since T is
diagonalisable on V , a maximal T -invariant subspace has codimension 1 (this is proved
in much greater generality in [14, Theorem B]). Hence M has codimension 1 in G in this
case also.

Lemma 2.3. Let G be an algebraic group and let m ∈ {1, 2, 3}. Then λ(G) = m if and
only if dim G = m.
Proof. The case m = 1 is obvious, so assume m ∈ {2, 3}. If λ(G) = 2 then G has a maximal
T1 or U1 subgroup and clearly G is soluble, so dim G = 2 by Lemma 2.2. Conversely, if
dim G = 2 then G is soluble and once again the result follows from Lemma 2.2.
Now assume dim G = 3. By the m = 2 case already proved, λ(G) > 3. If G is soluble,
then Lemma 2.2 implies that λ(G) = 3, otherwise G = A1 and λ(G) = 3 since
A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1
is unrefinable (here we write Uk for a unipotent group of dimension k, and similarly Tk
for a k-dimensional torus). Finally, suppose λ(G) = 3 and assume that G is insoluble. If
G is reductive, it has a maximal connected subgroup of depth 2, hence of dimension 2,
and the only possibility is G = A1 . Otherwise, let U = Ru (G) be the unipotent radical
of G. Since G is insoluble, the previous sentence implies that G/U ∼
= A1 . But G has a
maximal subgroup of depth 2, which must be soluble of dimension 2. This is clearly not
possible.

Remark 2.4. Notice that the conclusion of Lemma 2.3 does not extend to integers m > 3.
For example, if r > 2 then the symplectic group Cr has a maximal A1 subgroup in
characteristic 0, so there are depth 4 algebraic groups of arbitrarily large dimension.

THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

5

Lemma 2.5. Let G = U L be an algebraic group, where U and L are nontrivial connected
subgroups of G, with U normal. Then λ(G) > 1 + λ(L).
Proof. By Lemma 2.1(iii), λ(G) > λ(L). Assume for a contradiction that λ(G) = λ(L) = t,
and let
G = Gt > Gt−1 > · · · > G1 > G0 = 1
(2)
be an unrefinable chain. If Li = Gi U/U 6 L, then we must have Li < Li+1 for all i, since
otherwise the depth of L would be less than t. This means that
G = Gt U > Gt−1 U > · · · > G1 U > G0 U = U

is a chain of connected subgroups. But then if we choose i minimal such that U 66 Gi , we
have Gi < Gi U < Gi+1 , contradicting the unrefinability of (2).

3. Proofs
3.1. Proof of Theorem 1. Let G be an algebraic group. The proof goes by induction
on dim G. For dim G = 1, the result is obvious.
Write U = Ru (G). By Lemmas 2.1(ii) and 2.2,
l(G) = l(U ) + l(G/U ) = dim U + l(G/U ).
If U 6= 1 then the conclusion follows by induction, so we assume that U = 1; that is,
G is reductive. Write G = G1 · · · Gt Z, a commuting product with each Gi simple and
Z = Z(G)0 , and let Bi be a Borel subgroup of GiP
. Note that B = B1 · · · Bt Z is a Borel
subgroup of G. Let ri be the rank of Gi , so r = i ri is the semisimple rank of G. By
Lemma 2.1(ii) we have
X
l(Gi ) + dim Z.
l(G) =
i

If t > 1 or Z 6= 1 we can apply induction to deduce that l(Gi ) = l(Bi ) + ri for each i, and
hence
X
X
l(G) =
dim Bi +
ri + dim Z = dim B + r,
i

i

as required. Hence we may assume that G is simple of rank r. By considering an unrefinable chain passing through B, noting that l(B) = dim B by Lemma 2.1, it follows
that
l(G) > dim B + r.
(3)
Our goal is to show that equality holds.
Let M be a maximal connected subgroup of G with l(M ) = l(G) − 1. By [2, Corollary
3.9], M is either parabolic or reductive. Suppose first that M is reductive and let BM be
a Borel subgroup of M . By induction,
l(M ) = dim BM + rank(M ′ ).
But it is easy to see that dim BM < dim B − 1 and thus l(G) < dim B + r. This contradicts
(3), so we have reduced to the case where M is a maximal parabolic subgroup.
Write M = QL where Q = Ru (M ) and L is a Levi subgroup. By induction,
l(M ) = dim Q + dim BL + rank(L′ ),
where BL is a Borel subgroup of L. Since B = QBL is a Borel subgroup of G, and
rank(L′ ) = r − 1, it follows that l(G) = l(M ) + 1 = dim B + r, as required. This completes
the proof of Theorem 1.
Remark 3.1. Let G be a simple algebraic group. By the proof of Theorem 1, it follows that every unrefinable chain of G of maximum length includes a maximal parabolic
subgroup. This gives Corollary 2.

6

TIMOTHY C. BURNESS, MARTIN W. LIEBECK, AND ANER SHALEV

3.2. Proof of Theorem 3. First consider (i). In view of Lemma 2.2, the bound is clear
if G is soluble, so assume otherwise. Write G/R(G) = G1 · · · Gt , where each Gi is simple.
By applying Corollary 2, it is easy to see that l(Gi ) > 12 dim Gi for each i, so by combining
Lemmas 2.1(ii) and 2.2 we get
X
1
1X
dim Gi > dim G
l(G) = l(R(G)) +
l(Gi ) > dim R(G) +
2
2
i

i

as required. An entirely similar argument establishes (ii), noting that by Corollary 2,
l(Gi ) = dim Gi if and only if Gi = A1 (this is easily deduced from Corollary 2; see Lemma
3.12).
3.3. Proof of Theorem 4. Let G be a simple algebraic group over an algebraically closed
field of characteristic 0. To begin with, let us assume G is a classical group of rank r.
By Lemma 2.3, λ(G) > 3 with equality if and only if G = A1 , so we may assume r > 2.
As observed by Dynkin [8], G = Cr has an irreducible maximal subgroup of type A1 and
thus λ(G) = 4. Similarly, λ(G) = 4 if G = Br and r 6= 3. The group G = B3 needs
special attention because it does not have a maximal A1 subgroup (indeed, an irreducibly
embedded A1 is contained in a G2 subgroup of G). One checks that dim M > 3 for every
maximal connected subgroup M of G, so Lemma 2.3 implies that λ(G) > 5. In fact, we
see that equality holds since
B3 > G2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1
is an unrefinable chain of length 5.
Next assume G = Dr , so r > 3 by simplicity. Here λ(G) > 5 since G does not have a
maximal A1 subgroup. But G does have an unrefinable chain of length 5:

Dr > Br−1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1 if r 6= 4
D4 > A2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1
and thus λ(G) = 5. To complete the proof for classical groups, suppose G = Ar and r > 2.
Here G has a maximal A1 subgroup if and only if r = 2, so we get λ(G) = 4 if r = 2,
otherwise λ(G) > 5. It is easy to see that λ(G) = 5 if r > 3 and r 6= 6. Indeed, we have
the following unrefinable chains:

Ar > Br/2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1
if r > 4 even, r 6= 6
Ar > C(r+1)/2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1 if r > 3 odd.
Note that if r = 6 then the first chain is refinable (as noted above, A1 is non-maximal in
B3 ) and we get λ(G) 6 6 via
A6 > B3 > G2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1.
We claim that λ(G) = 6 in this case. To see this, let M be a maximal connected subgroup
of G. By [8], either M = B3 or M is a parabolic subgroup of the form U6 A5 T1 , U10 A4 A1 T1
or U12 A3 A2 T1 (here Uk denotes a normal unipotent subgroup of dimension k). If M is
parabolic, then Lemma 2.1(iii) implies that λ(M ) > λ(Ak ) for some k ∈ {3, 4, 5} and thus
λ(M ) > 5 by our above work. Since λ(B3 ) = 5, the claim follows.
Finally, let us assume G is an exceptional group. By [7], G has a maximal A1 subgroup
if and only if G 6= E6 , so λ(G) = 4 in these cases. For G = E6 we have λ(G) > 5 and
equality holds since there is an unrefinable chain
E6 > G2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1.
This completes the proof of Theorem 4.

THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

7

p
A1 A2 B2 G2 A3 B3 C3 A4 B4 C4 D4 F4
2
3
6
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
3
4
5
5
5
6
5
6
5
6
7
6
5
4
5
6
5
5
5
6
5
6
7
4
5
4
5
6
5
11
4
4
5
> 11
4
Table 1. The depth of low rank simple algebraic groups

3.4. Proof of Theorem 5(i). Let G be a simple algebraic group of rank r over an
algebraically closed field K of characteristic p > 0. In this subsection we determine the
precise depth of G in the case where G is of exceptional type.
We start with a preliminary lemma, which gives the precise depth of the simple algebraic
groups of rank at most 4. In Table 1, if the final entry c in a column occurs in the row
corresponding to p = ℓ, then λ(G) = c for all p > ℓ. For example, Table 1 indicates that

 7 if p = 2
6 if p ∈ {3, 5, 7}
λ(C4 ) =

4 if p > 11.
Lemma 3.2. Let G be a simple algebraic group of rank r 6 4 in characteristic p > 0.
Then λ(G) is given in Table 1.

Proof. First recall that λ(G) > 3, with equality if and only if G = A1 . Now assume r > 2
and let
G > M > M1 > · · · > Mt = 1
be an unrefinable chain of minimal length. Recall that M is either parabolic or reductive.
If G is an exceptional group, then the possibilities for M have been determined by Liebeck
and Seitz (see [13, Corollary 2(ii)]). Similarly, if G is a classical group with natural module
V , then [12, Theorem 1] implies that either M stabilises a proper nontrivial subspace of
V , or a tensor product decomposition of the form V = U ⊗ W , or M is simple and V |M
is an irreducible KM -module with p-restricted highest weight. We refer the reader to [19,
Table 5] for a convenient list of the relevant reductive maximal connected subgroups of
G. It will be useful to observe that λ(M ) > 5 if M is a maximal parabolic subgroup of G
(this follows immediately from Lemma 2.5).
Suppose G = A2 . If p > 3 then G has a maximal A1 subgroup, so λ(G) = 4. On the
other hand, if p = 2 then M = U2 A1 T1 and M1 ∈ {A1 T1 , U2 A1 } are the only possibilities,
so λ(G) = 2 + λ(M1 ) = 6.
Next let G = B2 or C2 . If p > 5 then A1 is a maximal subgroup and thus λ(G) = 4.
If p ∈ {2, 3} then dim M > 3 and thus λ(G) > 5. In fact, equality holds since there is a
chain
B2 > A1 A1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1,
where A1 < A1 A1 is diagonally embedded. Next assume G = G2 . In the usual manner,
we deduce that λ(G) = 4 if p > 7, so let us assume p ∈ {2, 3, 5}. Here dim M > 3 and
thus λ(G) > 5. Since
G2 > A1 Ã1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1
is unrefinable, we conclude that λ(G) = 5.
Now assume G = A3 . Here dim M > 3, so λ(G) > 5. If p > 3 then
A3 > A1 A1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1

8

TIMOTHY C. BURNESS, MARTIN W. LIEBECK, AND ANER SHALEV

is unrefinable and thus λ(G) = 5. Suppose p = 2, so either M = B2 or M is parabolic.
Since λ(B2 ) = 5 as above and λ(M ) > 5 when M is parabolic, it follows that λ(G) = 6.
Next suppose G = B3 , so λ(G) > 5 since dim M > 3. Now G has a maximal G2
subgroup, so λ(G) 6 λ(G2 ) + 1 and thus λ(G) = 5 if p > 7, otherwise λ(G) 6 6.
By considering the various possibilities for M , it is easy to check that λ(M ) > 5 when
p ∈ {2, 3, 5} (we can assume M is reductive, so the possibilities are listed in [19, Table
5]) and we conclude that λ(G) = 6. The case G = C3 is similar. If p > 7 then M = A1
and λ(G) = 4. Now assume p ∈ {2, 3, 5}, so λ(G) > 5. If p ∈ {3, 5} then we can take
M = A1 A1 , which gives λ(G) = 5. Finally, if p = 2 then one checks that λ(M ) > 5, with
equality if M = G2 , hence λ(G) = 6.
Suppose G = A4 . Here λ(G) > 5 since dim M > 3. If p > 5 then
A4 > B2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1
is unrefinable, whence λ(G) = 5. Now assume p ∈ {2, 3}, so either M = B2 or M is a
parabolic subgroup. Since λ(B2 ) = 5 as above, we deduce that λ(G) = 6.
Next assume G = D4 . Once again, λ(G) > 5. If p > 5 then λ(G) = 5 since
D4 > A2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1
is unrefinable. Now assume p ∈ {2, 3}. Here λ(G) 6 λ(B3 ) + 1 = 7 and we claim that
equality holds. To see this, first assume M is reductive, so M = B3 , A1 B2 (p = 3), A41
or A2 (p = 2). Note that λ(B3 ) = 6 and λ(A2 ) = 6 (with p = 2 in the latter case).
By applying Lemma 2.5, it is easy to see that λ(M ) > 6 if M = A1 B2 , A41 , or if M is a
parabolic subgroup. For example, if M = U6 A3 T1 then λ(M ) > 1 + λ(A3 T1 ) > 7. This
justifies the claim.
Next consider G = B4 . First observe that λ(G) = 4 if and only if p > 11. If p ∈ {3, 5, 7}
then we can take M = A1 A1 , which gives λ(G) = 5. Now assume p = 2. We claim that
λ(G) = 7. Certainly, λ(G) 6 7 since there is a chain
B4 > B2 B2 > B2 > A1 A1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1.
To establish equality, we need to consider the possibilities for M . If M is reductive, then
M = D4 , A1 B3 or B2 B2 . By our earlier work, λ(D4 ) = 7 and λ(A1 B3 ) > 1 + λ(B3 ) = 7.
Similarly, λ(B2 B2 ) = 6 and one checks that λ(M ) > 6 if M is parabolic. The claim
follows.
Now assume G = C4 . As in the previous case, λ(G) = 4 if and only if p > 11. If
p ∈ {3, 5, 7} then
C4 > A31 > A1 A1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1
is unrefinable and thus λ(G) 6 6. In fact, it is easy to see that λ(M ) > 5 for every
connected maximal subgroup M of G and thus λ(G) = 6. Finally, suppose p = 2. Here
λ(G) 6 7 via the chain
C4 > C2 C2 > C2 > A1 A1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1.
We claim that λ(G) = 7. To see this, we need to show that λ(M ) > 6 for every connected
maximal subgroup M of G. If M is reductive, then M = C2 C2 , A1 C3 or D4 . By combining
Lemma 2.5 with our earlier work, we have λ(A1 C3 ) > 1 + λ(C3 ) = 7 and λ(D4 ) = 7. It is
also easy to see that λ(C2 C2 ) = 6. It is routine to verify the claim when M is parabolic.
For instance, if M = U10 A3 T1 then λ(M ) > 1 + λ(A3 T1 ) > 2 + λ(A3 ) = 8.
To complete the proof of the lemma, we may assume G = F4 . Here G has a maximal
A1 subgroup if and only if p > 13, so we may assume p < 13. If p ∈ {7, 11} then λ(G) = 5
via the chains

F4 > B4 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1 if p = 11
F4 > G2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1 if p = 7.

THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

9

p
G2 F4 E6 E7 E8
2
5
8
6
8
8
3
5
6
6
7
7
5
5
6
5
5
5
7
4
5
5
5
11
5
5
5
13
4
5
5
17
4
5
19
5
> 19
4
Table 2. The depth of exceptional algebraic groups
Next assume p ∈ {3, 5}. Here λ(G) 6 6 since there is a chain

F4 > A2 Ã2 > A2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1.

By considering the various possibilities for M and using Lemma 2.5 and our earlier work,
it is easy to show that λ(M ) > 5 and thus λ(G) = 6. Finally, let us assume p = 2. First
observe that λ(G) 6 8 via the chain
F4 > C4 > C2 C2 > C2 > A1 A1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1.
We claim that λ(G) = 8. To see this, we need to show that λ(M ) > 7 for every maximal
connected subgroup M of G. If M is reductive, then M = C4 , B4 or A2 Ã2 . As above, we
have λ(B4 ) = λ(C4 ) = 7 and λ(A2 Ã2 ) = 1 + λ(A2 ) = 7 and the result follows. If M = U L
is a parabolic subgroup, with unipotent radical U , then Lemma 2.5 gives λ(M ) > 1 + λ(L)
and it is straightforward to see that λ(L) > 6. For example, if M = U20 A1 A2 T1 then
Lemma 2.5 yields λ(L) > 2 + λ(A2 ) = 8. The result follows.

We are now in a position to prove our main result for exceptional groups. In particular,
part (i) of Theorem 5 is an immediate corollary of the following result. In Table 2, we
adopt the same conventions as in Table 1.
Theorem 3.3. Let G be an exceptional algebraic group in characteristic p > 0. Then
λ(G) is given in Table 2.
Proof. In view of Lemma 3.2, we may assume G = E6 , E7 or E8 . Let
G > M > M1 > · · · > Mt = 1

be an unrefinable chain of minimal length.
First assume G = E6 and note that λ(G) > 5 since dim M > 3. If p > 5, then G has a
maximal A2 subgroup and λ(A2 ) = 4 by Lemma 3.2, so λ(G) = 5. Now assume p ∈ {2, 3}.
Here G2 < G is maximal and thus λ(G) 6 λ(G2 ) + 1 = 6. We claim that λ(G) = 6. If M
is reductive, then [13] implies that
M ∈ {A1 A5 , A32 , G2 , C4 (p = 3), F4 , A2 G2 }

and it is easy to check that λ(M ) > 5. By applying Lemma 2.5, we see that the same
conclusion holds when M is parabolic. This justifies the claim.
Next assume G = E7 . Here λ(G) = 4 if and only if p > 17. If 5 6 p 6 13 then
E7 > A1 A1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1
is unrefinable and thus λ(G) = 5. Now assume p = 3. First observe that λ(G) 6 7 via the
chain
E7 > A1 G2 > A1 A2 > A1 A1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1.

10

TIMOTHY C. BURNESS, MARTIN W. LIEBECK, AND ANER SHALEV

We claim that λ(G) = 7. To see this, let M be a maximal connected subgroup of G.
Suppose M is reductive, in which case
M ∈ {A1 D6 , A7 , A2 A5 , A1 G2 , A1 F4 , G2 C3 }.

Now λ(D6 ) > 5 and λ(A5 ) > 5 (neither group has a maximal A1 subgroup) and one can
readily check that λ(A7 ) > 6 (the only reductive maximal connected subgroups are C4 ,
D4 and A1 C3 ). Therefore, by applying Lemmas 2.5 and 3.2 we deduce that λ(M ) > 6.
Similarly, one checks that the same bound holds if M is parabolic and the claim follows.
Now assume G = E7 and p = 2. Here there is an unrefinable chain
E7 > G2 C3 > G2 G2 > G2 > A1 Ã1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1
and thus λ(G) 6 8. By essentially repeating the above argument for p = 3, it is straightforward to show that λ(M ) > 7 for every maximal connected subgroup M of G, whence
λ(G) = 8.
To complete the proof of the theorem, we may assume G = E8 . If p > 23 then λ(G) = 4
since G has a maximal A1 subgroup. If 5 6 p 6 19 then λ(G) = 5 via the chain
E8 > B2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1.
Now assume p = 3. Here λ(G) 6 7 since there is a chain
E8 > A8 > A2 A2 > A2 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1.
To see that λ(G) = 7, we need to show that λ(M ) 6 6. If M is reductive then [13,
Corollary 2(ii)] implies that
M ∈ {D8 , A1 E7 , A8 , A2 E6 , A4 A4 , G2 F4 }

(4)

and it is straightforward to show that λ(M ) > 6 (recall that λ(A4 ) = λ(F4 ) = λ(E6 ) = 6
and λ(E7 ) = 7). For example, if M = A8 then either M1 is parabolic and λ(M1 ) > 5, or
M1 ∈ {B4 , A2 A2 } and λ(M1 ) = 5. As usual, the bound λ(M ) > 6 is easily checked when
M is parabolic.
Finally, let us assume G = E8 and p = 2. Here
E8 > A4 A4 > A4 > B2 > A1 A1 > A1 > U1 T1 > T1 > 1
is an unrefinable chain and thus λ(G) 6 8. To establish equality, we need to show that
λ(M ) > 7. If M is reductive then (4) holds and by considering each possibility in turn
one can check that λ(M ) > 7. Indeed, this is clear if M = A1 E7 or G2 F4 since λ(E7 ) =
λ(F4 ) = 8. Similarly, λ(A4 A4 ) = λ(A4 ) + 1 = 7 by Lemma 3.2 and we also note that
λ(A2 E6 ) > 1 + λ(E6 ) = 7. If M = A8 and M1 is reductive, then M1 = A2 A2 is the
only option and thus λ(M1 ) = 1 + λ(A2 ) = 7. It is easy to see that λ(M1 ) > 6 if M1 is
parabolic, so λ(A8 ) > 7 as required. Similarly, one checks that λ(D8 ) > 7 and the desired
bound is easily verified if M is a maximal parabolic subgroup. The result follows.

3.5. Proof of Thereom 5(ii). Now assume G is a simple classical algebraic group. The
next result establishes the upper bound on λ(G) in part (ii) of Theorem 5.
Theorem 3.4. If G is a simple classical algebraic group of rank r, then
λ(G) 6 2(log 2 r)2 + 12.
We partition the proof into a sequence of lemmas, starting with the case where G is a
symplectic group. Note that λ(Br ) = λ(Cr ) when p = 2.
Lemma 3.5. Let G = Cr and write r = 2a1 + · · · + 2ak with a1 > a2 > · · · > ak > 0.
Then
X
λ(G) 6 4k − 1 + 2
ai 6 2(log2 (r + 1))(log 2 r) + 5
i

THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

11

and the conclusion of Theorem 3.4 holds.
Proof. In view of Lemma 3.2, we may assume r > 5. First observe that a1 6 log2 r and
k 6 log2 (r + 1), so
X
4k − 1 + 2
ai 6 4k − 1 + 2(k log2 r − k(k − 1)/2) = 2k log2 r − k2 + 5k − 1
i

6 2(log2 (r + 1))(log 2 r) + 5.

Therefore, it suffices to show that
λ(G) 6 4k − 1 + 2

X

ai .

(5)

i

We proceed by induction on k. We will repeatedly use the fact that if H is a symplectic group with natural module V , then the stabiliser in H of any proper nondegenerate
subspace of V is a maximal connected subgroup of G.
First assume k = 1, so r = 2a1 and a1 > 3. Let M be the stabiliser in G of a
nondegenerate r-space, so M = C2a1 −1 C2a1 −1 . Now M has a diagonally embedded maximal
subgroup of type C2a1 −1 , so there is an unrefinable chain
C2a1 > C2a1 −1 C2a1 −1 > C2a1 −1 .
By repeating this process, we can descend from G to C1 in 2a1 steps and thus
λ(G) 6 2a1 + λ(C1 ) = 2a1 + 3.
This establishes the bound in (5) when k = 1.
Now assume k > 1. Let M be the stabiliser in G of a nondegenerate 2a1 -space, so
M = C2a1 C2a2 +···+2ak . By Lemma 2.1, we have
λ(M ) 6 λ(C2a1 ) + λ(C2a2 +···+2ak )
so by induction we get
λ(G) 6 1 + (3 + 2a1 ) +

4(k − 1) − 1 + 2

and thus (5) holds.
Lemma 3.6. If G = Ar , then λ(G) 6 2(log2

r)2

k
X
i=2

ai

!

(6)


+ 4.

Proof. By Lemma 3.2, we may assume that r > 5. If r is odd then C(r+1)/2 is a maximal
connected subgroup of G, so Lemma 3.5 implies that
λ(G) 6 1 + λ(C(r+1)/2 ) 6 1 + 2(log 2 ((r + 3)/2))(log 2 ((r + 1)/2)) + 5 6 2(log2 r)2 + 4
as required. Similarly, if r is even then
Ar > Ur Ar−1 T1 > Ar−1 T1 > Ar−1 > Cr/2
is an unrefinable chain and a further application of Lemma 3.5 yields
λ(G) 6 4 + λ(Cr/2 ) 6 4 + 2(log2 (r/2 + 1))(log 2 (r/2)) + 5 6 2(log 2 r)2 + 4.
The result follows.



Lemma 3.7. Suppose G = Dr , where r > 3. Then λ(G) 6 2(log2 r)2 + 11.
Proof. As usual, we may assume r > 5. First assume p = 2 and let M = Br−1 be the
stabiliser of a nonsingular 1-space. Since λ(Br−1 ) = λ(Cr−1 ) when p = 2, Lemma 3.5
implies that
λ(G) 6 1 + λ(M ) 6 1 + 2(log2 (r − 1))(log 2 r) + 5 < 2(log2 r)2 + 6.

12

TIMOTHY C. BURNESS, MARTIN W. LIEBECK, AND ANER SHALEV

For the remainder, we may assume p 6= 2.
Suppose r is even and write r = 2a1 + · · · + 2ak , where a1 > a2 > · · · > ak > 1. We
claim that the upper bound on λ(G) in (5) holds, in which case
λ(G) 6 2(log2 (r + 1))(log 2 r) + 5.
To prove this, we use induction on k. Note that if M is the connected component of the
stabiliser in G of a nondegenerate ℓ-space of the natural module, with 1 6 ℓ 6 r and ℓ 6= 2,
then M is a maximal connected subgroup of G (if ℓ = 2 then M = T1 Dr−1 is the Levi
factor of a parabolic subgroup of G).
First assume k = 1, so r > 8. We can construct an unrefinable chain
Dr > D2a1 −1 D2a1 −1 > D2a1 −1 > · · · > D8 > D4 D4 > D4
of length 2a1 − 4, so λ(G) 6 2a1 − 4 + λ(D4 ) 6 2a1 + 3.
Now assume k > 1 (and continue to assume r is even). Then M = D2a1 D2a2 +···+2ak is
a maximal closed connected subgroup of G, so
λ(G) 6 1 + λ(M ) 6 1 + λ(D2a1 ) + λ(D2a2 +···+2ak )
and by induction we deduce that (6) holds. The result follows.
Finally, let us assume r > 5 is odd. If r = 5 then λ(G) 6 6 since B2 is a maximal
subgroup of G, so we can assume r > 7. Let M be the connected component of the
stabiliser in G of a nondegenerate 6-space. Then M = D3 Dr−3 is a maximal connected
subgroup of G, so by the previous result for even rank, we get
λ(G) 6 1 + λ(D3 Dr−3 ) 6 6 + λ(Dr−3 ) 6 6 + 2(log2 (r − 2))(log 2 (r − 3)) + 5

and this yields λ(G) 6 2(log2 r)2 + 11 as required.



The next lemma completes the proof of Theorem 3.4.
Lemma 3.8. Suppose G = Br , where r > 3. Then λ(G) 6 2(log2 r)2 + 12.
Proof. This is an immediate corollary of Lemma 3.7 since Dr is a maximal connected
subgroup of G.

3.6. Proof of Theorem 5(iii). Let G = Cl(V ) be a classical algebraic group of rank
r over an algebraically closed field K of characteristic p > 0, with natural module V . If
M is a maximal connected subgroup of G, then by [12, Theorem 1], one of the following
holds:
(i) M is the connected stabiliser of a subspace U of V that is either totally singular,
non-degenerate, or a nonsingular 1-space (the latter only when G is orthogonal
and p = 2);
(ii) M is the connected stabiliser Cl(U ) ⊗ Cl(W ) of a tensor product decomposition
V = U ⊗ W;
(iii) M ∈ S(G), the collection of maximal connected simple subgroups of G such that
V is a p-restricted irreducible KM -module.
Lemma 3.9.
p Let G be as above, let M ∈ S(G) and suppose M is of classical type. Then
rank(M ) > logp r.

Proof. Let k = rank(M ). Using Weyl’s character formula, it is easy to see that the prestricted irreducible KM -module of largest dimension is the Steinberg module, which
has dimension pN , where N is the number of positive roots in the root system of M . Since
2

N 6 k2 , it follows that dim V 6 pk . The conclusion follows, as r < dim V .

THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

13

Now we prove Theorem 5(iii). As in the statement, define e1 (p) = p, and el+1 (p) =
2
pel (p) for l > 1, and for x ∈ R set
ψp (x) = min (l : el (p) > x) .

Note that el (p) =

q

logp el+1 (p), and for x > p we have
q

ψp (x) = 1 + ψp
logp x .

(7)

Theorem 3.10. If G is a simple algebraic group of rank r in characteristic p > 0, then
λ(G) > ψp (r).
2p2

Proof. The proof proceeds by induction on r. If r < e3 (p) = pp , then ψp (r) 6 2, so the
conclusion holds.
Now assume that r > e3 (p). Then certainly r > 8, so G is classical. Choose a maximal
connected subgroup M of G such that λ(M ) = λ(G) − 1. Then
pM is as in one of the
possibilities (i)-(iii) above, and in case (iii) we have rank(M ) > logp r, by Lemma 3.9.
√
In cases (i) and (ii), M has a simple quotient Cl(U ) withpdim U > dim V . Hence in any
case, there is a simple connected group H of rank at least logp r, such that λ(M ) > λ(H).
By induction,
q
λ(H) > ψp (

logp r),

and so by (7) we have

q
λ(G) = 1 + λ(M ) > 1 + ψp ( logp r) = ψp (r).

This completes the proof by induction.



The proof of Theorem 5 is now complete.
We conclude with an example showing that the lower bound ψp (r) in Theorem 5(iii) is
of roughly the correct order of magnitude.
Example 3.11. Fix a prime p > 2 and consider the series of embeddings of odd dimensional orthogonal groups via their Steinberg modules:
Br 0 < Br 1 < · · · < Br k ,
2

where r0 = 1, r1 = (p − 1)/2 and rl+1 = (prl − 1)/2 for l > 1. By [15], each term in this
series is maximal in the next, so λ(Brk ) 6 k + 3.
3.7. Proof of Theorem 6. We begin by classifying the simple algebraic groups G with
λ(G) = l(G).
Lemma 3.12. The only simple algebraic group G satisfying λ(G) = l(G) is G = A1 .
Proof. First observe that λ(A1 ) = l(A1 ) = 3, by Lemma 2.3. Conversely, suppose G is
simple of rank r > 1 and λ(G) = l(G). We know that l(G) = l(B) + r by Corollary 2. If
r 6 4 or G is exceptional, this contradicts Lemma 3.2 or Theorem 3.3. And if r > 5, then
Theorem 5(ii) gives a contradiction.

Now we prove Theorem 6. Let G be a connected algebraic group over an algebraically
closed field. Suppose λ(G) = l(G) and G is insoluble. Set Ḡ = G/R(G) and note that
λ(Ḡ) = l(Ḡ). Write Ḡ = G1 · · · Gt , where each Gi is simple. Then λ(Gi ) = l(Gi ) for each
i. By Lemma 3.12, this implies that Gi ∼
= A1 for all i. Since λ(A1 A1 ) = 4 < l(A1 A1 ) = 6,
we must have m = 1, so Ḡ ∼
= A1 , as in Theorem 6.

14

TIMOTHY C. BURNESS, MARTIN W. LIEBECK, AND ANER SHALEV

3.8. Proof of Theorem 7. Let G be an algebraic group and recall that cd(G) = l(G) −
λ(G) is the chain difference of G.
Lemma 3.13. If N is a connected normal subgroup of G, then
cd(G) > cd(N ) + cd(G/N ).
Proof. By Lemma 2.1 we have l(G) = l(N ) + l(G/N ) and λ(G) 6 λ(N ) + λ(G/N ). The
conclusion follows.

The analogous result for finite groups is [3, Lemma 1.3].
We now state some immediate consequences of the above lemma.
Corollary 3.14.
(i) If N is a connected normal subgroup of G, then cd(G/N ) 6 cd(G).
(ii) If 1 = GtP
✁ Gt−1 ✁ · · · ✁ G1 ✁ G0 = G is a chain of connected subgroups of G, then
cd(G) > i cd(Gi−1 /Gi ).
P
(iii) If G = G1 × · · · × Gt , where each Gi is connected, then cd(G) > i cd(Gi ).

The next result bounds dim G in terms of cd(G) when G is simple.

Proposition 3.15. Let G be a simple algebraic group in characteristic p > 0. Then

2cd(G) + 3 if p = 0
dim G 6
2cd(G) + 40 for any p.
Proof. Let r be the rank of G. Using Corollary 2 and its notation we obtain
cd(G) = dim B + r − λ(G).

(8)

Suppose first that p = 0, and let c be the value of λ(G) as in Theorem 4. Then we have
Therefore

cd(G) = dim B + r − c > dim B − 2.
dim G 6 2 dim B − 1 6 2cd(G) + 3,

as required.
Suppose now that p > 0. Applying (8) and Theorem 5 we obtain
dim G = 2 dim B − r 6 2cd(G) + ⌊24 − 3r + 4(log2 r)2 ⌋,

and the right hand side is at most 2cd(G) + 40.



The next result is of a similar flavour, dealing with certain semisimple groups.
Proposition 3.16. Let G = S k where k > 2 and S is a simple algebraic group in characteristic p > 0. Then

2cd(G) + 2 if p = 0
dim G 6
2cd(G) + 28 for any p.
Proof. By considering a series of diagonal subgroups, we can construct an unrefinable
chain
S k > S k−1 > · · · > S
of length k − 1, so λ(S k ) 6 k − 1 + λ(S). This yields
cd(G) = k · l(S) − λ(S k ) > k · l(S) − (k − 1 + λ(S)) = k(l(S) − 1) − λ(S) + 1.

Corollary 2 shows that if B is a Borel subgroup of S, and r = rank(S), then cd(G) >
k(dim B + r − 1) − λ(S) + 1, and so
k dim B 6 cd(G) − k(r − 1) + λ(S) − 1.

THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

15

Since dim G = k dim S 6 k(2 dim B − 1), we see that

dim G 6 2(cd(G) − k(r − 1) + λ(S) − 1) − k = 2cd(G) + a,

where a = 2λ(S) − 2k(r − 1) − 2 − k = 2(λ(S) − 1) − k(2r − 1).
If p = 0 then it is easy to check using Theorem 4 that a 6 2 in all cases, as required.
Now suppose p > 0. Then Theorem 5 yields

a 6 ⌊2 2(log2 r)2 + 11 − k(2r − 1)⌋ 6 ⌊4(log2 r)2 − 4r + 24⌋,

which is at most 28.



Lemma 3.17. Let S1 , .P
. . , Sn be simply connected simple algebraic groups that are pairwise
non-isomorphic. Then i dim Si > n2 .

Proof. Let di = dim Si , and assume d1 6 d2 6 · · · . For any r, the number of distinct
types of simple algebraic groups of rank at most r is at most 4r. Hence rank(Si ) > 4i , and
so
n
n
X
1 X 2
1
di >
i > n3 .
16
48
i=1

i=1

This is greater than n2 provided n > 48. For n 6 48, the conclusion can readily be checked
by computation.


We are now ready to prove Theorem 7. Let G be a connected algebraic group. If G is
soluble then the conclusion holds trivially, so suppose G is insoluble. Let G/R(G) have
Q
simply connected cover i Siki , where the Si are pairwise non-isomorphic simple algebraic
P
groups. By Corollary 3.14, cd(G) > i cd(Siki ), and hence Propositions 3.15 and 3.16
imply
n
1
1X
(ki dim Si − 40) = dim G/R(G) − 20n.
(9)
cd(G) >
2
2
i=1

Now Lemma 3.17 gives cd(G) > 21 (n2 − 40n), and it follows that
p
n 6 20 + 400 + 2cd(G).

Therefore by (9),

p
dim G/R(G) 6 2cd(G) + 40n 6 2cd(G) + 40 400 + 2cd(G) + 800.

This completes the proof of Theorem 7.

4. Chain ratios
In this final section we consider the chain ratio cr(G) of an algebraic group G, which is
defined by
cr(G) = l(G)/λ(G).
First we show that if G is simple, then its dimension is bounded in terms of its chain ratio.
Proposition 4.1. Let G be a simple algebraic group in characteristic p > 0. Then
(i) dim G < 12 cr(G) if p = 0.
(ii) dim G < (1 + o(1)) · cr(G) · (log2 cr(G))2 if p > 0, where o(1) = ocr(G) (1).
Proof. We have l(G) >

1
2

dim G by Theorem 3. Therefore
dim G < 2l(G) = 2λ(G)cr(G).

Note that this holds for any algebraic group.
Assuming G is simple and p = 0, we have λ(G) 6 6 by Theorem 4, proving part (i).

16

TIMOTHY C. BURNESS, MARTIN W. LIEBECK, AND ANER SHALEV

Now suppose p > 0 and let r be the rank of G. Then λ(G) 6 2(log 2 r)2 + 12 by Theorem
5. Write d = dim G. Since d > r 2 we obtain λ(G) < 12 (log2 d)2 + 12, so
d = dim G < ((log2 d)2 + 24) cr(G).
This easily implies the conclusion of part (ii).



In contrast to this result, we shall exhibit a sequence of algebraic groups G for which
dim G/R(G) is not bounded above in terms of the chain ratio cr(G). To show this we need
the following result.
Lemma 4.2. If S is a simple algebraic group and k ∈ N, then λ(S k ) > k.
Proof. The proof goes by induction on k, the case k = 1 being clear.
Suppose k > 1, write G = S k and let πi : G → S be the projection to the i-th factor.
Let M be a maximal connected subgroup of G with λ(M ) = λ(G) − 1. If πi (M ) = Mi < S
for some i, then M = Mi × S k−1 , and so λ(M ) > λ(S k−1 ) > k − 1 by induction, giving
the conclusion.
Now assume πi (M ) = S for all i. Then M is a product of diagonal subgroups of various
subsets of the simple factors of S k , and maximality forces M = diag(S 2 ) × S k−2 , where
diag(S 2 ) denotes a diagonal subgroup of S 2 . Hence M ∼
= S k−1 and the conclusion again
follows by induction.

Now, fix a simple algebraic group S and let G = S k for k > 1. Lemma 4.2 shows that
λ(G) > k, whence
cr(G) = l(G)/λ(G) 6 k · l(S)/k = l(S).
Letting k tend to infinity, we see that cr(G) is bounded, while dim G/R(G) = dim G tends
to infinity.
References
[1] L. Babai, On the length of subgroup chains in the symmetric group, Comm. Algebra 14 (1986), 1729–
1736.
[2] A. Borel and J. Tits, Éléments unipotents et sous-groupes paraboliques de groupes réductifs. I, Invent.
Math. 12 (1971), 95–104.
[3] B. Brewster, M. Ward and I. Zimmermann, Finite groups having chain difference one, J. Algebra 160
(1993), 179–191.
[4] T.C. Burness, M.W. Liebeck and A. Shalev, The depth of a finite simple group, Proc. Amer. Math.
Sc., to appear.
[5] T.C. Burness, M.W. Liebeck and A. Shalev, On the length and depth of finite groups, in preparation.
[6] P.J. Cameron, R. Solomon and A. Turull, Chains of subgroups in symmetric groups, J. Algebra 127
(1989), 340–352.
[7] E.B. Dynkin, Semisimple subalgebras of semisimple Lie algebras, Amer. Math. Soc. Translations 6
(1957), 111–244.
[8] E.B. Dynkin, Maximal subgroups of the classical groups, Amer. Math. Soc. Translations 6 (1957),
245–378.
[9] A. Fauntleroy, Defining normal subgroups of unipotent algebraic groups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 50
(1975), 14–19.
[10] K. Harada, Finite simple groups with short chains of subgroups, J. Math. Soc. Japan 20 (1968),
655–672.
[11] K. Iwasawa, Über die endlichen Gruppen und die Verbände ihrer Untergruppen, J. Fac. Sci. Imp. Univ.
Tokyo. Sect. I. 4 (1941), 171–199.
[12] M.W. Liebeck and G.M. Seitz, On the subgroup structure of classical groups, Invent. Math. 134 (1998),
427–453.
[13] M.W. Liebeck and G.M. Seitz, The maximal subgroups of positive dimension in exceptional algebraic
groups, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 169 (2004), no. 802.
[14] G.J. McNinch, Linearity for actions on vector groups, J. Algebra 397 (2014), 666–688.
[15] G.M. Seitz, The maximal subgroups of classical algebraic groups, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 67 (1987),
no. 365.

THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF ALGEBRAIC GROUPS

17

[16] G.M. Seitz, R. Solomon and A. Turull, Chains of subgroups in groups of Lie type, II, J. London Math.
Soc. 42 (1990), 93–100.
[17] R. Solomon and A. Turull, Chains of subgroups in groups of Lie type, I, J. Algebra 132 (1990),
174–184.
[18] R. Solomon and A. Turull, Chains of subgroups in groups of Lie type, III. J. London Math. Soc. 44
(1991), 437–444.
[19] A.R. Thomas, The irreducible subgroups of exceptional algebraic groups, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., to
appear.
T.C. Burness, School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TW, UK
E-mail address: t.burness@bristol.ac.uk
M.W. Liebeck, Department of Mathematics, Imperial College, London SW7 2BZ, UK
E-mail address: m.liebeck@imperial.ac.uk
A. Shalev, Institute of Mathematics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
E-mail address: shalev@math.huji.ac.il

