The name is absent



SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE SIEGEL FORMULA

71


2. In general, let G denote a reductive group, X a vector space, and
p: G → Aut(JV) a rational representation of G in X, all defined over k.
Then, the coordinate ring Ω[X] of X over the universal domain Ω is a graded
ring, and G operates on Ω[X] via p as a group of degree-preserving auto-
morphisms. It is well known (cf. [P]) that every ideal
J of the ring of in-
variants Ω[X]σ has the following property:

J∙Ω[X] ∩Ω[X]ff = J.

Consequently, the ring Ω[X]g is finitely generated over Ω and, if I(X)
denotes the affine variety with Ω[X]° as its coordinate ring and
f∙.X → I(X) the corresponding morphism,/is surjective. We observe that
Ω[X]g is generated over Ω by G-invariant polynomials in k[X]. Conse-
quently, we may assume that
I(X) and f are defined over k. We observe
also that, if
Ω[X]g is generated over Ω by algebraically independent,
G-invariant polynomials, we may even assume that they are homogeneous.
In the following definition, we shall assume that G is connected and semi-
simple :

Definition. We say that G operates very nicely on X if (1) I(X) is
an affine space,
(2) every fiber f~ l(i) contains a G-orbit U(i) of dimension
equal to
dim(X) — dim(I(X)) such that f~^l(i) U(i) is of codimension
≥ 2, (3) the morphism f is “submersive” at every point of the Zariski open
subset

χ1 = U ɑ(θ
i
s I (X)

of X, (4) the stabilizer subgroup of G at every point x of X' is a semi-
direct product of a connected, semisimple group and a unipotent group.

Theorem 2. Let G denote a connected, semisimple group defined over
к such that the absolutely simple factors of its universal covering group
are of type А-D. Then, for any absolutely admissible representation
p:G
→ Aut(X) defined over k, G operates very nicely on X.

The proof of this theorem goes as follows: First of all, if G* → G is the
universal covering of G and if
p* is the product of p and G* → G, the
stabilizer subgroup of G at any point x of X is the image by G* → G of
the stabilizer subgroup of G* at
x. Therefore, we may replace G by G*
and p by
p*. We observe also that we are concerned with “absolute prop-
erties.” Therefore, we may assume that G is simply connected and fc-split.
Then, using the lemma in the previous section, we can reduce this case
to the case where
G is simple. The rest depends on the case-by-case exami-



More intriguing information

1. The Shepherd Sinfonia
2. A Hybrid Neural Network and Virtual Reality System for Spatial Language Processing
3. The name is absent
4. Willingness-to-Pay for Energy Conservation and Free-Ridership on Subsidization – Evidence from Germany
5. FUTURE TRADE RESEARCH AREAS THAT MATTER TO DEVELOPING COUNTRY POLICYMAKERS
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in patients with ICDs and Pacemakers
10. The name is absent
11. Why Managers Hold Shares of Their Firms: An Empirical Analysis
12. Strategic Planning on the Local Level As a Factor of Rural Development in the Republic of Serbia
13. Les freins culturels à l'adoption des IFRS en Europe : une analyse du cas français
14. Does South Africa Have the Potential and Capacity to Grow at 7 Per Cent?: A Labour Market Perspective
15. Sex-gender-sexuality: how sex, gender, and sexuality constellations are constituted in secondary schools
16. The name is absent
17. The economic value of food labels: A lab experiment on safer infant milk formula
18. Pricing American-style Derivatives under the Heston Model Dynamics: A Fast Fourier Transformation in the Geske–Johnson Scheme
19. The name is absent
20. The name is absent