Principal 2-blocks with wreathed defect groups up to splendid Morita equivalence

(a) To start with, by Lemma 4.3, we may assume that {O_{2'}(G)=1} and therefore that G is one of the groups listed in Theorem 1.1. Furthermore, by Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 4.2, we may also assume that O^{2'}(G)=G. Hence, Theorem 1.1, applied a second time, implies that G belongs to family (Wj(n)) for some {\sf j\in\{1,\cdots,6\}}. It remains to prove that j is uniquely determined. So, suppose that G=:G_{1} is a finite group belonging to family {\sf (Wj_1(n))} for some {\sf j_1}\in\{{\sf1},\cdots,{\sf6}\} and assume that the following hypothesis is satisfied:

• (\ast) B_{0}(kG_{1}) is splendidly Morita equivalent to the principal block B_{0}(kG_{2}) of a finite group G_{2} belonging to family {\sf (Wj_2(n))} for some {\sf j_2}\in\{{\sf 1},\cdots,{\sf 6}\}.

For i\in\{1,2\} set B_i:=B_0(kG_i), and notice that (\ast) implies that \ell(B_{1})=\ell(B_{2}) and k(B_{1})=k(B_{2}) because these numbers are invariant under Morita equivalences. Now, first assume that {\sf j_1} = 1. Then, it follows from Theorem 3.3 that \ell(B_{1})=1 and \ell(B_{2})>1 if {\sf j_2} > 1, contradicting (\ast). Hence, we have {\sf j_2} = 1 and G_{2}\cong G_{1}. Assume then that {\sf j_1} = 2. Then, by Theorem 3.3, we have \ell(B_{1})=2 and by (\ast) we may also assume that {\sf j_2}\in\{{\sf 2,3,4}\}. If {\sf j_2} \neq {\sf2}, then, as n\geq 2, Theorem 3.3 yields

also contradicting (\ast), so that {\sf j_2} = 2 and G_{2}\cong G_{1}. Suppose next that \sf j_1 = 3. Then, again by Theorem 3.3, we have \ell(B_{1})=2 and by (\ast) we may assume that {\sf j_2}\in\{{\sf 2,3,4}\}. Moreover, by the previous case, we have {\sf j_2}\neq {\sf 2}. So, let us assume that {\sf j_2}={\sf 4}. We can consider that B_{1} =B_0(k\operatorname{SL}_2^n(q_1)) and B_{2}=B_0(k\operatorname{SU}_2^n(q_2)) for prime powers q_1, q_{2} such that ({q_1-1)_2=2^n=(q_2+1)_2}. Then, again, as \operatorname{SL}_2^n(q_1)\lhd \operatorname{GL}_2(q_1) and \operatorname{SU}_2^n(q_2)\lhd \operatorname{GU}_2(q_2) are normal subgroups of odd index, it follows from Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 4.2 that B_0(k\operatorname{GL}_2(q_1)) and B_0(k\operatorname{GU}_2(q_2)) are splendidly Morita equivalent, and so Lemma 4.4 implies that B_0(k\operatorname{PGL}_2(q_1)) and B_0(k\operatorname{PGU}_2(q_2)) are splendidly Morita equivalent. Now, as \operatorname{PGL}_2(q_1)\cong\operatorname{PGU}_2(q_1), we have that \mathcal B_1:=B_0(k\operatorname{PGL}_2(q_1)) and \mathcal B_2:=B_0(k\operatorname{PGL}_2(q_2)) are splendidly Morita equivalent,

where D_{2^{n+1}}\in\mathrm{Syl}_2(\operatorname{PGL}_2(q_1))\cap\mathrm{Syl}_2(\operatorname{PGL}_2(q_2)) by the proofs of Proposition 5.3 and Proposition 5.4.

However, the conditions on q_1 and q_2 imply that \mathcal B_1 and \mathcal B_2 are in (5) and (6), respectively, in the list of [KL20a, Theorem 1.1], hence cannot be splendidly Morita equivalent. Thus, we have a contradiction, proving that {\sf j_2}={\sf 3} if {\sf j_1}={\sf 3}. Moreover, swapping the roles of {\sf j_1} and {\sf j_2} in the previous argument, we obtain that {\sf j_2}={\sf 4} if {\sf j_1}={\sf 4}. Suppose next that {\sf j_1}={\sf 5}. Then, as above, Theorem 3.3 and (\ast) imply that \ell(B_{1})=3 and {\sf j_2}\in\{{\sf5},{\sf6}\}. So, assume that {\sf j_2}={\sf 6}. Hence, we can consider that B_{1}=B_0(k\operatorname{PSL}_3(q_1)) and B_{2}=B_0(k\operatorname{PSU}_3(q_2)) for prime powers q_1 and q_2 such that (q_1-1)_2=2^n=(q_2+1)_2. However, B_0(k\operatorname{PSL}_3(q_1)) and B_0(k\operatorname{PSU}_3(q_2)) cannot be splendidly Morita equivalent by Lemma ? and Corollary 7.3, because such an equivalence maps simple modules to simple modules and also trivial source modules to trivial source modules. It follows that {\sf j_2}={\sf 5} if {\sf j_1}={\sf 5}. Again, swapping the roles of {\sf j_1} and {\sf j_2} in the previous argument, we obtain that {\sf j_2}={\sf 6} if {\sf j_1}={\sf 6}. Finally, we observe that the claim about the Scott module is immediate by construction.
(b) Assume G_1 and G_2 both belong to family (Wj(n)) for a {\sf j}\in\{\sf 3,{\sf4},{\sf5},{\sf6}\}. Then, \mathrm{Sc}(G_{1}\times G_{2}, \Delta P) induces a splendid Morita equivalence between B_0(kG_{1}) and B_0(kG_{2}) by Propositions 5.3, 5.4, 6.3 and 7.5 for \sf j=\sf 3,4,5 and \sf6 respectively.

It is clear from the definitions that any splendid Morita equivalence is in particular a Morita equivalence. Thus, it only remains to prove that two distinct splendid Morita equivalence classes of principal blocks in Theorem 1.2 do not merge into one Morita equivalence class. In fact, from the numbers \ell(B) and k(B) in Theorem 3.3, it suffices to argue that the splendid Morita equivalence classes of principal blocks of groups of type (Wj(3)) and (Wj(4)), respectively of type (Wj(5)) and (Wj(6)), do not merge into one Morita equivalence class. In the former case, this is clear from the proof of Theorem 1.2, because else B_0(k\operatorname{PGL}_2(q_1)) and B_0(k\operatorname{PGL}_2(q_2)) with ({q_1-1)_2=2^n=(q_2+1)_2} would be Morita equivalent, which would contradict Erdmann’s classification of tame blocks in [Erd90]. In the latter case, it follows from the decomposition matrices of B_0(k\operatorname{PSL}_3(q_1)) and B_0(k\operatorname{PSU}_3(q_2)) with ({q_1-1)_2=2^n=(q_2+1)_2} given in [Sch15, Proposition 6.12] and Lemma 7.2, respectively, that these blocks are not Morita equivalent. The claim follows.

See e.g. [CG12, p. 5956].

If G is 2-nilpotent, then Case (WR1) holds since O_{2'}(G) = 1. In all other cases, G is a D-group, a Q-group or a QD-group with the notation of [ABG70, Definition 2.1]. Let G be a D-group. Then there exists K\unlhd G of index 2 such that P\cap K\cong C_{2^n}\times C_{2^n}. By [Bra64, Theorem 1], K\cong (C_{2^n}\times C_{2^n})\rtimes C_3 and Case (WR2) holds.

If G is a Q-group, then Case (WR3) or (WR4) occurs by Propositions 3.2 and 3.3 of [ABG70]. Finally, let G be a QD-group. Then by [ABG70, Proposition 2.2], N:=O^{2'}(G) is simple and the possible isomorphism types of N are given by the main result of [ABG73]. Since C_G(N)\cap N=Z(N)=1 we have C_G(N)\le O_{2'}(G)=1. The possibilities for G/N\le{\text{Out}}(N) can be deduced from [Atlas]. Since |G/N| is odd, no graph automorphism is involved. Hence, G/N\le C_{(3,q-1)}\rtimes C_d or G/N\le C_{(3,q+1)}\rtimes C_d. In fact, G/N must be abelian since |G/N| is odd.

Cases (WR1) and (WR2) follow from elementary group theory. If Case (WR3) or Case (WR4) of Theorem 3.2 holds, then the numbers follow from [Kue80, Proposition (7.G)]. Suppose now that Case (WR5) or Case (WR6) holds, then the number k(B) follows from [Brauerwr, blackTheorem 1A] – here, Brauer even computed the degrees of the ordinary irreducible characters in B – whereas the number \ell(B) can be obtained with [Kue80, Lemma 7.I] for instance.

Assertion (a) follows from [Alp76, Dad77]. More precisely, the given map is an isomorphism of k-algebras by [Dad77, Theorem] and

[Alp76, Theorems 1 and 2] proves that restriction from \widetilde{G}_{1} to G_{1} induces a splendid Morita equivalence. Assertion (b) is given by [KLS20, Lemma 5.1].

It suffices to prove that the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1 are satisfied. So, let i\in\{1,2\}. Since \mathrm{Aut}(P) is a p-group we have N_{\widetilde G_{i}}(P)=PC_{\widetilde G_{i}}(P). Moreover, by Frattini’s argument \widetilde G_{i}=G_{i}N_{\widetilde G_{i}}(P), thus \widetilde G_{i}=G_{i}C_{\widetilde G_{i}}(P), as required.

(a) By the assumption N_{1}\leq O_{p'}(G_{1}), hence N_{1} acts trivially on B_0(kG_{1}). Thus, B_0(kG_{1}) and its image B_0(k\overline{G_{1}}) in k\overline{G_{1}} are isomorphic as interior P-algebras. Part (a) follows then immediately from the fact that {\mathrm{Sc}}(G_{1}\times\overline G_{1}, \Delta P)={_{kG_{1}}B_0(kG_{1})}_{k\overline{G_{1}}} (seen as a (kG_{1},k\overline{G_{1}})-bimodule). Part (b) follows from (a) and the fact that

(See e.g. the proof of [KLS20, Lemma 5.1] for a detailed argument proving this isomorphism.)

Let i\in\{1,2\}. Clearly, we have Z_i=(P\cap Z_{i})\times O_{p'}(Z_i) and

Write \widetilde{P} for the image of P in the quotients G_{i}/(P\cap Z_{i}) and write \overline{\overline{P}} for the image of P in the quotients \overline{\overline{G_{i}}}. Now, on the one hand, by Theorem A.2, the Scott module {\mathrm{Sc}}(G_1\times G_2,\Delta P) induces a splendid Morita equivalence between B_0(kG_1) and B_0(kG_2) if and only if {\mathrm{Sc}}(G_1/(P\cap Z_{1})\times G_2/(P\cap Z_{2}),\Delta \widetilde{P}) induces a splendid Morita equivalence between B_0(k[G_1/(P\cap Z_{1})]) and B_0(k[G_2/(P\cap Z_{2})]), which by Lemma 4.3(b) happens if and only if {\mathrm{Sc}}(\overline{\overline{G_{1}}}\times \overline{\overline{G_{2}}},\Delta \overline{\overline{P}}) induces a splendid Morita equivalence between B_0(k\overline{\overline{G_1}}) and B_0(k\overline{\overline{G_2}}). The claim follows.

By [KL20a, Lemma 4.1], Condition (I) is equivalent to the fact that M induces a stable equivalence of Morita type between B_0(kG_1) and B_0(kG_2). Therefore, applying [Lin96a, Theorem 2.1], Condition (II) now implies that M induces a Morita equivalence between B_0(kG_1) and B_0(kG_2). This equivalence is necessarily splendid since M is a p-permutation module by definition.

Since \mathrm{soc}(X) and \mathrm{soc}(Y ) are semisimple, we have \mathrm{soc}(X)\cap Y = \mathrm{soc}(Y ) and \mathrm{soc}(X) = \mathrm{soc}(Y)\oplus S where S is a submodule of X. Thus S\cap Y = S\cap \mathrm{soc}(X)\cap Y = S\cap \mathrm{soc}(Y) = 0. Hence, either S = 0 and \mathrm{soc}(X) = \mathrm{soc}(Y), or Y is a submodule of S\oplus Y and so S\oplus Y =X.

Elementary calculations yield G_{i}\lhd\mathcal{G}_{i} and |\mathcal G_i/G_i|=({q_i}-1)/2^n for each i~\in~\{1,2\} (see Remark 5.2). In particular both indices are odd. Hence, by Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 4.2, assertion (b) follows from assertion (a), so it suffices to prove (a). Now, P\cap Z(\mathcal G_1)=P\cap Z(\mathcal G_2)=Z(P), so \overline P:=(PZ(\mathcal G_1))/Z(\mathcal G_1)\cong (PZ(\mathcal G_2))/Z(\mathcal G_2)\,, and hence, up to identification, we can consider that \overline P\in\mathrm{Syl}_2(\mathcal G_1/Z(\mathcal G_1))\cap\mathrm{Syl}_2(\mathcal G_2/Z(\mathcal G_2)). Moreover, we have

see e.g. [Kue80, (2.A) Lemma (iii)]. Since \mathcal G_i/Z(\mathcal G_i)\cong \operatorname{PGL}_2(q_i) for each i\in\{1,2\}, assertion (a) now follows directly from Lemma 4.4 and [KL20a, Theorem 1.1].

In this case G_{i}\lhd\mathcal{G}_{i} and |\mathcal G_i/G_i|=(q_i+1)/2^n for each i\in\{1,2\} (See Remark 5.2). Thus both indices are odd. Again by Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 4.2, it suffices to prove (a). Now, P\cap Z(\mathcal G_1)=P\cap Z(\mathcal G_2)=Z(P). Thus \overline P:=(PZ(\mathcal G_1))/Z(\mathcal G_1) \cong (PZ(\mathcal G_2))/Z(\mathcal G_2) and we can consider that \overline P\in\mathrm{Syl}_2(\mathcal G_1/Z(\mathcal G_1))\cap\mathrm{Syl}_2(\mathcal G_2/Z(\mathcal G_2)). As in the previous proof,

Next, for each for i\in\{1,2\} we have an isomorphism \operatorname{SU}_2(q_i)\cong\operatorname{SL}_2(q_i),

and hence \operatorname{PSU}_2(q_i)\cong\operatorname{PSL}_2(q_i). Furthermore, since q_i is odd, \operatorname{PGL}_2(q_i)=\operatorname{PSL}_2(q_i).2 (where 2 denotes the cyclic group of order 2 generated by the diagonal automorphism of \operatorname{PSL}_2(q_i)) by Steinberg’s result (see [Suz86, Chap.6 (8.8), p. 511 and Theorem 8.11]). In other words, we have

Therefore, assertion (a) follows immediately from Lemma 4.4 and [KL20a, Theorem 1.1], proving the Proposition.

First we note that it is clear that all the given modules belong to the principal block as at least one of their constituents obviously does.
(a) It is clear that the trivial module is a trivial source module with vertex P affording the trivial character.
(b) As the restriction of a trivial source module is always a trivial source module, to prove that S_{i} is a trivial source module affording \chi^{}_{q_{i}^2+q_{i}}, it is enough to prove that the k\widetilde{G}_{i}-module \widetilde{S}_{i} is a trivial source module affording \widetilde\chi^{}_{q_{i}^2+q_{i}}. (See e.g. [Las23, §4] for these properties.) Now, [Ste51, pp. 228–229] shows that 1_{\widetilde{G}_{i}} + \widetilde\chi_{q^2+q} is a permutation character. More precisely there exists a subgroup \widetilde H_{i}\leq \widetilde G_{i} such that \widetilde H_{i}\cong (C_{q_{i}}\times C_{q_{i}})\rtimes\operatorname{GL}_2(q_{i}), |\widetilde G_{i}:\widetilde H_{i}|=1+q_{i}+q_{i}^2 and {1_{\widetilde H_{i}}}{\uparrow}^{\widetilde G_{i}}= 1_{\widetilde{G}_{i}} + \widetilde\chi_{q_{i}^2+q_{i}} . Thus, setting X_{i}:=k_{\widetilde H_{i}}{\uparrow}^{\widetilde G_{i}}, the decomposition matrix given in Notation ? implies that

Then X_{i}=k_{\widetilde G_{i}}\oplus \widetilde S_{i} as k_{G_{i}} must occur as a composition factor of the socle and of the head, proving that \widetilde S_{i} is a trivial source module affording the character \widetilde\chi^{}_{q_{i}^2+q_{i}}. Finally, using [Lan83, II Lemma 12.6(iii)] and the character table of \operatorname{SL}_{3}(q_{i}) in [SF73] we can read from the values of the character \chi^{}_{q_{i}^2+q_{i}} at non-trivial 2-elements that Q=C_{2^n}\times C_{2^n}\leq P is a vertex of S_i.
(c) The Scott module {\text{Sc}}(\mathsf{G}_{i},Q) is a trivial source module with vertex Q and clearly S_{i}\ncong {\text{Sc}}(\mathsf{G}_i,Q), as a Scott module always has a trivial constituent in its head by definition.
(d) [Ste51, pp. 228–229] also shows that 1_{\widetilde{G}_{i}}+2\widetilde\chi_{q_{i}^2+q_{i}}+\widetilde\chi_{q_{i}^3} is a permutation character. More precisely, there is a Borel subgroup \widetilde{\mathbb B}_{i}\leq\widetilde G_{i} such that

1_{\widetilde{\mathbb B}_{i}}{\uparrow}^{\widetilde G} = 1_{\widetilde{G}_{i}} +2\widetilde\chi_{q_{i}^2+q_{i}}+\widetilde\chi_{q_{i}^3}.

Setting Y_{i}:={k_{\widetilde{\mathbb B}_{i}}}{\uparrow}^{\widetilde G_{i}} we obtain from the decomposition matrix in Notation ? that

As both Y_{i} and \widetilde S_{i} are trivial source modules, we have

(see [Lan83, II Theorem 12.4(iii)]), implying that \widetilde S_{i}\oplus \widetilde S_{i}\mid \mathrm{soc}(Y_{i}) and \widetilde S_{i}\oplus \widetilde S_{i}\mid \operatorname{hd}(Y_{i}). Thus, there exists a submodule U_{i} of Y_{i} such that Y_{i}\cong \widetilde S_{i}\oplus \widetilde S_{i}\oplus U_{i} and hence U_{i} is a trivial source module with composition factors 2\times k_{\widetilde G_{i}}+T_{i} and U_{i} affords the ordinary character 1_{\widetilde{G}_{i}}+\widetilde\chi_{q_{i}^3}. Applying [Lan83, II Theorem 12.4(iii)] again, we get

and

It follows that

and setting {\mathbb B}_{i}:=\widetilde{\mathbb B}_{i}\cap \mathsf{G}_{i} yields assertion (d).

Below i\in\{1,2\}. First, we observe that by Lemma 4.4, {\mathrm{Sc}}(G_1\times G_2, \Delta P) induces a splendid Morita equivalence between the principal blocks B_0(kG_1) and B_0(kG_2) if and only if {\text{Sc}}(\mathsf{G}_1\times \mathsf{G}_2, \Delta P)=:M induces a splendid Morita equivalence between B_{1}:=B_0(k\mathsf{G}_1) and B_{2}:=B_0(k\mathsf{G}_2). Thus, we may work with \mathsf{G}_{i} instead of G_{i} (for i\in\{1,2\}). Now, observe that \mathcal F_P(\mathsf{G}_1)=\mathcal F_P(\mathsf{G}_2) and all involutions in \mathsf{G}_i are \mathsf{G}_i-conjugate (see e.g. [CG12, Theorem 5.3] and [ABG70, Proposition 2 on p.11]). Thus, it follows that it now suffices to prove that Conditions (I) and (II) of Theorem 4.5 hold.

Condition (I). By the above we only need to consider one involution in P, so we choose an involution z\in Z(P), and set C_i:=C_{\mathsf{G}_i}(z). Clearly, C_{i}\cong\operatorname{GL}_2(q_i) and again, up to identification, we see P\in\mathrm{Syl}_2(\mathcal G_1)\cap\mathrm{Syl}_2(\mathcal G_2) (see Remark 5.2). We have to prove that M(\Delta\langle z\rangle) induces a Morita equivalence between B_0(kC_1) and B_0(kC_2). Now, recall that M_{z}:={\text{Sc}}(C_1\times C_2,\Delta P) induces a splendid Morita equivalence between B_0(kC_1) and B_0(kC_2) by Proposition 5.3(a). Moreover, obviously, it is always true that M_z\,|\,M(\Delta\langle z\rangle), and we obtain that equality M_z=M(\Delta\langle z\rangle) holds by the Brauer indecomposability of M proved in  [KT20, Theorem 1.1]. Thus Condition (I) is verified.

Condition (II). We have to prove that the functor -\otimes_{B_1}M maps the simple B_{1}-modules to the simple B_{2}-modules. First, we have k_{\mathsf G_1}\otimes_{B_1}M\cong k_{\mathsf G_2} by [KL20a, Lemma 3.4(a)]. Next, as N_{\mathsf{G}_i}(Q)/Q\cong\mathfrak S_3, there are precisely |\mathfrak{S}_{3}|_{2}=2 non-isomorphic trivial source k\mathsf{G}_{i}-modules (see e.g. [Las23, Theorem 4.6(c)]), namely the modules {\text{Sc}}(\mathsf{G}_i,Q) and S_i, both belonging to the principal block by Lemma ?. Now, on the one hand, we know from [KL20a, Theorem 2.1(a)] that S_1\otimes_{B_1}M=:V is indecomposable and non-projective, and on the other hand we know from [KL20a, Lemma 3.4(b)] that V is a trivial source module with vertex Q. Thus V is either {\text{Sc}}(\mathsf{G}_2,Q) or S_2. However, {\text{Sc}}(\mathsf{G}_{1},Q)\otimes_{B_1}M\cong {\text{Sc}}(\mathsf{G}_{2},Q)\oplus\text{({\sf proj})} by [KL20a, Lemma 3.4(c)]. Hence, it follows immediately that

It remains to treat T_{1}. By our assumption, (q-1)_2=(q_2-1)_2=2^n, so the Sylow 2-subgroups of \mathbb B_{1} and \mathbb B_2 are isomorphic, meaning that the Scott modules {\text{Sc}}(\mathsf{G}_1, \mathbb B_{1}) and {\text{Sc}}(\mathsf{G}_2, \mathbb B_{2}) have isomorphic vertices (see e.g. [NT89, Corollary 4.8.5]). Therefore, [KL20a, Lemma 3.4(c)] together with Lemma ?(d) yield

and Lemma 4.7 implies that T_1\otimes_{B_1}M\cong T_2 \oplus\text{({\sf proj})} . However, again [KL20a, Theorem 2.1(a)] tells us that T_1\otimes_{B_1}M is indecomposable non-projective, proving that

Thus, Condition (II) is verified and the proposition is proved.

To start with, [His04, Appendix] gives us the unipotent part of the decomposition matrix. (See also [GJ11, Table 4.5].) Then, direct computations using [Gec90, Table 1.1 and Table 3.1] (see also [SF73]) or CHEVIE [Chev] yield the remaining entries. In particular, it follows easily from the character table that any two irreducible characters of the same degree have the same reduction modulo 2.

It follows from the decomposition matrix of B_{0}(k\mathsf{G}) in Lemma 7.2 that \varphi and \theta are liftable modules. Moreover, any lift of \varphi to an \mathcal{O}\mathsf{G}-lattice affords the unipotent character \chi^{}_{q(q-1)}, and any lift of \theta to an \mathcal{O}\mathsf{G}-lattice affords one of the characters \chi_{(q-1)(q^2-q+1)}^{(u,v)} of degree (q-1)(q^2-q+1). However, it follows from [Lan83, II Theorem 12.4(iii)] that neither \chi^{}_{q(q-1)} nor the characters \chi_{(q-1)(q^2-q+1)}^{(u,v)} can be the characters of trivial source modules, because it is easily checked from the character table that these characters take strictly negative values at some 2-elements. (See e.g. [Gec90, Table 3.1].)

(a) The claim about the structure of Q is clear from the structure of \mathbb{B}. Hence, it is clear that \mathrm{Sc}(\mathsf{G},\mathbb B) = \mathrm{Sc}(\mathsf{G}, Q) (see e.g. [NT89, Corollary 4.8.5]). The claim about k_{\mathbb B}{\uparrow}^\mathsf{G} being uniserial with the given composition series and the given ordinary character is given by [His04, Theorem 4.1(c) and Appendix (pp. 238–241)]. Then, as k_{\mathbb B}{\uparrow}^\mathsf{G} is indecomposable, and {\mathrm{Sc}}(\mathsf{G},\mathbb B) is an indecomposable direct summand of k_{\mathbb B}{\uparrow}^\mathsf{G} by definition, certainly k_{\mathbb B}{\uparrow}^\mathsf{G}={\mathrm{Sc}}(\mathsf{G},\mathbb B). (b) Suppose that U\,|\,\varphi{\downarrow}_{\mathbb B} and U lies in B_0(k\mathbb B). Since \mathbb B is 2-nilpotent, its principal block is nilpotent and so \mathrm{Irr}_{k}(B_0(k\mathbb B))=\{k_{\mathbb{B}}\}. All the composition factors of U are isomorphic to k_{\mathbb{B}} as they must lie in B_0(k\mathbb B). Thus, 0\neq \mathrm{Hom}_{k\mathbb B}(U,k_{\mathbb B}) and Frobenius reciprocity yields

proving that \varphi is a constituent of the socle of k_{\mathbb B}{\uparrow}^G. This contradicts (a) and so the first claim follows. The claim about \theta is proved analogously. (c) By [Lan83, I Corollary 10.13], \mathrm{Ext}_{k\mathsf{G}}^1(k_\mathsf{G}, k_\mathsf{G})=0 as O^2(\mathsf{G})=\mathsf{G}. (d) First, it is immediate from (a) that \mathrm{dim}_k\,\mathrm{Ext}_{k\mathsf{G}}^1(k_\mathsf{G},\varphi)\geq 1. Now, suppose that \mathrm{dim}_k\,\mathrm{Ext}_{k\mathsf{G}}^1(k_\mathsf{G},\varphi)\geq 2. Then, there exists a non-split short exact sequence

of k\mathsf{G}-modules, i.e. \mathrm{Ext}_{k\mathsf{G}}^1(k_{\mathbb B}{\uparrow}^\mathsf{G},\varphi)\neq 0. However, by the Eckmann–Shapiro Lemma,

which is zero by (b). This is a contradiction and so it follows that \mathrm{dim}_k\,\mathrm{Ext}_{k\mathsf{G}}^1(k_\mathsf{G},\varphi)=1. Moreover, \mathrm{dim}_k\,\mathrm{Ext}_{k\mathsf{G}}^1(k_\mathsf{G},\varphi)=1 as well by the self-duality of k_{\mathsf{G}} and \varphi. (e) Suppose that \mathrm{Ext}_{k\mathsf{G}}^1(k_\mathsf{G},\theta)\,{\not=}\,0. Then, with arguments similar to those used in the proof of (d), we obtain that \mathrm{Ext}_{k\mathsf{G}}^1(k_{\mathbb B}{\uparrow}^\mathsf{G},\theta)\,{\not=}\,0, which contradicts (b). Again, as k_{\mathsf{G}} and \theta are self-dual, it follows that \mathrm{Ext}_{k\mathsf{G}}^1(k_\mathsf{G},\theta)=0 as well. (f) Since \mathrm{Irr}_{k}(B_{0}(k\mathsf{G}))=\{k_\mathsf{G}, \varphi, \theta\}, it follows from (c), (d) and (e) that the second Loewy layer of P(k_{\mathsf{G}}) consists just of the simple module \varphi, with multiplicity 1. Thus, the claim follows from the fact that \Omega(k_\mathsf{G})=P(k_\mathsf{G}){\cdot}{\mathrm{rad}}(kG). (g) First, it is well-known that X lifts to an \mathcal O\mathsf{G}-lattice (see e.g. [Las23, §7.3]). Moreover, by (f) we have that \Omega^2(k_\mathsf{G}) is the kernel of a short exact sequence of k\mathsf{G}-modules of the form

Thus, in the Grothendieck ring of kG, we have

Using the decomposition matrix of B_{0}(k\mathsf{G}) given in Lemma 7.2, we obtain that the character afforded by \Omega^2(k_\mathsf{G}) is \chi_{q(q-1)}+\chi_{q^3}, and the composition factors of X are as claimed. (h) It is clear that \mathrm{soc}(X)\cong\varphi as \Omega^{2}(k_\mathsf{G}) is a submodule of P(\varphi) by the proof of assertion (g). Now, by Lemma 7.2, any lift of \varphi affords the character \chi_{q(q-1)}. Thus, by [Lan83, I Theorem 17.3], X has a pure submodule Y affording the Steinberg character \chi_{q^{3}}. Then, X/Y\cong \varphi, proving the claim. (i) It follows from Frobenius reciprocity that

Now, as \mathrm{Irr}_{k}(B_0(k\mathsf{G}))=\{k_{\mathsf{G}},\varphi,\theta\} and by assertion (g) we have that k_{\mathsf{G}} has multiplicity one as a composition factor of X, it follows from (b) that

as k-vector spaces. The second equality is obtained analogously. (j) Consider the Auslander–Reiten sequence (\mathcal E):0\rightarrow X\overset{g}{\rightarrow} E \overset{\pi}\rightarrow k_{\mathsf{G}}\rightarrow 0 starting at X=\Omega^{2}(k_{\mathsf{G}}) (and hence ending at k_{\mathsf{G}}). (See e.g. [The95, § 34] for this notion.) By (d) there exists a uniserial module of length 2 of the form

Consider the quotient homomorphism \rho:Y\rightarrow Y/\varphi\cong k_{\mathsf{G}}, which is obviously not a split-epi. Hence there exists a k{\mathsf{G}}-homomorphism \alpha: Y\rightarrow E with \pi\circ\alpha =\rho. Next we claim that \mathrm{ker}(\alpha) \not=\mathrm{soc}(Y). So assume \mathrm{ker}(\alpha) =\mathrm{soc}(Y). Then, E\geq\mathrm{im}(\alpha)\cong k_{\mathsf{G}}, proving that \mathrm{im}(\alpha)\leq\mathrm{soc}(E) (as it is simple). On the other hand, by (h), \mathrm{soc}(X)=\varphi, implying that \mathrm{im}(\alpha) \cap \mathrm{soc}(X)=0. Thus, identifying X with its image in E, we get that \mathrm{im}(\alpha)\cap X=0 as \mathrm{im}(\alpha) is simple. (Use here the same argument as in the last five lines of the proof of Lemma 4.6.) Hence, E has a submodule of the form \mathrm{im}(\alpha)\oplus X, which implies that E=\mathrm{im}(\alpha)\oplus X as we can read from the s.e.s. (\mathcal E) that they have the same k-dimension. Thus, it follows from [Car96, Lemma  6.12] that the sequence (\mathcal E) splits, which is a contradiction and the claim follows. Next, since \alpha \neq 0, it follows that \mathrm{ker}(\alpha)=0, that is, \alpha is injective. Hence, \mathrm{im}(\alpha)\cong Y. Now, suppose that k_{\mathsf{G}}\,|\,\mathrm{soc}^2(X). Set W:=\mathrm{soc}^2(X)+\mathrm{im}(\alpha)\leq E. Note that \mathrm{im}(\alpha) \not\leq X since X=\mathrm{ker}(\pi), so that \mathrm{im}(\alpha)\not\leq\mathrm{soc}^2(X). Hence \mathrm{soc}^2(X)+\mathrm{im}(\alpha) has the following socle series

since by Lemma 4.6 we have \mathrm{soc}(E)=\mathrm{soc}(X)\cong\varphi, where the last isomorphism holds by (h). This is a contradiction to (d), and so the claim follows. (k)

It follows from assertions (i) and (a) that

where \boxed{\begin{matrix} k_\mathsf{G}\\ \varphi\\ \theta\\ \varphi \end{matrix}}:= k_{\mathbb B}{\uparrow}^\mathsf{G} /\mathrm{soc}(k_{\mathbb B}{\uparrow}^\mathsf{G}) and the last equality holds because c_X(k_\mathsf{G})=1 by (g). Therefore, there exists a non-zero k\mathsf{G}-homomorphism

Now, either \gamma is injective and we are done, or \mathrm{ker}(\gamma)\neq 0. In the latter case, by (h) we have \mathrm{ker}(\gamma)= \boxed{\begin{matrix} \theta\\ \varphi \end{matrix}} and so there is an injective homomorphism

which contradicts assertion (j). The claim follows.

Again, as G_{i}\lhd\mathsf{G}_{i} and |\mathsf G_i/G_i|=(3,q+1) is odd for each i~\in~\{1,2\}, by Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 4.2, assertion (b) follows from assertion (a), so it suffices to prove (a). Set M:={\mathrm{Sc}}(\mathsf{G}_1\times \mathsf{G}_2,\Delta P). For each i~\in~\{1,2\} write B_{i}:=B_{0}(k\mathsf{G}_{i}). Write \mathrm{Irr}_{k}(B_{i})=\{k_{\mathsf{G}_{i}},\varphi_{i},\theta_{i}\} with \mathrm{dim}_k\,\varphi_i={q_i}(q_i-1) and \mathrm{dim}_k\,\theta_i=(q_i-1)({q_i}^2-q_i+1), and set \mathbb{B}_{i}:=\mathbb{B}_{i}(q_{i}) as in Notation 7.1. Moreover, let Q_i\in\mathrm{Syl}_{2}(\mathbb B_i) such that Q_{i}\leq P and let X_{i}:=\Omega^{2}(k_{\mathsf{G}_{i}}) as in Lemma 7.4. Furthermore, observe that \mathcal F_P(\mathsf{G}_1)=\mathcal F_P(\mathsf{G}_2) and all involutions in \mathsf{G}_i are \mathsf{G}_i-conjugate (see e.g. [CG12, Theorem 5.3] and/or [ABG70, Proposition 2 on p.11]). It follows that it suffices to prove that Conditions  (I) and (II) of Theorem 4.5 hold.

Condition (I). A similar argument to the one used in the proof of Proposition 6.3 (Condition I) can be used. In the present case, if z is an involution in the centre of P, then C_{\mathsf{G}_{i}}(z)=:C_i is a quotient of \operatorname{GU}_{2}(q) by a normal subgroup of odd index by [ABG70, Proposition 4(iii)]. Hence, we obtain from Lemma 4.3 and Proposition 5.4 that M_{z}:={\text{Sc}}(C_1\times C_2,\Delta P) induces a splendid Morita equivalence between B_0(kC_1) and B_0(kC_2) by Proposition 5.3(a). Moreover, M_z=M(\Delta\langle z\rangle) by the Brauer indecomposability of M proved in [KT20, Theorem 1.1], proving that Condition (I) is verified.

Condition (II). Again, we have to prove that the functor -\otimes_{B_1}M maps the simple B_{1}-modules to the simple B_{2}-modules, and again, we have k_{\mathsf{G}_1}\otimes_{B_1}M\cong k_{\mathsf{G}_2} by [KL20a, Lemma 3.4(a)]. Thus, it remains to prove that \varphi_{1}\otimes_{B_{1}}M\cong \varphi_{2} and \theta_{1}\otimes_{B_{1}}M\cong \theta_{2}. First recall from Lemma 7.4(a) that for each i\in\{1, 2\} we have

and moreover by [KL20a, Lemma 3.4(c)] we have

Thus, because we already know that

the stripping-off method (see Lemma 4.7(a)) yields

where for each i\in\{1,2\}, the latter uniserial module of length 4 is defined to be

as in Lemma 7.4(k). Then, applying again the stripping-off method (Lemma 4.7(b) this time) to equation (?) and \operatorname{hd}{Z}_{i}\cong k_{\mathsf{G}_{i}} (i\in\{1,2\}), we obtain that

where for each i\in\{1,2\}, the latter uniserial module of length 3 is defined to be

again as in Lemma 7.4(k). Now, by the proof of Lemma 7.4(k), we also know that Y_{i} is (up to identification) a submodule of X_{i} for each i\in\{1,2\}, and

by [KL20a, Lemma 3.4(d)]. Because of the way, we have defined X_{i} and Y_{i} (i\in\{1,2\}) via the stripping-off method, it follows from the exactness of the functor -\otimes_{B_{1}}M that

Lemma 7.4(k) gives, up to isomorphism, two possibilities for X_{1}/Y_{1} and two possibilities for X_{2}/Y_{2}, namely,

but in any configuration we can apply the stripping-off method again (Lemma 4.7(a)) to strip off the trivial socle summand of X_{1}/Y_{1} and X_{2}/Y_{2} and we obtain that

However, as \varphi_{1} is simple, \varphi_{1}\otimes_{B_{1}}M must be indecomposable by [KL20a, Theorem 2.1(a)], proving that \varphi_{1}\otimes_{B_{1}}M\cong \varphi_{2}. Then, we can apply yet again the stripping-off method twice (once Lemma 4.7(a) and once Lemma 4.7(b)) to equation (?) and \mathrm{soc}(Y_{i}), respectively \operatorname{hd}(Y_{i}), (i\in\{1,2\}) to obtain that

However, again, as \theta_{1} is simple, \theta_{1}\otimes_{B_{1}}M must be indecomposable by [KL20a, Theorem 2.1(a)], eventually proving that \theta_{1}\otimes_{B_{1}}M\cong \theta_{2}.

The notation here is the same as in the proof of [Lin18, (i) \Rightarrow (ii) in Theorem 9.7.4] except that \mathcal O is replaced by k. First we know already Mj\cong kGi as (kG, kP)-bimodules via \alpha there. In the following the endomorphism ring of a left R-module X for a ring R is denoted by \mathrm{End}_R(X). Then, since Mj can be considered as a right not only kP-module but also \mathrm{End}_{kGb}(Mj)-module. Since Mj\cong kGi as left kGb-modules from the above, it follows that \mathrm{End}_{kGb}(Mj)\cong\mathrm{End}_{kGb}(kGi)\cong (i\,kGi)^{\text{op}} as k-algebras. On the other hand, \mathrm{End}_{kGb}(Mj)\cong\mathrm{End}_{kGb}(M\otimes_{kHc}\,kHj)\cong\mathrm{End}_{kHc}(kHj)\cong (j\,kHj)^{\text{op}} as k-algebras (the second isomorphism comes from the fact that M realises a Morita equivalence between kGb and kHc). Since the isomorphism \varphi=\varphi_M is defined by using these isomorphisms (see the final several lines in the proof of [Lin18, (i) \Rightarrow (ii) in Theorem 9.7.4]), we eventually obtain that (X \otimes_{kGb}Mj)_\varphi \cong X\otimes_{kGb} kGi\cong Xi as right i\,kGi-modules.

Let i\in\{1,2\}. Write B_i:=B_0(kG_i) and let \overline{B_i} be the image of B_i under the k-algebra epimorphism kG_i\twoheadrightarrow k\overline{G_i} induced by the quotient group homomorphism G_i\twoheadrightarrow\overline{G_i}. Then [NT89, Chap. 5 Theorem 8.11] says that \overline{B_i}=B_0(k\overline{G_i}). Furthermore \overline{B_i}\cong k\overline{G_i}\otimes_{kG_i}B_i\otimes_{kG_i} {k\overline{G_i}} as (k\overline{G_i},k\overline{G_i})-bimodules. Write M:={\mathrm{Sc}}(G_1\times G_2,\Delta P) and N:=M^*={\mathrm{Sc}}(G_2\times G_1,\Delta P). Set \overline M:=k\overline{G_1}\otimes_{kG_1}M\otimes_{kG_2}k\overline{G_2}. Then, the following holds:

Note furthermore that \overline M obviously has the trivial k(\overline{G_1}\times\overline{G_2})-module k_{\overline{G_1}\times\overline{G_2}} as an epimorphic image. Set \mathfrak M:={\mathrm{Sc}}(\overline{G_1}\times\overline{G_2},\,\Delta{\overline P}). Then

(i) \Rightarrow (ii): Set \overline N:=k\overline{G_2}\otimes_{kG_2}N\otimes_{kG_1}k\overline{G_1}. Then,

Since \overline{B_i} is a symmetric k-algebra for i=1, 2, the above already shows that the pair (\overline M, {\overline N}) induces a Morita equivalence between \overline{B_1} and \overline{B_2}, and hence \overline M is indecomposable as a right k(\overline G_1\times\overline G_2)-module, which implies that \mathfrak M\cong\overline M from (Proof).

(ii) \Rightarrow (i): As in [Lin01, p.822] there exist P-source idempotents j_i of B_i for i=1,2 with M\,|\, (kG_1\,j_1\otimes_{kP}\,j_2\,kG_2). Then, for i=1,2, the image \overline{j_i} of j_i via the canonical k-algebra epimorphism kG_i\twoheadrightarrow k\overline{G_i} is a \overline P-source idempotent of \overline{B_i} (see [NT89, Chap.5 Theorem 8.11], [KP90, § 3] and [Kaw03, Lemma 4.1]).

Hence,

from (Proof).

Now, we apply [Lin18, (i) \Rightarrow (ii) in Theorem 9.7.4] to the blocks \overline{B_1} and \overline{B_2}. Namely, the existence of such an \mathfrak M induces a unitary interior \overline P-algebra isomorphism

Thanks to [Pui01, Corollary 1.12] (see [Kue01]), \Phi lifts to a unitary interior P-algebra isomorphism \varphi\,:\, j_1 kG_1\,j_1 \overset{\approx}{\rightarrow} j_2 kG_2\,j_2, that is, \Phi(\overline a)=\overline{\varphi(a)} for every a\in j_1\,kG_1\,j_1. Then, by making use of \varphi it follows from [Lin18, (ii) \Rightarrow (i) in Theorem 9.7.4] that there is an indecomposable direct summand \mathcal M of the (B_1,B_2)-bimodule kG_1\,j_1\otimes_{kP}j_2\,kG_2 such that the pair (\mathcal M,{\mathcal M}^\vee) induces a Morita equivalence between B_1 and B_2

Set S_2:=k_{G_1}\otimes_{B_1}\mathcal M. Then, though we do not know that \mathcal M={\text{Sc}}(G\times H,\Delta P) yet, Corollary A.1 yields that (S_2\,j_2)_\varphi \cong k_{G_1}\,{j_1} as right j_1\,B_1\,j_1-modules. Hence by sending these via the canonical epimorphism kG_i\twoheadrightarrow k{\overline{G_i}},

Now, we claim that \mathcal M\cong M. Since the Scott module \mathfrak M induces a Morita equivalence between \overline{B_1} and \overline{B_2} and \mathfrak M is related to \overline{j_i} for i=1, 2 (see (?)) and \Phi, it follows from Corollary A.1 and [KL20a, Lemma 3.4(a)] that

Hence (?) and (?) yield that (\overline{S_2}\,\overline{j_2})_{\Phi} \cong (k_{\overline{G_2}}\,\overline{j_2})_\Phi as right \overline{j_1}\overline{B_1}\,\overline{j_1}-modules, and hence \overline{S_2}\,\overline{j_2} \cong k_{\overline{G_2}}\,\overline{j_2} as right \overline{j_2}\overline{B_2}\,\overline{j_2}-modules. Since the pair (\overline{B_2}\,\overline{j_2}, \overline{j_2}\overline{B_2}) induces the canonical Morita equivalence between \overline{B_2} and its source algebra \overline{j_2}\,\overline{B_2}\,\overline{j_2}, we get that \overline{S_2}\cong k_{\overline{G_2}} as right \overline{B_2}-modules, say as right k\overline{G_2}-modules. Since S_2 and k_{G_2} are both simple right kG_2-modules, Z is in their kernels. Thus, {\mathrm{Def}}^{G_2}_{\overline{G_2}}\, S_2 \cong {\mathrm{Def}}^{G_2}_{\overline{G_2}}\,k_{G_2} as right k\overline{G_2}-modules where {\mathrm{Def}} is the deflation.

Hence S_2\cong k_{G_2} as right kG_2-modules. This means by the definition of S_2 that the bimodule \mathcal M transposes k_{G_1} to k_{G_2}. Thus, the adjunction in [Rou01, Line 9 on p.105] implies that \mathrm{Hom}_{(k(G_1\times G_2))^{\text{op}}}(\mathcal M, k_{(G_1\times G_2)})\,{\not=}\,\{ 0 \}. Therefore \mathcal M\cong{\text{Sc}}(G_1\times G_2,\Delta P)=M by [The95, Exercise (27.5)]. We are done.