Arun Ram
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Melbourne
Parkville, VIC 3010 Australia
aram@unimelb.edu.au
Last update: 10 January 2014
Section II
Proposition 2. Let
Then admits an antiautomorphism, denoted
which fixes the generators
Proof.
where is a free group on generators
and
is generated, as a normal subgroup, by the elements
together with the elements
Now has an antiautomorphism fixing the generators
We denote this by for
Put If
is odd,
If is even,
If the first case is conjugate to and in the second
is conjugate to Thus
It follows that
and hence
has an antiautomorphism fixing
Proposition 3. Let and let
be an dimensional complex vector space. Define
by
for Then
is a representation of
Proof.
Obvious.
Keeping in mind that
the connection between the representations and of
is further clarified by
Proposition 4. Let and let
denote the matrix for the Hermitian form
with respect to the basis
By abuse of notation, for we let
denote the matrix for the linear transformation
in the basis
Then
Proof.
We view all matrices as elements of which have been written with respect to
the basis
of column vectors for and we write for
if Then letting
we compute
and
Since
we have the result.
Corollary 2. Let If
is non degenerate, the representations
and are equivalent.
Proof.
Since
this is immediate from Proposition 4.
Definition: Let and let and
be two distinct vertices in We say and
are connected if and only if there is a finite sequence of vertices
in such that there is an edge between and
If any two distinct vertices in
are connected, is said to be connected.
Definition: A connected graph is said to be a linear graph if the vertices of
can be numbered so if
there is no edge joining the and vertices. Thus a linear
graph looks like
Coxeter [Cox1967] has introduced the convenient abbreviation
for such a graph and we shall make use of it later. For a linear graph
Coxeter [Cox1967, p.130] gives a representation of by
matrices. Using the identity
one sees that this representation is precisely the representation of Proposition 3.
Consider a graph with the stipulation that
for
Thus all the generators for
are involutions. These Coxeter groups have been studied extensively [Bou1968]. Note that since
we have
and thus the form is precisely the form
of [Bou1968, p.90] and the representation of
is exactly the representation of [Bou1968, p.91].
We will be interested in determining when the linear group
acts irreducibly on It is clear that if the graph
is not connected then will decompose as the direct product of the subgroups
corresponding to the connected components of
since each of these subgroups
operates non trivially only in the subspace of generated by those basis vectors corresponding
to the vertices of the connected component of
Proposition 5. Suppose is connected. Let
Then
(1)
acts trivially on and
(2)
If is stable under then
Proof.
We will write to denote the value of
for For (1) take
Now
Thus if we have
and hence
Since all generators of operate trivially on we are done. We now consider (2). Assume
there is some basis vector Let
be any other basis vector. We shall show also. Since
is connected there is a sequence of vertices
such that there is an edge in between
and
By relabeling
we can assume this sequence is
We now show by induction that for
If this is our hypothesis. So assume
with Now
and hence
Since
the fact that
implies Thus every basis vector is in
and we have a contradiction. Hence no basis vector is in
Now let and let
Then
and this vector must be in also. Hence
and
We can now give two conditions sufficient to insure that the linear group
associated with a connected graph acts irreducibly on
The first of these is
Corollary 3. Suppose is connected. If
is non degenerate on then
acts irreducibly on
Proof.
This is immediate from Proposition 5.
The second condition can be stated as
Corollary 4. Let be connected. Assume
is finite. Then acts irreducibly on
Proof.
Suppose false. Then a direct sum of two proper non zero subspaces
stable under Applying Proposition 5 we obtain
and Hence
a contradiction.
One very interesting and obvious question to ask about the groups
under consideration is which of these groups are finite. A necessary condition is given by
Proposition 6. Let be connected. If
is finite, then the Hermitian
form is positive definite.
Proof.
Certainly the finiteness of implies that of
Since is a finite linear group there is a positive definite Hermitian form
stable under the action of [Bur1955](section 195). But we are assuming that is
connected; so we can apply Corollary 4 to yield that acts irreducibly on Now by
[Bur1955](section 206), the space of Hermitian forms invariant under a finite irreducible linear group is one dimensional and is also
invariant under Thus there is some non zero scalar
such that Applying both sides to
we obtain
Hence is a positive real number. Thus being a positive real scalar multiple of the
positive definite form is also positive definite.
Definition: Let
is said to be positive definite if and only if the corresponding Hermitian form
is positive definite and we denote by the collection of all the positive definite graphs
We also put
and we remark that if and only if all the connected
components of are in
Because of Proposition 6 it is of interest to determine all the graphs
To this end we begin with a definition.
Definition: Let A graph
is said to be a subgraph of
and we write
if can be obtained from
by performing any of the following operations in any order subject to the restriction that after each operation is performed the graph thus obtained is still in
1)
Removing some of the vertices together with all adjoining edges.
2)
Decreasing the marks on some of the edges.
3)
Decreasing the marks on the vertices subject to the restriction: if there is an edge in
joining the vertices and then
where are the marks on
in and
are the marks on in
Proposition 7. Suppose is positive definite. If
is a subgraph of
then is also positive definite.
Proof.
We order the vertices
of in such a way that
are the vertices of We will denote the marks on the vertices and
edges of by the usual and
and those of
by and
We let
be the matrix for
with respect to the basis
and we let
be the matrix for
with respect to the basis
We claim
Since
for all
and if there is an edge joining and in
then
Now implies
and thus
So assume Now in general,
Hence if there is no edge in joining
and and thus
So assume there is an edge in joining
and Then we have
so
Also, implies
Hence
i.e.,
Now assume the proposition is false. So there is a vector
such that
For each write
and define
Put
Then implies We have
which is a contradiction.
Definition: Let be an
matrix over Let
for
denote the matrix formed by the upper left hand corner of
i.e.,
The
principal minors of are the scalars
If we say
is positive definite if and only if
for all
and
if and only if all
We will be using the following fact from linear algebra.
Proposition 8. is positive definite if and only if all the principal minors of are positive.
Proof.
See [Hal1958].
If we write
for
and we denote by the collection of all graphs in
such that
but if then
We also put
Theorem 2. The connected graphs in are precisely those in List 1. (The subscript
on the letter denoting the graph indicates the number of vertices.)
Theorem 3. The connected graphs in are precisely those in List 2.
(The subscript on the letter denoting the graph is one less than the number of vertices.)
We will prove Theorems 2 and 3 simultaneously.
Lemma 2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(g)
Proof.
(a) See [BGr1971, p.58].
(b) If this is a trivial computation. So assume
Expanding along the first row we find
(c) If this is an easy calculation. So we assume
Expanding
along the last column we have
(d) See [BGr1971, p.59].
(e) Again expanding by minors we obtain
For proofs of (f) through (i) see [BGr1971, pp.60-61].
Notice that the principal minor of (respectively
is just (respectively
and thus the combination of Proposition
8 and parts (a), (b), and (d) of Lemma 2 justify the presence of these graphs in List 1. Note further that because of Proposition 7, no graph which has any of
or
as a subgraph can be positive definite and hence is to be excluded from List 1.
We can now begin in earnest to prove Theorems 2 and 3. It is obvious that
Step I. We will determine the connected graphs in and the connected graphs in
Suppose
is connected. Thus
is
with Now the matrix for
in the basis is
the first principal minor of which is
So by Proposition 8, will be positive definite if and only if
Now
Thus, if and only if
and if and only if
Since both arguments lie in the interval over which cosine is strictly decreasing
we have if and only if
and if and only if
The solutions to (2) subject to the restrictions
and
if is odd are given in [Cox1962, p.96] and
reproduced here:
These are precisely the graphs in List 1 with two vertices. The solutions to (3) subject to the restrictions above occur in [Cox1974, p.111] and we give them here also:
Now by the definition of a subgraph it is easy to verify that if
and if
then
Thus if occurs amongst those graphs just listed, we have
So every proper subgraph of is positive definite and these graphs comprise the set of connected graphs in
as indicated in List 2.
Step II. We determine all linear graphs in and all linear graphs in
Let be linear. Thus
is
Putting
and
we find
(after using some trigonometric identities) that
We will determine the linear graphs in first. The condition that
is
Since
if (4) is to hold, we cannot have both and
So one of them must be
Without loss of generality,
Hence, so is
Now if
Thus if (4) forces
or
Comparing the left side with the first term on the right we see
so in particular But comparing the left side with the last term on the right we see that
and thus
So we must have and
But substituting these values in (5) yields
a contradiction. Hence,
If then
and (4) becomes
which holds if and only if or
If (4) becomes
Comparing the left side with the second term on the right we see we must have or
Substituting in (6) we obtain
and thus is arbitrary in this case. Substituting in (6) we obtain
or which forces
If
and (4) becomes
which forces
Thus forces
to be one of:
Now for such the first principal minor of
is obviously positive and the second principal minor is the determinant of the Hermitian form associated with the graph obtained from
by deleting its third vertex. One quickly determines by referring to Step I that the graphs so obtained have positive determinants. We have thus enumerated all the
linear graphs in and we mention that these are precisely those linear graphs with three vertices
in List 1.
We now proceed to determine the linear graphs For a linear graph
the expression for
appears at the beginning of Step II and we
see that the condition that is
Again, since
we see that if and
we must have and
Hence, either and and
are arbitrary or and
is arbitrary. Thus if and
(4') forces to be either
or
Thus we assume without loss of generality that Hence
and is
We rearrange (4') to obtain
Recalling that
we see that if we must have
and thus In particular,
Further, if the first term on the right is positive, the second is
now negative and thus comparing the left side with the last term on the right we must have
so Hence,
forces and Substituting these values
in (5') we obtain
Thus we may assume If
(5') becomes
Now since the first term on the right is positive and the second nonnegative, by comparing the left side with the last term on the right we see that
so or
If we must have
and thus also. If
the last term on the right is positive and thus comparing the left side with the first term on the
right yields so
and thus
Substituting these values in the equation above we obtain
a contradiction. So if
is
If we have
and going back to (5') we once again compare the left side with the last term on the right and (since the first term on the right is positive and the second, non
negative) conclude that so
or However, substituting either of these values
in (5') yields a contradiction.
If (5') becomes
In particular, Now comparing the left with the last term on the right we see
and
forces Thus
or and
If we have
or and thus
So if
is either
or
If
and (5') becomes Thus,
and is
We have now shown that if is linear and satisfies
then is one of
Notice that these graphs are precisely those linear graphs with three vertices occurring in List 2. To complete Step II, we need to show that if
is one of the graphs just listed and if
then
In light of the first parts of Steps I and II, this task amounts to no more than seeing if the subgraph
has its connected components occurring in List 1. We omit the details of this verification.
Step III. We will determine all the linear graphs in or in
Suppose
is linear. Say is
Then either by Proposition 7 (if
or by definition (if
the pair of subgraphs
and
must lie in Since we have previously determined the linear graphs in
we search that list for suitable pSirs and we obtain the following graphs as candidates for membership in
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
Now and are positive definite as remarked after Lemma 2.
and are shown to be positive definite in [BGr1971, p.59]. Glancing back
at the linear graphs with two or three vertices in List 1 whose presence there has been previously justified we see that the first three principal minors of
are positive and we easily compute its determinant to be
has determinant zero by Lemma 2.
The determinants of both (vii) and (viii) are computed to be zero. In (ix), by reducing the 5 to 4 we obtain
which has determinant zero as a subgraph.
We compute that the determinants for both (x) and (xi) are negative. Finally, in (xii) we can reduce both 5's to 4's to obtain
as a subgraph. Hence the linear graphs in
are precisely the graphs (i) through (v) and the linear graphs of determinant zero amongst our
candidates are the graphs (vi), (vii) & (viii), which we easily see by inspection have the property that all their proper subgraphs are positive definite. We
finally remark that graphs (i) through (v) are precisely the linear graphs with four vertices in List 1 and the graphs (vi), (vii) & (viii) are precisely the
linear graphs with four vertices in List 2.
Step IV. We will determine all linear graphs in
By the same type of reasoning as that used at the beginning of Step III we see that
must consist of some of the graphs from the following possibilities:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
As remarked before and are positive definite.
and
have determinant zero by Lemma 2. For (v) we compute its determinant to be zero, and for
(vi) we compute its determinant to be negative. In (vii) we can change the 5 to 4 and in (viii) we can change both 5's to 4's to obtain
as a subgraph. Thus the linear graphs in
are and
We again remark that it is an easy task to see that all proper subgraphs of
or of the graph (v) are
positive definite and hence the linear graphs in are just the graphs
and the graph (v).
Step V. (a) For the linear graphs in are
and (b) For
the linear graphs in are
Arguing as we have in the previous steps and using
the proof of (a) is an easy induction. Then using, (a) the proof of (b) is an easy induction.
At this point we have determined all linear graphs in
We next show that a connected graph in must be a tree and that the graphs
are the only connected graphs in
which are not trees. This is done in Step VI through Step IX. We remark here that it is obvious that all the
proper subgraphs of are positive definite and since
by Lemma 2 we have
Step VI. Let denote the cycle
If
then
Proof.
Put
and
Case (1) None of
is three. Then
is a subgraph (perhaps not proper) and hence
Now the matrix for the form is
Thus,
Case (2) Exactly one of
is Without loss of generality Thus
and
is a subgraph. So again we must have
But the matrix for is
and thus
Case (3) Two of
are Without loss of generality say and
are Thus,
and if necessary we reduce all of them simultaneously to Further we then reduce
to if necessary to obtain
as a subgraph. But this cannot be a proper subgraph as
Hence
Step VII. Let denote the cycle
If
then is
Proof.
Note that if all the
are the same we can reduce them simultaneously to and then reduce the marks on the four edges to 3's to obtain
as a subgraph. But since
this
cannot be a proper subgraph and hence
Thus we can assume that at least two of the edges of are not labelled with the number 3. Further any two
such edges cannot have a vertex in common because a glance at List 1 reveals that no linear graph in
has both its edges marked with numbers larger than 3. Thus at most two of the edges of can be so marked and hence
is a subgraph of Further,
is a subgraph and must occur in List 1. Thus one of is 2. Glancing
back at we see it does not matter which is 2, so without loss of generality,
Thus writing
and
the matrix for is
and
giving a contradiction.
Step VIII. Let denote the 5 cycle
If
then is
Proof.
Arguing as in Step VII we see that if all the
are the same we will have
So we assume that not all the edges of are labeled with the number 3. Without loss of generality, say
Now the subgraph
must occur in List 1 and thus implies that
is forcing
Further we can now conclude that the subgraph
is
and must also occur in List 1. Glancing at that list we see that must be
So and
thus as remarked at the beginning of this
step. This is a contradiction as we're assuming
Step IX. Let denote an cycle. If
then is
Proof.
We may assume Consider any two adjacent vertices
and
if
read
of We will show
and
By relabelling we
may assume Now the subgraph
must occur in List 1 and hence is either
or In either case
and
Thus
Now Proposition 7 together with Step IX imply that every connected graph in is a tree and that the graphs
are the only connected graphs in which are not trees. Also we have previously determined all the linear graphs in
So we must consider non linear
trees which leads us to the
Definition: Let and suppose is a vertex of
The degree of written
is the number of vertices of
such that there is an edge in between
and We say that is a branch point of
if
Our determination of the connected graphs in
will be complete if we determine those which contain a branch point.
Step X. Let denote the graph
If
If
or
is
Proof.
Suppose
Case (1)
Thus and
are subgraphs. Consulting List 1 we see we must have
or
The first alternative is
which is positive definite as remarked after Lemma 1. The second alternative has the value zero as the determinant of its Hermitian form, and all its proper subgraphs
are positive definite.
Now glancing at List 1 we see that no linear graph in has both its edges marked with numbers larger
than 3. We are thus led to the remaining
Case (2) Exactly one of the marks on the edges of is not 3. Without loss of generality,
Thus is
Here again
is a subgraph and hence or
Subcase (i). Suppose Then
is a subgraph and thus with arbitrary or
and In the
first instance
and all its proper subgraphs are positive definite, while in the second instance we can reduce the 5 to 4 to obtain
as a proper subgraph yielding a contradiction.
Subcase (ii). Suppose Then
is a subgraph and thus and
Hence is
and we compute giving a contradiction.
Step XI. Suppose is connected and contains a branch point
Then is one of
Proof.
Step X together with the fact that has determinant zero imply that
and that the subgraph of
formed by and the three vertices to which is joined is
Further all edges of are unlabelled; otherwise some
would occur as a subgraph. So all vertices are unlabelled also. So
by the classification of positive definite graphs for Coxeter groups [BGr1971, p. 62] is
or
Step XII. Let and suppose
is connected and contains a branch point Then is one of
Proof.
If Step X forces
to contain as a subgraph and
hence
So we assume Then again by
Step X the subgraph of formed by and the three vertices to which
is joined is Now if some edge is labelled with number larger than
3 then would have some
as a subgraph and hence
Thus we can assume all edges are unlabelled. Hence all vertices are unlabelled also. Now if contains another branch
point distinct from then would contain some
as a subgraph and hence
Thus we can assume that is the unique branch point of
It follows that is
or
for the only other graphs which have a unique branch point of degree 3 and have all vertices and edges unlabelled are either
(all of which are positive definite) or
graphs which contain
or
as proper subgraphs. We remark that by inspection one easily verifies that each of
has the property that all of its proper subgraphs are positive definite and hence these
graphs are elements of
This last step completes the proof of Theorems 2 and 3.
Let be a connected graph. Recalling Proposition 6 we see that if
is finite then
must occur in List 1. But referring to [Cox1967, pp. 132,133] we see that every graph in List 1 occurs in the table given there and the groups corresponding to the
graphs in this table are, according to [Cox1967], finite. So the combination of [Cox1967] and List 1 yields
Theorem 4: Let be connected. Then the following statements
are equivalent.
(a)
is finite.
(b)
is positive definite.
(c)
occurs in List 1.
As mentioned before, if with
then the representation given by Theorem 1 for the Coxeter group
is the same representation as that given in [Bou1968]. Thus, by [Bou1968, p.93], for such
is a faithful representation of
Now our representation fails to be faithful in general but we can prove the following.
Corollary 5. Let be connected. If
is finite, then
is a faithful representation of
Proof.
By the remarks preceding the corollary we can assume that not all
are 2. Now since is finite,
appears in List 1. But a glance at List 1 reveals the fact that since not all
are must
be linear. As remarked before, for such Coxeter [Cox1967] gives a representation of
which is the representation of Proposition 3. But according to [Cox1967] this representation is a faithful representation of
Now since is finite the form
is positive definite so in particular it is non degenerate and thus Corollary 2 yields that and
are equivalent representations of and hence is also a faithful representation of
The fact that is not in general faithful is illustrated in the following example. Let
denote the graph in
The representation of
is given by
where
One easily sees that has order 3. However, putting
where are to be chosen later we see that
and
Thus if
has infinite order and so does In fact by looking
carefully at the computations done at the very end of the proof of Theorem 1 one sees that for all the groups
associated with connected graphs we have
has infinite order but
has finite order.
Notes and references
This is a typed version of David W. Koster's thesis Complex Reflection Groups.
This thesis was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Mathematics) at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, 1975.