4

Motivation

This is kind of a follow-up to this question on conjugacy of Singer cyclic groups in GL.

The "original" definition of a Singer cycle is not in the GL, but the following slightly different geometric setting:

Definition

A cyclic group $\Sigma$ of collineations of a finite projective geometry $\mathrm{PG}(k-1,q)$ is called a Singer cyclic group if $\Sigma$ acts regularly on the set of points. (Any generator of a Singer cyclic group is called a Singer cycle).

The group of collineations of $\mathrm{PG}(k-1,q)$ is given by $\mathrm{P\Gamma L}(k,q)$ (with its natural action on the set of subspaces of $\mathrm{GF}(q)^k$).

Necessarily, the order of $\Sigma$ equals the number of points in $\mathrm{PG}(k-1,q)$, which is $\frac{q^{k}-1}{q-1}$.

Question

Are any two Singer cyclic subgroups of $\mathrm{P\Gamma L}(k,q)$ conjugate?

First thoughts

My feeling is that the answer should still be "yes", but I don't know for sure.

A first step could be to think about the question in PGL: Take a Singer cycle, find a Singer cycle preimage in GL and apply the GL-result. However, so far I don't see a rigorous argument why there should always be a suitable preimage in GL.

azimut
  • 22,696
  • I am struggling to understand the question. According to your definition, Singer cyclic subgroups are subgroups of order $(q^k-1)/(q-1)$, so obviously any two such are isomorphic. Did you mean to ask whether any two are conjugate? – Derek Holt May 04 '19 at 13:00
  • @DerekHolt you are right, of course. I corrected the question. Many thanks for spotting this! – azimut May 04 '19 at 13:19

1 Answers1

3

By a well-known result if Zsigmondy, with a few exceptions, for $k>1$, there is a prime $r$ that divides $p^k-1$, but does not divide $p^i-1$ for any $i<k$. Then a Singer cyclic group in ${\rm PGL}(k,q)$ is contained in the centralizer $C$ of a Sylow $r$-subgroup $R$ of ${\rm PGL}(k,q)$.

Since the inverse image of $R$ in ${\rm GL}(k,q)$ is a direct product $\hat{R} \times Z$, where $Z$ is the group of scalar matrices, which has order $q-1$, coprime to $r$, and $\hat{R} \in {\rm Syl}_r({\rm GL}(k,q))$, the inverse image in ${\rm GL}(k,q)$ of $C$ centralizes $\hat{R}$.

Now $\hat{R}$ acts irreducibly on ${\mathbb F}_q^k$, so by Schur's lemma, its centralizer in ${\rm GL}(k,q)$ is the multiplicative group of a division algebra over ${\mathbb F}_q$, which is commutative since the field is finite. Since this centralizer contains a Singer cyclic of order $q^k-1$, this division algebra must be ${\mathbb F}_{q^k}$, and so this Singer cycle is the complete centralizer of $\hat{R}$ in ${\rm GL}(k,q)$.

So its image in ${\rm PGL}(k,q)$, which is original Singer cycle, must be the full centralizer $C$ of $R$, and now it follows from Sylow's Theorem that any two such Singer cycles are conjugate in ${\rm PGL}(k,q)$.

The exceptional cases in which the Zsigmondy prime does not exist are when $q=2$, $k=6$, in which case $Z=1$ so there is nothing to prove, and when $k=2$ and $q+1$ is a power of $2$, but in that case a Sylow $2$-subgroup of ${\rm PGL}(k,q)$ is dihedral of order $2(q+1)$, and the Singer cycle is its unique maximal cyclic subgroup, so the result follows again from Sylow's Theorem.

${\bf Added\ later}$: The above argument is for ${\rm PGL}(k,q)$, not ${\rm P \Gamma L}(k,q)$. I believe that the result is valid in ${\rm P \Gamma L}(k,q)$, and I will just sketch an argument.

So let $q=p^e$ with $p$ prime. We will choose our Zsigmondy prime $r$ such that $r$ divides $q^k-1 = p^{ke}-1$, but $r$ does not divide $p^m-1$ for any $m < ke$ (and note that this means we have a couple more exceptional cases, $q^k = 4^3,8^2$ that have to be handled separately, possibly by computer).

Note that $r$ cannot divide $e$, since if $e=rs$ then $r$ divides $p^{krs} - p^{ks}$ and hence $r$ divides $p^{ks}-1$, contrary to assumption. So our Sylow $r$-subgroup $R$ of $G$ still lies in ${\rm PGL}(k,q)$.

The group ${\rm \Gamma L}(k,q)$ is defined as the semidirect product ${\rm GL}(k,q) \rtimes \langle \sigma \rangle$, where $\sigma$ induces the field automorphism of order $e$ that acts by applying $x \mapsto x^e$ to matrix entries. This group projects onto ${\rm P\Gamma L}(k,q)$.

Now ${\rm \Gamma L}(k,q)$ embeds into $ {\rm GL}(ke,p)$. By the same argument as before, the inverse image in ${\rm GL}(ke,p)$ of the centralizer $C$ of $R$ in ${\rm PGL}(ke,p)$ is cyclic of order $q^k-1$, which is the same as its centralizer in ${\rm GL}(k,q)$, and hence also the same as its centralizer in ${\rm \Gamma L}(k,q)$.

So $C$ is the centralizer of $R$ in ${\rm P \Gamma L}(k,q)$, and the argument proceeds as before.

I know this proof is more complicated than you might prefer, and it is possible that there is an easier proof. But I have some previous experience with proving results in these semilinear groups, and the use of Zsigmondy primes is a standard technique.

Derek Holt
  • 90,008
  • Thank you for this expert answer! have to study this carefully, as there are a few arguments which I don't understand ad-hoc. On first question: Your argument covers PGL, but not the original setting of $\mathrm{P\Gamma L}$, right? – azimut May 06 '19 at 08:37
  • That's true. I will think about how you extend the argument to ${\rm P \Gamma L}(k,q)$. – Derek Holt May 06 '19 at 10:28
  • Let me remark that I'm not completely sure if the statement actually is true for $\operatorname{P\Gamma L}$ (or for $\mathrm{\Gamma L}$). – azimut May 06 '19 at 12:07
  • Many thanks for the extended answer! I'm still digesting your original answer and have one question: I don't understand the conclusion "So its image in PGL(k,q), which is original Singer cycle, must be the full centralizer C of R". I think for a general group homomorphism $\varphi:G\to H$ and $U$ a subgroup of $G$, it holds that $\varphi(C_G(U)) \subseteq C_H(\varphi(U))$ (but not "=" in gen.). For G=GL(k,q), H=PGL(k,q), $\varphi$ the natural projection and $U = \hat{R}$ and denoting the original singer group by S, this gives us $S \subseteq C_{\mathrm{PGL}}(R)$, which we already know, right? – azimut May 08 '19 at 07:24
  • The second paragraph of my answer above was intended to be a proof that $S = C_{\rm PGL}(R)$. – Derek Holt May 08 '19 at 07:53
  • Isn't the second and third paragraph showing $\hat{S} = C_{\mathrm{GL}}(\hat{R})$? Now the fourth paragraph claims that $S = C_{\mathrm{PGL}}(R)$, and I don't understand how it follows. "$\subseteq$" is clear (from the very beginning), but I don't see how "$\supseteq$" follows. – azimut May 08 '19 at 10:08
  • I can only repeat that second paragraph proves exactly that. – Derek Holt May 08 '19 at 10:37