Reflection Representations of Coxeter Groups and Homology of Coxeter Graphs

Under the ordered basis (\beta_r, \beta_t) of V_{r,t}, we denote the representing matrix of (- | -) by B \in M_2(\mathbb{C}), and the matrices of r and t by R and T respectively,

Note that k < \frac{m}{2} implies \cos \frac{k \uppi}{m} \ne 0. The condition that (-|-) is D_m-invariant is equivalent to the equations

Here the superscript (-)^\mathrm{T} denotes the transpose of a matrix. By direct computations, Equation (Proof) suggests that B must be a \mathbb{C}^\times-multiple of

The lemma is proved.

Denote

If \varrho_{x,y} \simeq \varrho_{x^\prime, y^\prime}, then there exists an invertible matrix P=(\begin{smallmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{smallmatrix}) \in GL_2 (\mathbb{C}) such that

A direct computation yields a x = d x^\prime, d y = a y^\prime, b = c =0 and hence a,d \ne 0. Thus x y = x^\prime y^\prime. Conversely, if x y = x^\prime y^\prime, then the invertible matrix P = (\begin{smallmatrix} x^\prime & 0 \\ 0 & x \end{smallmatrix}) satisfies Equation (Proof) (note that x,y,x^\prime,y^\prime \in \mathbb{C}^\times). Thus \varrho_{x,y} \simeq \varrho_{x^\prime, y^\prime}.

For (?), note that the vector \beta_r + \beta_t \in V_{r,t} is fixed by \varrho_{2,2}(r) and \varrho_{2,2}(t) simultaneously. Thus when xy = 4 the representation \varrho_{x,y} (\simeq \varrho_{2,2} by (?)) is reducible. Suppose now xy \ne 4. If \varrho_{x,y} is reducible, then there is a common eigenvector of \varrho_{x,y}(r) and \varrho_{x,y}(t) in V_{r,t}. The -1-eigenvector (up to a scalar) of \varrho_{x,y}(r) is \beta_r, but \beta_r is not an eigenvector of \varrho_{x,y}(t) since y \ne 0. The +1-eigenvector of \varrho_{x,y}(r) is x \beta_r + 2 \beta_t, but \varrho_{x,y}(t) (x \beta_r + 2 \beta_t) = x \beta_r + (xy -2) \beta_t is not a multiple of x \beta_r + 2 \beta_t since x \ne 0 and xy \ne 4. Thus \varrho_{x,y} is irreducible if xy \ne 4. The verification of (?) is also straightforward.

Clearly \mathds{1}, \varepsilon, \varepsilon_r and \varepsilon_t are the only D_\infty-representations of dimension one.

Suppose \varrho is an indecomposable representation of D_\infty of dimension 2. Since r^2 = e, the linear map \varrho(r) is semisimple with possible eigenvalues \pm 1. Note that \varrho(r) is neither (\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}) nor (\begin{smallmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{smallmatrix}). Otherwise, since \varrho(t) is also semisimple, \varrho would be decomposable. Thus, the matrix of \varrho(r) is similar to (\begin{smallmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}). The same result holds for t. Denote by V the representation space of \varrho, by \beta_r the unique (up to scalars) -1-eigenvector of \varrho(r) in V, and by \beta_t the -1-eigenvector of \varrho(t).

If \beta_r and \beta_t are proportional, then we denote by \gamma_r the +1-eigenvector of \varrho(r) in V. Then (\beta_r, \gamma_r) is a basis of V. Under this ordered basis, \varrho(r) = ( \begin{smallmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}), and \varrho (t) = (\begin{smallmatrix} -1 & a \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}) for some a \in \mathbb{C}^\times. One may easily verify that \varrho \simeq \varrho_\varepsilon^\mathds{1}.

If \beta_r and \beta_t are linearly independent, then under the ordered basis (\beta_r, \beta_t) we have \varrho(r) = (\begin{smallmatrix} -1 & x \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}) and \varrho(t) = (\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ y & -1 \end{smallmatrix}) for some x,y \in \mathbb{C}. Therefore \varrho \simeq \varrho_{x,y}. If x = 0, then y \ne 0 and \varrho \simeq \varrho_t^r. If y = 0, then x \ne 0 and \varrho \simeq \varrho_r^t. If xy \ne 0, then \varrho \simeq \varrho_z where z = xy.

In view of Lemma 2.7 and the structure of \varrho_r^t, \varrho_t^r and \varrho_{\varepsilon}^{\mathds{1}}, the representations in the list (2.8) are non-isomorphic to each other.

Clearly the elements \{c_\mathfrak{e} \mid \mathfrak{e} \in E \setminus E_0\} are \mathbb{Z}-linearly independent in H_1(G) since all edges in c_\mathfrak{e} lie in E_0 except \mathfrak{e}. Thus we have an injection

Regard H_1(G) as a subgroup of C_1(G). Then elements in H_1(G) can be written in the form \sum_{\mathfrak{e} \in E} a_\mathfrak{e} \mathfrak{e} with a_\mathfrak{e} \in \mathbb{Z}. Suppose \sum_{\mathfrak{e} \in E} a_\mathfrak{e} \mathfrak{e} \in H_1(G). Let

Then any edge that occurs in d with a nonzero coefficient belongs to E_0, the edge set of the forest G_0. It is impossible for such an element, d, to be a closed cycle unless d = 0. Therefore, H_1(G) = \bigoplus_{\mathfrak{e} \in E \setminus E_0} \mathbb{Z} c_\mathfrak{e}.

Recall that we have V = H_s \oplus \mathbb{C} \alpha_s where H_s is the reflection hyperplane (see Definition 1.1). For any v \in V, write v = v_s + a \alpha_s, where v_s \in H_s, a \in \mathbb{C}. Then s \cdot v = v_s - a \alpha_s = v - 2a \alpha_s. It follows that v - s\cdot v \in \mathbb{C} \alpha_s.

The fact that \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle is \langle r,t \rangle-invariant follows from Lemma 3.1.

For (?), if \phi_{rt} is reducible, then it splits into a direct sum of two representations of dimension one since \langle r,t \rangle is a finite group. The sign representation \varepsilon of \langle r,t \rangle can not occur in \phi_{rt} because \alpha_r and \alpha_t are linearly independent. In view of Lemma 2.1, m_{rt} must be even and \phi_{rt} \simeq \varepsilon_r \oplus \varepsilon_t \simeq \rho_{\frac{m_{rt}}{2}}. If \phi_{rt} is irreducible, then by Lemma 2.1 again we have \phi_{rt} \simeq \rho_{k_{rt}} for some 1 \le k_{rt} < \frac{m_{rt}}{2}.

First of all, we need to verify that (?) is a well defined W-action on V, i.e., r^2 \cdot \alpha_s = (rt)^{m_{rt}} \cdot \alpha_s = \alpha_s, \forall r,t,s \in S. By direct computations, we know that r^2 \cdot \alpha_s = \alpha_s whether r = s or not.

Now suppose r \ne t, we consider the action of (rt)^{m_{rt}}. On the subspace \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle, (rt)^{m_{rt}} is the identity map since \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle forms a representation \rho_{k_{rt}} of \langle r,t \rangle. For s \neq r,t (if it exists), we write U := \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_s, \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle. Then \dim U = 3. By Lemma 2.2(?), there are nonzero vectors v_1 \in \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_s \rangle, v_2 \in \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle such that r \cdot v_1 = v_1 and r \cdot v_2 = v_2. If we write v_1 = c_1 \alpha_r + d_1 \alpha_s, v_2 = c_2 \alpha_r + d_2 \alpha_t where c_1, d_1, c_2, d_2 \in \mathbb{C}, then d_1, d_2 \ne 0. Therefore, \dim \mathbb{C} \langle v_1, v_2 \rangle = 2. Similarly, there are v_3, v_4 \in U such that \dim \mathbb{C} \langle v_3, v_4 \rangle = 2 and t \cdot v_3 = v_3, t \cdot v_4 = v_4. Thus, there exists a nonzero vector v \in \mathbb{C} \langle v_1, v_2 \rangle \cap \mathbb{C} \langle v_3, v_4 \rangle \subseteq U. We have r \cdot v = t \cdot v = v. By Lemma 2.2(?), v \notin \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle. As a result, \{v, \alpha_r, \alpha_t \} is a basis of U. It follows that (rt)^{m_{rt}} acts by identity on U, and (rt)^{m_{rt}} \cdot \alpha_s = \alpha_s since \alpha_s \in U. To conclude, Equation (?) gives rise to a W-representation structure on V.

From the arguments above, we see that for any fixed r \in S and any s \in S \setminus \{r\}, there is a vector v_s = c_s \alpha_r + d_s \alpha_s \in V (c_s, d_s \in \mathbb{C}) such that r \cdot v_s = v_s and d_s \ne 0. Hence, the vectors \{v_s |s \in S \setminus \{r\}\} are linearly independent. They span a hyperplane H_r with r|_{H_r} = \mathrm{Id}_{H_r}. Thus r acts on V by a reflection with reflection vector \alpha_r. By definition, V is a generalized geometric representation of W.

Clearly, \varphi(\alpha_s) is a multiple of \alpha_s^\prime for any s \in S. Thus

for any r,t \in S with r \ne t. The restriction \varphi|_{\mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle} is an isomorphism of \langle r,t \rangle-representations between \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle and \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r^\prime, \alpha_t^\prime \rangle. Therefore \rho_{k_{rt}} = \rho_{l_{rt}}, and then k_{rt} = l_{rt}.

Let (s_1, s_2, \dots, s_n, s_1) be a circuit in \widetilde{G}. We write \alpha_i := \alpha_{s_i} and a_i^j := a_{s_i}^{s_j} for convenience, and similar for m_{ij}, \widetilde{m}_{ij}, k_{ij}, \alpha_i^\prime, b_i^j, etc.

Since (s_1, s_2) is an edge of \widetilde{G}, we have k_{12} \neq \frac{m_{12}}{2}. Thus \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_1, \alpha_2 \rangle and \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_1^\prime, \alpha_2^\prime \rangle are irreducible representations of the subgroup \langle s_1, s_2 \rangle, both isomorphic to

We denote the two isomorphisms by \psi_1, \psi_2 respectively as follows (not a commutative diagram):

As in Subsection ?, the two maps \psi_1, \psi_2 can be chosen so that

Since \alpha_1, \alpha_1^\prime are reflection vectors of s_1 in V_1, V_2 respectively, there exists some x \in \mathbb{C}^\times such that \varphi(\alpha_1) = x \alpha_1^\prime. Then

Note that \psi_2^{-1} \varphi \psi_1 is an automorphism of \rho_{k_{12}}. By Schur’s Lemma 2.3, Equation (?) implies

Therefore, by Equations (?) and (?), we have

In simple terms, for the edge (s_1, s_2) we have shown that

Do this argument for the edges (s_2, s_3), \dots, (s_{n-1}, s_n), (s_n, s_1) recursively, and finally we get

Compare Equation (?) with \varphi(\alpha_1) = x \alpha_1^\prime, then we have

The two sides of Equation (?) are the images of the arbitrarily chosen circuit (s_1, s_2, \dots, s_n, s_1) under \chi_1 and \chi_2 respectively. It follows that \chi_1 = \chi_2.

Choose a spanning forest \widetilde{G}_0 = (S, E_0) of the associated graph \widetilde{G} = (S,E). For any \mathfrak{e} \in E \setminus E_0, choose an orientation of \mathfrak{e}. Let c_\mathfrak{e} be defined as in Subsection ?. Then by Lemma 2.12, we have

Therefore, a character \chi of H_1(\widetilde{G}) is determined by the values \{\chi(c_\mathfrak{e}) \mid \mathfrak{e} \in E \setminus E_0 \}.

Let \chi be an arbitrary character of H_1(\widetilde{G}). For any r,t \in S with r \ne t, let

Then, \chi is the character associated with the datum (k_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} (for an illustrative example, see Example 3.7). Let V be the generalized geometric representation defined by the datum (k_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t}, then \Theta(V) = \chi.

Suppose \Theta (V_1) = \Theta (V_2), where V_1 = \bigoplus_{s \in S} \mathbb{C} \alpha_s and V_2 = \bigoplus_{s \in S} \mathbb{C} \alpha_s^\prime are generalized geometric representations of W defined by two GGR-data, say, (k_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t\in S, r \ne t} and (k_{rt}, b_r^t)_{r,t\in S, r \ne t}, respectively. We need to find an isomorphism \varphi: V_1 \to V_2.

It is possible that the associated graph \widetilde{G} have several connected components. In an arbitrary component of \widetilde{G}, we choose and fix a vertex r as a base point, and define

For any other vertex s in this component, choose a path (s_1 = r, s_2, \dots, s_n = s) connecting r and s. We use the notations \alpha_i, a_i^j, etc. as in the proof of Lemma 3.9. Then we define

We shall show that \varphi(\alpha_n) is independent of the choice of the path (but \varphi does depend on the choice of the base point r in each component). Suppose there is another path connecting s_1 = r and s_n = s, say (s_1, s_p, s_{p-1}, \dots, s_{n+1}, s_n), p \ge n. The two paths connected end-to-end form a closed path, i.e.,

This closed path is an element of H_1(\widetilde{G}). Since \Theta(V_1) = \Theta(V_2), the two characters \Theta(V_1) and \Theta(V_2) takes the same value on this closed path. In other words, we have the following equality,

Equation (?) is equivalent to

This indicates that \varphi(\alpha_n) is independent of the choice of the path. Now, we obtain a linear map \varphi: V_1 \to V_2.

Clearly, \varphi is a linear isomorphism. It remains to verify that \varphi is a homomorphism of representations. It suffices to check for any s,t \in S that

If s = t, then this is obvious by definition. If s and t are distinct and not adjacent in \widetilde{G}, i.e., \widetilde{m}_{st} = 2, then s \cdot \alpha_t = \alpha_t and s \cdot \alpha_t^\prime = \alpha_t^\prime, and Equation (?) is still valid. Now assume \widetilde{m}_{st} \geq 3, then s and t are in the same connected component of \widetilde{G}. Suppose r is the base point chosen in this component, and (r, s_2, \dots, s) is a path connecting r and s. Then (r, s_2, \dots, s, t) is a path connecting r and t. Suppose \varphi (\alpha_s) = x \alpha_s^\prime, x \in \mathbb{C}^\times. Then

It is then straightforward to verify Equation (?) by definitions of V_1 and V_2, as follows,

Thus, \varphi: V_1 \to V_2 is an isomorphism of representations of W, and hence \Theta is injective.

Combine Subsection ? and Lemmas 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11.

Suppose v \in U and s \cdot v \neq v for some s \in S. Then v - s \cdot v \in \mathbb{C}^\times \alpha_s by Lemma 3.1. Thus \alpha_s \in U. If r \in S is adjacent to s in \widetilde{G}, then k_{rt} < \frac{m_{rt}}{2}. We have \alpha_r \in U since \mathbb{C}\langle \alpha_s, \alpha_r \rangle forms an irreducible representation of \langle s, r \rangle isomorphic to \rho_{k_{rt}}. Inductively, for any t \in S we have \alpha_t \in U since \widetilde{G} is connected. Thus U = V which contradicts U \subsetneq V. The points (?) and (?) follow from (?).

In an R-representation V = \sum_{s \in S} \mathbb{C} \alpha_s of W, the subspace \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle is two dimensional for any r,t \in S with r \ne t by assumption (?). Clearly, the conclusions of Lemma 3.2 are still valid. Therefore, we can extract a GGR-datum (k_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} from the R-representation V as we did in subsection ?. Now let V^\prime = \bigoplus_{s \in S} \mathbb{C} \alpha_s^\prime be the generalized geometric representation of W defined by this datum, and \pi: V^\prime \twoheadrightarrow V be the surjective linear map defined by \alpha_s^\prime \mapsto \alpha_s. One may easily verify that \pi is a homomorphism of W-representations (that is, s \cdot \pi (\alpha_t^\prime) = \pi(s \cdot \alpha_t^\prime)). Thus V is a quotient of V^\prime. This proves the “existence” part of (?).

Suppose V^{\prime \prime} = \bigoplus_{s \in S} \mathbb{C} \alpha_s^{\prime \prime} is a generalized geometric representation defined by another datum (l_{rt}, b_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t}, and suppose there is a surjective homomorphism \pi^{\prime \prime}: V^{\prime \prime} \twoheadrightarrow V of W-representations. After rescaling the vectors \alpha_s^{\prime\prime}, we may assume \pi^{\prime \prime}(\alpha_s^{\prime \prime}) = \alpha_s, \forall s \in S. For any r, t \in S with r \ne t, we must have k_{rt} = l_{rt} since \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r^{\prime \prime}, \alpha_t^{\prime \prime} \rangle and \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle should be isomorphic as representations of \langle r, t \rangle.

Consider the following equalities,

If k_{rt} \neq \frac{m_{rt}}{2}, then we must have \frac{a_r^t}{a_t^r} = \frac{b_r^t}{b_t^r}. Thus, the two data (k_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} and (k_{rt}, b_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} define the same character of H_1 (\widetilde{G}), where \widetilde{G} is the graph associated with (k_{rt})_{r,t \in S, r \ne t}. By Theorem 3.13, we have V^\prime \simeq V^{\prime \prime} as W-representations. This proves the “uniqueness” part of (?).

Let S = \sqcup_{i \in I} S_i be the decomposition of \widetilde{G} into connected components. Then V^\prime = \bigoplus_{i \in I} V_i^\prime, where V_i^\prime = \bigoplus_{s \in S_i} \mathbb{C} \alpha_s^\prime is a subrepresentation, as in Lemma 4.2. Denote by V_{i,0}^\prime the maximal subrepresentation (may be zero) in V_i^\prime. The action of W on each V_{i,0}^\prime is the trivial action (see Proposition 4.3). Note that \ker \pi is a subrepresentation in V^\prime but \ker \pi can not contain any V_i^\prime.

Suppose 0 \neq v \in \ker \pi. We write v = \oplus_{i \in I} v_i where v_i \in V_i^\prime. Take arbitrarily j \in I and s \in S_j. For any i \neq j, we have s \cdot v_i = v_i by Lemma 4.2. If s \cdot v_j \neq v_j, then v_j - s \cdot v_j = v - s \cdot v \in \ker \pi. By Lemma 3.1, we have \alpha_s^\prime \in \ker \pi, which is ridiculous. Thus s \cdot v = v, \forall s\in S. More specifically, v_i \in V_{i,0}^\prime, \forall i \in I. Hence, W acts on \ker \pi trivially. The proof of (?) is complete.

Let V_0^\prime := \bigoplus_{i \in I} V_{i,0}^\prime be the maximal subrepresentation of V^\prime with trivial W-action. We have shown that \ker \pi \subseteq V_0^\prime. By Corollary 4.7, the quotient V^\prime / V_0^\prime is a semisimple representation of W. Moreover, V^\prime / V_0^\prime is an R-representation since \alpha_s^\prime \notin V_0^\prime, \forall s \in S. On the other hand, if \ker \pi \subsetneq V_0^\prime, then there exists j \in I such that V_{j,0}^\prime \nsubseteq \ker \pi. It follows that \pi(V_j^\prime) is an indecomposable but reducible subrepresentation of V. Thus V is not semisimple. This proves (?).

At last, (?) is deduced from (?) and (?).

By the same proof of Corollary 3.17, we have

If \ker \pi_1 = \ker \pi_2, then obviously V_1 \simeq V_2. Conversely, suppose \phi: V_1 \xrightarrow{\sim} V_2 is an isomorphism. Then \phi \pi_1: V^\prime \twoheadrightarrow V_2 is a surjective homomorphism. By (Proof), \phi \pi_1 = c \pi_2 for some c \in \mathbb{C}^\times. It follows that \ker \pi_2 = \ker \pi_1.

Suppose (-|-) is a nonzero W-invariant bilinear form on V. For an arbitrary path (s_1, s_2, \dots, s_n) in \widetilde{G}, suppose (\alpha_1 | \alpha_1) = x (here \alpha_i := \alpha_{s_i}, similarly a_i^j := a_{s_i}^{s_j}, k_{ij} := k_{s_1s_2}). Note that \beta_{s_1} \mapsto a_1^2 \alpha_1, \beta_{s_2} \mapsto a_2^1 \alpha_2 is an isomorphism of \langle s_1, s_2 \rangle-representations from \rho_{k_{12}} to the one spanned by \alpha_1, \alpha_2. Then by Lemma 2.5, we have

Do this argument recursively along the path (s_1, \dots, s_n), then we get

We claim that x \ne 0. Otherwise, we have (\alpha_s|\alpha_s) = 0 for any s \in S since \widetilde{G} is connected. As a result, if s,t \in S such that \widetilde{m}_{st} \ge 3, then (\alpha_s|\alpha_t) = (\alpha_t| \alpha_s) = 0 by Lemma 2.5. While if \widetilde{m}_{st} =2, then (\alpha_s|\alpha_t) = (s \cdot \alpha_s| s\cdot \alpha_t) = - (\alpha_s| \alpha_t), and hence (\alpha_s|\alpha_t) = 0. Therefore (-|-) = 0 which is a contradiction. Thus x \ne 0.

Suppose now s_1 = s_n. Then the path (s_1, \dots, s_n) is a closed path, and (\alpha_n| \alpha_n) = x. Equation (Proof) implies that

Thus, the image of \chi is contained in \{\pm 1\}.

Conversely, suppose \chi (H_1 (\widetilde{G})) \subseteq \{\pm 1\}. Choose and fix a vertex s_1 in \widetilde{G}. We define (\alpha_1|\alpha_1) := 1. For another vertex s, choose a path (s_1, s_2, \dots, s_n = s) in \widetilde{G} connecting s_1 and s. In view of Lemma 2.5, we define

We claim that (\alpha_s|\alpha_s) is independent of the choice of the path (s_1, s_2, \dots, s_n = s). If there is another path, say (s_1, s_p, s_{p-1}, \dots, s_{n+1}, s_n), p \ge n, connecting s_1 and s, then the two paths connected end-to-end form a closed path

Our assumption says

Thus

This suggests that (\alpha_s|\alpha_s) is independent of the choice of the path.

Moreover, for t \neq s, we define

(The right hand side also equals to - \frac{a_t^s}{a_s^t} \cos \frac{k_{st} \uppi}{m_{st}} (\alpha_t| \alpha_t), for, if \{s,t\} is not an edge in \widetilde{G}, then \cos \frac{k_{st} \uppi}{m_{st}} = 0; if \{s,t\} is an edge in \widetilde{G}, then (s_1, \dots, s_{n-1}, s, t) is a path in \widetilde{G} connecting s_1 and t, and thus (\alpha_t| \alpha_t) = (\frac{a_s^t}{a_t^s})^2 (\alpha_s| \alpha_s).)

Now (-|-) is a well defined bilinear form on V. We need to check that (-|-) is W-invariant. It suffices to check

If s = r = t, this is obvious. If s = r \neq t, or s = t \neq r, or s \neq r = t, then everything happens in a dihedral world, and Equation (?) holds by Lemma 2.5. If s, r, t are distinct, then

The last equality is by Equation (?).

The proof of (?) is similar (note that we have Lemma 2.6).

The proof of (?) is just a direct computation using Equations (?), (?) and (?),

Now we prove (?). We have

Note that \{\alpha_s^* \mid s \in S\} is a basis of V^*. If \gamma_r and \gamma_t are proportional, then

which is impossible since 1 \le k_{rt} \le \frac{m_{rt}}{2} < \infty (currently we assume that m_{rt} < \infty, see assumption (?)).

By Formula (?), the transition matrix from \{\alpha_s^* \mid s \in S\} to \{\gamma_s \mid s \in S\} is A^\mathrm{T}, the transpose of A. Thus \{\gamma_s\mid s \in S\} are linearly independent if and only if A is invertible. This proves (?).

If V is semisimple, then \{\gamma_s \mid s \in S\} are linearly independent by (?), and clearly they form a basis of V^*. Note that for any s \in S, \gamma_s is the unique -1-eigenvector of s. Thus V^* is a generalized geometric representation. By comparing Equations (Proof) and (?), we see that V^* is defined by the GGR-datum (k_{rt}, b_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} where b_r^t = a_t^r. Thus, \chi^* is the character of H_1(\widetilde{G}) associated with V^*. This proves (?).

Now we drop the assumption that V is semisimple. By Lemma 4.18, V_1 = \sum_{s \in S} \mathbb{C} \gamma_s is a subrepresentation of V^*. Moreover, \gamma_r and \gamma_t are not proportional for any r,t \in S with r \ne t. Thus V_1 is an R-representation.

Let V^\prime be the generalized geometric representation of W such that V_1 is a quotient of V^\prime. Equation (Proof) tells us that V^\prime is defined by the GGR-datum (k_{rt}, b_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} where b_r^t = a_t^r. As in (?), the representation V^\prime corresponds to the datum ((k_{rt})_{r,t \in S, r \ne t}, \chi^*). Let

Then by Corollary 4.7, \dim V^\prime/V_0 = \operatorname{rank}(A^\mathrm{T}) since A^\mathrm{T} is the corresponding matrix of V^\prime defined as in Equation (?). From the proof of (?), we know that \dim V_1 = \operatorname{rank} (A^\mathrm{T}) = \dim V^\prime/V_0. In view of Theorem 4.10, V_1 must be semisimple and isomorphic to V^\prime/V_0.

By Equations (?) and (?), we have

By Equations (?) and (?), we see that W acts on V^*/V_1 trivially. The proof of (?) is complete.

The point (?) is due to Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.8. The point (?) is derived from Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 2.10(?).

We basically follow the line of the proofs in Section ?. Let V = \bigoplus_{s \in S} \mathbb{C} \alpha_s be a generalized geometric representation of W. Clearly, Lemma 3.2(?) is still valid, i.e., for any pair r, t \in S with r \ne t, the subspace \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle forms a two dimensional representation \phi_{rt} of the subgroup \langle r,t \rangle. Furthermore, \phi_{rt} is a generalized geometric representation of \langle r,t \rangle. Thus, there is a representation \delta_{rt} \in P_{rt} such that \delta_{rt} \simeq \phi_{rt}. This isomorphism must send \beta_r to a_r^t \alpha_r and \beta_t to a_t^r \alpha_t for some a_r^t, a_t^r \in \mathbb{C}^\times. Similar to the arguments in Subsection ?, we see that the action of W on the generalized geometric representation V is determined by a GGR-datum (\delta_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t}.

Conversely, given arbitrarily a GGR-datum (\delta_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t}, we can define a linear map \phi(r) for any r \in S on the vector space V := \bigoplus_{s \in S} \mathbb{C} \alpha_s as follows. Define \phi(r) \cdot \alpha_r := -\alpha_r. For t \in S \setminus \{r\}, if \delta_{rt}(r) \cdot \beta_t = \beta_t + c\beta_r where c \in \mathbb{C}, then we define \phi(r) \cdot \alpha_t : = \alpha_t + c \frac{a_r^t}{a_t^r} \alpha_r. The same arguments as in the proof of Lemma 3.5 show that V is a generalized geometric representation of W under the action \phi.

By Lemma 5.1(?), we have an analogue of Lemma 3.8, stated as follows: if two GGR-data of W, say (\delta_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} and (\zeta_{rt}, b_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t}, define isomorphic generalized geometric representations, then \delta_{rt} = \zeta_{rt} for any r,t \in S with r \ne t.

Notice that we have Lemma 5.1(?) which serves as Schur’s lemma. Therefore, the same arguments as in the proofs of Lemma 3.9 and Lemma 3.11 show that the two data (\delta_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} and (\delta_{rt}, b_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} define isomorphic generalized geometric representations if and only if they share the same associated character of H_1(\widetilde{G}).

At last, Lemma 3.10 still works, showing that for any set (\delta_{rt})_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} and any character \chi: H_1(\widetilde{G}) \to \mathbb{C}^\times, there exists a GGR-datum (\delta_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} such that \chi is the associated character. The theorem follows.

First, as in the proof of Theorem 4.10, we want to construct a GGR-datum of W from the R-representation V.

For any r,t \in S with r \ne t, if \alpha_r and \alpha_t are linearly independent, then \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle is a generalized geometric representation of \langle r,t \rangle, and then we obtain an element \delta_{rt} \in P_{rt} and numbers a_r^t, a_t^r \in\mathbb{C}^\times as before.

Note that currently m_{rt} is allowed to be \infty, so \alpha_r and \alpha_t may be proportional when m_{rt} = \infty. If this happens, then we choose \delta_{rt} = \varrho_4, the geometric representation of \langle r,t \rangle \simeq D_\infty, and we choose a_r^t, a_t^r \in \mathbb{C}^\times such that a_r^t \alpha_r + a_t^r \alpha_t = 0.

Now we obtain a GGR-datum (\delta_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t}. Let V^\prime = \bigoplus_{s \in S} \mathbb{C} \alpha_s^\prime be the generalized geometric representation of W defined by this datum, and \pi: V^\prime \twoheadrightarrow V be the linear map \alpha_s^\prime \mapsto \alpha_s, \forall s \in S. We need to verify that \pi is a homomorphism of W-representations, i.e., verify that

This is clear if r = t. If \dim \mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r, \alpha_t \rangle = 2, then the verification is also routine as before. If m_{rt} = \infty and \alpha_r, \alpha_t are proportional, then we have

The last equality uses the assumption that a_r^t \alpha_r + a_t^r \alpha_t = 0. Therefore, Equation (?) is always true, and \pi is a homomorphism of W-representations.

Suppose \pi^{\prime\prime}: V^{\prime\prime} \twoheadrightarrow V is another surjection of W-representations, where V^{\prime\prime} = \bigoplus_{s \in S} \mathbb{C} \alpha_s^{\prime\prime} is a generalized geometric representation defined by a GGR-datum (\zeta_{rt}, b_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t}. After rescaling the vectors \alpha_s^{\prime\prime}, we may assume \pi^{\prime \prime}(\alpha_s^{\prime \prime}) = \alpha_s, \forall s \in S. For any r,t \in S with r \ne t, if \alpha_r and \alpha_t are linearly independent, then \pi^{\prime\prime}|_{\mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r^{\prime\prime}, \alpha_t^{\prime\prime} \rangle} is an isomorphism of \langle r,t \rangle-representations, and then \zeta_{rt} = \delta_{rt}. If \alpha_r and \alpha_t are proportional, then \pi^{\prime\prime}|_{\mathbb{C} \langle \alpha_r^{\prime\prime}, \alpha_t^{\prime\prime} \rangle} is a surjective homomorphism form \zeta_{rt} to the sign representation \varepsilon of \langle r,t \rangle. Therefore, \zeta_{rt} must be \varrho_4, and thus \zeta_{rt} = \delta_{rt}. It follows that the two data (\delta_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} and (\zeta_{rt}, b_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} have the same associated graph \widetilde{G}.

Suppose now \{r,t\} is an edge in \widetilde{G}. If \delta_{rt} \ne \varrho_r^t, then we consider the equality \pi^{\prime\prime} (r \cdot \alpha_t^{\prime\prime}) = r \cdot \pi^{\prime\prime} (\alpha_t^{\prime\prime}) as in the proof of Theorem 4.10, and then we obtain \frac{a_r^t}{a_t^r} = \frac{b_r^t}{b_t^r}. If \delta_{rt} = \varrho_r^t, then we consider instead the equality \pi^{\prime\prime} (t\cdot \alpha_r^{\prime\prime}) = t \cdot \pi^{\prime\prime} (\alpha_r^{\prime\prime}) to obtain the same result. Anyway, (\delta_{rt}, a_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} and (\delta_{rt}, b_r^t)_{r,t \in S, r \ne t} have the same associated character of H_1(\widetilde{G}). Thus, the two generalized geometric representations V^\prime and V^{\prime\prime} are isomorphic.

At last, if the action of W on \ker \pi is not trivial, say s \cdot v \ne v for some s \in S, v \in \ker \pi, then \alpha_s \in \ker \pi which is a contradiction.

Let H_\sigma and H_\tau be the reflection hyperplanes of \sigma and \tau respectively. Suppose H_\sigma \ne H_\tau. Then there exists v \in H_\tau \setminus H_\sigma. Note that V = H_\sigma \oplus \mathbb{C} \alpha. Thus we can write v = v_\sigma + a \alpha where v_\sigma \in H_\sigma and a \in \mathbb{C}^\times. By direct computations, we have

Therefore, (\sigma \tau)^m \cdot v = v - 2ma \alpha for any m \in \mathbb{N}, which contradicts (\sigma \tau)^m = \mathrm{Id}_V. Thus, H_\sigma = H_\tau and then \sigma = \tau.

Clear by Lemma 6.1 and the definition of \underset{\mathrm{V}}{\approx}.

For any r \in I_i and t \in I_j with m_{rt} < \infty, by Lemma 6.2 we have \rho(s_i) = \rho(r), \rho(s_j) = \rho(t), and hence (\rho(s_i) \rho(s_j))^{m_{rt}} = \mathrm{Id}_V. Since d_{ij} is the greatest common divisor of such m_{rt}’s, we have (\rho(s_i) \rho(s_j))^{d_{ij}} = \mathrm{Id}_V.

If d_{ij} = 1, then \rho(s_i) = \rho(s_j). But d_{ij} < \infty implies that m_{rt} < \infty for some r \in I_i and t \in I_j. By Lemma 6.2(?) this is impossible.

For (?), it suffices to show (\pi_V(r) \pi_V(t))^{m_{rt}} = e_{\overline{W}} whenever r,t \in S with m_{rt} < \infty. If r = t or r, t belong to the same I_i, then this is clear. Suppose r \in I_i and t \in I_j with i \ne j. Then we have

as desired.

By Lemma 6.3(?) and the fact that \rho(s_i) is a reflection on V, the map \theta_i \mapsto \rho(s_i) defines a reflection representation of \overline{W} on V. If d_{ij} < \infty for some i,j, then m_{rt} < \infty for some r \in I_i and t \in I_j. By Lemma 6.2(?), \alpha_i and \alpha_j are linearly independent. This proves that (V, \overline{\rho}) is an R-representation of \overline{W} (see Definition 4.8).

The point (?) follows from Lemma 6.2(?):

if s \in I_i.