3

I have seen several claims of the fact that the set of semi-simple elements of a connected, reductive linear algebraic group over an algebraically closed field is dense, moreover that the set of regular semi-simple elements is open dense. How can I show these facts?

For simplicity it is enough to assume characteristic zero if it simplifies the argument.

roy yanai
  • 369
  • 1
  • 8
  • See this post. It has the references for the proof. For example Humphrey's book. – Dietrich Burde Aug 23 '21 at 14:27
  • I don't see how this post answers my question in the general case. I get why semi simple elements are dense in GLn but why are they dense in a general connected reductive group? – roy yanai Aug 23 '21 at 16:21
  • The post only treat's $GL(n)$, but the references deal with the general case (Humphrey's book has it at page $142$, but only with some hints; did you check Borel's book?). This MO-post also has references. – Dietrich Burde Aug 23 '21 at 16:36

1 Answers1

2

Let me indicate a somewhat simple proof, but which contains some exercises (which I can help with later if you’d like).

NB: For simplicity, all fields in the following are assumed perfect.

Definition: Let $G$ be a reductive group over the field $F$. Then, we call an element $\gamma$ in $G(F)$ regular semisimple if $G_\gamma^\circ$ (the connected component of the centralizer of $\gamma$ in $G$) is a torus.

Here is an example/exercise to try and familiarize yourself with the notion.

Example/exercise: For an element $\gamma$ of $\mathrm{GL}_n(F)$ show that the following conditions are equivalent:

  1. $\gamma$ is regular semisimple,
  2. $\gamma$ has distinct eigenvalues (over $\overline{F}$).

To generalize this example/exercise to arbitrary groups let us define the Harish-Chandra discriminant

$$D_G\colon G\to \mathbb{A}^1_F$$

of a reductive group $G$ to be such that for an $F$-algebra $R$ and an $R$-point $\gamma\in G(R)$ one has $D_G(\gamma)$ is the coefficient of $t^r$ in $\det(1+t-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma))$ (where, as usual, $\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma)\colon \mathrm{Lie}(G)_R\to\mathrm{Lie}(G)_R$ is the adjoint action).

One can check the following more down-to-earth definition of the Harish-Chandra discriminant.

Example/exercise: Let $G$ be a reductive group over the field $F$ and let $T$ be a maximal torus of $G$. Then, for $\gamma\in T(F)\subseteq G(F)$ one has that the equations $$D_G(\gamma)=\det\left(1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma)\mid \mathrm{Lie}(G)/\mathrm{Lie}(T)\right)=\prod_{\alpha\in R(G,T)}(1-\alpha(\gamma))$$ where $R(G,T)$ is the set of (geometric) roots of $G$ relative to $T$ (i.e. roots of $G_{\overline{F}}$ relative to $T_{\overline{F}}$).

One can then show the following:

Exercise: Let $G$ be a reductive group over a field $F$ and let $\gamma$ be an element of $G(F)$. Then, the following conditions are equivalent:

  1. $\gamma$ is regular semisimple,
  2. $D_G(\gamma)\ne 0$,
  3. there exists a unique maximal torus $T$ of $G$ such that $\gamma\in T(F)$.

I claim that these exercises handle your question, and more! Indeed, Let us denote by $G^\mathrm{rss}$ the open subset of $G$ (as a variety) obtained as the non-vanishing locus of $D_G$ (which is nothing but a regular function in $\mathcal{O}_G(G)$). Note then that $G^\mathrm{rss}(F)$ consists of the regular semisimple of $G(F)$ which, in particular, is contained in the set of semisimple elements of $G(F)$. Note though that since $G$ is connected, it’s actually (geometrically) irreducible and so $G^\mathrm{rss}$ is dense in $G$. But, since $G$ (and thus $G^\mathrm{rss}$) is unirational we deduce that $G^\mathrm{rss}(F)$ is dense in $G$.

In conclusion, we deduce the following:

Theorem: Let $G$ be a reductive group over $F$. Then, the set $G^\mathrm{rss}(F)$ of regular semisimple elements of $G(F)$ is Zariski dense in $G$. A fortiori, the set of semisimple elements of $G(F)$ is Zariski dense in $G$.

Alex Youcis
  • 54,059
  • Thank you so much for the detailed answer:) unfortunately I'm struggling to understand the connection between the coefficient of t^r not vanishing and the identity component of the centralizer being a torus....im assuming that by the small letter "r" you mean the rank of the group. I should also note that my familiarity with the theory of linear algebraic groups is limited to the first 8 chapters of springers book on the subject – roy yanai Aug 25 '21 at 12:16
  • @royyanai It’s better to use the version in terms of roots. I can give a full proof if you’d like, but I’m not sure it can be done with the first 8 chapters of springer. – Alex Youcis Aug 25 '21 at 15:04
  • the version you gave in terms of roots was only given for semi simple elements. what about non-semi simple elements? why should the harish chandra discriminant vanish in that case? if its not something my current familiarity with the subject is sufficient for understanding, could you direct me to relevant reading material to better understand your answer? – roy yanai Aug 26 '21 at 10:32