Additive diameters of group representations

Let \mathcal B be an ordered basis of V, and let J be a d-tuple of distinct indices from \{ 1, \dots, \dim V \}. Let M_J be the set of d \times \dim V matrices whose columns indexed by J form the identity matrix. The row spans of matrices in M_J form an open affine subset \mathcal O_J \subseteq \operatorname{Gr}(V, d). These open subsets give a chart for \operatorname{Gr}(V, d) as J varies. Let

The set Y_{d,k} \cap (\mathcal O_J \times G^k) corresponds to matrices M_J with rows m_1, \dots, m_d (where m_i \in V) for which the matrix with rows \rho(g_i) \cdot m_j for 1 \leq i \leq k and 1 \leq j \leq d has full rank. This is an open condition, so Y_{d,k} is an open subset of \operatorname{Gr}(V, d) \times G^k. Consider the projection \operatorname{Gr}(V,d) \times G^k \to \operatorname{Gr}(V, d) onto the first component. This is an open map, so its image, consisting of subspaces U \in \operatorname{Gr}(V, d) that cover V with at most k conjugates, is open in \operatorname{Gr}(V, d). Its complement X_{d,k} is then closed.

Let V = \mathbf{C}[X,Y]_k for some k \geq 1. For simplicity, let us further identify \mathbf{C}[X,Y]_k with polynomials of degree at most k, denoted as \mathbf{C}[x]_{\leq k}, under X = x, Y = 1. By Proposition 2.3, it suffices to prove the claim for every upper closed subspace U = \langle e_j, e_{j+1}, \dots, e_k \rangle, which is, by the above identification, equal to \langle x^j,x^{j+1},\dots,x^k\rangle. For any 0 \leq i < d and a \in \mathbf{C}, we have

Let d = \dim U = k - j + 1. We can assume d < k + 1. Let n= \lceil (k+1)/d \rceil. We claim that for distinct a_1, \dots, a_n \in \mathbf{C}, we have

This is equivalent to saying that the polynomials (x+a_\ell)^{k-i} for 0 \leq \ell < n and 0 \leq i < d span \mathbf{C}[x]_{\leq k}, which is in turn the same as

where \partial_x is the derivative operator. The latter holds by the following lemma.

Using the Taylor series, we can expand the polynomial p(x+a) as

Hence

We can therefore express \partial_x^i( p(x+a) ) in the basis \partial_x^j( p(x) )/j! of \mathbf{C}[x]_{\leq k} with the matrix of coefficients

Now, for a_1, \dots, a_n \in \mathbf{C}, the block matrix

is exactly the confluent Vandermonde matrix corresponding to the Hermite interpolation problem (see [kalman1984generalized]). Taking a_\ell to be distinct, the first k+1 columns of V form an invertible matrix.

There are (k-1)(n-k) elementary matrices E_{ij} with i \neq j and i > k > j. The condition \abs{k - (n+1)/2} < \sqrt{\delta} is equivalent to (k-1)(n-k) > n^2 - d. Hence the space U contains a matrix u with u_{ij} \neq 0 for some i \neq j with i > k > j. As U is upper right block closed, we thus have B_{ij} \leq U.

Let \delta = d - 3n^2/4 - n/2 + 1/4 = n^2/4 - 5n/2 + 9/4. If n > 10, we have \sqrt{\delta} > (n+1)/2 - 4 and so it follows from the previous lemma that for any k with 4 \leq k \leq n - 3, we have B_{ij} \leq U for some i \neq j with i > k > j. In particular, U contains E_{ii} - E_{jj} for all 3 \leq i < j \leq n - 2. It can be verified by hand or with a computer that the same conclusion holds for all 6 \leq n \leq 10. Let us now inspect the boundary indices of matrices in U.

• E_{31}, E_{n,n-3} \in U In this case, U contains the whole diagonal in \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}) and \mathfrak{b} \leq U.

• E_{31} \notin U In this case, every matrix u \in U satisfies u_{i1} = 0 for i \geq 3. Let us inspect the second column.

  • E_{32} \notin U Here, all matrices in U have zeroes in entries (i,j) for i \geq 3 and j \leq 2. There are a total of 2n-4 of these entries. Since the codimension of U in \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}) is 2n - 3, we can either miss exactly one more E_{ij} (i\neq j) or the dimension of the intersection of U with the traceless diagonal is n-2. In the first case, since U is upper right block closed, we cannot miss any E_{ij} with i<j, thus \mathfrak{b} \leq U. In the second case, we have E_{21}, E_{n,3} \in U, and so E_{ii}-E_{jj} \in U for all 3\leq i<j\leq n as well as E_{11}-E_{22} \in U. Thus, U=B_{21}+B_{n3}.

  • E_{32} \in U Inspect the last row.

    • E_{n,n-1} \notin U If E_{21} \in U, then U contains B_{21}, and so \mathfrak{b}_{\widehat{nn}} \leq U. On the other hand, if E_{21} \notin U, then, for codimension reasons, \mathfrak{b} \leq U.

    • E_{n,n-1} \in U In this case, we must have, for codimension reasons, that E_{n-1,n-2} \in U. Hence E_{ii} - E_{jj} \in U for all 2 \leq i < j \leq n, and so \mathfrak{b}_{\widehat{11}} \leq U.

• E_{n,n-3} \notin U This case is symmetric to the previous one after flipping all elements of U along the antidiagonal of the matrix.

We can assume d = (n-1)^2 + 1. It is immediate that in all of the four options in the previous proposition, we have U + F U F = \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}). The result now follows from Proposition 2.3.

Suppose there is some g \in \operatorname{GL}_n(\mathbf{C}) with U + g^{-1}U g = \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}). Note that U is stable under the action of the Borel subgroup of \operatorname{GL}_n(\mathbf{C}). By the Bruhat decomposition [borel2012linear], we can write g\in G as bwb' where b,b' belong to the Borel subgroup of \operatorname{GL}_n(\mathbf{C}) and w is an element of the corresponding Weyl group, which we may identify here with the symmetric group S_n, or permutation matrices. Then U+(bwb')^{-1}Ubwb'=b'^{-1}(U+w^{-1}Uw)b'=\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}) (using that U is invariant for b,b') and hence U+w^{-1}Uw=\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}). Thus, we can view g as a permutation w \in S_n.

Suppose first that w(1) \neq n. Then there exist matrices A, B \in U such that

Hence we must have w^{-1} E_{ij} w = E_{w^{-1}(n)1} for some E_{ij} \in U. This forces j = w(1) and w^{-1}(i) = w^{-1}(n), and so i = n, which is impossible since E_{ij} \in U.

Therefore, we must have w(1) = n. Now we can find, for any 2 \leq k \leq n, matrices A_k, B_k \in U such that

Repeating the argument from above, we must have w^{-1} E_{i_k j_k} w = E_{k1} for some E_{i_k j_k} \in U, which forces j_k = w(1) = n and w^{-1}(i_k) = k. Consequently, the set of indices \{i_2, \dots, i_{n-1}\} must be equal to \{ w(2), \dots, w(n-1)\}. Note that as E_{i_k j_k} \in U, we must have i_k \leq n-1, and since w(1) = n, it follows that \{i_2, \dots, i_{n-1}\} = \{ 2,\dots,n-1\}. Therefore w(n) = 1. This means that the permutation w swaps the first and the n-th positions, and so w^{-1} U w is contained in the hyperplane H = \{ X \in \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbb{C}) \mid X_{11}-X_{nn}=0 \}. As U \leq H, we must have U + w^{-1} U w \leq H, a contradiction.

Having shown no two conjugates suffice to cover \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}), we now exhibit three conjugates that do. Flip U through the center of the matrix to obtain U + FUF = \operatorname{span}_{\mathbf{C}} \langle E_{ij} \mid (i,j) \neq (1,1), (n,n) \rangle + \operatorname{span}_{\mathbf{C}} \langle E_{11} - E_{nn} \rangle. Let w be the permutation matrix corresponding to the long cycle (1 \ 2 \dots n). Then w^{-1} U w contains w^{-1}(E_{11} - E_{nn})w = E_{nn} - E_{n-1,n-1}. Hence U + FUF + w^{-1}Uw = \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}).

Flip B through the center of the matrix. The space B + FBF contains the space of matrices V with block decomposition (m-1, 1, n-m) whose diagonal blocks in this decomposition are all zero.

It follows from [brevsar2023waringISRAEL, Lemmas 2.6, 2.7] that there is a matrix g \in \operatorname{GL}_n(\mathbf{C}) with \operatorname{M}^0_n(\mathbf{C}) \subseteq V + g^{-1}Vg. Since \operatorname{diam}_+^{\operatorname{SL}_n(\mathbf{C})}(\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}), \operatorname{M}^0_n(\mathbf{C})) = 2 by Example 1.3, we can conclude that \operatorname{diam}_+^{\operatorname{SL}_n(\mathbf{C})}(\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}), B) \leq 8.

Let \delta = d - 3n^2/4 - n/2 + 1/4 > 1/4. Let k = \lfloor (n+1)/2 \rfloor. Hence \abs{k - (n+1)/2} \leq 1/2 < \sqrt{\delta}. Applying Lemma 4.1, we obtain B_{k+1,k-1} \leq U, and so the result follows from Lemma 5.1.

By Proposition 2.3 it is enough to consider U stable under the standard Borel subgroup. Recall that such a U is upper-right block closed, since if u_{ij}\neq 0, i\neq j, for some u\in U, then

Let

Since the traceless diagonal subspace has dimension n-1, we have \dim U\leq |S|+n-1. As n\geq 2/\epsilon, it follows that |S|> \epsilon n^2 / 2.

Put L=\lceil\log_2(4/\epsilon)\rceil. At most n^2/2^L\leq \epsilon n^2/4 elements of S lie in rows i\leq n/2^L. Thus one of the L strips

contains at least K=\epsilon n^2/(4L) elements of S. It contains at most n/2^r rows, so some row p contains at least k\geq 2^rK/n such positions. If q is the smallest corresponding column and c=n-q+1, then c\geq k and p>n/2^{r+1}. Therefore

Now put m=\lfloor(n+1)/2\rfloor and \alpha=\min\{p,m-1\}, \beta=\min\{c,m-1\}. Since n\geq 9, we have m-1\geq n/3, so

Moreover \alpha+\beta\leq n, and hence the coordinate rectangle

is contained in U and has disjoint row and column sets. Consequently, permutation conjugation places a copy of R_0 on any two disjoint subsets of [n] having cardinalities \alpha and \beta.

Let (m-1,1,n-m) be the decomposition used in Lemma 5.1, and let V be the space of matrices whose corresponding three diagonal blocks vanish. Its support is contained in

Partitioning these four rectangles into \alpha\times\beta rectangles, padding boundary pieces inside the corresponding disjoint parts, shows that V is contained in a sum of at most

permutation conjugates of U, by (?).

Finally, the last step of Lemma 5.1 expresses \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}) as a sum of four conjugates of V. Hence

as claimed.

The first part is immediate from Burnside’s irreducibility theorem, and the second part follows since \mathfrak{gl}(V) acts transitively on subspaces of V of the same dimension.

By Proposition 2.3, it suffices to prove the claim for upper closed subspaces U = \langle e_j, e_{j+1}, \dots, e_k \rangle with 0 < j < k. Let d = \dim U = k - j + 1. The operator F_k maps U into \langle e_{j-1}, e_j, \dots, e_{k-1} \rangle. Hence

Thus F_k^d moves the subspace U downward in the basis, so after enough iterations it fills the whole space:

Let us only prove the same conclusion for the case when U = \mathfrak{b}. All upper right block closed subspaces of dimension (n-1)^2 + 1 are described in Proposition 4.2 and can be handled in the same way. For any i < j with i + j > n + 1, we have \operatorname{ad}_F E_{ij} = E_{i,n+1-j} - E_{n+1-i,j}, and so E_{i,n+1-j} \in \mathfrak{b} + \operatorname{ad}_F \mathfrak{b}. Similarly we obtain, for i < j with i + j < n + 1, that E_{n+1-i,j} \in \mathfrak{b} + \operatorname{ad}_F \mathfrak{b}. Finally, for any i > \lfloor (n+1)/2 \rfloor, we have \operatorname{ad}_F (E_{ii} - E_{n+1-i,n+1-i}) = 2 E_{i,n+1-i} - 2 E_{n+1-i,i}, and so E_{n+1-i,i} \in \mathfrak{b} + \operatorname{ad}_F(\mathfrak{b}).

(We thank Matej Brešar for showing us this argument.) Let d + 1 = \operatorname{diam}_+^{\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C})}(\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}), U). Then there exist r_1, \dots, r_d \in \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}) such that \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}) = U + [r_1, U] + \cdots + [r_d, U]. Since every matrix in \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}) is a sum of 4 matrices in \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}) with square zero [wang1991sums, Theorem 3.6], we can write r_i = \sum_{1 \leq j \leq 4} x_{ij} with x_{ij}^2 = 0 for all i,j. Now, for any x \in \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}) with x^2 = 0, we have (I - x)^{-1} = I + x, and so for any u \in U, we can compute

and thus

Therefore

It now follows that

so \operatorname{diam}_+^{\operatorname{SL}_n(\mathbf{C})}(\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C}), U) \leq 1 + 8d.

Writing \operatorname{eval}_v \colon \operatorname{End}(V) \to V for the evaluation map at v, we have

Since f is G-equivariant, we have f(\lambda(g) \cdot w) = \rho(g) \cdot f(w). Differentiating this equality with respect to w, we obtain

It follows that \operatorname{im}(D_{\lambda(g) \cdot w} f) = \rho(g) \cdot \operatorname{im}(D_w f), as claimed.

Letting \gamma \colon (-\epsilon,\epsilon)\to G be any smooth curve with \gamma(0)=g and D_0 \gamma = x \in T_g G, we have

by equivariance. Thus,

Since x\in T_g G was arbitrary, we conclude that \operatorname{im} (D_g \rho_{f(w)}) \leq \rho(g) \cdot \operatorname{im} (D_w f) by using the previous lemma.

It follows from the first lemma that \operatorname{im} (D_g \rho_{f(w)}) = \operatorname{im} D_g \rho \cdot f(w), and then the first containment is immediate from the last lemma. As for the second inequality, we have \operatorname{im} \rho_{f(w)} = \rho(G) \cdot f(w), and hence \dim(\overline{\operatorname{im} \rho_{f(w)}}) = \dim(\rho(G) \cdot f(w)). It now follows from [hartshorne2013algebraic, Chapter III, Proposition 10.6] that \operatorname{rank}(D_g \rho_{f(w)}) \geq \dim(\rho(G) \cdot f(w)) for all g belonging to a nonempty Zariski open subset of G. By the previous lemma, we also have \operatorname{rank}(D_g \rho_{f(w)}) \leq \dim \operatorname{im} (D_w f). This completes the proof.

Let \lambda, \rho be the representations of G on W, V. Let g_1, \dots, g_k \in G, and set p = (\lambda(g_1) \cdot w, \dots, \lambda(g_k) \cdot w) \in W^k. We have

and so its image \operatorname{im}(D_{p} f^{[k]}) is equal to

by Lemma 7.5. Taking k = \operatorname{diam}^G_+(W, \operatorname{im} (D_w f)), we can thus find g_1, \dots, g_k \in G so that \operatorname{im}(D_{p} f^{[k]}) = W. The map f^{[k]} is then a submersion in some neighbourhood of the point p. By the implicit function theorem, it follows that \operatorname{im}(f^{[k]}) contains an open subset of f^{[k]}(p). By Chevalley’s theorem (see [hartshorne2013algebraic, Chapter II, Exercise 3.19]), the image of f^{[k]} is constructible, therefore it contains a nonempty Zariski open dense subset of V. It now follows from Borel’s trick (see [borel2012linear, Chapter I, 1.3]) that (f^{[k]})^{[2]} = f^{[2k]} is surjective.

Let Z_1, \dots, Z_\ell be all the proper subrepresentations of V. It suffices to prove that for any 1 \le i \le \ell, it cannot happen that \operatorname{im}(D_w f) \leq Z_i for all w\in W, since the subrepresentation generated by \operatorname{im} (D_w f) must then be equal to V and so the diameter is finite. For the sake of contradiction, assume that this does occur for some i. Let \lambda_i \colon V \to \mathbf{C} be a linear functional with \operatorname{ker} \lambda_i \geq Z_i. Then we have, for all w \in W, that \lambda_i \cdot D_w f = 0. But then by the chain rule D_w (\lambda_i \circ f) = 0, so the polynomial \lambda_i \circ f is constant. This implies \operatorname{im}(f) \subseteq f(0) + \operatorname{ker} (\lambda_i), contradicting our assumption that \operatorname{span}_{\mathbf{C}}\langle \operatorname{im} (f - f(0)) \rangle = V.