The denominators of the Bernoulli numbers

Abstract: We study the asymptotic density of the set of subscripts of the Bernoulli numbers having a given denominator. We also study the distribution of distinct Bernoulli denominators and some related problems.

\section{Introduction}

Long before the proof of Andrew Wiles, it was thought that the
path to Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT) led through the Bernoulli numbers.
  Defined by the series
\[
\frac t{e^t-1}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_n\frac{t^n}{n!},
\]
the Bernoulli numbers $B_n$ are rationals, in lowest terms $N_n/D_n$,
and both the sequence of numerators $N_n$ and denominators $D_n$ have a
connection to FLT.  It is known since Ernst Kummer, that FLT holds for any
odd prime that does not divide the class number of the cyclotomic
field ${\mathbb Q}[e^{2\pi i/p}]$ (such primes are called ``regular"),
and that a condition for this to occur is that $p\nmid N_n$ for all even
$n\le p-3$.  The so-called first case of FLT for a prime exponent $p$
is when $p$ divides none of the powers.  Sophie Germain proved this
case when $2p+1$ is also a prime; we now call such primes $p$
Germain primes.  If $p$ is a Germain prime, then $2p+1\mid D_{2p}$,
giving the connection to Bernoulli denominators.

This paper considers the density of $n$ with a fixed value of $D_n$,
the distribution of distinct values of $D_n$, and some other related
problems.  Note that $B_0=1$, $B_1=-1/2$,
and $B_{2k+1}=0$ for all integers $k>0$.  So, we only consider the remaining
cases $D_{2k}$, $k>0$.  We have a
precise formula for $D_{2k}$ in these cases given by the theorem
of Karl von Staudt and Thomas Clausen: {\it $D_{2k}$ is
the product of the primes $p$ for which $p-1\mid 2k$.}

 From the von Staudt--Clausen theorem we immediately see that $D_{2k}$ is
 squarefree and a multiple of 6.  We set some notation.
For a positive integer $m$ let $T_m = \{p\ {\mathrm{prime}} : p-1 \mid m\}$.
Thus, $T_m = \{2\}$ when $m$ is odd.  For even $m$, we have, for example,
$T_2 = \{2,3\}$,
$T_4 = \{2,3,5\}$, $T_6 = \{2,3,7\}$, $T_8 = T_4$, $T_{10} = \{2,3,11\}$, etc.
As we have seen, $D_{2k}$ is the product of the primes in $T_{2k}$.

For $n>0$ even, let
\[
\mathcal S_{n} = \{m > 0\hbox{ even} : T_{m} = T_{n}\}=\{m>0\hbox{ even}:D_{m}=D_{n}\}.
\]
Then $\mathcal S_2 = \{2,14,26,34,38,\ldots\}$, $\mathcal S_4 = \{4,8,68\ldots\}$, etc.
So $\mathcal S_{n}$ is the set of all even $m$ for which $B_{m}$ has the same
denominator as $B_{n}$, namely, the product of the primes in $T_{n}$.
In 1980, Erd\H os and the second author proved \cite{EW}
that $\mathcal S_{n}$ has a positive asymptotic density for every even $n$.
Sunseri \cite{Sun} proved that the density
of $\mathcal S_2$ is at least as large as the density of $\mathcal S_n$
for every even $n > 0$.
We will give a simple proof below of a slightly stronger version of Sunseri's result.

Let
\[
\mathcal D:=\{D_n:n>0~\hbox{even}\}=\{6,30,42,66,\dots\}.
\]
Further, for $d\in\mathcal D$, let $F_d=\min\{n:D_n=d\}$.  For example,
$F_6=2$, $F_{30}=4$, $F_{42}=6$, and $F_{66}=10$.  Let
\[
\mathcal F:=\{F_d:d\in\mathcal D\}=\{2,4,6,10,\dots\}.
\]
Let $\lambda$ denote the Carmichael $\lambda$-function.  In particular,
for $n$ squarefree, $\lambda(n)=\hbox{lcm}\{p-1:p\mid n\}$, where $p$ denotes
a prime variable.  We characterize $\mathcal F$ as the set of values of $\lambda(n)$
for $n>2$ squarefree, and use this characterization plus some results on the
distribution of the image of $\lambda$ to get good approximations to the
counting functions of $\mathcal D$ and $\mathcal F$.

In this paper $p$ always denotes a prime.
For $p>2$, we have $D_{p-1}=dp$ for some even integer $d$.
We show that but for a set of primes of relative density 0 in the set of primes,
this number $d$ itself is in $\mathcal D$.  Further, we show that for each fixed $d\in\mathcal D$,
the relative density of the primes $p$ with $D_{p-1}=dp$ is positive,
and the sum of these densities is 1.

\section{Characterization of $\mathcal F$}

Here we give a connection between the set $\mathcal F$ and the image of the
Carmichael $\lambda$-function.

\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:lambda}
For each $d\in\mathcal D$ we have $F_d=\lambda(d)$.  Further,
\[
\mathcal F=\{\lambda(n):n>2\hbox{ squarefree}\}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $d\in\mathcal D$ and suppose $n$ has $D_n=d$.  If $p$ is a prime factor of $d$,
then we have $p-1\mid n$, by von Staudt--Clausen.
Thus, $\lambda(d)\mid n$.  Clearly if $a\mid b$,
with $a,b$ even, then $D_a\mid D_b$.  Thus, $D_{\lambda(d)}\mid D_n=d$.
Also, $p\mid d$ implies that $p-1\mid\lambda(d)$, which implies that
$p\mid D_{\lambda(d)}$.  Since $d$ is squarefree, we thus have
$d\mid D_{\lambda(d)}$.  Hence, $d=D_{\lambda(d)}$
and $\lambda(d)=F_d$.  This proves the first assertion and half of the second
assertion.  Say $m>2$ is squarefree and $n=\lambda(m)$.  Let $d=D_n$.
By the von Staudt--Clausen theorem, $m\mid d$, so that
$n=\lambda(m)\mid\lambda(d)$.  As we saw above, whenever we have
$d=D_n$, we have $\lambda(d)\mid n$.  Thus, $n=\lambda(d)=\lambda(m)$
and the proposition follows.
\end{proof}

\section{$\mathcal S_2$ has the greatest density}

We introduce more notation.  Let $\mathcal A$ denote a set of positive integers and write
$\mathcal B(\mathcal A)$ for the set of all positive integer
multiples of the elements of $\mathcal A$.
Let $A(x)$ denote the counting function of the set $\mathcal A$.
Write ${\rm d}(\mathcal A)=\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty} A(x)/x$ for
the asymptotic density of $\mathcal A$, if it exists.   For a real number $t$,
write $\mathcal A^{(t)}$ for $\{a\in\mathcal A:a>t\}$.

We record the following result from \cite[Lemmas 1, 2]{PS}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:PS}
Suppose that $\mathcal A$ is a set of positive integers not containing $1$ with
the property that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:larget}
\lim_{t\to\infty}\limsup_{x\to\infty}\mathcal B(\mathcal A^{(t)})(x)/x=0.
\end{equation}
Then ${\rm d}(\mathcal B(\mathcal A))$ exists and is $<1$.
\end{proposition}
Note that the condition \eqref{eq:larget} essentially
asserts that most numbers are not divisible by a large member of $\mathcal A$.

 If $n$ is even, let
 \[
 \mathcal U_n=\{mn:D_{mn}=D_n\}.
 \]
 Note that if $n\in\mathcal F$, then $\mathcal U_n=\mathcal S_n$.

For $r$ prime, let
  \[
 \mathcal U_{n,r}=\{mn\in\mathcal U_n:r\,\nmid\,m\}.
 \]
 \begin{lemma}
 \label{lem:dens1}
 With the above notation, the sets $\mathcal U_n$ and $\mathcal U_{n,r}$ have positive
 asymptotic densities.
 \end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
When $n\in\mathcal F$, the result that $\mathcal U_n$ has positive asymptotic density
follows from  \cite[Theorem 3]{EW}.
 \end{remark}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[
\mathcal A_n=\{(p-1)/\gcd(p-1,n):p-1\nmid n\}.
\]
It follows from \cite[Theorem 2]{EW} that condition \eqref{eq:larget}
holds for $\mathcal A=\mathcal A_n$.   Indeed, $\mathcal A_n$ is the disjoint union over
the divisors $d$ of $n$ of the sets
$\mathcal A_{n,d}:=\{(p-1)/d:d=\gcd(p-1,n),\,p-1\nmid n\}$, and since \eqref{eq:larget}
holds for each separate $\mathcal A_{n,d}$ by \cite[Theorem 2]{EW}, and
since $n$ is fixed, it holds too for $\mathcal A_n$.
Thus, from Proposition \ref{prop:PS} we have that $\mathcal B(\mathcal A_n)$ has an
asymptotic density $<1$.  Let $\mathcal C_n={\mathbb N}\setminus\mathcal B(\mathcal A_n)$.
Then $\mathcal C_n$ has a positive asymptotic density.  Our first assertion now
follows upon noting that $\mathcal U_n=n\mathcal C_n=\{nm:m\in\mathcal C_n\}$.  Indeed, if
$p-1\mid n$ then $p-1\mid nm$ for all $m$, and if $p-1\mid nm$ for some
$p$ with $p-1\,\nmid\, n$, then $(p-1)/\gcd(p-1,n)\mid m$, so that $m\notin\mathcal C_n$.

The second assertion follows from the same argument applied to
$\mathcal A=\mathcal A_n\cup\{r\}$.
\end{proof}

 \begin{lemma}
 \label{lem:trythis}
 If $r$ is prime and $n$ is even,  then
 \[
 {\rm d}(\mathcal U_{nr,r})\le\frac1r{\rm d}(\mathcal U_{n,r})
~ \hbox{ and }~{\rm d}(\mathcal U_n)\le\frac r{r-1}{\rm d}(\mathcal U_{n,r}).
 \]
 Equality in the second assertion occurs only if each $D_{nr^i}=D_n$
 for all $i\ge0$.
 \end{lemma}
 \begin{remark}
 It is not clear if there are any pairs $n,r$ with $D_{nr^i}=D_n$ for all $i\ge0$.
 However, if there are only finitely many Fermat primes, with $p=2^{2^k}+1$
 being the largest one, then $D_{(p-1)2^i}=D_{p-1}$ for all $i\ge0$.
 \end{remark}
 \begin{proof}
 Consider the map $m\mapsto m/r$ on $\mathcal U_{nr,r}$.  Let $m\in\mathcal U_{nr,r}$.
  We'd like to show that $m/r\in\mathcal U_{n,r}$.  Suppose $r^J\,\|\,n$.
 Clearly $r^J\,\|\,m/r$ and $n\mid m/r$,
  so it remains to show that $D_{m/r}=D_{n}$.
 If $p-1\mid n$ then $p-1\mid m/r$, since $n\mid m/r$.  Further, if
 $p-1\mid m/r$, then $p-1\mid m$, so that $p-1\mid nr$, since $D_{m}=D_{nr}$.
 But $r^{J+1}\nmid m/r$,
 so that $r^{J+1}\nmid p-1$.  That is, $p-1=ur^i$, where $u\mid n/r^J$ and $i\le J$.
 Hence $p-1\mid n$ and $m/r\in\mathcal U_{n,r}$.  The
 first assertion of the lemma follows.

 For the second, note that $\mathcal U_n$ is contained in the disjoint union
 of those sets $\mathcal U_{nr^i,r}$ for $i=0,1,\dots$ with $D_{nr^i}=D_n$.
 By the first part of
 the lemma applied $i$ times, ${\rm d}(\mathcal U_{nr^i,r})\le r^{-i}{\rm d}(\mathcal U_n)$.
 It remains to note that $\sum_{i\ge0}r^{-i}=r/(r-1)$.  Note that in the possible
 case that each $D_{nr^i}=D_n$ we are expressing $\mathcal U_n$ as an infinite
 disjoint union of sets with positive asymptotic density.  Asymptotic density
 is not necessarily countably additive, but in this case there is no issue since
$\cup_{i\ge k}\,\mathcal U_{nr^i,r}$ is contained in the multiples of $r^k$ and so
has upper density which tends to 0 as $k\to\infty$.
 \end{proof}

 \begin{theorem}
\label{thm:ab}
If $a,b\in\mathcal F$  with $a\mid b$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:phi}
{\rm d}(\mathcal S_b)\le\frac1{\varphi(b/a)}{\rm d}(\mathcal S_a).
\end{equation}
In addition, ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_4)\le\frac34{\rm d}(\mathcal S_2)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Since every member of $\mathcal F$ is even, Theorem \ref{thm:ab} in the case $a=2$
shows that ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_2)$ is at least one-third larger than every
other ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_n)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
Let $r$ be a prime factor of $b/a$ and let $K=v_r(b/a)$.
By the second part of Lemma \ref{lem:trythis},
\[
{\rm d}(\mathcal S_b)={\rm d}(\mathcal U_b)\le\frac r{r-1}{\rm d}(\mathcal U_{b,r}).
\]
  Repeatedly
applying the first part of Lemma \ref{lem:trythis},
\[
{\rm d}(\mathcal U_{b,r})\le\frac1r{\rm d}(\mathcal U_{b/r,r})\le\dots
\le \frac1{r^{K}}{\rm d}(\mathcal U_{b/r^{K},r}),
\]
so that
\[
{\rm d}(\mathcal U_b)\le\frac1{\varphi(r^{K})}{\rm d}(\mathcal U_{b/r^{K},r}).
\]
Thus, \eqref{eq:phi} follows by induction on the number of distinct prime divisors of $b/a$.

Now suppose that $a=2,b=4$, and follow the above proof.  Note that
$D_{16}$ is divisible by 17, but $D_4$ is not.  Thus, $\mathcal S_4=\mathcal U_{4,2}\cup\,\mathcal U_{8,2}$, and
\[
{\rm d}(\mathcal S_4)={\rm d}(\mathcal U_{4,2}\cup\,\mathcal U_{8,2})\le\frac32{\rm d}(\mathcal U_{4,2}).
\]
Also
\[
{\rm d}(\mathcal U_{4,2})\le\frac12{\rm d}(\mathcal U_{2,2})=\frac12{\rm d}(\mathcal U_2)=\frac12{\rm d}(\mathcal S_2).
\]
Hence ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_4)\le\frac34{\rm d}(\mathcal S_2)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
The proof shows that ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_6)\le\frac12{\rm d}(\mathcal S_2)$ and
${\rm d}(\mathcal S_{10})\le\frac14{\rm d}(\mathcal S_2)$, for example,
but provides no way to compare ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_4)$ with
${\rm d}(\mathcal S_6)$ or ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_6)$ with ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_{10})$.
\end{remark}

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:denom6}
Measured by the asymptotic density of their sets of subscripts,
more Bernoulli numbers have denominator $6$ than any other integer.
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark}
\label{rmk:densum}
Every even number $n$ is in some $\mathcal S_f$ for $f\in\mathcal F$, namely for
$f=\lambda(D_n)$.  Moreover, the sets $\mathcal S_f$ for $f\in\mathcal F$ are
pairwise disjoint.  It follows that $\sum_{f\in\mathcal F}{\rm d}(\mathcal S_f)\le\frac12$.
In fact, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sum}
\sum_{f\in\mathcal F}{\rm d}(\mathcal S_f)=\frac12,
\end{equation}
 as asserted in \cite[Corollary, p.\ 111]{EW}.
The proof follows immediately from \cite[Theorem 2]{EW}, which asserts\footnote
{This result has been sharpened in the recent papers \cite{F2}, \cite{MPP}.}
that for each $\epsilon>0$ there is some number $B$ such that the upper density
of those integers divisible by some $p-1>B$ is $<\epsilon$.  (That is, \eqref{eq:larget}
holds.)  So, to prove
\eqref{eq:sum}, note that there are only finitely
many $d\in\mathcal D$ not divisible by any prime $p>B+1$, since members of $\mathcal D$
are squarefree, so there are only finitely many $f\in\mathcal F$ not divisible by any
$p-1>B$.  The numbers $n$ in all other sets $\mathcal S_f$ are divisible by some
$p-1>B$ so they comprise a set of upper density $<\epsilon$.  Thus, the
sum in \eqref{eq:sum} is $>\frac12-\epsilon$.
\end{remark}

\section{Statistics for the $\mathcal S_{n}$}

If one defines $\mathcal S_1$ as $\{n:T_n=T_1=\{2\}\}$, then we merely have
the set of odd numbers, having
density $\frac12$.
What about the densities of the various $\mathcal S_n$ with $n$ even?  We have
proved that $\mathcal S_2$ has density at least $\frac13$ more than the next largest
density.
Numerical calculation suggests that $\mathcal S_2$ has density about $0.07$,
followed by $\mathcal S_4$ (0.03) and $\mathcal S_6$ (0.01) in that order.
We know from the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:ab} that ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_4)$ is
the largest of the ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_n)$ for $4\mid n$ and that ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_6)$
is the largest of the ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_n)$ for $6\mid n$.  As mentioned, the proof does not
allow us to compare ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_4)$ and ${\rm d}(\mathcal S_6)$.
It follows from the methods in \cite{EW}, \cite{Sun} that the densities
are effectively computable in principle, and so in principle it is possible
to resolve this issue, though such calculations appear currently to be infeasible.

Tables \ref{Ta:count579} and \ref{Ta:count579a} give the number of elements
in $\mathcal S_{n}$ for $n=2k\le112$ up to $10^m$ for $m=5$, 7 and 9.
In these tables, $2k$ and $2k'$ are the smallest two elements of $\mathcal S_{2k}$,
so that $2k\in\mathcal F$.
The partial densities may be computed easily from the counts.
Note that, in the range from $10^5$ to $10^9$, the partial
densities tend to decrease when $T_{2k}$ contains few primes
and increase when $T_{2k}$ contains many primes.

The tables suggest that
\[
{\rm d}(\mathcal S_2)> {\rm d}(\mathcal S_4)> {\rm d}(\mathcal S_6)>
{\rm d}(\mathcal S_{10})> {\rm d}(\mathcal S_{16})
\]
are the five largest densities of the $\mathcal S_{2k}$.
In other words, the five most popular denominators of Bernoulli
numbers seem to be 6, 30, 42, 66, 510, in that order.

\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Number of elements of $\mathcal S_{2k}$ below various limits.}
\label{Ta:count579}
\begin{tabular}{rrcrrr}
First & Second & $T_{2k}$ & Count & Count & Count \\
$2k$ & $2k'$ & & $\le10^5$ & $\le10^7$ & $\le10^9$ \\
2 & 14 & $\{2,3\}$ & 7992 & 758582 & 73129588 \\
4 & 8 & $\{2,3,5\}$ & 3423 & 320500 & 30579077 \\
6 & 114 & $\{2,3,7\}$ & 1371 & 125712 & 11923816 \\
10 & 50 & $\{2,3,11\}$ & 1080 & 99675 & 9457553 \\
12 & 24 & $\{2,3,5,7,13\}$ & 495 & 49498 & 4751091 \\
16 & 32 & $\{2,3,5,17\}$ & 713 & 67742 & 6379485 \\
18 & 54 & $\{2,3,7,19\}$ & 397 & 38502 & 3671790 \\
20 & 340 & $\{2,3,5,11\}$ & 289 & 27745 & 2609924 \\
22 & 154 & $\{2,3,23\}$ & 566 & 52508 & 4959735 \\
28 & 56 & $\{2,3,5,29\}$ & 309 & 29692 & 2793858 \\
30 & 1770 & $\{2,3,7,11,31\}$ & 138 & 13615 & 1309849 \\
36 & 3924 & $\{2,3,5,7,13,19,37\}$ & 72 & 7846 & 799642 \\
40 & 6680 & $\{2,3,5,11,41\}$ & 92 & 10044 & 950144 \\
42 & 294 & $\{2,3,7,43\}$ & 124 & 12645 & 1199553 \\
44 & 484 & $\{2,3,5,23\}$ & 160 & 15325 & 1433972 \\
46 & 322 & $\{2,3,47\}$ & 261 & 24295 & 2290634 \\
48 & 10128 & $\{2,3,5,7,13,17\}$ & 26 & 4572 & 497209 \\
52 & 104 & $\{2,3,5,53\}$ & 164 & 16638 & 1558130 \\
58 & 406 & $\{2,3,59\}$ & 235 & 20607 & 1935087 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Number of elements of $\mathcal S_{2k}$ below various limits.}
\label{Ta:count579a}
\begin{tabular}{rrcrrr}
First & Second & $T_{2k}$ & Count & Count & Count \\
$2k$ & $2k'$ & & $\le10^5$ & $\le10^7$ & $\le10^9$ \\
60 & 13620 & $\{2,3,5,7,11,13,31,61\}$ & 21 & 2917 & 340111 \\
66 & 3894 & $\{2,3,7,23,67\}$ & 77 & 7202 & 680301 \\
70 & 350 & $\{2,3,11,71\}$ & 83 & 8815 & 818849 \\
72 & 12024 & $\{2,3,5,7,13,19,37,73\}$ & 12 & 2137 & 259257 \\
78 & 1014 & $\{2,3,7,79\}$ & 71 & 6771 & 636574 \\
80 & 160 & $\{2,3,5,11,17,41\}$ & 39 & 5960 & 610485 \\
82 & 574 & $\{2,3,83\}$ & 150 & 13715 & 1293383 \\
84 & 168 & $\{2,3,5,7,13,29,43\}$ & 16 & 2924 & 339634 \\
88 & 968 & $\{2,3,5,23,89\}$ & 53 & 5593 & 528007 \\
90 & 14670 & $\{2,3,7,11,19,31\}$ & 17 & 2629 & 284131 \\
92 & 184 & $\{2,3,5,47\}$ & 116 & 10822 & 1017455 \\
96 & 20256 & $\{2,3,5,7,13,17,97\}$ & 7 & 1645 & 196489 \\
100 & 1700 & $\{2,3,5,11,101\}$ & 34 & 4115 & 393270 \\
102 & 1734 & $\{2,3,7,103\}$ & 50 & 5041 & 473949 \\
106 & 1378 & $\{2,3,107\}$ & 120 & 10794 & 1007709 \\
108 & 11772 & $\{2,3,5,7,13,19,37,109\}$ & 14 & 1593 & 190046 \\
110 & 550 & $\{2,3,11,23\}$ & 72 & 6481 & 609261 \\
112 & 224 & $\{2,3,5,17,29,113\}$ & 41 & 4135 & 422188 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

To form $\mathcal S_2$, begin with the set $\mathcal T$ of even positive integers.
This is the set of positive integers divisible by both $2-1$ and $3-1$.
Now delete from $\mathcal T$ all multiples of $q-1$ for all primes $q>4$.
Some primes $q>4$ may be skipped because the multiples of $q-1$
were deleted when multiples of $r-1$ were removed for some prime $r<q$.
For example, multiples of $13-1$ were deleted when multiples of $7-1$
were removed.  However, we must always delete the multiples of $q-1$
whenever $p=(q-1)/2$ is prime.
Recall that the prime $p$ is called a Germain prime if $2p+1$ is also prime.
Thus, it is necessary to remove all multiples of the Germain primes from
$\mathcal T$ to form $\mathcal S_2$.
But it is not sufficient to delete multiples of Germain
primes because, for example, $q=239$ is prime
but $p=(q-1)/2=119$ is not prime and not divisible by a Germain prime.

Table \ref{Ta:countmod} lists the number of elements of $\mathcal S_{2k}$
below $10^6$ in each residue class modulo 8 and the first few odd primes.
(The residue classes $>7$ modulo 11 and 13 are omitted to make the table
fit on a page. The missing values are similar to the last ones shown
in that row of the table.)
The value ``total'' is the number of elements of $\mathcal S_{2k}$ less than $10^6$.

\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Number of elements $\le10^6$ of $\mathcal S_{2k}$ in residue classes.}
\label{Ta:countmod}
\begin{tabular}{|rrrrrrrrr|} \hline
Modulus & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{8}{c|}{ $2k = 2$, total = 77696}  \\
8 & 0 & 0 & 38849 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 38847 & 0 \\
3 & 0 & 31612 & 46084 & & & & & \\
5 & 0 & 18636 & 18565 & 19097 & 21398 & & & \\
7 & 9179 & 11168 & 11175 & 11080 & 11309 & 11125 & 12660 & \\
11 & 0 & 7661 & 7671 & 7682 & 7730 & 7726 & 7649 & 7627 \\
13 & 5116 & 5959 & 5980 & 5975 & 5970 & 5972 & 6079 & 6035 \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{8}{c|}{ $2k = 4$, total = 33001 } \\
8 & 9490 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 23511 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
3 & 0 & 15877 & 17124 & & & & & \\
5 & 0 & 7868 & 7244 & 9186 & 8703 & & & \\
7 & 0 & 5186 & 5176 & 5328 & 5274 & 6089 & 5948 & \\
11 & 0 & 3160 & 3198 & 3206 & 3179 & 3191 & 3200 & 3338 \\
13 & 0 & 2693 & 2633 & 2679 & 2637 & 2695 & 2682 & 2669 \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{8}{c|}{ $2k = 6$, total = 12996 } \\
8 & 0 & 0 & 6508 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 6488 & 0 \\
3 & 12996 & 0 & 0 & & & & & \\
5 & 0 & 2859 & 3346 & 2867 & 3924 & & & \\
7 & 0 & 2012 & 1990 & 1940 & 2351 & 2004 & 2699 & \\
11 & 0 & 1264 & 1243 & 1252 & 1257 & 1239 & 1227 & 1224 \\
13 & 0 & 1042 & 1044 & 1023 & 1025 & 1018 & 1028 & 1068 \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{8}{c|}{ $2k = 10$, total = 10339 } \\
8 & 0 & 0 & 5175 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 5164 & 0 \\
3 & 0 & 4954 & 5385 & & & & & \\
5 & 10339 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & & \\
7 & 0 & 1545 & 1948 & 1632 & 1643 & 1571 & 2000 & \\
11 & 0 & 987 & 973 & 1009 & 989 & 991 & 1203 & 999 \\
13 & 0 & 846 & 856 & 850 & 836 & 816 & 841 & 830 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{footnotesize}

The elements of $\mathcal S_2$ are all $\equiv2\pmod{4}$ and
seem to be equally distributed between $2\pmod{8}$ and $6\pmod{8}$.
For each Germain prime $p$, the residue class $0\pmod{p}$ is empty
because these classes were removed from $\mathcal T$ when $\mathcal S_2$ was formed.
The elements of $\mathcal S_2$ appear to be equally distributed among
other residue classes modulo Germain primes.

The elements of $\mathcal S_4$ are all divisible by 4 because $5\in T_4$.
At first it was puzzling why  there are so many more of them that are
$4\pmod{8}$ than $0\pmod{8}$.  However, those members of $\mathcal S_4$
that are $4\pmod8$ comprise $\mathcal U_{4,2}$ and those that are $0\pmod8$
comprise $\mathcal U_{8,2}$, using the notation introduced in the previous section.
In the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ab} we saw that ${\rm d}(\mathcal U_{8,2})\le\frac12
{\rm d}(\mathcal U_{4,2})$, since dividing a member of $\mathcal U_{8,2}$ by 2 gives a
member of $\mathcal U_{4,2}$.  This explains part of the favoring of $4\pmod8$ over
$0\pmod8$, but not all.  In fact, multiplying a member of $\mathcal U_{4,2}$ by
2 does not always give a member of $\mathcal U_{8,2}$.
Another force at work here is that if $m>3$ is odd, then $4m\in\mathcal S_4$ if and only if
for each $d\mid m$ with $d>3$, both $2d+1$
and $4d+1$ are composite.  But for $8m\in\mathcal S_4$, there is the additional
requirement that $8d+1$ is composite.

As we mentioned earlier, every element of $\mathcal S_{2k}$ is divisible by
its least element $2k$.
There are no multiples of 7 in $\mathcal S_4$, $\mathcal S_6$ or $\mathcal S_{10}$
because 29, 43 and 71, respectively, are prime.
Similarly, there are no multiples of 13 in $\mathcal S_4$, $\mathcal S_6$ or $\mathcal S_{10}$
because 53, 79 and 131 are prime.

\section{The distribution of distinct Bernoulli denominators}

Let $D(x), F(x)$
be the counting functions of $\mathcal D$ and $\mathcal F$, respectively,
and let
\[
\beta=1-(1+\log\log2)/\log2=0.08607\dots,
\]
 the Erd\H os--Tenenbaum--Ford constant.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:Ddist}
We have, as $x\to\infty$,
\[
D(x)=x/(\log x)^{1+o(1)},\quad F(x)=x/(\log x)^{\beta+o(1)}.
\]
In particular, ${\rm d}(\mathcal D)={\rm d}(\mathcal F)=0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that Proposition \ref{prop:lambda} implies that the function sending $d\in\mathcal D$ to
$\lambda(d)\in\mathcal F$ is a bijection.  Thus,
\[
D(x)=\#\{\lambda(d):d\in\mathcal D,\,d\le x\}
\le\#\{\lambda(n):n\le x\}.
\]
Further, the second part of Proposition \ref{prop:lambda} implies that
\begin{align*}
F(x)&=\#\{\lambda(n):n>2\hbox{ squarefree},~\lambda(n)\le x\}\\
&\le\#\{\lambda(n):n\hbox{ such that }\lambda(n)\le x\}.
\end{align*}
 In \cite[Theorem 1.3]{LP} it is shown that
 \[
 \#\{\lambda(n):n\le x\}=x/(\log x)^{1+o(1)}\hbox{ as }x\to\infty,
 \]
 and \cite[Theorem 1.1]{LP} implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:flp}
\#\{\lambda(n):\lambda(n)\le x\}\le x/(\log x)^{\beta+o(1)}\hbox{ as }x\to\infty.
\end{equation}
So the upper bounds implicit in the theorem follow.
In \cite{FLP} it is shown that equality holds in \eqref{eq:flp}.   In fact, the
method of proof gives the same bound for $\#\{\lambda(n)\le x:n\hbox{ squarefree}\}$,
so by this result, the proof for $\mathcal F$ is complete.
We show in Theorem \ref{thm:dens} below that $\mathcal D$ contains the numbers $6p$
for a positive proportion of the primes $p$, so the lower bound for $\mathcal D$
will follow from the prime number theorem.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Looking at small values of $\mathcal F$ it seems that many are of the form $p-1$
with $p$ prime.  Every $p-1$ is in $\mathcal F$ for $p>2$ prime, as is easily seen,
but Theorem \ref{thm:Ddist} shows that most members of $\mathcal F$ are not
in this form.
\end{remark}

Table \ref{Ta:countF} shows the growth rate of $\mathcal F$,
the set of first elements $2k$ of the $\mathcal S_{2k}$.
These numbers were found by computing the fractional parts
of all $B_{2k}$ for $2k\le10^m$ via a sieve, as in \cite{EW}, sorting them and
counting the unique values.  High enough precision was used
to distinguish close but not equal fractional parts.

There are a number of problems where the expression $x/(\log x)^\beta$ arises,
and in some of these a secondary factor of $(\log\log x)^c$ arises in the
denominator, sometimes with $c=3/2$ (see \cite{F}) and sometimes with $c=1/2$
(see \cite{BNPT} and \cite{F2}).  We have no compelling reason to suggest such a factor
here, but we've noticed that $F(x)$ has a ratio with
$f(x):=x/((\log x)^\beta(\log\log x)^{1/2})$ that stays fairly constant.
 In Table \ref{Ta:countF} we have also recorded
the ratios $R(x)=F(x)/f(x)$.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Number of elements $\le10^m$ of $\mathcal F$.}
\label{Ta:countF}
\begin{tabular}{|rrrrrr|} \hline
$m$   & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 \\
$F(10^m)$   & 24662 & 235072 & 2261011 & 21876975 &
212656697 \\
$R(10^m)$&.476&.478&.479&.480&.481\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Table \ref{Ta:countD} shows the growth rate of $\mathcal D$,
the set of Bernoulli denominators.  These counts were computed with
Mathematica using the criterion that even $d>2$ is in $\mathcal D$ if and only if
$d=D_{\lambda(d)}$.  The counts were then checked via the sieve procedure
that we used for Table \ref{Ta:countF}.  Note that Theorem \ref{thm:Ddist}
does {\it not} assert that $D(x)/\pi(x)$ tends to a limit or is bounded, but we do know
that these ratios have a positive liminf.

\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Number of elements $\le10^m$ of $\mathcal D$.}
\label{Ta:countD}
\begin{tabular}{|rrrrrr|} \hline
$m$ & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 \\
$D(10^m)$ & 513 & 3649 & 27936 & 226111 & 1893060 \\
$D(10^m)/\pi(10^m)$&.053&.046&.042&.039&.037\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{A partition of the set of primes}
Given an odd prime $p$, the least $n$ with $p\mid D_n$ is evidently $p-1$.
Let $d_p=D_{p-1}/p$.  For example,
\[
d_3=2,~d_5=6,~d_7=6,~d_{11}=6,~d_{13}=210,~d_{17}=30,~d_{19}=42.
\]
For $d$ even, let
\[
\mathcal P_d=\{p\hbox{ prime}:d_p=d\},
\]
so that the sets $\mathcal P_d$ give a partition of the odd primes.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:partition}
For each odd prime $p$ we have $\lambda(d_p)\mid p-1$.  Further,
$\lambda(d_p)<p-1$ if and only if $d_p\in\mathcal D$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $d_p$ is the product of those primes $q<p$ where $q-1\mid p-1$.
Thus, $\lambda(d_p)$ is a least common multiple of some of the divisors of
$p-1$, so we must have $\lambda(d_p)\mid p-1$ and
$D_{\lambda(d_p)}\mid D_{p-1}$.   Also,
 $d_p\mid D_{\lambda(d_p)}$ since this holds for all squarefree numbers
 larger than 2.  If $\lambda(d_p)=p-1$, then $p\mid D_{\lambda(d_p)}$.
 But $p\nmid d_p$, so $d_p\ne D_{\lambda(d_p)}$ and $d_p\notin\mathcal D$.
 If $\lambda(d_p)<p-1$, then $D_{\lambda(d_p)}\mid d_p$ since
 $q\mid D_{\lambda(d_p)}$ implies $q-1\mid\lambda(d_p)$, which
 implies $q-1\mid p-1$ and $q<p$, so that $q\mid d_p$.  Hence
 $d_p=D_{\lambda(d_p)}$ and $d_p\in\mathcal D$.
 \end{proof}

 A consequence of Lemma \ref{lem:partition} is that if $d\notin\mathcal D$,
 then $\#\mathcal P_d\le 1$.  Indeed, if $p\in\mathcal P_d$ with $d\notin\mathcal D$,
 the lemma implies that $\lambda(d)=p-1$, so that $p$ is uniquely
 determined from $d$.  On the other hand, in the next theorem, we
 see that if $d\in\mathcal D$, $\mathcal P_d$ is a quite thick set of primes.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:dens}
For each $d\in\mathcal D$ there is a positive constant $c_d$ such that the
relative density of $\mathcal P_d$ in the set of prime numbers is $c_d$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} (Sketch.)
First note that if $p\in\mathcal P_d$ then $p\equiv1\pmod{\lambda(d)}$.
 From \cite[Theorem 3]{LPP} it follows that there is an absolute constant $c>0$
 such that for any $3\le z\le x$, the number of primes $p\le x$ such that $p-1$
 has a divisor of  the form $q-1$ with $q$ prime and $z<q<p$ is $O(\pi(x)/(\log z)^c)$.
 This result is completely analogous to \cite[Theorem 2]{EW}.
 We apply this to primes $p\equiv1\pmod{\lambda(d)}$, which comprise a positive
 proportion of all primes by the prime number theorem for residue classes.
 So, it follows from the method in \cite[Theorem 3]{EW} that the set
 \[
 \{p\,\equiv\,1\kern-5pt\pmod{\lambda(d)}:q-1\mid p-1\hbox{ implies }q-1\mid\lambda(d)\hbox{ or }q=p\},
 \]
 where $p,q$ are understood as primes, has a positive relative density $c_d$ in
 the set of all primes.
 Since
 $\prod_{q-1\mid\lambda(d)}q=d$ by Proposition \ref{prop:lambda},
 for such primes $p$ we have $D_{p-1}=dp$, completing the proof.
 \end{proof}

 We conjecture that $c_6$ is the largest of the densities $c_d$.
 Table \ref{Ta:countdp} has  some counts for $d=6,30,42,66$
 plus fractions of all primes to the same bounds.
 \begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Number of primes $p\le10^k$ with $D_{p-1}=dp$ and fraction of all primes
to $10^k$}
\label{Ta:countdp}
\begin{tabular}{|rrrrrr|} \hline
$d$ & $k=5$ & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 \\ \hline
6 &1135 & 8772 & 71421& 601804& 5189442\\
&.1183 & .1117 & .1075 & .1045 & .1021 \\
30 & 600& 4312 & 34065& 278709 & 2358192 \\
& .0626 & .0549 & .0513 & .0484 & .0464\\
42 & 480 & 3543 & 27722& 226087 & 1896172\\
& .0500 & .0451 & .0417 & .0392 & .0373 \\
66 & 275& 1933& 14859 & 120565& 1010251 \\
& .0287 & .0246 & .0224 & .0209 & .01999\\
 \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

  We noticed in tabulating $\mathcal D$ that there are quite a few more
values of $d\in\mathcal D$ with $d/6\equiv2\pmod 3$ than with $d/6\equiv1\pmod 3$.
This phenomenon may be due to the robust size of $\mathcal P_6$ as seen in
Table \ref{Ta:countdp}: every member of $\mathcal P_6$ when divided by 6 is
$\equiv2\pmod3$.  To be sure, the other cases in Table \ref{Ta:countdp}
count against this trend, but when counting members of $\mathcal D$ up to
$x$, the $\mathcal P_6$ members involve primes to $x/6$, while the other
cases involve primes to $x/30$ and smaller.  There may well be other
forces at play here, but this observation may partially demystify the
phenomenon.   We don't know if this imbalance continues
asymptotically since we don't know if $D(x)$ is of order of magnitude
$\pi(x)$.  (Note that the ``$o(1)$" in Theorem \ref{thm:Ddist} may have
some significance.)

 We have seen in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dens} that for many primes
 $p$ we have $D_{p-1}=dp$ with $d\in\mathcal D$.  However, this is not true for
 all odd primes.  For example, note that $D_{12}=210\cdot13$ and $210\notin\mathcal D$.
 We show that this is uncommon.
 \begin{theorem}
 \label{thm:notinD}
 There is a positive constant $c$ such that the number of primes $p\le x$
 with $D_{p-1}/p\notin\mathcal D$ is $O(\pi(x)/(\log x)^c)$.
 \end{theorem}
 \begin{proof}
 Let $p\le x$ be a prime and let $q$ be the largest prime factor of $p-1$.
 Let $B=x^{1/\log\log x}$.  If $q\le B$, that is $p-1$ is a $B$-smooth number,
 we can bound the number of such $p$ by the number of $B$-smooth
 numbers at most $ x$.  By a standard result of de Bruijn, this count is $O_k(x/(\log x)^k)$
for any fixed $k$.  In particular it holds for $k=2$, so we may ignore such primes
and assume that $q>B$.  Next, we again apply \cite[Theorem 3]{LPP} mentioned
in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dens}.  We apply this with $z=B$, so the number
of primes $p\le x$ divisible by some shifted prime $r-1$ with $B < r < p$
is negligible.  Thus, we may assume that $p-1$ has no such divisor.  Let $n$ be
the largest $B$-smooth divisor of $p-1$, so that $n\le (p-1)/q<p-1$.  Then
$D_{p-1}=D_np$, so that $D_{p-1}/p\in\mathcal D$.  This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Similarly, as in Remark \ref{rmk:densum}, we have
\[
\sum_{d\in\mathcal D}c_d=1.
\]
This follows from Theorem \ref{thm:notinD} and from the fact that for large $B$,
the primes $p$ divisible by some shifted prime $q-1>B$ with $q<p$ are sparse, which follows
from \cite[Theorem 3]{LPP}.
\end{remark}

One might wonder how strong Theorem \ref{thm:notinD} is, or even if there
are infinitely many primes as described in the theorem.  We can prove this
conditionally on the prime $k$-tuples conjecture.  Further,  from the Hardy--Littlewood
quantitative form of $k$-tuples, we can show there are quite a few of these primes.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:hl}
Assuming the prime $k$-tuples conjecture, there are infinitely many primes
$p$ with $D_{p-1}/p\notin\mathcal D$.  Assuming the quantitative form of this
conjecture due to Hardy and Littlewood, the number of such primes $p\le x$
is $\gg \pi(x)/\log x$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $q$ be a prime with $q\equiv3\pmod4$, $q>3$, and $p=2q-1$ prime.  Let $d$
be such that $D_{p-1}=dp$.  Suppose that $d=D_n$ for some $n$.  Since
$4\mid p-1$ and $p>5$, we have $5\mid d$, so that $4\mid n$.
Also $q\mid d$, so $q-1\mid n$.
Hence lcm$(4,q-1)=2(q-1)=p-1\mid n$.  This implies that $p\mid D_n=d$ contradicting
$D_{p-1}=dp$ squarefree.  Thus, $D_{p-1}/p\notin\mathcal D$.  The prime $k$-tuples conjecture implies there are infinitely
many such $p$, and the quantitative form implies that there are $\gg\pi(x)/\log x$
of them at most $x$.  This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

Table \ref{Ta:countnotinDc} illustrates Theorems \ref{thm:notinD} and
\ref{thm:hl} by showing the number of primes $p$
for which $D_{p-1}/p\notin\mathcal D$.

\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Number of $p\le10^m$ with $D_{p-1}/p\notin\mathcal D$.}
\label{Ta:countnotinDc}
\begin{tabular}{|rrrrrr|} \hline
$m$ & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 \\ \hline
Count & 4183 & 34647 & 293117 & 2525121 & 22119959 \\
Count$/\pi(10^m)$ & .436 & .441 & .441 & .438 & .435 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

A puzzle here:  These counts are holding steady at about 44\% of the primes,
yet Theorem \ref{thm:notinD} says the fraction should decay to 0, though maybe
the decay is slow.  This is similar to the decay of $F(10^m)/10^m$ seen in
Table \ref{Ta:countF}, though it definitely seems more glacial in Table
\ref{Ta:countnotinDc}.

\subsection{Further problems}

The first few Bernoulli denominators all have the form $p-1$ for some
primes $p$: 7, 31, 43, 67, 139, 283, 331.
One might wonder whether there are infinitely many $d\in\mathcal D$
with $d+1$ composite and infinitely many with $d+1$ prime.
Table \ref{Ta:countDprime} shows the fractions of prime and composite
$d+1$ with $d\in\mathcal D$ below various powers of 10.  It looks like
the composite cases predominate.  A possible proof:
It likely follows from the proof of
\cite[Theorem 3]{LP} that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lplikely}
\#\{\lambda(p-1):p\le x\}\le \pi(x)/(\log x)^{1+o(1)}
\end{equation}
as $x\to\infty$.  We have
\begin{align*}
\#\{p\le x:p-1\in\mathcal D\}&=\#\{p\le x:p-1=D_{\lambda(p-1)}\}\\
&\le\#\{\lambda(p-1):p\le x\},
\end{align*}
so that \eqref{eq:lplikely} would imply that $\#\{p\le x:p-1\in\mathcal D\}$
is bounded above by $\pi(x)/(\log x)^{1+o(1)}$.  Thus, from Theorem \ref{thm:Ddist},
it would be unusual for $d\in\mathcal D$ to have $d+1$ prime.

A lower bound of similar quality follows from the strong form of the
Hardy--Littlewood conjecture as in Theorem \ref{thm:hl}.   For this, take primes $r$
with $q=2r+1$ prime and $p=6q+1$ prime.  Then $\lambda(p-1)=q-1=2r$,
and $D_{2r}=6q=p-1$, so $p-1\in\mathcal D$.  By Hardy--Littlewood, the
number of such $p\le x$ is $\gg\pi(x)/(\log x)^2$.

\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Number and fraction of composite and prime $d+1\le10^m$ for $d\in\mathcal D$.}
\label{Ta:countDprime}
\begin{tabular}{|rrrrrrrr|} \hline
$m$ & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 \\
\hline
Composite & 4 & 56 & 361 & 2812 & 22759 & 189894 & 1628333 \\
Fraction & .286 & .667 & .704 & .771 & .815 & .840 & .860 \\
\hline
Prime & 10 & 28 & 152 & 837 & 5177 & 36217 & 264727 \\
Fraction & .714 & .333 & .296 & .229 & .185 & .160 & .140 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Let $\psi(n)\to\infty$ arbitrarily slowly.  Then the set
\[
\{n\hbox{ even}:D_n>\psi(n)\}
\]
has asymptotic density 0.  This follows from Remark \ref{rmk:densum}.
On the other hand, there are a fair number of $n$ with $D_n$
large:  we have
\[
\#\{n\hbox{ even}:n\le x,\,D_n>n\}\gg x/\log x.
\]
This follows from Theorem \ref{thm:dens} and the prime number theorem.
In addition, it follows from \cite[Theorem 1]{eps} that
there are positive constants $c,c'$ such that
$D_n> \exp(n^{c/\log\log n})$ for infinitely many even $n$
and $D_n<\exp(n^{c'/\log\log n})$ always.

In Tables \ref{Ta:count579} and \ref{Ta:count579a} we recorded the second smallest
member of $\mathcal S_{2k}$ for $2k\in\mathcal F$ with $2k\le112$.  It would be interesting to study
the distribution of these numbers.

\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgment}.
We thank Paul Pollack for reminding us of \cite{LPP}.  And we thank the
referee for a careful reading.


Parabolic subgroup orbits on finite root systems

Abstract: Oshima's Lemma describes the orbits of parabolic subgroups of irreducible finite Weyl groups on crystallographic root systems. This note generalises that result to all root systems of finite Coxeter groups, and provides a self contained proof, independent of the representation theory of semisimple complex Lie algebras.

\section*{Introduction}\label{s0}
This note concerns a lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:oshorig} below) of Oshima   on orbits of
standard parabolic subgroups of an irreducible finite Weyl group acting on its
crystallographic root system. That result is proved in \cite[Lemma 4.3]{Osh}
using results from \cite{OdaOsh} about  the representation theory of  semisimple
complex Lie algebras. It is applied  in  \cite{Osh}, and plays a crucial role in \cite{DyLFund}, in the
 study of conjugacy classes of reflection subgroups of finite Weyl groups.

The purpose of  this note is to give several  reformulations and generalisations  of the lemma
which apply to general root systems of finite Coxeter groups and to provide
an elementary self-contained proof of the generalised lemma. Though the
statements are uniform, the proof involves some casewise analysis.

This note is organised as follows. In Section \ref{s1}, we
 briefly state Oshima's lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:oshorig}) and our
 generalisation (Proposition \ref{prop:osh}).  Section 2 gives more details on the notions
 involved in the formulation of these results and their proofs. Section \ref{s3} reduces the proofs of both results  to showing that
Proposition  \ref{prop:osh}(a) holds   for at least one root system
of each irreducible finite Coxeter group
and proves \ref{prop:osh}(a) for  dihedral
groups.  Section \ref{s4} proves \ref{prop:osh}(a) for
crystallographic root systems of finite Weyl groups, using
elementary properties of root strings. By the classification of
irreducible finite Coxeter groups, the proof of \ref{prop:osh}(a) in general is
reduced to the cases of $W$ of type $H_{3}$  and $H_{4}$; these
are treated in Section \ref{s5} by using foldings of Coxeter
graphs to reduce to types $D_{6}$ and $E_{8}$, where the result
is known from Section \ref{s4}.

\section{Orbits of parabolic subgroups on finite root systems}
\label{s1}
\subsection{Oshima's lemma}  \label{oshorig} Let $\Phi\subseteq V$ be a root system
of a finite Coxeter  system $(W,S)$,  and  let $\Pi$ be a set of
simple roots corresponding to  $S$ (see Section \ref{s2} for details on terminology). For  $\alpha\in {\mathbb R}\Phi$
and $\beta\in \Pi$, define the \emph{root coefficient} $\alpha[\beta]\in {\mathbb R}$  by  $\alpha=\sum_{\beta\in \Pi}\alpha[\beta]\beta$;
define  the \emph{support} of $\alpha$ to be  $\supp(\alpha):=\mset{\beta\in \Pi\mid \alpha[\beta]\neq 0}$.

The following result is proved in \cite[Lemma 4.3]{Osh} using facts from \cite{OdaOsh} about  the representation theory of  semisimple complex Lie algebras.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:oshorig} Assume above  that  $W$ is an irreducible finite Weyl group and  $\Phi$ is  crystallographic.
 Fix $\Delta{\,\subseteq\,} \Pi$, scalars $c_{\beta}\in {\mathbb R} $ for $\beta\in \Delta$, not all zero, and $l\in {\mathbb R}$. Let
  \begin{equation*}
X:=\mset{\gamma\in \Phi\mid \mpair{\gamma,\gamma}^{1/2}=l \text{ \rm and } \gamma[\beta]=c_{\beta} \text{ \rm for all $\beta\in \Delta$}}.
\end{equation*}  If $X$ is non-empty, then it is   a single   $W_{\Pi{\,\setminus\,} \Delta}$-orbit of roots where $W_{\Pi{\,\setminus\,} \Delta}$ is the standard parabolic subgroup with simple roots $\Pi{\,\setminus\,} \Delta$.  Equivalently,   $\vert X\cap {\mathcal C}_{\Pi{\,\setminus\,} \Delta}\vert \leq 1$  where  ${\mathcal C}_{\Pi{\,\setminus\,} \Delta}$ is the closed  fundamental chamber
of $W_{\Pi{\,\setminus\,} \Delta}$.
\end{lemma}

\subsection{} \label{osh}   The result below gives  reformulations of
Lemma  \ref{lem:oshorig}  which are valid for all (possibly non-crystallographic or reducible)  finite
Coxeter groups.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:osh} Let $\Phi$ be a root system of a finite Coxeter group $W$, with simple roots $\Pi$ and  corresponding simple reflections $S$. For $J\subseteq S$, let $W_{J}$ denote the standard parabolic subgroup of $W$ generated by $J$, and $\mathcal{C}_{W_{J}}$ denote its closed fundamental chamber.
\begin{num}
\item Let $J{\,\subseteq\,} S$. If $\alpha\in \Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi_{J}$, then $W\alpha\cap (\alpha +{\mathbb R} \Pi_{J})=W_{J}\alpha$.
\item Let $J{\,\subseteq\,} S$. If $\alpha,\beta\in (\Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi_{J})\cap {\mathcal C}_{W_{J}}$ and $\beta\in W\alpha\cap (\alpha +{\mathbb R} \Pi_{J})$, then $\alpha=\beta$.
 \item Let $\Phi'$ be the
root system  of a parabolic subgroup $W'$ of $W$. Then
for any $\beta\in \Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi'$, one has $W\beta\cap(\beta+ {\mathbb R} \Phi')=W'\beta$.
\end{num}\end{prop}
\begin{remark}

(1) The assumption in   (a) that $\alpha \in \Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi_{J}$  cannot be  weakened to  $\alpha\in \Phi$. For take  $\Phi$ of type $A_{3}$ in ${\mathbb R}^{4}$ with simple roots $\alpha_{i}:=e_{i}-e_{i+1}$ for $i=1,\ldots, 3$, $\Pi_{J}=\set{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{3}}$ and $\alpha=\alpha_{1}$. Then $\alpha_{3}\in  \Phi\cap (\alpha_{1}+{\mathbb R} \Pi_{J})$ but $\alpha_{3}\not \in W_{J}\alpha_{1}=\set{\pm \alpha_{1}}$.

(2) The proposition  does not extend as stated to  infinite Coxeter groups.
For example, take $(W,S)$ irreducible affine of type $\widetilde  A_{3}$ with $\Pi=\set{\alpha_{0},\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}}$ where
$\alpha_{i}$ and $\alpha_{j}$ are joined in the Coxeter graph if $i-j\in \set{\pm 1} \pmod 4$.
Let
$\delta:=\alpha_{0}+\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}$ denote  the standard indivisible isotropic root
(which is not in  $\Phi$; see \cite{K}). Take $\Pi_{J}=\mset{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{3}}$. Let $\alpha=2\delta+\alpha_{1}\in \Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi_{J}$. Then
$2\delta+\alpha_{3}\in W\alpha\cap ( \alpha+{\mathbb R}\Pi_{J})$ but $2\delta+\alpha_{3} \not\in W_{J}\alpha$ by (1),
since $W$ fixes $\delta$.

(3) It may also be shown that if $v\in {\mathcal C}_{W}$, $w\in W$ and $J{\,\subseteq\,} S$,
then $Wv\cap (v+{\mathbb R} \Pi_{J})=W_{J}v$. This statement generalises to possibly infinite Coxeter groups; see \cite[Lemma 2.4(d)]{dyer:imc}.

(4)  We do not know any natural result  which generalizes both  \ref{prop:osh}(a) and (3). Also,
there is no known extension of  \ref{prop:osh}(a) or (3) to unitary reflection groups.
  \end{remark}

\section{Preliminaries}
\label{s2} The remainder of the paper gives a proof of Lemma \ref{lem:oshorig} and Proposition \ref{prop:osh}. This preliminary  section
sets out more precisely the notation, terminology
and background required for the statements of these results and their proofs.
\subsection{}  Let  \label{rootsyst} $V$ be a real Euclidean space i.e. a finite dimensional
real vector space equipped with a symmetric, positive definite bilinear form $\mpair{-,-}\colon V\times V\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$.
 For non-zero  $\alpha\in V$,  let $s_{\alpha}\colon V\rightarrow V$ denote the orthogonal reflection in $\alpha$;
 it is the ${\mathbb R}$-linear map  defined by $s_{\alpha}(v)=v-\mpair{v,\ck \alpha}\alpha$ where $\ck \alpha:=\frac{2}{\mpair{\alpha,\alpha}}\alpha$.
 In this paper, by  a   \emph{root system} $\Phi$  in $V$, we shall mean  a subset $\Phi$ of $V$
satisfying the conditions (i)--(iii) below:
\begin{conds}
\item $\Phi$ is a finite subset of $V{\,\setminus\,}\set{0}$
\item If $\alpha,\beta\in \Phi$, then $s_{a}(\beta)\in \Phi$.
\item If $\alpha,c\alpha\in \Phi$ with $c\in {\mathbb R}$, then $c\in \set{\pm1}$.\end{conds}
This includes all the  most commonly used notions of roots systems of finite Coxeter groups, except for  non-reduced crystallographic root systems of finite Weyl groups.

The subgroup $W$ of $\mEnd(V)$ generated by $\mset{s_{\alpha}\mid \alpha\in \Phi}$ is a finite (real) reflection group i.e. a finite  Coxeter group.
A \emph{simple system} $\Pi$ of $\Phi$ is a linearly independent  subset $\Pi{\,\subseteq\,} \Phi$  such that
$\Phi=\Phi_{+}\hskip1mm\dot{\cup}\hskip1mm \Phi_{-}$ where $\Phi_{+}:=\Phi\cap {\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}\Pi$
and $\Phi_{-}=-\Phi_{+}$. Fix a simple system $\Pi$ (it is well  known that such
simple systems exist). Then $\Phi_{+}$ is the corresponding positive system of $\Phi$
and  $S:=\mset{s_{\alpha}\mid \alpha
\in \Pi}{\,\subseteq\,} W$ is called the set of \emph{simple reflections} of $W$. It is well
known that $(W,S)$ is a Coxeter system.  The subset
$T:=\mset{s_{\alpha}\mid \alpha\in \Phi}=\mset{wsw^{-1}\mid w\in W, s\in S}$  of $W$
 is called the set of reflections of $W$.

 The definition of root coefficients and support of roots from
 \ref{oshorig} extends without change to the broader class of root systems considered in this section.

\subsection{Dual root system} \label{dualrootsys} If $\Phi$ is a root system in
$V$, then $\ck \Phi:=\mpair{\ck\alpha\mid \alpha\in \Phi}$ is a root system, called the
\emph{dual root system} of $\Phi$; it has a system of simple roots $\ck \Pi:=\mset {\ck \alpha
\mid \alpha\in \Pi}$ with corresponding positive roots
$\ck \Phi_{+}:=\mset{\ck \alpha\mid \alpha\in \Phi_+}$ and
associated finite  Coxeter system $(W,S)$.
\subsection{Weyl groups} \label{crystrootsys}
The root system $\Phi$ is said to be crystallographic
if for all $\alpha,\beta\in \Phi$, one has $\mpair{\alpha,\ck\beta}\in {\mathbb Z}$.  In that case, $W$ is a
finite Weyl group and $\Phi$ (considered as a subset of its linear span) may be regarded as  a reduced root system in the sense of \cite[Ch VI]{Bour}.

\subsection{Reflection subgroups}\label{refsubgp} A subgroup $W'$  of $V$ generated by a subset  of $T$
is called a reflection subgroup.
It has a root system $\Phi_{W'}=\mset{\alpha\in \Phi\mid s_{\alpha}\in W'}$ and a
  unique simple system $\Pi_{W'}{\,\subseteq\,} \Phi_+$; the corresponding positive
  system $\Phi_{W',+}$ is $\Phi_{+}\cap \Phi_{W'}$.  One has $\Phi_{W'}=W'\Pi_{W'}$.

 The reflection subgroups $W_{I}:=\mpair{I}$ generated by subsets $I$ of $S$ are
 called \emph{standard parabolic subgroups}  and their conjugates are called
 \emph{parabolic subgroups}.  If $W'=W_{I}$, then
 $\Pi_{W'}=\mset{\alpha\in \Pi\mid s_{a}\in I}$ and $\Phi_{W'}=\Phi\cap {\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}\Pi_{W'}$.

 \subsection{Fundamental chamber for the $W$-action on $V$}\label{ss:fundcham}
 The subset  ${\mathcal C}={\mathcal C}_{W}:=\mset{v\in V\mid \mpair{v,\Pi}{\,\subseteq\,} {\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}}$ of $V$ is
 called the (closed) \emph{fundamental chamber} of $W$. For a reflection subgroup $W'$, we denote by $\mathcal{C}_{W'}$ the  fundamental chamber for $W$ with respect to simple roots $\Pi_{W'}$. In the following Lemma, we collect some
 standard facts concerning this situation, which may be found in \cite{Bour, StYale}.

 \begin{lemma}\label{lem:fundcham}\begin{num}\item  Every $W$ orbit on $V$ contains a unique point of ${\mathcal C}$.
 \item For $v\in {\mathcal C}$, the stabiliser $\stab_{W}(v):=\mset{w\in W\mid w(v)=v}$ satisfies  $\stab_{W}(v)=W_{I}$ where
 $I:=\mset{s\in S\mid s(v)=v}=\mset{s_{\alpha}\mid \alpha\in \Pi \cap v^{\perp}}$.
 \end{num}\end{lemma}

 It follows that if $\alpha\in \Phi$ is any root, then  the $W$-orbit $W\alpha$ contains
 a unique element of ${\mathcal C}_{W}$. A root  $\alpha\in \Phi\cap {\mathcal C}_{W}$ is called
 a  \emph{dominant root}.  If $\Phi$ is irreducible, there are at most two dominant roots
 (cf. \cite[Lemma 2]{DyLeRef}), and hence at most two $W$-orbits of
 roots.   If  $\Phi$ is crystallogrphic, the
dominant  roots  are the highest long and short roots of the components
of $\Phi$.

\section{Some reductions, and proof of \ref{prop:osh}(a) for dihedral groups}\label{s3}
This section provides  some reductions
which are useful for the  proofs of Proposition \ref{prop:osh} and Lemma \ref{lem:oshorig}.
These two results are then proved for dihedral reflection groups.

\subsection{Reductions}\label{oshequiv} Suppose we are given positive scalars $d_{\gamma}$ for $\gamma\in \Phi$ such that $d_{\gamma}=d_{\gamma'}$ if
$\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are in the same $W$-orbit.  Since $s_{d_{\gamma}\gamma}=s_{\gamma}$, it follows that $\Psi:=\mset{d_{\gamma}\gamma\mid \gamma\in \Phi}$ is a
root system for $(W,S)$, with $\mset{d_{\gamma}\gamma\mid \gamma\in \Pi}$ as a set of simple roots corresponding to $S$ and positive system
$\Psi_{+}=\mset{d_{\gamma}\gamma\mid \gamma\in \Phi_{+}}$. We say that such a root system $\Psi$ is obtained by \emph{rescaling} $\Phi$.
For example, the dual root system $\ck \Phi$ is obtained by rescaling $\Phi$. Any  root system of the finite reflection group
 $W$ on $V$ can be obtained from any other root system of $W$ by rescaling.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:oshequiv}
\begin{num}
\item $\text{\rm Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a)}$ implies $\text{\rm Lemma \ref{lem:oshorig}}$.
\item For fixed  $(W,S,\Phi,\Pi)$, $\text{\rm Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a)}$  is equivalent to
$\text{\rm Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(b)}$.
\item $\text{\rm Proposition \ref{prop:osh}}$ follows from  the  special case of its part $\text{\rm (a)}$ in which  $\Phi$ is assumed to be  irreducible.
\item Let $\Psi=\set{d_{\gamma}\gamma\mid \gamma\in \Phi}$ be a rescaling of $\Phi$   as above. Then $\text{\rm Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a)}$ holds for
$\Phi$, $J$, and $\alpha$ if and only if it holds for $\Psi$, $J$ and $d_{\alpha}\alpha$.
\item If \text{ \rm Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a)} holds for $(W,S,\Phi,\Pi)$, then for any $K{\,\subseteq\,} S$,  it holds for $(W_{K},K,\Phi_{K},\Pi_{K})$.
 \end{num}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}  To prove (a), we assume $\text{\rm Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a)}$ and make the assumptions of Lemma \ref{lem:oshorig}.
Let $J{\,\subseteq\,} S$ with $\Pi_{J}=\Pi{\,\setminus\,} \Delta$. Note that  for $\alpha\in \Phi$,  $\Phi\cap (\alpha+{\mathbb R}\Pi_{J})=\mset{\beta\in \Phi\mid
\beta[\gamma]=\alpha[\gamma] \text{ \rm for all }\gamma\in \Delta}$. Also, \cite[Ch VI, \S 1, Proposition 11]
{Bour} implies that  $W\alpha=\mset{\gamma\in \Phi\mid \mpair{\gamma,\gamma}^
{1/2}=\mpair{\alpha,\alpha}^{1/2}}$.  Assume that $X\neq {\emptyset}$, say $\alpha\in X$.
Then the above implies that $X=W\alpha\cap (\alpha+{\mathbb R}\Pi_{J})$. By Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a), $X=W_{J}\alpha$ is a single $W_{J}$-orbit, which proves (a).

Next, we prove (b). Let $J,\alpha,\beta$ be as in
Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(b).  If   Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a)
holds, it implies that $\beta\in W_{J}\alpha$ and so $\beta=\alpha$ since $\alpha,\beta\in {\mathcal C}_{W_{J}}$. Conversely, suppose that Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(b) holds for $(W,S,\Phi,\Pi)$ and let $J,\alpha$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a).
Obviously $W_{J}\alpha{\,\subseteq\,} W\alpha\cap (\alpha+{\mathbb R}\Pi_{J})$. To establish the reverse inclusion,  let $\beta\in W\alpha\cap (\alpha+{\mathbb R}\Pi_{J})$. Choose $\alpha'\in W_{J}\alpha\cap {\mathcal C}_{W_{J}}$ and $\beta'\in
W_{J}\beta\cap {\mathcal C}_{W_{J}}$. Clearly, $\alpha',\beta, \beta'\in \alpha+{\mathbb R}\Pi_{J}$ and since $\alpha\not\in \Phi_{J}$, one has $\alpha',\beta,\beta'\in \Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi_{J}$.  Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(b)  applied to $\alpha',\beta'$ gives that $\alpha'=\beta'$ and hence $\alpha\in W_{J}\alpha'=W_{J}\beta'=W_{J}\beta$.

We next  show that Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a) implies
Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(c). Let $W'$, $\Phi$, $ \beta$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(c). Write
$W'=wW_{J}w^{-1}$ where $w\in W$ and $J{\,\subseteq\,} S$, and  let $\alpha:=w^{-1}(\beta)$. Then
$\Phi'=w\Phi_{J}$ and so ${\mathbb R} \Phi'=w^{-1}{\mathbb R} \Phi_{J}=w^{-1}{\mathbb R} \Pi_{J}$
and $\alpha\in \Phi{\,\setminus\,}  \Phi_{J}$.  Thus, using Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a)
\begin{equation*}
W\beta\cap (\beta+{\mathbb R}\Phi')=Ww\alpha\cap (w\alpha+w{\mathbb R} \Pi_{J})=w\bigl(W\alpha\cap (\alpha+{\mathbb R}
\Pi_{J})=wW_{J}\alpha=W'\beta\end{equation*} as required for Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(c).
To complete the proof of (c), we show that  Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a) follows from
its special case in which $\Phi$ is irreducible.  Let $\alpha\in \Phi$.  It is known
that $\supp(\alpha)$  is a non-empty connected subset  of $\Pi$, and it is therefore
contained in some connected component $\Gamma$ of $\Pi$. Let $K{\,\subseteq\,} S$ with $\Pi_{K}=\Gamma$.
Equivalently, $W_{K}$ is the unique component of $W$ containing $s_{\alpha}$.
Then $\alpha\in \Phi_{K}$, $W\alpha=W_{K}\alpha$ and $W_{J}\alpha=W_{J\cap K}\alpha$.
  Assume  that $\alpha\in \Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi_{J}$. We claim that   $\Phi\cap(\alpha+{\mathbb R} \Pi_{J})=\Phi_{K}\cap (\alpha+{\mathbb R}\Lambda\cap  \Gamma) $.
  Obviously, the right hand side is contained in the left. On the other hand, let $\beta\in \Phi\cap(\alpha+{\mathbb R} \Pi_{J})$. Since
   $\alpha\not\in \Phi_{J}$, we have   ${\emptyset}\neq \supp(\alpha){\,\setminus\,} \Pi_{J}= \supp(\beta){\,\setminus\,} \Pi_{J}$
   and therefore $\beta\in \Phi_{K}$ since $\supp(\beta)$ is connected. Hence  $\beta-\alpha\in{\mathbb R} \Pi_{K}\cap {\mathbb R} \Pi_{J}={\mathbb R}\Pi_{K\cap J}$,
   proving the claim.     If Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a) holds when $W$ is irreducible,
   we therefore have (by its validity for $W_{K}$)
  \begin{equation*}
  W\alpha\cap (\alpha +{\mathbb R} \Pi_{J})=W_{K}\alpha\cap (\alpha +{\mathbb R}\Lambda\cap  \Gamma)=W_{J\cap K}\alpha=W_{J}\alpha
  \end{equation*}
  and Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a) holds for arbitrary $W$.  Hence (c) is proved.

The straightforward verifications of (d) and  (e) are left to the reader.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Dihedral case} \label{oshdihed}  The remainder of the paper will focus on the proof of special cases of
Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a) which together suffice to prove the result in general, by the preceding reductions.
The following result disposes  of the case of  dihedral Coxeter systems $(W,S)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:oshdihed}
\begin{num}
\item Suppose that  $v\in V$, $\alpha\in \Phi$ and $w\in W$ with $wv\in v+{\mathbb R} \alpha$.
Then  $wv\in W'v$ where $W':=\mpair{s_{\alpha}}$.
\item  $\text{\rm Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a)}$ holds if    $\vert S\vert \leq 2$.
 \end{num}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof of (a) is from the proof of \cite[Lemma 2]{CarConj}.
Write $wv=v+c\alpha$ where $c\in {\mathbb R}$.  If $c=0$, then $wv=v\in W'v$.
Otherwise, a simple computation starting from the fact  that $\mpair{wv,wv}=\mpair{v,v}$ shows that $c=-\mpair{v,\ck\alpha}$ and so $wv=s_{\alpha}v\in W'v$.

For (b), assume $\vert S\vert \leq 2$ and $J{\,\subseteq\,} S$.
In this case, the statement of Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a) is
vacuous if $J=S$, trivial if $J={\emptyset}$,  and immediate from (a) if  $\vert J\vert =1$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of \ref{prop:osh}(a) for finite Weyl groups}\label{s4}
Assume in this subsection  that $\Phi$  is crystallographic. It is  a reduced root system
(in its linear span ${\mathbb R}\Phi$) in the sense of \cite{Bour},
with simple system $\Pi$, positive system $\Phi_{+}$ and  Weyl group $W$.
The arguments below leading to a proof of Proposition \ref{prop:osh} in this case use   basic properties of root  strings,  as   in \cite[Ch VI, \S1]{Bour}.

 \begin{lemma} \label{lem:rootstring} Let $\alpha_{1},\ldots, \alpha_{n}$ be roots in $\Phi$, where $n>0$. For $I{\,\subseteq\,} L:=\set{1,\ldots, n}$, let $\alpha_{I}:=\sum_{i\in I}\alpha_{i}$. Assume that $\alpha_{I}\neq 0$ for all $I{\,\subseteq\,} L$ with $I\neq {\emptyset}$  and that $\alpha_{L}=\alpha_{1}+\ldots +\alpha_{n}\in \Phi$.
 \begin{num}
 \item There is a permutation $\sigma$ of $\set{1,\ldots, n}$ such that for each
 $i=1,\ldots, n$, one has $\alpha_{\sigma(1)}+\ldots+\alpha_{\sigma(i)}\in \Phi$.
 \item Suppose that $n=3$. If $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2} \in \Phi$ but $\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}\not\in \Phi$, then
 $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{3}\in \Phi$.
 \item Assume that $\alpha_{i}+\alpha_{j}\not\in \Phi$ for any $i,j$ with $2\leq i<j\leq n$.
 Then $\alpha_{I}\in \Phi$ for all $I{\,\subseteq\,} L$ with $1\in I$.
 \end{num}
 \end{lemma}
 \begin{remark}
 (1) For $m\in {\mathbb N}$, let
 $c_{m}:=\vert \mset{I{\,\subseteq\,} J\mid \alpha_{I}\in \Phi, \vert I\vert =m}\vert $.
 It is shown in \cite{PF} that  $c_{i}\geq n-i+1$ for $i=1,\ldots, n$
 (this  follows from (a)--(b) if $n=3$). The  case $c_{i}=n-i+1$ for all
 $i$ occurs in type $A$.

(2)  Part (b)  is the key point for the proofs given here
of Proposition \ref{prop:osh}. In the (present) crystallographic case, it
has a standard proof using the well-known  formulae
  ($[\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}, \mathfrak{g}_{\beta}]=\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha+\beta}$ for $\alpha,\beta\in \Phi$ with $\alpha+\beta\in \Phi$ and $[\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}, \mathfrak{g}_{\beta}]=0$ for $\alpha,\beta\in \Phi$ with  $\alpha+\beta\not\in \Phi\cup\set{0}$) for brackets of root spaces $\mathfrak {g}_{\alpha}$, where  $\alpha\in \Phi$, of a
  semi-simple complex Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ with root system $\Phi$. In fact, it follows by computing \begin{equation*} [\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_{2}},[\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_{3}},
  \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_{1}}]]= [\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_{3}},[\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_{2}},\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_{1}}]]= [\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_{3}},\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_{1+}\alpha_{2}}]=\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}}\neq 0
  \end{equation*} using these formulae and the Jacobi identity.
  We give another proof below.
  \end{remark}

\begin{proof} It is well known that part (a) may be  proved in the same way as its special case \cite[Ch VI, \S 1, Proposition 19]{Bour}
where all $\alpha_{i}\in \Phi_{+}$.
      A proof of (b)   in terms of root strings is as follows.
   Assume to the contrary that  $a_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}\in \Phi$, $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}\in \Phi$,
   but $\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}\not\in \Phi$ and $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{3}\not\in \Phi$.
   Since $\alpha_{1},\alpha_{3}\in \Phi$ but $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{3}\not\in \Phi\cup\set{0}$, one
   gets $\mpair{\alpha_{3},\ck\alpha_{1}}\geq 0$  from \cite[Ch VI, \S 1, Corollary of Theorem 1]{Bour}.
   Similarly, one has $\mpair{\alpha_{3},\ck\alpha_{2}}\geq 0$ (from $\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}\not\in \Phi\cup\set
   {0}$),
   $\mpair{\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3},\ck \alpha_{1}}\leq 0$ (from $(\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3})-\alpha_{1}\not\in
   \Phi\cup\set{0}$) and  $\mpair{\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3},\ck \alpha_{2}}\leq 0$ (from $(\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+
   \alpha_{3})-\alpha_{2}\not\in \Phi\cup\set{0}$). Together, these four formulae give
   $\mpair{\alpha_{2},\ck\alpha_{1}}\leq -2$ and  $\mpair{\alpha_{1},\ck\alpha_{2}}\leq -2$. In turn, these equations  imply $\mpair{\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}, \alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}}\leq 0$. Since $\mpair{-,-}$ is positive definite, this forces $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}=0$, which contradicts the assumptions.

   To prove (c), assume $n\geq 2$ and  choose $\sigma$ as  in (a).  We use cycle notation for
   permutations (two-cycles) of $\set{1,\ldots, n}$ below. Note that (a) also holds with $\sigma$
   replaced by
   $\sigma':= \sigma(1,2)$.    By the assumption in (c), one  must  have
   $1\in \set{\sigma(1),\sigma(2)}$ since $\sigma(1)+\sigma(2)\in\Phi$. Replacing  $\sigma$ by $\sigma'$ if necessary,
   assume without loss of generality that $\sigma(1)=1$.  Now for any $i$ with $2\leq i<n$,  let $\beta_{i-1}:=\alpha_{\sigma(1)}+\ldots+\alpha_{\sigma(i-1)}$. Then $\beta_{i-1}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)}\in \Phi$,  $\beta_{i-1}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)}
   +\alpha_{\sigma(i+1)}\in \Phi$ and
   $\alpha_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i+1)}\not\in \Phi$. By (b),  $\beta_{i-1}+\alpha_{\sigma(i+1)}=\alpha_{\sigma(1)}+\ldots+\alpha_{\sigma(i-1)}+
   \alpha_{\sigma(i+1)}\in \Phi$.  This shows that if $\sigma$ satisfies (a) and  $\sigma(1)=1$,  then, for each $i$ with $2\leq i<n$, (a) also holds
   with
   $\sigma$ replaced by $\sigma(i,i+1)$.  Since the adjacent  two-cycles $(i,i+1)$ with $2\leq i< n$ generate the symmetric group on $\set{2,\ldots, n}$,  (a) holds for all
   permutations $\sigma$ of  $\set{1,\ldots, n}$ which fix $1$. Now given $I$ as in (c), there is
   some such  permutation $\sigma$  and some $j$ with $1\leq j\leq  n$  such that
   $I=\set{\sigma(1),\ldots, \sigma(j)}$, and (c) follows.
      \end{proof}
      \subsection{}\label{rootperm}  For $J{\,\subseteq\,} S$, let $\leq_{J}$
      denote  the partial order on $V$ such that   $\alpha\leq_{J} \beta$ if $\beta-\alpha\in {\mathbb Z}_{\geq 0}\Pi_{J}$.
          \begin{lemma}\label{lem:rootperm}
      \begin{num}
      \item If  $\alpha,\beta\in \Phi$ with $\beta\in \alpha+ {\mathbb R} \Pi_{J}$, then there exists $w\in W_{J}$ such that $w(\beta)\geq_{J }w(\alpha)$.
      \item Let $\alpha,\beta\in \Phi{\,\setminus\,}\Phi_{J}$ with $\alpha\leq_{J} \beta$.
      Then one may write $\beta-\alpha=\sum_{i=2}^{n}\alpha_{i}$ with  $\alpha_{i}\in \Phi_{J,+}$  for $i=2,\ldots, n$ and $n\geq 1$ minimal.  Set $\alpha_{1}:=\alpha$. Then $\alpha_{I}\in \Phi$ for all $I{\,\subseteq\,} L:=\set{1,\ldots, n}$ with $1\in I$.
       \end{num}
      \end{lemma}
      \begin{proof}
      For (a), choose $w\in W_{J}$ so $w(\beta-\alpha)\in {\mathcal C}_{W_{J}}$.
      Hence $w(\beta-\alpha)\in {\mathcal C}_{W_{J}}\cap {\mathbb R} \Pi_{J}$. By \cite[Ch V, \S 3,  Lemma 6(i)]{Bour}, one has  ${\mathcal C}_{W_{J}}\cap {\mathbb R} \Pi_{J}{\,\subseteq\,} {\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}\Pi_{J}$. Therefore,
      $w(\beta-\alpha)\in {\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}\Pi_{J}\cap  {\mathbb Z} \Pi={\mathbb Z}_{\geq 0}\Pi_{J}$  as required.

   For (b), note first that  there exist  expressions  $\beta-\alpha=\sum_{i=2}^{n}\alpha_{i}$ with each $\alpha_{i}\in \Phi_{J,+}$ (since,  using $\beta-\alpha\in {\mathbb Z}_{\geq 0}\Pi_{J}$, they exist even with each $\alpha_{i}\in \Pi_{J}$). Fix such an expression with  $\alpha_{i}\in \Phi_{J,+}$ and $n$ minimal.   It will suffice to verify  that  $\alpha_{1},\ldots \alpha_{n}$ satisfy the hypotheses of Lemma  \ref{lem:rootstring}(c). One has $\alpha_{L}=\alpha_{1}+(\alpha_{2}+\ldots+\alpha_{n})=\alpha+(\beta-\alpha)=\beta\in \Phi$. Let ${\emptyset} \neq I{\,\subseteq\,} L$.  If $1\in I$, then  $\alpha_{I}\in \alpha_{1}+{\mathbb R} \Pi_{J}=\alpha+{\mathbb R}\Pi_{J}$
        and thus $\alpha_{I}\neq 0$, since  $\alpha \in\Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi_{J}$ implies $\alpha\not\in {\mathbb R}\Pi_{J}$.
        If $1\not\in I$, then $\alpha_{I}\neq 0$ by minimality of $n$ (for instance). Finally, if $2\leq i<j\leq n$, then $\alpha_{i}+\alpha_{j}\not \in \Phi_{J}$ by minimality of $n$, and hence $\alpha_{i}+\alpha_{j}\not\in \Phi$
        since $\alpha_{i}+\alpha_{j}\in {\mathbb R}\Pi_{J}$ and ${\mathbb R}\Pi_{J}\cap \Phi=\Phi_{J}$.
       \end{proof}
       \subsection{Proof of \ref{prop:osh}(a) for  Weyl groups}\label{oshWeyl}
 By rescaling if necessary, we may assume $\Phi$ is crystallographic. We may also assume that $W$ is irreducible. Then by
        \cite[Ch VI, \S 1, Proposition 11]
{Bour}, $\Phi$ has at most two root lengths. Rescaling again to replace $\Phi$ by $\ck \Phi$ if necessary, we may assume that $\alpha$ is a long root.
To simplify the argument, we assume using Lemma \ref{lem:oshdihed} that $\Phi$ is not of type $G_{2}$ and  multiply the inner product on $V$ by a positive
scalar (or do a further rescaling) if necessary   so that the maximal squared length of a root in $\Phi$ is $\mpair{\alpha,\alpha}=4$. Roots of squared length $4$ are
here called long roots;
other roots (if there are any) are called short roots, and ( cf. \cite{Bour}) they have squared length $2$.  The roots of any fixed length form a single $W$-orbit.

Let $\alpha\in \Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi_{J}$ and $\beta\in W\alpha\cap (\alpha+{\mathbb R}\Pi_{J})$ i.e.
$\beta\in \Phi\cap (\alpha+{\mathbb R}\Pi_{J})$ with $\mpair{\beta,\beta}=4$. We have to show
$\beta\in W_{J}\alpha$. Let $w\in W_{J}$ be as in Lemma \ref{lem:rootperm}(a). It will suffice to show that $w(\beta)\in W_{J}w(\alpha)$. Replacing $\alpha$ by $w(\alpha)$ and $\beta$ by $w(\beta)$, we assume without loss of generality that $\alpha\leq_{J}\beta$.
Let $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n}\in \Phi_{J,+}$ be as in Lemma \ref{lem:rootperm}(b),
so $\alpha_{I}\in \Phi\cap (\alpha+{\mathbb R}\Pi_{J})$  for all $I{\,\subseteq\,} L$ with $1\in I$.
If $n\leq 2$, then $\beta\in W_{J}\alpha$ by Lemma \ref{lem:oshdihed}. We assume that $n\geq 3$ and   prove that $\beta\in W_{J}\alpha$ by induction on $n$.
If  $\alpha_{I}\in \Phi$ is a long root for some $I$ with $1\in I{\,\subsetneq\,} L$, then by induction,  $\alpha$ is $W_{J}$-conjugate to $\alpha_{I}$ and $\alpha_{I}$ is $W_{J}$-conjugate to $\beta$, so $\beta$ is $W_{J}$-conjugate to $\alpha$.
Hence we may assume that  all $\alpha_{I}$ with $1\in I{\,\subsetneq\,} L$ are short roots.
(In particular, this completes the  argument  if $\Phi$ is simply laced, since there are no short roots in that case).

Note that, writing $I':=I{\,\setminus\,}\set{1}$ for $I{\,\subseteq\,} L$ with $1\in I$, one has
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lengths}
\mpair{\alpha_{I},\alpha_{I}}=\mpair{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{1}}+\sum_{j\in I'}\mpair{\alpha_{j},\alpha_{j}}+2\sum_{j\in I'}\mpair{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{j}}+2\sum_{i,j\in I':i<j}\mpair{\alpha_{i},\alpha_{j}}
\end{equation}
First, take $I=\set{1,i}$  in this where $2\leq i\leq n$. It gives $2=4+\mpair{\alpha_{i},\alpha_{i}}+2\mpair{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{i}}$.  If $\mpair{\alpha_{i},\alpha_{i}}=4$,  then $\mpair{\alpha_{1},\ck\alpha_{i}}\not\in {\mathbb Z}$, a contradiction. Hence $\mpair{\alpha_{i},\alpha_{i}}=2$ and $\mpair{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{i}}=-2$.  Hence each $\alpha_{i}$ with $2\leq i\leq n$ is a short root,
and \eqref{eq:lengths} simplifies (for general $I\ni 1$) to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lengths2}
\mpair{\alpha_{I},\alpha_{I}}=4-2\vert I'\vert +2\sum_{i,j\in I':i<j}\mpair{\alpha_{i},\alpha_{j}}.
\end{equation}
Now take $I=\set{1,2,3}$ in this. One gets $\mpair{\alpha_{I},\alpha_{I}}=2\mpair{\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}}$. Suppose first that $\mpair{\alpha_{I},\alpha_{I}}=4$
i.e. $\alpha_{I}$ is long. This forces $\alpha_{I}=\beta$, so $I=\set{1,2,\ldots, n}$ (i.e $n=3$). It also gives   $\mpair{\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}}=2$  and therefore $\alpha_{2}=\alpha_{3}$ since $\alpha_{2}$ and $\alpha_{3}$ are short.
In this case, we get \begin{equation*}
\beta=\alpha_{I}=\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}=\alpha_{1}+2\alpha_{2}=s_{\alpha_{2}}(\alpha_{1})\in W_{J}(\alpha)
\end{equation*} as required. The other possibility is that $\mpair{\alpha_{I},\alpha_{I}}=2$  i.e. $\alpha_{I}$ is short.  Then $\beta\neq \alpha_{I}$ so $n\geq 4$, and
 $\mpair{\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}}=1$. One has $s_{\alpha_{2}}(\alpha_{3})=\alpha_{3}-\alpha_{2}\in \Phi_{J}$, so one of $\pm s_{\alpha_{2}}(\alpha_{3})$ is in $\Phi_{J,+}$. Interchanging
 $\alpha_{2}$ and $\alpha_{3}$ if necessary, suppose without loss of generality that $\alpha_{3}':=\alpha_{3}-\alpha_{2}\in \Phi_{J,+}$.
Then  $\alpha_{2}':=s_{\alpha_{2}}(\alpha_{1})=\alpha_{1}+2\alpha_{2}\in W_{J}\alpha$.
Also, $\beta=\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}+\ldots +\alpha_{n}=\alpha_{2}'+\alpha_{3}'+\alpha_{4}+\ldots +\alpha_{n}$ where $\alpha_{3}',\alpha_{4},\ldots,\alpha_{n}\in \Phi_{J,+}$. Note  that $\alpha_{2}'\in \Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi_{J}$ has
 square length  $\mpair{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{1}}=\mpair{\beta,\beta}$. By induction,
 $\beta\in W_{J}\alpha_{2}'=W_{J}\alpha$ as required. This completes the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a)
 for crystallographic $W$.

\section{Proof of \ref{prop:osh} in the remaining cases (types $H_{3}$ and $H_{4}$)}
\label{s5}
The arguments  above suffice to establish
Proposition \ref{prop:osh} provided that $(W,S)$ has no irreducible
components of type $H_{3}$ or $H_{4}$.
To complete the proof in general, it is enough to establish  that it holds if $(W,S)$ is of type $H_{4}$ or $H_{3}$
 (in fact, by Lemma \ref{lem:oshequiv}(e), the case $H_{4}$ suffices).
We do this using a suitable  embedding of $W$ as a subgroup of a Weyl group of   simply laced ($A$, $D$, $E$) type, as discussed in detail in \cite[\S1]
{DyEmb1} for  the case of $H_{4}$ in $E_{8}$.

\subsection{The non-crystallographic case-preparation} \label{noncrystsetup}
  Define the number ring
 $R:={\mathbb Z}[\tau]{\,\subseteq\,} {\mathbb  Q}(\sqrt 5){\,\subseteq\,} {\mathbb R}$
  where $\tau:=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$ denotes the golden ratio, so $\tau^{2}=\tau+1$.
Let $\Phi$   be a finite root system for a Coxeter group $W$  such that
$\mpair{\alpha,\alpha}=2$ for all $\alpha\in \Pi$ and $\mpair{\alpha,\beta}\in \set{0,-1,-\tau}$ for all distinct $\alpha,\beta\in \Pi$. Any finite Coxeter  group $W$ such that the off diagonal entries of its Coxeter matrix are all $2$, $3$ or $5$ has such a root system, in which, for distinct $\alpha,\beta\in \Pi$, $s_{\alpha}s_{\beta}$ has order $2$, $3$ or $5$ according as whether $\mpair{\alpha,\beta}$ is equal to $0$, $-1$ or $-\tau$.
Any root  system  of type $H_{4}$ or $H_{3}$ can be rescaled if necessary to be this form.

  Let   $U:=R\Pi$ be the free $R$-submodule  of $V$
with $R$-basis $\Pi$. One has $\Phi{\,\subseteq\,} U$. Regard $W$ as
a  group acting faithfully on $U$, generated by $R$-linear  reflections  $s_{\alpha}\colon U\rightarrow U$ for $\alpha\in \Phi$ (or just in $\Pi$) given by
 $v\mapsto v-\mpair{v,\alpha}\alpha$ for $v\in U$, where $\mpair{-,-}$ is now
 regarded as a symmetric $R$-bilinear map $U\times U\rightarrow R$.

Define a ${\mathbb Z}$-linear map $\theta\colon R\rightarrow {\mathbb Z}$ by $\theta(a+b\tau)=a$ for
$a,b\in {\mathbb Z}$ and a symmetric  ${\mathbb Z}$-bilinear form
$(-,-)\colon U\times U\rightarrow {\mathbb Z}$ by $(\alpha,\beta)=\theta(\mpair{\alpha,\beta})$. Then as in \cite[\S1]{DyEmb1},
$\Delta:=\Pi\hskip1mm\dot{\cup}\hskip1mm \tau\Pi$ is a simple system for a simply laced  finite crystallographic root system
$\Psi:=\Phi\hskip1mm\dot{\cup}\hskip1mm \tau\Phi$, with $(\alpha,\alpha)=2$ for all $\alpha\in \Phi$ and with ${\mathbb Z}$-linear  reflections
$r_{\alpha}\colon U\rightarrow U$ given by $v\mapsto v- (v,\alpha)\alpha$ for $\alpha\in \Psi$ (note $U$ is the root lattice of $\Psi$).
Denote the corresponding finite Coxeter system as $(W',S')$.
For $\alpha\in \Phi$, one has $s_{\alpha}=r_{\alpha}r_{\tau\alpha}=r_{\tau\alpha}r_{\alpha}$.  In particular, $W{\,\subseteq\,} W'$. The inclusion map $W\rightarrow W'$ is length doubling:
for $w\in W$, $l'(w)=2l(w)$ where $l'$ (resp., $l$) is the length function of $(W',S')$ (resp., $(W,S)$).
\subsection{}\label{noncryst} A set of roots of $\Psi$ of the form $\set{\alpha,\tau\alpha}$ where $\alpha\in \Phi$ will be called  a \emph{bundle}. For the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:osh} in the remaining cases, we need only (b) from the following, but the other parts are also  of  interest.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:noncryst}
\begin{num}
\item   The map
$\widehat \varphi\colon \wp(\Phi)\rightarrow \wp(\Psi)$ of power sets given by
$\Gamma\mapsto \Gamma\hskip1mm\dot{\cup}\hskip1mm \tau\Gamma$ restricts to  a $W$-equivariant bijection
$\varphi$  from the set of simple subsystems of $\Phi$ to the set  of
simple  subsystems    of $\Psi$ which are unions of bundles.
\item  If $\Gamma$ is a simple subsystem of $\Phi$, $\Gamma':=\varphi(\Gamma)$ and
$\alpha\in \Phi$, then $\alpha\in  {\mathcal C}_{W_{\Gamma}}$ if and only if $\tau\alpha\in
 {\mathcal C}_{W'_{\Gamma'}}$.
\item If $\Gamma$ is a simple subsystem of $\Phi$ and $\Gamma':=\varphi(\Gamma)$,  the Coxeter graph of $\Gamma'$ is obtained by replacing each component of the Coxeter graph of $\Gamma$ of type $H_{4}$ (resp., $H_{3}$, $I_{2}(5)$) by one of type $E_{8}$, $D_{6}$, $A_{4}$) and replacing each simply laced component of $(W,S)$ by two components of the same type.
\item The map
$\varphi$ induces a $W$-equivariant  bijection $\varphi'$ from the set of root subsystems of $\Phi$ to the set of root subsystems of $\Psi$ which are unions of bundles, with $\varphi'(\Lambda)=\Lambda\hskip1mm\dot{\cup}\hskip1mm \tau\Lambda$.
\end{num}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Given $\alpha,\beta\in \Phi$, there exists $w\in W$ such that $w\alpha,w\beta$
are in a  standard parabolic subgroup of $W$ of rank at most two. By an
easy case by case check of the possibilities (which are  types $A_{1}$, $A_{1}\times A_{1}$, $A_{2}$ or $I_{2}(5)$), one sees that $\mpair{\alpha,\beta}\in \set{0,\pm 1, \pm (\tau-1), \pm \tau,\pm 2}$.  One has the following possibilities for inner products:

\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c| |c|c|c|c|}\hline
$\mpair{\alpha,\beta}$&$(\alpha,\beta)$&$(\alpha,\tau\beta)$&$(\tau\alpha,\beta)$&$(\tau\alpha,\tau\beta)$\\ \hline
$0$ & $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\ \hline
$\pm 1$ & $\pm 1$&$0$&$0$&$\pm1$\\ \hline
$\pm (\tau-1)$ & $\mp 1$&$\pm 1$& $\pm 1$& $0$\\ \hline
$\pm \tau$ &$0$&$\pm 1$&$\pm 1$&$\pm 1$\\ \hline
$\pm 2$ & $\pm 2$&$0$&$0$&$\pm2$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}

Note that (using \cite{DyRef} for instance) a subset $\Gamma$ of $\Phi$ is  a simple subsystem if  and only if it
is  $R$-linearly
independent and for any distinct $\alpha,\beta\in \Gamma$, one has
$\mpair{\alpha,\beta}\in \set{0,-1,-\tau}$. Similarly, a subset $\Gamma'$ of $\Psi$ is a simple subsystem if  and only if it
is ${\mathbb Z}$-linearly
independent and for any distinct $\alpha,\beta\in \Gamma'$, one has
$\mpair{\alpha,\beta}\in \set{0,-1}$. Hence (a) follows by inspection of the above table.  Note next that the set of  non-negative  inner products
 $\mpair{\alpha,\beta}$ with $\alpha,\beta\in \Phi$ is contained in  $\set{0,1,\tau-1,\tau,2}$. Part  (b) follows immediately from the table and the definition of
 fundamental chamber.

   It is enough to prove (c) for irreducible $\Phi$.
 For $\Phi$ of type $H_{4}$, the result is clear from  \cite[\S1]
{DyEmb1}.  The cases of  $H_{3}$, $I_{2}(5)$ follow,  since they are  induced embeddings of  standard parabolic subgroups of $H_{4}$ in standard parabolic subgroups of $E_{8}$. The simply laced cases hold by inspection of the  table.

It remains to prove (d). Let $\Lambda$ be a root subsystem of $\Phi$ and let $\Gamma$ be a simple subsystem of $\Lambda$.
The discussion of \ref{noncrystsetup} applied to $(\Lambda,\Gamma)$ instead of
$(\Phi,\Pi)$  implies  that  $\varphi'(\Lambda):=\Lambda\cup\tau\Lambda$
(which is obviously  a union of bundles) is a root subsystem of $\Psi$   with a simple system $\varphi(\Gamma)=\Gamma\cup \tau(\Gamma)$. Obviously the map $\varphi'$ so defined is $W$-equivariant, and it is injective since
$\Phi\cap \varphi'(\Lambda)=\Lambda$.  To complete the proof of (d), take any root subsystem $\Lambda'$ of $\Psi$ which is a union of bundles.
Let $\Lambda:=\Lambda'\cap \Phi$. For $\alpha,\beta\in \Lambda$, one has $s_{\alpha}(\beta)=r_{\alpha}r_{\tau \alpha}(\beta)\in \Phi\cap \Lambda'=\Lambda$ since $\alpha,\tau\alpha\in \Lambda'$. Hence $\Lambda$ is a root subsystem of $\Phi$, and clearly $\varphi'(\Lambda)=\Lambda'$.  \end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of \ref{prop:osh}(a) for $H_{3}$ and $H_{4}$}\label{oshend}
It is now easy to deduce the validity of  Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(b)
(which is equivalent to \ref{prop:osh}(a))
for $(W,S)$ of type $H_{4}$ or $H_{3}$ from its validity for simply laced root systems  as follows. Without loss of
generality, take  $(W,S,\Phi, \Pi)$ as in  \ref{noncrystsetup} and define $(W', S',\Psi,\Delta)$ as there. Fix $J{\,\subseteq\,} S$ and let $J'{\,\subseteq\,} S'$ with
$\Delta_{J'}=\Pi_{J}\hskip1mm\dot{\cup}\hskip1mm \tau\Pi_{J}$.
Let $\alpha,\beta\in (\Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi_{J})\cap {\mathcal C}_{W_{J}}$ with
$\beta\in \alpha+{\mathbb R}\Pi_{J}$.  Since $\Phi{\,\subseteq\,} R\Pi$, this gives
$\beta\in \alpha+R \Pi_{J}=\alpha+{\mathbb Z}\Delta_{J'}$.
Note also that $\Phi_{J}=\Phi\cap R\Pi_{J}$. Since  $\alpha,\beta\in \Phi{\,\setminus\,} \Phi_{J}$ and $\tau$ is a unit in $R$, one has
 $\tau\alpha,\tau\beta\not\in R\Pi_{J}={\mathbb Z}\Delta_{J'}$ and so
 $\tau\alpha,\tau\beta\in \Psi{\,\setminus\,} \Psi_{J'}$. By Proposition   \ref{prop:noncryst}(b),  one has $\tau\alpha,\tau\beta\in {\mathcal C}_{W'_{J'}}$. By Lemma \ref{prop:osh}(b) for $(W',S',\Phi',\Delta')$, which is already known from Section \ref{s4} since  $\Psi$ is crystallographic, it follows that $\tau\alpha=\tau\beta$ and thus $\alpha=\beta$. This proves \ref{prop:osh}(b) for  $(W,S,\Phi,\Pi)$ and completes the proof of  Proposition \ref{prop:osh}(a), and hence all results of this paper, in all cases.