ZASSENHAUS CONJECTURE ON TORSION UNITS HOLDS FOR SL(2, t)

arXiv:1803.05342v1 [math.GR] 14 Mar 2018

ÁNGEL DEL RÍO AND MARIANO SERRANO
Abstract. H.J. Zassenhaus conjectured that any unit of finite order in the integral group ring ZG of a finite
group G is conjugate in the rational group algebra QG to an element of the form ±g with g ∈ G. We prove the
Zassenhaus Conjecture for the groups SL(2, t) with t a prime. It is the first infinite family of non-solvable groups
for which the Zassenhaus Conjecture has been proved.

1. Introduction
The following conjecture stated by H.J. Zassenhaus [Zas74] (see also [Seh93, Section 37]) has centered the
research on torsion units of integral group rings during the last decades:
Zassenhaus Conjecture: If G is a finite group and u is a unit of finite order in the integral
group ring ZG then u is conjugate in the rational group ring QG to an element of ±G.
The relevance of the Zassenhaus Conjecture is that it describes the torsion units of the integral group ring
of ZG provided it holds for G. Recently, Eisele and Margolis announced a metabelian counterexample to the
Zassenhaus Conjecture [EM17]. Nevertheless, the Zassenhaus Conjecture holds for large classes of solvable
groups, e.g. for nilpotent groups [Wei91], groups possessing a normal Sylow subgroup with abelian complement
[Her06] or cyclic-by-abelian groups [CMdR13]. In contrast with these results, the list of non-solvable groups for
which the Zassenhaus Conjecture has been proved is very limited [LP89, Ble99, Her07, Her08, BKL08, Sal13,
BM17, BC17, dRS17]. For example, the only non-abelian simple groups for which the Zassenhaus Conjecture
has been verified are those isomorphic to PSL(2, q) with sixty-one values of q. Most of these cases follow from the
main result of [MdRS17] which covers the case where q is a Mersenne or Fermat prime. Recall that the problem
of deciding whether there are infinitely many Mersenne primes or Fermat primes is still open [Pom81, Wag83].
The goal of this paper is proving the following theorem which provides the first positive result on the
Zassenhaus Conjecture for an infinite series of non-solvable groups.
Theorem 1.1. The Zassenhaus Conjecture holds for SL(2, t) with t a prime number.
The proof of Theorem 1.1 uses the so called HeLP Method, or rather a variant of it introduced in [MdRS17].
More precisely, after observing that by well known results we can restrict our attention to t-regular units of
augmentation 1, in Section 3 we deal with units of order a prime power or twice a prime power. For that we
simply apply the standard HeLP Method. In Section 4 we prove some number theoretical results, needed for
the proof of the general case and which might have interest by themselves. In Section 5 we complete the proof
of Theorem 1.1 which uses an induction argument based on the variant of the HeLP Method mentioned above,
in combination with the results of the previous sections.
2. Preliminaries
In this section we collect basic notation and known results.
Date: March 15, 2018.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 16U60, 16S34.
Partially supported by Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad projects MTM2012-35240 and MTM2016-77445-P and Fondos
FEDER and Fundación Séneca of Murcia 19880/GERM/15.
1

We use the standard notation for the Euler totient function ϕ and the Möbius function µ. Moreover, Z≥0
denotes the set of non-negative integers. Let n be a positive integer. Then Zn = Z/nZ, ζn denotes a complex
primitive n-th root of unity and Φn (X) denotes the n-th cyclotomic polynomial, i.e. the minimal polynomial
of ζn over Q. If F/K is a finite field extension then TrF/K : F → K denotes the standard trace map. We will
frequently use the following formula for d a divisor of n [Mar16, Lemma 2.1]:
(2.1)

TrQ(ζn )/Q (ζd ) = µ(d)

ϕ(n)
.
ϕ(d)

Let G be a finite group. If g ∈ G then |g| denotes the order of g, hgi denotes the cyclic group generated
by g, and g G denotes the conjugacy class of g in G. If R is a ring then RG denotes the group ring of G with
coefficients in R. Denote by V(ZG) the group of units of augmentation 1 in ZG. We say that two elements of
ZG are rationally conjugate if they are conjugate in the units of QG. Thus, the Zassenhaus Conjecture holds for
P
ZG if and only if every torsion element of V(ZG) is rationally conjugated to an element of G. If α = g∈G αg g
is an element of a group ring ZG, with each αg ∈ Z, then the partial augmentation of α at g is defined as
X
εg (α) =
αh .
h∈g G

The following theorem collects results about partial augmentations which show the relevance of this notion for
the study of the Zassenhaus Conjecture.
Theorem 2.1. Let G be a finite group and let u be an element of order n in V(ZG).
(1) [MRSW87, Theorem 2.5] u is rationally conjugate to an element of G if and only if εg (ud ) ≥ 0 for all
g ∈ G and all divisors d of n.
(2) [JdR16, Proposition 1.5.1] (Berman-Higman Theorem) If u 6= 1 then ε1 (u) = 0.
(3) [Her07, Theorem 2.3] If εg (u) 6= 0 then |g| divides |u|.
(4) [Her07, Theorem 3.2] Let p be a prime not dividing n and let χ be a p-Brauer character of G. Then the
following formula extends χ to a p-Brauer character defined on the p-regular torsion units of ZG, where
g1 , ..., gk is a set of representatives of the p-regular conjugacy classes of G:
χ(u) =

k
X

εgi (u)χ(gi ).

i=1

(5) [Her07] Let t be a prime integer not dividing n, let ξn be a primitive n-th root of unity in a field F of
characteristic t and let ρ be an F -representation of G. We use a group isomorphism among roots of
unity in F and complex roots of unity, mapping ξn to ζn , to define the Brauer character χ afforded by ρ.
Then, for every integer ℓ, the multiplicity of ξnℓ as eigenvalue of ρ(u) is given by the following formula:
1 XX
µℓ (u, χ) =
εx (ud )TrQ(ζnd )/Q (χ(x)ζn−ℓd ).
n
x∈T d|n

In particular, the left side of the previous formula is a non-negative integer.
We now collect the group theoretical properties of SL(2, t) and PSL(2, t) and its integral group ring relevant for
us. The second statement follows from the similar result for PSL(2, t) which was proved in [Her07, Proposition 6.3
and Proposition 6.7].
Theorem 2.2. Let G = SL(2, t) where t is an odd prime number.
(1) [Dor71, Theorem 38.1] Then G has a unique element of order 2 and t + 4 conjugacy classes: 2 formed by
elements of order t, another 2 formed by elements of order 2t and t classes formed by elements of order
dividing t + 1 or t − 1. Furthermore, G contains elements g and h of order t + 1 and t − 1 respectively
2

such that every t-regular element of G is conjugate to an element of hgi or hhi. Moreover, two different
elements x, y of hgi (respectively hhi) are conjugate in G if and only if xy = 1.
In particular every t-Brauer character of G takes values on the real numbers. Hence, using Theorem 2.1.(5), we deduce that if ρ is a representation of G in characteristic t and u is a t-regular torsion
unit of ZG then the multiplicities of ζ and ζ −1 are the same for every eigenvalue ζ of ρ(u).
(2) If u is a torsion element of V(ZG) then G has an element of the same order as u.
(3) [Sri64, dRS17] Let g be an element of G of order n. Then for every positive integer m there is a
representation Θm of G in characteristic t of degree 1 + m such that

diag 1, ξ 2 , ξ −2 , . . . , ξ m , ξ −m  ,
if 2 | m;
n n
n
n
Θm (g) =

diag ξn , ξ −1 , ξ 3 , ξ −3 , . . . , ξ m , ξ −m , if 2 ∤ m.
n

n

n

n

n

In particular, the restriction to hgi of the t-Brauer character associated to Θm is given by
m
X

χm (gi ) =

ζnij .

j=−m
j≡m mod 2

Moreover, every irreducible t-Brauer character of G coincides with some χm on hgi.
(4) [Mar16] Every element of prime power order of V(Z PSL(2, t)) is rationally conjugate to an element of
PSL(2, t).

3. Some special cases
In this section we prove the following particular case of Theorem 1.1.
Proposition 3.1. Let G = SL(2, t) with t a prime number and let u be a torsion element of V(ZG). If the
order of u is either a prime power or twice a prime power then u is rationally conjugate to an element of G.
Proof. The Zassenhaus Conjecture holds for SL(2, 2) ∼
= S3 and hence we may assume that t is odd. The result
is easy to prove in case |u| is either 2 or 4, using that G has a unique element of order 2 and a unique conjugacy
class formed by elements of order 4 (see Theorem 2.2.(1)). In particular the only element of order 2 of V(ZG) is
the element of order 2 of G. If |u| is twice an odd prime power then the 2-part of u is the only element of order
2 of G and thus it suffices to prove the result for the case where |u| is a prime power.
So, suppose that |u| = pr for some prime number p. If p 6= 2 then the the projection of u on Z PSL(2, t)
is rationally conjugate to an element of PSL(2, t), by Theorem 2.2.(4). As the natural projection defines a
one-to-one correspondence between the conjugacy classes of odd order of G and PSL(2, t) then the result follows
from statements (1) and (3) of Theorem 2.1. Thus we may assume that p = 2 and r ≥ 3. We argue by induction
on r. So we assume that units of order 2k with 1 ≤ k ≤ r − 1 are rationally conjugate to an element of G.
By statements (1) and (2) of Theorem 2.2, there is g0 ∈ G of order 2r and hence {g0k : k = 0, 1, 2, . . . , 2r−1 }
is a set of representatives of the conjugacy classes of G with order a divisor of 2r . Thus, by the BermanHigman Theorem and Theorem 2.1.(3), the only possible non-zero partial augmentations of u are the integers
εk = εgk (u), with k = 1, . . . , 2r−1 − 1. Using the projection on PSL(2, t) as in the previous paragraph and the
0
fact that SL(2, t) has a unique conjugacy class formed by elements of order 4 we have ε2r−2 = 0.
For a t-Brauer character χ of G and an integer ℓ define
A(χ, ℓ) =

2r−1
X−1
k=1



εk · TrQ(ζ2r )/Q χ(g0k ) · ζ2−ℓ
r

and B(χ, ℓ) =

r−1
X
k=0

3



r−k
.
TrQ(ζ2k )/Q χ(g02 ) · ζ2−ℓ
k

Then, by Theorem 2.1.(5) we have
1
(A(χ, ℓ) + B(χ, ℓ)) ∈ Z≥0 .
2r

(3.1)

Observe that B(χ, ℓ + 2r−1 ) = B(χ, ℓ) and A(χ, ℓ + 2r−1 ) = −A(χ, ℓ). Therefore, from (3.1) it follows that
(3.2)

if B(χ, ℓ) = 0 then A(χ, ℓ) = 0;

(3.3)

if B(χ, ℓ) = 2r−1 then A(χ, ℓ) = ±2r−1 .

We will calculate B(χ, ℓ) and A(χ, ℓ) for several t-Brauer characters χ and several integers ℓ and for that we
will use (2.1) without further mention. We start proving that

2r−1 , if h ≥ 1;
(3.4)
if 0 ≤ h ≤ r − 2 and 2r−1 | ℓ then B(χ2h , ℓ) =
0,
if h = 0;

and

(3.5)

if 0 ≤ h ≤ r − 3, 2h | ℓ and 2r−1


2r−1 , if ℓ ≡ ±2h mod 2r−1 ;
∤ ℓ then B(χ2h , ℓ) =
0,
otherwise.

In both cases we argue by induction on h with the cases h = 0 and h = 1 being straightforward. Suppose that 1 < h ≤ r − 2, 2r−1 | ℓ and B(χ2h−1 , ℓ) = 2r−1 . If j is even, then straightforward calcuh−1 −j
Pr−1
2h−1 +j
= 0. This implies that B(χ2h , ℓ) = B(χ2h−1 , ℓ) +
+ ζ2−2
lations show that
k
k=0 TrQ(ζ2k )/Q ζ2k

 h−1
h−1
P2h−1 Pr−1
−j
2
+j
= 2r−1 . This finishes the proof of (3.4).
+ ζ2−2
j=2
k
k=0 TrQ(ζ2k )/Q ζ2k
2|j

Suppose that 1 < h ≤ r − 3, 2h | ℓ and 2r−1 ∤ ℓ. In this case the induction hypothesis
implies B(χ2h−1 , ℓ)

 = 0.
 h−1
P2h−1 Pr−1
−(2h−1 +j)
2
+j
−ℓ
.
ζ
+
ζ
ζ
Tr
Arguing as in the previous paragraph we get B(χ2h , ℓ) = j=2,2|j
k
k
k
Q(ζ
)/Q
k=0
2
2
2

 h−1 2k
h−1
P
−(2
+j)
r−1
= 0. Therefore,
ζ2−ℓ
TrQ(ζ2k )/Q ζ22k +j + ζ2k
However, if j is even and smaller than 2h−1 then k=0
k
h

h

having in mind that ζ22h+2 + ζ2−2
h+2 = 0 we have
B(χ2h , ℓ) =

h
X

TrQ(ζ2k )/Q

r−1



 h

 h
X
h
h
,
ζ2−ℓ
+ ǫ2h+1 +
TrQ(ζ2k )/Q ζ22k + ζ2−2
ζ2−ℓ
ζ22k + ζ2−2
k
k
k
k
k=h+3

k=0

where ǫ = 1 if 2h+1 ∤ ℓ and ǫ = −1 otherwise. Then the claim
the following equalities that can be

 hfollowsh using
Ph
−ℓ
−2
2
ζ2k = 2h+1 and
ζ2k + ζ2k
proved by straightforward calculations:
k=0 TrQ(ζ2k )/Q
r−1
X

TrQ(ζ2k )/Q

k=h+3



h

ζ22k



0,
if 2h+1 | ℓ;




h
= 2r−1 − 2h+2 , if 2h+1 ∤ ℓ and ℓ ≡ ±2h mod 2r−1 ;
ζ2−ℓ
+ ζ2−2
k
k


 h+2
−2 ,
if 2h+1 ∤ ℓ and ℓ ≡
6 ±2h mod 2r−1 .

This finishes the proof of (3.5).
We now prove, by induction on h, that the following two statements hold for any integer 0 ≤ h ≤ r − 3:
X
(εk − εk+2r−h−1 ) = ±1, where Xh = {i ∈ {1, . . . , 2r−2 } : i ≡ ±1 mod 2r−h };
(3.6)
k∈Xh

(3.7)

if i ≡ ±j mod 2r−h−1 and i 6≡ 0, ±1 mod 2r−h−1 then εi = εj ;

and that the next one holds for every 0 ≤ h ≤ r − 2:
(3.8)

if i ≡ 0 mod 2r−h−1 then εi = 0.

4

Observe that X0 = {1}. Fix an integer i. Then for every integer k we have

2r−1 ,
if k ≡ i mod 2r ;

 


= −2r−1 , if k ≡ 2r−1 − i mod 2r ;
ζ2−i
TrQ(ζ2r )/Q ζ2kr + ζ2−k
r
r



0,
otherwise.

Thus A(χ1 , i) = 2r−1 (εi − εi+2r−1 ) and hence for h = 0, (3.6) and (3.7) follows at once from (3.2), (3.3) and
(3.5). Moreover, for h = 0 (3.8) is clear because ε2r−1 = 0.
Suppose 0 < h ≤ r − 3 and (3.6), (3.7) and (3.8) hold for h replaced by h − 1. Suppose also that i 6≡ 0
mod 2r−h−1 . To prove (3.6) and (3.7) we first compute A(χ2h , 2h i) which we split in three summands:
h

A(χ2h , 2 i) =

2r−1
X−1

hi
)
εk TrQ(ζ2r )/Q (ζ2−2
r

j=2
2|j

k=1

+

2r−1
X−1
k=1

+

h −2 2r−1 −1
2X
X

εk TrQ(ζ2r )/Q

k=1




−2h i
ζ
ζ2kjr + ζ2−kj
r
2r


 h
−2h (k+i)
2 (k−i)
.
+ ζ2r
εk TrQ(ζ2r )/Q ζ2r

We now prove that the first two summands are 0. This is clear for the first one because 2r−1 ∤ 2h i. To prove that
the second summand is 0 let 2 ≤ j ≤ 2h − 2 and 2 | j. Observe that 2h ∤ j. Thus,
 of
 the horder
 if k is odd then
−kj−2 i
kj−2h i
±kj−2h i
r−h−1
= 0.
= TrQ(ζ2r )/Q ζ2r
is multiple of 2
and, as h ≤ r−3, we deduce that TrQ(ζ2r )/Q ζ2r
ζ2r
Thus we only have to consider the summands with k even. Actually we can exclude also the summands with
2r−h | k because, by the induction hypothesis on (3.8), for such k we have εk = 0. For the remaining values of
r−h−1 , by the induction hypothesis on
k (i.e. k even and not multiple of 2r−h ) we have
 2
 εk = εl if k ≡ lh mod
P2r−1 −1
i
as
ζ2−2
(3.7). So, we can rewrite k=1 εk TrQ(ζ2r )/Q ζ2kjr + ζ2−kj
r
r

h

h

2X
−1
2X
−1
X
r−h−1
r−h−1
h
h
j a
j a 
i
i
εl TrQ(ζ2r )/Q ζ2l−2
)
(ζ22r
)
+ ζ2−l−2
(ζ2−2
,
r
r
r
l∈Z2r−h−1

a=0

a=0

r−h−1

j
is a root of unity different from 1 and of order dividing 2h , as j is even but not
which is 0 because ζ22r
h
multiple of 2 . This finishes the proof that the first two summands are 0. To finish the calculation of A(χ2h , 2h i)
we compute


2r−1 ,
if k ∈ Xh,i ;



 h
−2h (k+i)
2 (k−i)
= −2r−1 , if k − 2r−1 ∈ Xh,i ;
+ ζ2r
TrQ(ζ2r )/Q ζ2r



0,
otherwise,

where Xh,i = {k ∈ {1, . . . , 2r−2 } : k ≡ ±i mod 2r−h }. So we have proved the following:
X
A(χ2h , 2h i) = 2r−1
(εk − εk+2r−h−1 ).
k∈Xh,i

P
Then (3.6) follows from (3.3), (3.5) and the previous formula. Using (3.2) we also obtain that k∈Xh,i εk =
P
r−h−1 . However, in this case the induction hypothesis for (3.7) means that
k∈Xh,i εk+2r−h−1 if i 6≡ ±1 mod 2
the εk with k ∈ Xh,i are all equal and the εk+2r−h−1 with k ∈ Xh,i are all equal. Hence (3.7) follows.
In order to deal with (3.8), assume that 0 < h ≤ r − 2. By induction hypothesis on (3.8) we have εk = 0 if
2r−h | k, and by the induction hypothesis on (3.7), we have that εk is constant on the set X formed by integers
1 ≤ k ≤ 2r−1 such that k ≡ 2r−h−1 mod 2r−h . We will use these two facts without specific mention. Arguing

5

as before we have
A(χ2h , 0) =

2r−1
X−1



εk TrQ(ζ2r )/Q 1 + ζ

k=1

=

2r−1
X−1

k=1,2r−h ∤k

As

we obtain

2h k
2r

+ζ

−2h k
2r



+

2r−1
X−1
k=1



2h−1
X−1 

εk TrQ(ζ2r )/Q 

j=1





−2jk 
ζ22jk
r + ζ2r



hk
h
.
εk TrQ(ζ2r )/Q 1 + ζ22r k + ζ2−2
r


2r−1 ,


if 2r−h−1 ∤ k;
hk
h
=
TrQ(ζ2r )/Q 1 + ζ22r k + ζ2−2
r
−2r−1 , if 2r−h−1 | k and 2r−h ∤ k;


r−1 

A(χ2h , 0) = 2

X

εk −

2r−h−1 ∤k

X

2r−h−1 |k



r−1

εk  = 2

1−2

X

k∈X

εk

!

= 2r−1 (1 − 2|X|εk ) .

From (3.3) and (3.4) we deduce that if k ∈ X then 1 − 2|X|εk = ±1 and hence εk = 0, since |X| = 2r−h−1 ≥ 2,
as h ≤ r − 2. This finishes the proof of (3.8).
By statements (1) and (3) of Theorem 2.1, to finish the proof of the proposition it is enough to show that
εi 6= 0 for exactly one i ∈ {1, . . . , 2r−1 − 1}. If i is even then εi = 0, by (3.8) with h = r − 2.
We claim that if εi 6= 0 then i ≡ ±1 mod 2r−1 . Otherwise, there are integers 2 ≤ v ≤ r−2 and 2 < i < 2r−1 −1
satisfying i 6≡ ±1 mod 2v+1 and εi 6= 0. We choose v minimum with this property for some i. Then (1)
εk = 0 for every k 6≡ ±1 mod 2v and (2) i ≡ ±(k + 2v ) mod 2v+1 for every k ∈ Xr−v−1 . (1) implies that
P
k∈Xr−v−1 (εk + εk+2v ) = 1. On the other hand 1 ≤ r − v − 1 ≤ r − 3 and hence applying (3.6) and (3.7) with
P
h = r − v − 1 we deduce from (2) that εi = εk+2v for every k ∈ Xr−v−1 and k∈Xr−v−1 (εk − εk+2v ) = ±1.
P
Using |Xr−v−1 | = 2r−v−1 and εi 6= 0 we deduce that 2r−v εi = 2 k∈Xr−v−1 εk+2r−v = 2, in contradiction with
2 ≤ r − v. This finishes the proof of the claim.
Then the only possible non-zero partial augmentations are ε1 and ε2r−1 −1 . Hence ε1 + ε2r−1 −1 = 1 and, by
applying (3.6) with h = 0 we deduce that ε1 − ε2r−1 −1 = ±1. Therefore, either ε1 = 0 or ε2r−1 −1 = 0, i.e. εi 6= 0
for exactly one i ∈ {1, . . . , 2r−1 − 1}, as desired.

4. Number theoretical results
In this section we prove two number theoretical results which are essential for our arguments and might have
interest on themselves. Our first proof of Proposition 4.2 below was too long. We include a proof which was
given to us by Hendrik Lenstra. We are very thankful to him for his simple and nice proof.
For a prime integer p and a non-zero integer n let vp (n) denote the valuation of n at p, i.e. the maximum
non-negative integer m with pm | n.
Lemma 4.1. If n and m are positive integers and p is a prime integer then Φnpm (ζn ) ∈ p Z[ζn ].
Proof. We argue by induction on vp (n). Suppose first that p ∤ n and let S denote the set of primitive pm -th
Q
roots of unity. Then ζn ξ is a root of Φnpm (X) for every ξ ∈ S and hence ξ∈S (X − ζn ξ) divides Φnpm (X) in
Z[X]. Therefore
Y
Y
Φnpm (ζn ) ∈
(ζn − ζn ξ) Z[ζn ] =
(1 − ξ) Z[ζn ] = Φpm (1) Z[ζn ] = p Z[ζn ].
ξ∈S

ξ∈S

Suppose that p | n and assume that the lemma holds with n replaced by np . Then Φnpm−1 (ζnp ) = Φ np pm (ζnp ) ∈
p Z[ζnp ] ⊆ p Z[ζn ]. As Φnpm (X) = Φnpm−1 (X p ) and ζnp is a primitive np -th root of unity, we have Φnpm (ζn ) =
Φnpm−1 (ζnp ) ∈ p Z[ζn ].

6

Proposition 4.2. Let n be a positive integer. Let A0 , A1 , . . . , An−1 be integers and for every positive integer i
set
n−1
X
Aj ζnij .
ωi =
j=0

Let d be a divisor of n such that ω d = 0 for every prime power q dividing d with q 6= 1. Then ωd ∈ d Z[ζn ].
q

Pn−1
Aj X j . We can take ζk = ζnd , so that ωd = f (ζk ).
Proof. Let k = nd and consider the polynomial f (X) = j=0
By hypothesis, for every prime p and every positive integer m with pm dividing d we have f (ζkpm ) = 0,
Q Qvp (d)
Φkpm (X) divides f (X) in Z[X]. Therefore
or equivalently Φkpm (X) divides f (X) in Z[X]. Thus p|d m=1
Q Qvp (d)
ωd = f (ζk ) ∈ p|d m=1 Φkpm (ζk ) Z[ζk ]. By Lemma 4.1, each Φkpm (ζk ) Z[ζk ] ⊆ p Z[ζk ] ⊆ p Z[ζn ]. As
Q Qvp (d)
d = p|d m=1
p we deduce that ωd ∈ d Z[ζn ], as desired.

Corollary 4.3. Let n be a positive integer, let F be a subfield of Q(ζn ) and let R be the ring of integers of F .
Let ΓF denote the set of equivalent classes of the following equivalence relation defined on Z:
ζnx and ζny are conjugate over F.

if and only if

x∼y

For every x ∈ ΓF let Bx be an integer and for every integer i define
X
ωi =
Bx TrQ(ζn )/F (ζnix ).
x∈ΓF

Let d be a divisor of n such that ω d = 0 for every prime power q dividing d with q 6= 1. Then ωd ∈ d R.
q

Proof. Apply Proposition 4.2 to the integers Ax = Bx with x denoting the class of ΓF containing x.



In the remainder of this section we reserve the letter p to denote positive prime integers.
We now introduce some notation for a positive integer n which will be fixed throughout. First we set
Y
n′ =
p and np = pvp (n) .
p|n

If moreover x ∈ Z then we set
(x : n) =

representative of the class of x modulo n in the interval

|x : n| =

the absolute value of (x : n) ;

γn (x) =

Y

p

Y

and γ̄n (x) =

p|n
n
|x:np |< 2pp

p|n
n
|x:np |≤ 2pp

 n ni
− ,
;
2 2


2γ (x), if |x : n | =
n
2
p=
γn (x),
otherwise.

n2
4 ;

Next lemma collects two elementary arithmetic properties of these objects whose proofs are direct consequences
of the definitions.
Lemma 4.4. Let p be a prime dividing n and let x, y ∈ Z. Then the following conditions hold:


n
(1) If p | γ̄n (x) then x : pp ≡ x mod np .
(2) Let d | n′ such that x ≡ y mod nd . If d divides both γ̄n (x) and γ̄n (y) then x ≡ y mod n.

For integers x and y we define the following equivalence relation on Z:
x ∼n y

⇔

x ≡ ±y

mod n.

We denote by Γn the set of these equivalence classes. Observe that Γn = ΓQ(ζn +ζn−1 ) (see Corollary 4.3).
7

If x, y and n are integers with n > 0 then let


1, if x ∼ y;
2,
n
(n)
δx,y
=
and κ(n)
x =
0, otherwise;
1,

if x ≡ 0 mod n or x ≡

n
2

mod n;

otherwise.

For an integer x (or x ∈ Γn ) we set

x
−x
α(n)
x = ζn + ζn .

(n)

(n)

(n)

Observe that Q(α1 ) is the maximal real subfield of Q(ζn ) and Z[α1 ] is the ring of integers of Q(α1 ). If
n 6= n2 then let p0 denote the smallest odd prime dividing n. Let
(
)
n
|x : np | > 2pp or
Bn = x ∈ Zn : for every p | n, either
p = 2, n 6= n2 , |x : n2 | = n42 , np0 ∤ x and (x : n2 ) · (x : np0 ) > 0
and


{α(n) : b ∈ B },
n
b
Bn =
{1} ∪ {α(n) : b ∈ Bn },

if n 6= n2 ;
otherwise.

b

For b ∈ Bn and x ∈ Z let
(n)

βb,x


−1, if n 6= n , |x : n | =
2
2
=
1,
otherwise.

n2
4

and (x : n2 ) · (b : np0 ) < 0;

Proposition 4.5. Let n be a positive integer. Then
(n)

(n)

(n)

(1) Bn is a Z-basis of Z[α1 ] and in particular, a Q-basis of Q(α1 ). If b ∈ Bn and x ∈ Q(α1 ) then let
(n)
Cb (x) denote the coefficient of αb in the expression of x in the basis Bn .
(n/γ̄(i))
(n)
(n)
(n)
.
(2) If b ∈ Bn and i ∈ Z then Cb (αi ) = κi · µ(γ(i)) · βb,i · δb,i
Proof. We only prove the lemma in the case n 6= n2 , as the proof in the case n = n2 is similar (actually
(n)
simpler). It is easy to see that |Bn | ≤ ϕ(n)
2 = [Q(α1 ) : Q]. Thus it is enough to prove the following equality
P
(n)
(n)
(n) (n)
αi = κi µ(γ(i)) b∈Bn ,b∼n/γ̄(i) i βb,i αb . Actually we will show
X
(n)
βb,i ζnb
ζni = µ(γ(i))
b≡i mod n/γ̄(i)
b∈Bn

(n)

which easily implies the desired expression of αi .
Indeed, for every p | n let ζnp denote the p-th part of ζn , i.e. ζnp is a primitive np -th root of unity and
Q
ζn = p|n ζnp . Let J be the set of tuples (jp )p|γ̄(i) satisfying the following conditions:
• If p | γ(i) then jp ∈ {1, . . . , p − 1}. 


1, if (i : n2 ) · i + jp np0 : np < 0;
0
0 p0
.
• If p = 2 and |i : n2 | = n42 then j2 =
0, otherwise.

For every j ∈ J let bj ∈ Zn given by

bj ≡


i + j

np
p p

mod np , if p | γ̄(i);
otherwise.

i mod np ,

n
Then {bj : j ∈ J} is the set of elements in Bn satisfying i ≡ b mod γ̄(i)
. From

2np
(p−1)np 
np
p
p
i
0 = ζnp 1 + ζnp + ζnp + ... + ζnp p
8

we obtain ζni p = −

Pp−1

ζni =

i+jp

jp =1 ζnp

Y

p|n
p∤γ(i)

ζni p

np
p

. Therefore, if |i : n2 | =
6 n42 then γ(i) = γ̄(i) and


p−1
np
X
Y
X bj
i+jp
−
ζnp p  = µ(γ(i))
ζn = µ(γ(i))

p|n
p|γ(i)

jp =1

j∈J

X

ζnb .

b≡i mod n/γ̄(i)
b∈Bn

(n)

This gives the desired equality because in this case βb,i = 1 for every b ∈ Bn .
(n) b

Suppose that |i : n2 | = n42 . Then ζni 2 = βbj ,i ζnj2 for every j ∈ J. Then a small modification of the argument
in the previous paragraph gives


p−1
np
X
Y
Y
X (n) bj
X
i+jp
(n)
−
ζnp p  = µ(γ(i))
ζni p
ζni = ζni 2
βb,i ζn = µ(γ(i))
βb,i ζnb .
p|n
p∤γ(i)

p|n
p|γ(i)

jp =1

j∈J

b≡i mod n/γ̄(i)
b∈Bn



5. Proof of Theorem 1.1
In this section we prove Theorem 1.1. As the Zassenhaus Conjecture holds for SL(2, 2) ∼
= S3 , in the remainder
of the section t is an odd prime, G = SL(2, t) and u is an element of order n in V(ZG). We have to show that
u is rationally conjugate to an element of G. By Proposition 3.1, we may assume that n is neither a prime
power, nor twice an odd prime power. In particular, using Theorem 2.2, we deduce that t ∤ n. Moreover, we
may also assume that n 6= 12 because this case follows easily from known results and the HeLP Method. More
precisely, as V(ZG) has a unique element of order 2, the image of u in Z PSL(2, t) has order 6 and hence it is
conjugate to an element of PSL(2, t), by [Her07, Proposition 6.6]. Using this and the fact that SL(2, t) has a
unique conjugacy class for each of the orders 3, 4 or 6 and two conjugacy classes of elements of order 12, and
applying Theorem 2.1.(5) with χ = χ1 and ℓ = 1, 5 it easily follows that all the partial augmentations of u are
non-negative.
As the order n of u is fixed throughout, we simplify the notation of the previous section by setting
γ = γn ,

γ̄ = γ̄n ,

αx = α(n)
x ,

κx = κ(n)
x ,

(n)

βb,x = βb,x ,

B = Bn ,

B = Bn .

We argue by induction on n. So we also assume that ud is rationally conjugate to an element of G for every
divisor d of n with d 6= 1.
We will use the representations Θm and t-Brauer characters χm introduced in Theorem 2.2.(3). Observe that
the kernel of Θm is trivial if m is odd, and otherwise it is the center of G. Using this and the induction hypothesis
on n it easily follows that the order of Θm (u) is n2 if both n and m are even, while, if m or n is odd then the
order of Θm (u) is n. Combining this with Theorem 2.2.(1) we deduce that Θ1 (u) is conjugate to diag(ζ, ζ −1 )
for a suitable primitive n-th root of unity ζ. Hence by Theorem 2.2.(2) there exists an element g0 ∈ G of order
n such that Θ1 (g0 ) and Θ1 (u) are conjugate. From now on we abuse the notation and consider ζ both as a
primitive n-th root of unity in a field of characteristic t and as a complex primitive n-th root of unity. Then

diag 1, ζ 2 , ζ −2 , . . . , ζ m , ζ −m  ,
if 2 | m;
(5.1)
Θm (g0 ) is conjugate to

diag ζ, ζ −1 , ζ 3 , ζ −3 , . . . , ζ m , ζ −m , if 2 ∤ m;
and

(5.2)

χm (g0i ) =

m
X

j=−m
j≡m mod 2

ζ ij


1 + α + α + · · · + α , if 2 | m;
2i
4i
mi
=
αi + α3i + · · · + αmi ,
if 2 ∤ m.
9

The element g0 ∈ G and the primitive n-th root of unity ζ will be fixed throughout. By the induction hypothesis
on n, if c is a divisor of n with c 6= 1 then uc is rationally conjugate to g0i for some i and hence ζ c = ζ ±i .
Therefore c ∼n i and hence uc is conjugate to g0c .
By Theorem 2.2.(1), two elements of hg0 i are conjugate in G if and only if they are equal or mutually inverse.
Moreover, every element g ∈ G, with g n = 1, is conjugate to an element of hg0 i. Therefore x 7→ (g0x )G induces a
bijection from Γn to the set of conjugacy classes of G formed by elements of order dividing n. For an integer x
(or x ∈ Γn ) we set
X
εi αix .
εx = εg0x (u), and λx =
i∈Γn

By Theorem 2.1, u is rationally conjugate to an element of G if and only if εx ≥ 0 for every x ∈ Γn .
Lemma 5.1. u is rationally conjugate to g0 if and only if
(5.3)

λi = αi , for any positive integer i.

Proof. If u is rationally conjugate to g0 , then ε1 = 1 and εx = 0 for any x ∈ Γn \ {1}. Therefore (5.3) holds.
P
Conversely, assume that (5.3) holds. For u′ ∈ V(ZG) of order dividing n let λ′i (u′ ) = x∈Γn εg0x (u′ )αxi . Then
λ′i (u) = λi and the restrictions to hg0 i of the λ′i with 0 ≤ i ≤ n2 are the irreducible real characters of hg0 i. Thus,
by Theorem 2.2.(1), the assumption (5.3) implies that χ(uj ) = χ(g0j ) for any t-Brauer character χ of G and
every integer j. As the t-Brauer character table is invertible, using (5.2) we get that εg (u) = εg (g0 ) ≥ 0 for
every t-regular element g of G and in particular εx = 0 for every x ∈ Γn \ {1} and ε1 = 1. Then u is rationally
conjugate to an element of G. As εg (g0 ) 6= 0 if and only if g and g0 are conjugate in G, we deduce that u is
rationally conjugate to g0 .

By Lemma 5.1, in order to achieve our goal it is enough to prove (5.3). We argue by contradiction, so we
assume that λd 6= αd for some positive integer d which we assume to be minimal with this property. Observe
that if λi = αi and j is an integer such that gcd(i, n) = gcd(j, n), then there exists σ ∈ Gal(Q(α1 )/Q) such that
σ(αi ) = αj and applying σ to the equation λi = αi we obtain λj = αj . This implies that d divides n. Note
P
that α1 = λ1 by our choice of g0 and hence d 6= 1. Moreover, d 6= n because λn = 2 x∈Γn εx = 2 = αn as the
augmentation of u is 1.
We claim that
(5.4)

λd = αd + dτ for some τ ∈ Z[α1 ].

Indeed, for any x ∈ Γn let Bx = εx − 1 if x ∼n 1 and Bx = εx otherwise. Then for any integer i we have

P
ix . Therefore, applying Corollary 4.3 for F = Q(α ), R = Z[α ] and
λi − αi =
1
1
x∈Γn Bx TrQ(ζ)/Q(α1 ) ζ
ωi = λi − αi , the claim follows.
By (5.2) we have
χd (g0 ) =

d
X

i=0
i≡d mod 2

αi

and χd (u) =

X

εx χd (g0x ) =

X

x∈Γn

x∈Γn

εx

d
X

i=0
i≡d mod 2

αix =

d
X

λi .

i=0
i≡d mod 2

Combining this with (5.4) and the minimality of d, we deduce that χd (u) = χd (g0 ) + dτ . Furthermore, τ 6= 0,
as λd 6= αd . Therefore
(5.5)

Cb (χd (u)) ≡ Cb (χd (g0 )) mod d

for every b ∈ B

and
(5.6)

d ≤ |Cb0 (χd (u)) − Cb0 (χd (g0 ))|
10

for some b0 ∈ B.

The bulk of our argument relies on an analysis of the eigenvalues of Θd (u) and the induction hypothesis on
n and d. More precisely, we will use (5.5) and (5.6) to obtain a contradiction by comparing the eigenvalues of
Θd (g0 ) and Θd (u). Of course, we do not know the eigenvalues of the latter. However we know the eigenvalues
of Θd (uc ) for every c | n with c 6= 1, because we know the eigenvalues of Θd (g0 ) and uc is conjugate to g0c .
This provides information on the eigenvalues of Θd (u). For example, recall that if ξ is an eigenvalue of Θd (u)
then ξ and ξ −1 have the same multiplicity as eigenvalues of Θd (u). Therefore, if 3 ≤ h then the sum of the
multiplicities of the eigenvalues of Θd (u) of order h is even. Moreover, for every t-regular element g of G, the
multiplicity of 1 as eigenvalue of Θd (g) is congruent modulo 2 with the degree d + 1 of χd . As n is not a prime
power there is an odd prime p dividing n. By the induction hypothesis Θd (up ) is rationally conjugate to Θd (g0p ).
Thus the multiplicity of −1 as eigenvalue of Θd (up ) is even. As the latter is the sum of the multiplicities as
eigenvalues of Θd (u) of −1 and the elements of order 2p, we deduce that the multiplicity of −1 as eigenvalue
of Θd (u) is even. Using this we can see that Θd (u) is conjugate to diag(ζ ν−d , ζ ν2−d , . . . , ζ νd−2 , ζ νd ) for integers
ν−d , ν−d+2 , . . . , νd−2 , νd such that ν−i = −νi for every i. Let Xd = {i : 1 ≤ i ≤ d, i ≡ d mod 2}. Then, by
Proposition 4.5, we have for every b ∈ B that
X
Cb (χd (u)) − Cb (χd (g0 )) =
(Cb (ανi ) − Cb (αi ))
i∈Xd

(5.7)

=

X

(n/γ̄(νi ))

κνi · βb,νi · µ(γ(νi )) · δb,νi

(n/γ̄(i))

− κi · βb,i · µ(γ(i)) · δb,i

i∈Xd



.

Moreover, if c | n with c 6= 1 then the lists (cνi )i∈Xd and (ci)i∈Xd represent the same elements in Γn , up to
ordering, and hence (νi )i∈Xd and (i)i∈Xd represent the same elements of Γ nc , up to ordering. We express this by
writing (ν(Xd )) ∼ nc (Xd ). This provides restrictions on d, n and the νi .
Lemma 5.2.
(1) Let i ∈ Xd . If κi 6= 1 then n = 2d and i = d. If κνi 6= 1 then
dividing n and κνj = 1 for every j ∈ Xd \ {i}.
(2) If d > 2 then n is not divisible by any prime greater than d.

n
d

is the smallest prime

Proof. Let p denote the smallest prime dividing n.
(1) The first statement is clear. Suppose that κνi 6= 1. Then either p = 2 and νi ≡ 0 mod n2 or νi ≡ 0 mod n.
As (Xd ) ∼ np (ν(Xd )) we deduce that k ≡ 0 mod np for some k ∈ Xd . Therefore d = k = np and for every
j ∈ Xd \ {i} we have νj 6≡ 0 mod np . Thus κνj = 1.
(2) Suppose that q is a prime divisor of n with d < q. Then nd 6= p and therefore, by (1), κi = κνi = 1 for
(n/γ̄(i))

every i ∈ Xd . Thus, by (5.6) and (5.7), it is enough to show that δb,i

6= 0 for at most one i ∈ Xd and

(n/γ̄(ν ))
δb,νi i

n
is multiple of q. Moreover,
6= 0 for at most one i ∈ Xd . Observe that if i ∈ Xd then q ∤ i and hence γ̄(i)
if i and j are different elements of Xd then i and j have the same parity and −q < i − j < i + j < 2q. Therefore
n

n
γ̄(ν )

n

n
γ̄(ν )

γ̄(i)
γ̄(j)
i 6∼q j. Thus either δb,i
= 0 or δb,j
= 0. As (Xd ) ∼q (ν(Xd )), this also proves that δb,νii = 0 or δb,νjj = 0. 

We obtain an upper bound for |Cb (χd (u)) − Cb (χd (g0 ))| in terms of the number of prime divisors P (d) of d.
Lemma 5.3. For every b ∈ B we have
|Cb (χd (u)) − Cb (χd (g0 ))| ≤ 2 + 2P (d)+1 .
P
P
(n/γ̄(ν ))
(n/γ̄(i))
≤ 1 + 2P (d) and i∈Xd κνi δb,νi i ≤ 1 + 2P (d) .
Proof. Using (5.7) it is enough to prove that i∈Xd κi δb,i
This is a consequence of Lemma 5.2.(1) and the following inequalities for every e dividing d′ :
o
o
n
n
(n/γ̄ (ν ))
(n/γ̄ (i))
= 1 ≤ 1,
i ∈ Xd : gcd(d, γ̄(νi )) = e, δb,νi i = 1 ≤ 1.
i ∈ Xd : gcd(d, γ̄(i)) = e, δb,i

We prove the second inequality, only using that (ν(Xd )) ∼d (Xd ). This implies the first inequality by applying
the second one to u = g0 .
11

Let Ye =

n

(n/γ̄(νi ))

i ∈ Xd : gcd(d, γ̄(νi )) = e, δb,νi
(n/γ̄(ν ))

o
= 1 . By changing the sign of some νi ’s, we may assume

n
n
without loss of generality that if δb,νi i = 1 then b ≡ νi mod γ̄(ν
. Thus, if i ∈ Ye then b ≡ νi mod γ̄(ν
.
i)
i)
We claim that if i, j ∈ Ye then νi ≡ νj mod d. Indeed, let p be prime divisor of d. If np 6= dp or p ∤ e then
clearly νi ≡ νj mod dp . Otherwise, i.e. np = dp and p | e, then p divides both γ̄(νi ) and γ̄(νj ) and νi ≡ νj
d
mod pp . Therefore, by Lemma 4.4.(2), νi ≡ νj mod np , as desired. As (ν(Xd )) ∼d (Xd ) and the elements of
Xd represent different classes in Γd we deduce that |Ye | ≤ 1. This finishes the proof of the lemma.


We are ready to finish the proof of Theorem 1.1. Recall that we are arguing by contradiction.
By (5.6) and Lemma 5.3 we have d ≤ 2 + 2P (d)+1 and using this it is easy to show that d ≤ 6 or d = 10.
Indeed, if P (d) ≥ 3 then 2 + 2P (d)+1 ≥ d ≥ 2 · 3 · 5 · 2P (d)−3 > 14 + 2P (d)+1 , a contradiction. Thus P (d) = 2 and
d ≤ 10 or P (d) = 1 and d ≤ 5. Hence d is either 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 10. We deal with these cases separately.
Suppose that d = 2. Then ν2 ∼np 2 for every prime p. By the assumptions on n, this implies that κ2 = κν2 = 1,


(n/γ̄(2))
(n/γ̄(ν ))
≤ 1,
− δb0 ,ν2 2
γ(2) = γ(ν2 ) and βb0 ,2 = βb0 ,ν2 . Therefore |Cb0 (χ2 (u)) − Cb0 (χ2 (g0 ))| = µ(γ(2)) δb0 ,2
contradicting (5.6).
Suppose that d = 3. By Lemma 5.2 and the assumptions on n, we have κi = κνi = 1 for every i ∈ X3 and
o
o
n
n
(n/γ̄(ν ))
(n/γ̄(i))
′
= 1 ≤ 1 and i = 1, 3 : δb,νi i = 1 ≤ 1, which implies
n = 6. If 24 | n or 32 | n then i = 1, 3 : δb,i
|Cb0 (χ3 (u)) − Cb0 (χ3 (g0 ))| ≤ 2, contradicting (5.6). Thus n = 24. In this case we have γ̄(1) = γ(1) = 2,
(12)
(8)
γ̄(3) = γ(3) = 3, βb,1 = βb,3 = 1 and Cb (χ3 (g0 )) = −δb,1 − δb,3 for every b ∈ B. We may assume that
3 | ν3 and 3 ∤ ν1 because (ν(X3 )) ∼3 (X3 ). Suppose that ν3 ∼8 3 and ν1 ∼8 1. Then γ̄(ν1 ) = γ(ν1 ) = 2,
(8)
(8)
γ̄(ν3 ) = γ(ν3 ) = 3, βb0 ,ν3 = 1 and δb0 ,3 = δb0 ,ν3 , which implies |Cb0 (χ3 (u)) − Cb0 (χ3 (g0 ))| ≤ 2, contradicting
(5.6). Suppose now that ν3 ∼8 1 and ν1 ∼8 3. This implies that ν1 ≡ ±3 mod 8 and ν1 ≡ ±1 mod 3 (because
3 | ν3 but 3 ∤ ν1 ). Thus either ν1 ≡ ±11 mod 24 or ν1 ≡ ±5 mod 24. As (ν(X3 )) ∼12 (X3 ), we deduce that the
only possibility is ν1 ≡ ±11 mod 24. In this case we have γ̄(ν1 ) = γ(ν1 ) = 1 and γ̄(ν3 ) = γ(ν3 ) = 6. Hence
(8)
(24)
(4)
(12)
C11 (χ3 (u)) − C11 (χ3 (g0 )) = δ11,ν1 + δ11,ν3 + δ11,1 + δ11,3 = 4, contradicting (5.5).
Suppose that d = 4. By Lemma 5.2 and the assumptions on n, we have κi = κνi = 1 for every i ∈ X4 and
n
o
(n/γ̄(i))
′
= 1 ≤ 1 which implies |Cb0 (χ4 (u)) − Cb0 (χ4 (g0 ))| ≤ 3,
n = 6. If 33 | n or 23 | n then i = 2, 4 : δb,i
contradicting (5.6). Thus n = 36. In this case we have γ(2) = 1 = βb0 ,2 = βb0 ,4 and γ(4) = 2, which implies
|Cb0 (χ4 (g0 ))| ≤ 1 and hence |Cb0 (χ4 (u)) − Cb0 (χ4 (g0 ))| ≤ 3, contradicting again (5.6).
Suppose that d = 5. Since (ν(X5 )) ∼5 (X5 ), there is exactly one νi which is divisible by 5, say ν5 . In
n
n
and 5 | γ̄(i)
. Moreover, if j is an integer not multiple of 5 then
particular, for i 6= 5 we have 5 | γ̄(ν
i)
o
o
n
n
(n/γ̄(ν ))
(n/γ̄(i))
= 1 ≤ 1 and i = 1, 3 : δb,νi i = 1 ≤ 1.
|{i = 1, 3 : νi ∼5 j}| ≤ 1. This implies that i = 1, 3 : δb,i
On the other hand, as n 6= 10, we deduce that κi = 1 for every i ∈ X5 , by Lemma 5.2.(1). Therefore, using (5.6)
and (5.7), we deduce that κν5 = 2. Thus n = 15 by Lemma 5.2. In this case we have γ(1) = 1 = βb0 ,1 = βb0 ,3
and γ(3) = 3, which implies |Cb0 (χ5 (u)) − Cb0 (χ5 (g0 ))| ≤ 4, contradicting (5.6).
Suppose that d = 6. By Lemma 5.2, we have n′ | 30 and κi = κνi = 1 for every i ∈ X6 because n 6= 12. If
o
o
n
n
(n/γ̄(ν ))
(n/γ̄(i))
= 1 ≤ 2 and i = 2, 4, 6 : δb,νi i = 1 ≤ 2.
25 | n, or 9 | n or 8 | n then we have i = 2, 4, 6 : δb,i
This implies that |Cb0 (χ6 (u)) − Cb0 (χ6 (g0 ))| ≤ 4, yielding a contradiction with (5.6). Thus n ∈ {30, 60}. In
both cases we have βb,2 = βb,4 = βb,6 = 1. Moreover, if n = 30 then γ(2) = γ(4) = 2 and γ(6) = 6; and if n = 60
then γ̄(2) = 1, γ̄(4) = γ(4) = 2 and γ̄(6) = γ(6) = 3. This implies in both cases that |Cb0 (χ6 (g0 ))| ≤ 2 and
hence |Cb0 (χ6 (u)) − Cb0 (χ6 (g0 ))| ≤ 5, yielding a contradiction with (5.6).
n
for some i ∈ X10 then n5 = (γ̄(i))5 = 5 and hence 5 | i. The same also holds
Suppose that d = 10. If 5 ∤ γ̄(i)
o
n
(n/γ̄ (i))
n
n
=
1
i
∈
X
:
5
∤
i,
δ
for νi . Therefore, if 5 ∤ i then 5 | γ̄(i)
≤ 2 and
and if 5 ∤ νi then 5 | γ̄(ν
.
Thus
10
b,i
i)
o
n
(n/γ̄(ν ))
i ∈ X10 : 5 ∤ νi , δb,νi i = 1 ≤ 2. This implies that |Cb0 (χ10 (u)) − Cb0 (χ10 (g0 ))| ≤ 8, contradicting (5.6).
12

References
[BC17]

A. Bächle and M. Caicedo. On the prime graph question for almost simple groups with an alternating socle. Internat.
J. Algebra Comput., 27(3):333–347, 2017.
[BKL08]
V. A. Bovdi, A. B. Konovalov, and S. Linton. Torsion units in integral group ring of the Mathieu simple group M22 .
LMS J. Comput. Math., 11:28–39, 2008.
[Ble99]
F. M. Bleher. Finite groups of Lie type of small rank. Pacific J. Math., 187(2):215–239, 1999.
[BM17]
A. Bächle and L. Margolis. Rational conjugacy of torsion units in integral group rings of non-solvable groups. Proc.
Edinb. Math. Soc. (2), 60(4):813–830, 2017.
[CMdR13] M. Caicedo, L. Margolis, and Á. del Río. Zassenhaus conjecture for cyclic-by-abelian groups. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2),
88(1):65–78, 2013.
[Dor71]
Larry Dornhoff. Group representation theory. Part A: Ordinary representation theory. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,
1971. Pure and Applied Mathematics, 7.
[dRS17]
Á. del Río and M. Serrano. On the torsion units of the integral group ring of finite projective special linear groups.
Communications in Algebra, 45(2):5073–5087, 2017.
[EM17]
F. Eisele and L. Margolis. A counterexample to the first Zassenhaus conjecture. 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08780.
[Her06]
M. Hertweck. On the torsion units of some integral group rings. Algebra Colloq., 13(2):329–348, 2006.
[Her07]
M. Hertweck. Partial augmentations and Brauer character values of torsion units in group rings. 2007.
arXiv:math/0612429 [math.RA], 16 pages.
[Her08]
M. Hertweck. Zassenhaus conjecture for A6 . Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci., 118(2):189–195, 2008.
[JdR16]
E. Jespers and Á. del Río. Group ring groups. Volume 1: Orders and generic constructions of units. Berlin: De Gruyter,
2016.
[LP89]
I. S. Luthar and I. B. S. Passi. Zassenhaus conjecture for A5 . Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci., 99(1):1–5, 1989.
[Mar16]
L. Margolis. A Sylow theorem for the integral group ring of PSL(2, q). J. Algebra, 445:295–306, 2016.
[MdRS17] M. Margolis, Á. del Río, and M. Serrano. Zassenhaus conjecture on torsion units holds for psl(2,p) with p a fermat or
mersenne prime. 2017.
[MRSW87] Z. Marciniak, J. Ritter, S. K. Sehgal, and A. Weiss. Torsion units in integral group rings of some metabelian groups II.
J. Number Theory, 25(3):340–352, 1987.
[Pom81]
C. Pomerance. Recent developments in primality testing. Math. Intelligencer, 3(3):97–105, 1980/81.
[Sal13]
M. Salim. The prime graph conjecture for integral group rings of some alternating groups. Int. J. Group Theory,
2(1):175–185, 2013.
[Seh93]
S. K. Sehgal. Units in integral group rings, volume 69 of Pitman Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied
Mathematics. Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow, 1993.
[Sri64]
B. Srinivasan. On the modular characters of the special linear group SL(2, pn ). Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 14:101–114,
1964.
[Wag83]
S. Wagstaff. Divisors of Mersenne numbers. Math. Comp., 40(161):385–397, 1983.
[Wei91]
A. Weiss. Torsion units in integral group rings. J. Reine Angew. Math., 415:175–187, 1991.
[Zas74]
H. J. Zassenhaus. On the torsion units of finite group rings. In Studies in mathematics (in honor of A. Almeida Costa)
(Portuguese), pages 119–126. Instituto de Alta Cultura, Lisbon, 1974.
E-mail address: adelrio@um.es
E-mail address: mariano.serrano@um.es
Department of Mathematics, University of Murcia.

13

