Pairs of separably closed fields and exotic groups

Abstract.

We look at simple groups associated primarily with the general theory of Moufang buildings, and to analyze their relation to stability theory in the model theoretic sense. As it becomes quite technical in the details, a lengthy introduction surveys the developments at a less detailed level.

The text, beginning from the second section, first deals with some model theoretic algebra of fields, followed by an extended study of three associated families of simple groups coming from the theory of Tits buildings, Moufang polygons, and Timmesfeld’s theory of exotic analogs of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}$.

The field theoretic part is fundamental (§ 2). The rest of the paper relates this to group theoretic constructions, with two sections surveying the consequences for the original Tits and Timmesfeld theory before concentrating on the more exotic groups associated with Moufang polygons.

A good deal of the group theoretical material is expository, aimed to make the relevant structural information meaningful to those coming from the direction of model theory.

1. Introduction

Our aim here is to construct some simple stable groups which are not algebraic (hence, “exotic”). These are not, strictly speaking, “new” groups, but instances of a phenomenon discovered by Tits long ago, in connection with the classification of buildings of spherical type [Tits]. He called them groups of “mixed type”. We became aware of this much later, while looking into the classification of Moufang polygons given in [TW] and discussed below in § 5. Moufang polygons can be classified broadly speaking into algebraic (associated with algebraic groups), classical (in a historical sense), and mixed, reusing the term introduced by Tits to reflect both their similarities to the algebraic case, and the use of two fields rather than one in their construction; but in the case of Moufang polygons the meaning of the term becomes a bit broader.

So we have on the one hand the groups identified by Tits, which are analogs of algebraic groups in Lie rank at least $3$, but with a coordinatization involving two fields $k\leq K$, and we have also various groups associated with Moufang polygons which are analogs of algebraic groups in Lie rank $2$, but associated with a considerably more intricate collection of coordinatizing structures (including some of Tits’ original type, constructed from a pair of fields). There is also a rank $1$ analog of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ due to Timmesfeld, which we will also consider.

A very natural program is then the following:

1. Construct some stable algebraic structures of the sorts used by Tits, Tits/Weiss, or Timmesfeld.

2. Deduce the existence of the corresponding stable simple groups.

This turns out to be more subtle than appears at first. So we aim not only to carry this through in some cases, but also to point out some issues that others might want to explore further.

In the Tits setting, things work out neatly but with more delicacy than one might expect. An ample supply of coordinatizing structures for Tits’ purposes is afforded by Theorem 2.1, and in a generalized form, by Theorem 2.2. We cover some cases relevant to the Timmesfeld construction and an interesting case from the Tits/Weiss classification. However one is not quite done at this point.

One might expect that a general interpretability result would allow for the systematic treatment of step (b) above. This seems not to be the case (see Question 4.12). On the other hand, in the context of the groups of Tits’ type associated to a pair of fields $k\leq K$, this is the case.

The problem in general is that when one moves beyond Tits’ original setting, the groups are defined as those generated by a collection of subgroups. This is perhaps clearest in the rank 1 case (the Timmesfeld construction), which is given explicitly as a subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ whose diagonal subgroup is generated by elements whose coordinates lie in an additive subgroup of $K$. The situation in rank 2 is much the same, but the notation involved is a good deal more complicated.

In fact, one may take a slightly different point of view on all of this, one that emerges most clearly in the rank 2 setting (Tits/Weiss). This becomes more technical. We describe this now, but the reader might prefer to look first at the more concrete rank 1 setting of § 4 where everything can be worked out in detail, from first principles, and only then return to a consideration of rank $2$.

In any case, in the rank 2 setting, there are at least two groups naturally associated with a given Moufang polygon, and it becomes important to distinguish them, and to consider more generally the groups lying between them. The first group is the full automorphism group of the Moufang polygon. The second group, called the little projective group, is defined (by analogy with Chevalley groups) as the subgroup generated by the so-called root groups, which are the fundamental building blocks of the group from the point of view of either the Chevalley theory or the theory of Moufang polygons, and in the classical cases are copies of the additive group of the field. These groups appear in the Moufang theory as subgroups of the automorphism group of the Moufang polygon, and then the group they generate is one of the main groups of interest within the automorphism group, and is certainly the smallest group of interest, for our purposes.

In most cases the latter group is simple, and is the socle of the full automorphism group (its unique minimal normal subgroup). Between this group and the full automorphism group there are some other groups which are interpretable in the coordinate system for the group, and whose commutator subgroup is our simple group. So if we start with a stable coordinate system then we can associate a stable group with a simple socle to it, but in passing to the commutator subgroup, while we gain simplicity, we may lose definability.

Accordingly, our exposition becomes more elaborate than we had expected, as we sort through these issues. To complicate matters, our sources for the three cases take varying points of view, from the explicit matrix theoretic point of view of Timmesfeld, to the style of Chevalley (and Steinberg) in terms of generators and relations in the Tits/Weiss setting, and (for the part that concerns us) much more directly in terms of the structure of algebraic groups in the Tits setting. So we have the choice of unifying our perspective or staying close to our sources as we go along. We try to unify the description, but at the same time we do need to quote specific material from each source.

The paper is aimed at model theorists with an interest in a variety of related topics. We have arranged it as follows:

In § 2, Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 give the supply of stable “coordinate systems” with which we work. This is self-contained and is closely related to well-known work on the model theory of separably closed fields. Here the first theorem serves as warm-up to the second, and provides enough information to deal with the groups of mixed type as originally considered by Tits. We describe such groups in § 3 and prove that we do indeed get stable simple groups of this type by passing to the context of separably closed fields and applying Theorem 2.1.

Now Theorem 2.2 is of interest because the algebraic systems considered are the natural parametrizing systems for the groups which interest us. At the same time, the groups themselves cannot always be defined in a first order way from these structures. A point of considerable technical interest is that in some cases, enriching the original parametrizing structures to richer structures of the same kind may make the group first order definable.

We then pass to the opposite extreme—rank $1$—in the following section, working out the details of Timmesfeld’s construction and the consequences for the issues of definability and interpretability that concern us here. Everything can be seen very simply by repeating standard computations (either from the point of view of Chevalley theory, or from the point of view of elementary linear algebra in two dimensions). The unsettling phenomenon of a conflict between the desired simplicity and the desired interpretability appears at this stage. One can say more precisely how the initial coordinate system should be expanded to make the simple group definable, but then the issue of stability has to be approached afresh, and the situation becomes much more complex. Perhaps someone will investigate this further.

The last three sections discuss the related groups of automorphisms of Moufang polygons at some length. At this point the notation becomes noticeably more burdensome. Here we encounter everything that we have seen in the original Tits construction together with the complications that became visible in rank 1—and not much else, fortunately, other than some rather specific notation. At this point one needs to work rather concretely in the notation of root systems in order to sort out the details. Readers will probably find our presentation either excessively terse or excessively detailed, depending on their degree of familiarity with that notation. The ultimate result, which is a theme throughout much of the latter part of Tits/Weiss—though not put in these terms—is that in rank $2$ one has to deal with two separate instances of the rank $1$ theory, and otherwise things are rather similar to the case of algebraic groups.

In more detail, the content of the last three sections runs as follows: In § 5 we give an overview of what is done by Tits and Weiss in [TW], and the notation used. Their goal is to give a classification theorem in terms of concrete coordinatizations by algebraic systems. This background material discusses what is common across all cases prior to the introduction of coordinates.

The next two sections then look into two particular cases of the classification of Moufang polygons as given by Tits and Weiss. The first concerns Moufang hexagons, where we encounter examples already noticed by Tits as rank 2 analogues of the algebraic group of exceptional type $\operatorname{G_{2}}$ (so, $\operatorname{G_{2}}(K,k)$ in his notation). The second, more subtle example, treated in the last section, concerns the Moufang quadrangles of so-called “indifferent type,” which are those most closely related to the Timmesfeld construction in rank 1. Our summary of the situation, above, focuses on this case: this is the setting which inherits the specific difficulties associated with the rank 1 case.

The classification of Moufang polygons involves further families which could be investigated model theoretically; they tend to involve structure incompatible with stability, but compatible, in principle, with simplicity. The interested reader may want to look further in that direction, and in particular investigate the problem of building coordinate systems of the various types which are simple in the model theoretic sense.

We imagine that most readers will be interested either in looking into § 2 and taking much of the rest on faith (particularly from § 5 onward), or else taking § 2 on faith and looking into the following group theoretic issues (including the definability issues that arise). Either approach should be perfectly feasible. Most of what we have to say in the group theoretic part is intended to be expository, but it was not always evident where to find clear statements in the literature of the facts most directly relevant to the model theoretic issues.

Up to this point, we have been very vague about the details, in order not to become lost in them. In the remainder of this introduction we give a more precise account of the main points (and the key definitions) concerning the original construction of Tits, the lower rank constructions of Timmesfeld and Tits/Weiss, and the role of the model theory of separably closed fields in the construction of stable coordinate systems of the appropriate types.

1.1. The Tits construction: $G(k,K)$ [Tits, (10.3.2)]

Tits constructs analogs of (abstractly) simple algebraic groups over algebraically closed fields, in certain very special cases, defined from a suitable pair of fields $(k,K)$ with $k\leq K$. The point of view taken is that of Chevalley, with a small twist. This relies on the description of these groups in terms of root systems and their Dynkin diagrams, which may be summarized very rapidly as follows. This is either a reminder, or a few points of reference for the discussion afterward.

We begin with the algebraic group $G(K)$, which in algebraic terms is a $K$-split simple algebraic group of adjoint type. The $1$-dimensional subgroups are isomorphic to the additive or multiplicative group of $K$. A maximal torus $T$ is a product of a certain number of copies of the multiplicative group of $K$; that number is the Lie rank. The copies of the additive group of $K$ invariant under the action of $T$ are the root groups (with respect to $T$); these are permuted by the group $W=N(T)/T$; the action of $W$ on the root groups can be identified with the action of a finite reflection group acting on real Euclidean space (a Coxeter group) and these are classified by the Dynkin diagrams of types $A$–$G$. The root groups then correspond to a finite set of vectors invariant under the action of $W$ (these vectors encode the homomorphisms from $T$ to $K^{\times}$ which gives the action of $T$ on the corresponding root group).

From the Dynkin diagram, or the root system and the action of $W$, one can recover the construction of the group from the field $K$; this is the description of $G(K)$ as a Chevalley group. We will see this concretely in the case of rank 2 in §§ 6, LABEL:Sec:Indifferent, where in the latter case the construction is a generalization of the one described by Tits, and additional complications arise.

For our purposes it is important that the roots will always have either one or two root lengths. The setting for the Tits construction involves a simple split algebraic group of adjoint type over a field $k$ associated with a root system in which, in fact, two root lengths occur. Furthermore we require the characteristic to be “exceptional” in a certain sense (in a familiar sense from the point of view of finite group theory, and explained by Tits in terms of s special isogenies, [Tits, (5.7.3)]). The restriction on root lengths means concretely that the Dynkin diagram is of type $B_{n}$, $C_{n}$, $F_{4}$, or $\operatorname{G_{2}}$, and the restriction on the characteristic then means that the characteristic is $2$ unless we have type $\operatorname{G_{2}}$, in which case the characteristic will be $3$.

In this setting, one fixes a second field $K$ with

$$K^{p}\leq k\leq K.$$

With $G(k)$ the original algebraic group, one builds a group $G(k,K)$ containing $G(k)$, and contained in $G(K)$, much as one might construct $G(K)$ as a Chevalley group.

Namely, we consider a Borel subgroup $B=TU$ with $T$ $k$-split, we extend the groups $T(k)$ and $U(k)$ to groups $T(k,K)$ and $U(k,K)$ in a manner to be described momentarily, and then we set $N(k,K)=N(k)T(k,K)$, so that $N(k,K)/T(k,K)$ is isomorphic to the usual Weyl group $W=N(k)/T(k)$. The group $G(k,K)$ is then defined as the group generated by $B(k,K)$ and $N(k,K)$.

The group $U(k,K)$ is an exact analog of the maximal unipotent subgroup of a Borel subgroup from the point of view of Chevalley. Namely, $U(K)$ is generated by the root subgroups, which are copies of $K_{+}$, subject to the Chevalley commutator relations determined by the root system. One adjusts this construction by taking the root groups for long roots to be copies of the additive group of the smaller field $k$, and the root groups for the short roots to correspond to the larger field. One may then check that the Chevalley commutator formula makes sense (using the precise data in that formula, and the particular value of the characteristic).

At this point, one could reasonably proceed as follows: using the same modified notion of root group based on a pair of fields $(k,K)$, take the group inside $G(K)$ generated by all the long root groups over $k$ and the short root groups over $K$. However, Tits proceeds in a different way. which connects up directly with his theory of BN-pairs. Before following him on this path, we discuss why one might do that.

1.1.1. BN-pairs and the Bruhat decomposition

In the first place, Tits’ BN-pair theory gives a direct route toward connecting the new groups with the subject of his monograph [Tits]. In the second place, the data $B(k,K)$ and $N(k,K)$ are explicitly given direct analogs of the usual groups $B(K)$ and $N(K)$. On the other hand the group generated by them is potentially obscure; a priori it might very well be $G(K)$, for example. But the BN-pair theory implies a so-called Bruhat decomposition

$$G=\bigsqcup_{W}BwB$$

which is the double coset decomposition of $G(k,K)$ with respect to $B(k,K)$. (More properly, $w$ is replaced by a representative in $G$, but the corresponding double coset is well-defined.) Comparing this to the corresponding decomposition of $G(K)$, we see that $B(K)\cap G(k,K)$ is $B(k,K)$, which is reassuring. And more generally, the Bruhat decomposition can be read as saying that $G(k,K)$ is built from $B(k,K)$ in exactly the way that $G(K)$ is built from $B(K)$.

1.1.2. The groups

The groups obtained in this manner are (in the Dynkin notation) the families $B_{n}(k,K)$, $C_{n}(k,K)$, and the exceptional groups $F_{4}(k,K)$, $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)$. The groups $C_{2}(k,K)$ are variations on the algebraic group $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(K)$. Further variations are possible: these correspond to Moufang quadrangles of indifferent type in the sense of Tits and Weiss, discussed in § 1.2. Rather than taking a pair of fields $k,K$, we take a large field $K$ and two additive subgroups $K_{0}$, $L_{0}$, with

$$K^{2}\leq L_{0}\leq K_{0}\leq K$$

where now $L_{0}$ is a vector space over $K^{2}$ and $K_{0}$ is a vector space over the field generated by $L_{0}$. We then proceed to build a group $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$ in the manner of Tits, using $L_{0}$ to parametrize long root groups, $K_{0}$ for short root groups. This is not the description used by Tits and Weiss however; they build its associated Moufang polygon and then compute the subgroup of the automorphism group generated by the corresponding root subgroups (parametrized by $L_{0}$ and $K_{0}$ rather than $k$ and $K$).

We have some unfinished business to attend to. On the one hand, we need to complete the definition of the groups $G(k,K)$. On the other hand, we should say a bit more as to how one actually obtains the BN-pair properties, or at least the Bruhat decomposition; this is the only way one has of seeing that these groups are in fact new groups, and Tits refers a little vaguely to Chevalley for this point, in [Tits], though elsewhere he gave the argument explicitly (in the Chevalley context).

1.1.3. $G(k,K)$ (definition, concluded)

We have described $U(k,K)$ as the subgroup of $U(K)$ generated by modified root subgroups. Tits defines the torus $T(k,K)$, as the subgroup of $T(K)$ whose elements act sensibly on the root groups: that is, the elements of $T(K)$ which leave the root groups of $U(k,K)$ invariant. In other words, these are the elements which act via multiplication by an element of $k$ on the long root groups.

In particular the group $T(k,K)$ normalizes the group $U(k,K)$, and so we can define a “Borel subgroup” $B(k,K)=T(k,K)U(k,K)$. (This is the largest available torus inside $G(K)$.) One could consider other constructions defining the torus in a different way. In the rank $2$ case this point is the subject of extended calculations in [TW]; however the full automorphism group also contains elements inducing automorphisms of the coordinate system, which in the cases of interest to us are certain field automorphisms, and these will not appear in an algebraic group.

It is then reasonably clear that the “Borel subgroup” $B(k,K)$ is interpretable in the pair $(K,k)$; more concretely, its underlying set is definable in $G(K)$ if we take $K$ to be equipped with a predicate for the subfield $k$. It then follows from the Bruhat decomposition that the same applies to $G(k,K)$, and thus stability of the coordinate system will give rise to stability of the group; the converse also holds (indeed $(k,K)$ is interpretable in $U(k,K)$).

1.1.4. $B$ and $N$

We come back to the point that the groups $B(k,K)$ and $N(k,K)$ give a Bruhat decomposition for $G(k,K)$, indicating how this goes in the setting of Chevalley groups, and how it relates the theory of BN-pairs. For brevity we will now write $G$, $B$, $N$, $U$, and $T$ for the various groups involved in the definition of $G(k,K)$. So the Bruhat decomposition is

$$G=\bigsqcup_{W}BwB,$$

As Tits mentions in [Tits, 10.3.2], a key ingredient is the fact that the nilpotent group $U$ can be written as the product of its root subgroups, taken in any order. Another ingredient is the fact that the Bruhat decomposition holds in rank one (in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(k)$, $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$, or the projective versions of these groups). To this one adds some observations about the operation of the reflections corresponding to a simple root on the set o positive roots, and the fact that opposite root groups generate a rank one subgroup.

We run over some of the more formal aspects of this argument, taking as our initial goal the Bruhat decomposition. As $G$ is generated by $N$ and $B$, and $W=N/T$ with $T$ contained in $B$, the double coset decomposition exhibited is contained in $G$ and in order to show that it is $G$, it suffices to show that it is closed under multiplication by (representatives for) $W$ and under multiplication by $B$, the latter point being evident. Also, as $W$ is generated by reflections $w_{\alpha}$ corresponding to simple roots $\alpha$, it suffices to check that sets of the form $w_{\alpha}BwB$ are contained again in the double cosets exhibited. What is claimed, in fact, is the following:

$$w_{\alpha}BwB\subseteq Bw_{\alpha}wB\cup BwB.$$

This is one of the fundamental axioms in the theory of BN-pairs, in fact, so the question is how to verify it.

This can be further reduced by similar formal manipulations, since $B=TU$ and $W$ normalizes $T$, to a consideration of $w_{\alpha}Uw$, and then even further by consideration of the structure of $U$. Namely, $U$ may be written as $U^{*}U_{\alpha}$ where $U_{\alpha}$ is the root group corresponding to $\alpha$, and where $U^{*}$ is the product of the remaining root groups, which is itself invariant under $w_{\alpha}$. One reduces quickly to a consideration of $w_{\alpha}U_{\alpha}w$. Then either $w$ or $w_{\alpha}w$ carries $U_{\alpha}$ into another root group group contained in $U$. In the first case $w_{\alpha}U_{\alpha}w\subseteq w_{\alpha}wU$ and one finds that $w_{\alpha}BwB=Bw_{\alpha}wB$. In the second case one applies the same reasoning to $w_{\alpha}w$ in place of $w$, but one also uses the Bruhat decomposition for the rank one group generated by $U_{\alpha}$ and $U_{-\alpha}$.

The last details are found in the proofs of [St, Lemma 25, § 3; (b) p. 34] or [Tits-BN, (16), p. 323].

1.2. Tits-Weiss and Timmesfeld: subtleties

So far, everything proceeds according to plan. Now complications arise as we encounter some variations corresponding to Lie ranks 1 or 2, where the underlying algebraic systems are of a more general type.

For us, the most interesting case concerns Moufang quadrangles of “indifferent” type, similar to the buildings associated with Tits’ groups $C_{2}(k,K)$, but more general. Most of the complexity of this case, as far as the model theory is concerned, can be traced back to the rank $1$ groups associated with simple roots in this setting, which turn out to be the groups Timmesfeld calls $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L_{0})$ and $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K_{0})$ (we are in characteristic $2$, so we do not need to distinguish $\operatorname{SL}_{2}$ and $\operatorname{PSL}_{2}$).

There are interesting comments about the history and the differing emphases of the various approaches taken to this subject by [Tits], [TW], and [Ti] to be found in Richard Weiss’ review of [Ti] in the AMS Bulletin [WeissBAMS]. In particular, the following has considerable relevance here:

In a spherical building, groups of rank one appear as groups generated by pairs of “opposite” root groups, …. In the classification of Moufang buildings, in fact, these subgroups are avoided to the maximal extent possible. The philosophy of abstract root groups is just the opposite—groups of rank one are enshrined in the hypothesis themselves and play a central role in the whole theory.

We will approach the rank 2 case via the rank 1 case, in order to encounter the model theoretic issues in their simplest “pure” state. This means in particular that we will be crossing over between two rather different points of view.

We are again in characteristic $2$ with an imperfect field $K$, and we begin in rank $1$. In the Timmesfeld setting—or rather, the special case of interest to us here—we will have an additive subgroup $L$ of $K$ containing $K^{2}$ and invariant under multiplication by $K^{2}$. Timmesfeld’s description of his group involves generation by two “root subgroups” parametrized by $L$, but as we will check later, we can give a description similar to the one given by Tits above.

We begin with a single root group $U(L)$ (where $L$ is not necessarily a subfield) which we may take to be the upper unitriangular matrices with coefficients in the additive group $L$. If we followed Tits’ construction we would also define a torus $T(L)$ at this point. In fact we will take the root group $U(L)$ and its opposite, and the group they generate, and then compute the torus $T(L)$ generated as a subgroup of $T(K)$. This turns out to be parametrized by the multiplicative subgroup of $K$ which is generated by the nonzero elements of $L$. This is the point at which nondefinability enters into the picture.

On other hand, after this detour we could start afresh and define $T(L)$ as the particular group of diagonal matrices just mentioned, then define $B(L)=T(L)U(L)$, and let $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ be the group generated by $B(L)$ and a suitable Weyl group element. The usual Weyl group element

$$\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\ -1&0\end{pmatrix}$$

will do (and we can omit the minus sign, as the characteristic is $2$). This preserves the connection with the Tits construction; but we will in fact take Timmesfeld’s definition as our point of departure.

As there is only one pair of roots, the field $K$ does not play much of a role here, and it could be replaced by the subfield $k$ generated by $L$.

On the other hand, the torus $T(L)$ is not the strict analog of the one considered by Tits. The direct analog of Tits’ $T(k,K)$ in this context would be the subgroup of the diagonal group $T(K)$ which normalizes $U$. But this is $T(K)$, since $L$ is a vector space over $K^{2}$. So that torus would depend on the choice of $K$.

Notice that it is the small torus $T(L)$ which is a maximal torus in the simple group $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$. But in general it is the larger torus $T(K)$, defined in the manner of Tits, which is definable from the coordinate system, so here we have a definable group $T(K)\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ with simple socle, stable if $(K,L)$ is, and the commutator subgroup of this group is simple, but not necessarily stable.

All of this can be checked by direct computations which we will make, and which are the usual computations made over a field in the context of Chevalley groups. In particular one verifies the Bruhat decomposition in this context, and that leads to a proof of the BN-pair axioms also in rank $2$ (carried out in a different way in [TW]).

Turning to this rank $2$ case, let us call the group associated by Tits and Weiss to the coordinate system $(K;L_{0},K_{0})$ $G_{0}(L_{0},K_{0})$. Namely, one defines $U(L_{0},K_{0})$ by strict analogy with the case of Chevalley groups, as in the algebraic group $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(K)$, with $L_{0}$ and $K_{0}$ parametrizing the long and short root groups respectively, and using the Chevalley commutator relation to define the group law.

In an algebraic group setting one may then take the opposite group and the group they generate; or in the setting of Moufang polygons one may define the corresponding Moufang polygon (with some effort) and then consider the group generated by root subgroups. From this point of view one also computes the torus (with considerable effort in this setting). This gives a simple group which is not necessarily first order definable, because the torus itself is not necessarily definable, and in fact rank one groups of type $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L_{0})$ and $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K_{0})$ are involved. The analysis of Tits and Weiss determines both the minimal torus (splitting the normalizer of the group $U$ as $T\cdot U$ in the corresponding simple group) and the maximal torus (giving a similar splitting, but in the full automorphism group of the Moufang polygon).

The result is that inside the automorphism group of the Moufang polygon, and above the group generated by root subgroups, we have a family of groups, corresponding to a family of “tori” (in a very broad sense, allowing actions by field automorphisms on the coordinate system).

The smallest of these groups is simple but not necessarily definable over the coordinate system (in the first order sense), while the largest is rather too large for any of our purposes; but in between one can find a definable group whose commutator subgroup is the corresponding simple group (i.e., the associated torus is abelian). Here, definability refers to definability in the structure $(K;L_{0},K_{0})$.

In particular when the coordinate system is stable, the closest we come, in general, to building a stable simple group is to build a stable group with simple commutator subgroup.

On the other hand, as yet we have no negative results in the more challenging cases. In particular we do not know whether some of the simple groups which are not interpretable in the associated algebraic systems might themselves be stable, for other reasons.

This last is not intrinsically a group theoretic question, since the simple group of interest is definable from a coordinatizing structure expanding $(L_{0},K_{0})$ by the torus $T$ of the group and its action on the root subgroups (and conversely, this structure can be recovered from the group, if one is careful about the formulation). The torus can be made a little more concrete as it is a product of 1-dimensional tori which can be taken separately and come from rank 1 subgroups of Timmesfeld’s type.

So stability of the simple group is equivalent to stability of the structure $(L_{0},K_{0})$ together with the two 1-dimensional tori associated with the rank 1 subgroups corresponding to simple roots, and their actions on all the root groups. In this sense, one can set aside the simple group and work with an expanded language of fields instead.

1.3. Some model theory of fields

A few introductory remarks about the model theory of fields are also in order, just to set the scene properly. From our perspective, what was intriguing was the central role of imperfect fields in all of these constructions, and the known fact that separably closed fields have stable theories. This is what suggested the current line of investigation, and, in particular, our interest in the case of Moufang quadrangles of indifferent type.

The question as to whether every stable field is in fact separably closed is of long standing (see for example [KrP-SFW]). This question has been placed in a broader framework by Shelah and others, and occurs now in a number of formulations generally all going by the name of Shelah’s conjecture for (e.g.) dependent fields [HaHJ-SDF]. This broader question is being actively pursued at present and leads into very different issues outside stability theory. But certainly in the present state of knowledge the only definite source of constructions of stable simple groups in which fields can be interpreted will pass through the theory of separably closed fields. If one enlarges the scope to simple unstable theories, then some other constructions from the theory of Moufang polygons would come into play, involving automorphisms and various semilinear or quadratic forms.

We turn now to the details, beginning with the model theoretic algebra that produces a good supply of stable structures suitable for use as coordinatizing structures, with three cases: Timmesfeld’s rank one groups $\operatorname{SL}2(L)$, and the two families of rank two groups $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)$ and the indifferent type for $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}$.. With that in hand we will take up the three sorts of groups of interest, starting with Tits’ theory over pairs of fields, where matters are simplest in some fundamental sense (though with the usual apparatus of algebraic groups, root systems, and also BN-pairs all in the mix). Then we pass to the rank 1 case as a relatively transparent context where real problems of definability arise, before coming finally to the most interesting case, Moufang polygons of indifferent type, where the groups to be constructed are stable, with simple socle equal to the commutator subgroup, and nonalgebraic.

1.4. Main results of the paper

As explained before, our aim was to study from a model-theoretic point of view examples of “exotic groups,” preferably simple ones. We concentrated on three cases: $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$, $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)$ and groups obtained as automorphism groups of the Moufang polygons of [TW] coordinatized by an indifferent set, and in particular the groups generated in that setting by the root groups associated with the Moufang polygon (and a fixed apartment).

The first point is that stable coordinatizing systems exist in all three cases. This is proved by fixing an imperfect separably closed field $K$ of the appropriate characteristic, and studying their model theory in various enrichments, by subfields of $K$, or by $K^{2}$ vector spaces between $K^{2}$ and $K$. The results are valid in arbitrary characteristic, and the main result in that section is:

Theorem 2.2. Let $K$ be a separably closed field in characteristic $p$, and

$$K^{p}=K_{0}\leq K_{1}\leq K_{2}\leq\cdots\leq K_{m}\leq K_{m+1}=K$$

a chain of subfields of $K$ containing $K^{p}$. Furthermore, for $1\leq i\leq m$ let $R_{i}$ be an additive subgroup of $K_{i+1}$ which contains $K_{i}$ and is a vector space over $K_{i}$, and which satisfies, in addition, the following two conditions:

1. $K_{i}=\{a\in K\mid aR_{i}=R_{i}\}$,

2. Any subset of $R_{i}$ which is linearly independent over $K_{i}$ is $p$-independent over $K_{i}$.

Then the structure $(K,K_{1},\ldots,K_{m},R_{1},\ldots,R_{m})$ is stable, and the complete theory is given by the properties stated together with simple numerical invariants: the dimensions of both $R_{i}$ and $K_{i+1}$ over $K_{i}$, as finite values or the formal symbol $\infty$.

One also obtains a variation of this result by slightly modifying the vector spaces $R_{i}$ (Theorem 2.6).

These results will be applied in characteristic $3$ to a pair of fields and in characteristic $2$ to two fields and two additive subgroups meeting the additional requirements.

Let us first start with two results on the groups $G_{0}(k,K)$ (“à la Tits”).

Theorem 3.3. Suppose that $G(k)$ is of adjoint type (centerless) and split over $k$ Then for $K\neq\mathbb{F}_{2},\mathbb{F}_{3}$, the group $G_{0}(k,K)$ is simple.

For the Tits groups, stability of the group is equivalent to stability of the coordinatizing pair of fields, and we have

Theorem 3.5. Suppose $G(K)$ is simple of type of type $B_{n}$, $C_{n}$, $F_{4}$, or $\operatorname{G_{2}}$ and $(K,k)$ is a pair of fields with

$$K^{p}\leq k\leq K$$

and $p$ the appropriate characteristic ($3$ for type $\operatorname{G_{2}}$, and $2$ otherwise).

Then the following hold:

1. If the pair of fields $(K,k)$ is a stable structure, then the groups $G_{0}(k,K)$ and $G(k,K)$ are stable.

2. If $K$ is separably closed then $G_{0}(k,K)$ and $G(k,K)$ are stable groups.

(The converse of item (1) is proved separately for type $\operatorname{G_{2}}$ and $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}$, see Theorem LABEL:bidef:G2UKk for $\operatorname{G_{2}}$, and Theorem LABEL:Thm:C2:U(k,K) for $G=\operatorname{PSp}_{4}$.)

In particular for the case of groups of type $\operatorname{G_{2}}$ we achieved our goal, and obtain a class of automorphism groups of Moufang hexagons which are both stable and simple.

Coming now to the rank one case (Timmesfeld’s exotic simple groups of type $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$), we have the following standard facts:

Theorem 4.2. Let $K$ be an imperfect field $K$ of characteristic $2$ and $L$ an additive subgroup satisfying

$$K^{2}\leq L\leq K,$$

where $L$ is a vector space over $K^{2}$. Let $T(L)\leq\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ be the subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ with coordinates in the multiplicative subgroup of $K$ generated by $L^{*}$. Let $B=T(L)L$ and $N=T(L)\langle{w}\rangle$.

Then we have the Bruhat decomposition

$$\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)=B\cup BwB.$$

In particular, $L$ is the group of upper unitriangular matrices in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$, and $T(L)$ is the diagonal subgroup.

Furthermore, $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is simple.

The definability theoretic properties of the group $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ are more subtle and lead us to consider a slight generalization $T\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ where $T$ is a subgroup of the diagonal matrices in a larger group $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ over a field. We may take $T$ to contain the diagonal matrices of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$.

Corollary 4.9. Given a (slightly generalized) Timmesfeld group $T\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$, with additive group $L$ and torus $T$, there is a structure $(\tilde{K},L,\bar{T})$ with $\tilde{K}$ a field and $\bar{T}$ a subgroup of $\tilde{K}$ such that the following are equivalent:

1. The group $T\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is stable.

2. The structure $(\tilde{K},L,\bar{T})$ with the field structure on $\tilde{K}$ and the additive and multiplicative subgroups $L$ and $\bar{T}$ is stable.

In particular, when $T$ is the subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ consisting of diagonal matrices (and $T\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$), the corresponding group $\bar{T}$ may be taken to be the subgroup of $\tilde{K}^{\times}$ generated by the nonzero elements of $L$.

This is the point at which one realizes that $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is likely to be undefinable in first order terms relative to its natural coordinatization by $(\tilde{K},L)$, and examples falling under Theorem 2.2 confirm this.

We now deal with our second example, associated to hexagonal systems of type 1/F, and which turns out to coincide with $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)=\operatorname{G_{2}}_{0}(k,K)$.

Theorem LABEL:Thm:G2(k,K). Suppose $(K,k)$ is a pair of fields with

$$K^{3}\leq k\leq K$$

Then the following hold:

1. The group $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)$ is stable if and only if the pair of fields $(K,k)$ is a stable structure.

2. If $K$ is separably closed then $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)$ is a stable simple group.

Theorem LABEL:bidef:G2UKk. Let $(K,k)$ be a pair of fields in characteristic $3$ with

$$K^{3}\leq k\leq K$$

and let $U=U(k,K)$ in the sense of $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)$. Then each of $U$ and $(K,k)$ is definable in the other.

This immediately gives
Theorem LABEL:thm:hexagon. The group $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)$ is stable (model-theoretically simple, NTP₂, NSOP₁, …) if and only if the pair of fields $(K,k)$ is stable (resp. model-theoretically simple, …).

Now we turn to our real interest: the rank two case, and specifically automorphism groups of certain Moufang hexagons (§ 6) and Moufang quadrangles (§ 4).

Theorem LABEL:Thm:C2:U(k,K). Let $(K;L_{0},K_{0})$ be a weak indifferent set and let $U$ be the group $U(k,K)$ in the sense of $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(k,K)$. Then each of $U$ and $(L_{0},K_{0},+,*)$ is definable in the other, where

$$a*b=a^{2}b$$

on $K_{0}$.

Theorem LABEL:Thm:Indifferent:Definability:U. Let $(K;L_{0},K_{0})$ be a weak indifferent set, $T(K)$ a maximal torus of $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(K)$, and $T$ a subgroup of $T(K)$ normalizing the group $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$ and containing $T(K)\cap\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$.

Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be the structure

$$(K_{0};L_{0},+,T,\mu)$$

consisting of the group $K_{0}$ with the subset $L_{0}$, the abstract group $T$ with its multiplication, and the following additional structure:

1. the map $\mu:K_{0}\times K_{0}\to K_{0}$ defined by $\mu(a,b)=a^{2}b$;

2. actions of $T$ on $K_{0}$ and on $L_{0}$ which correspond to the actions of $T$ on two root subgroups $U_{\alpha}$, $U_{\beta}$ with $\alpha,\beta$ the two simple roots, where $\alpha$ is short and $\beta$ is long.

Then the group $G=T\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$ is interdefinable with ${\mathcal{M}}$.

In particular, $G$ is stable if and only if ${\mathcal{M}}$ is stable.

2. Stable pairs of fields and related structures

Results

For our applications, we need to work with pairs of fields, or with more general structures (but again, in pairs). But what can be done with pairs of fields can also be done, in the same way, with more than two nested fields, and with the more general coordinatizing systems called indifferent sets. Our first result in this line will be the following, which we will need in characteristic $2$ and $3$, and with $m=1$, so that we have two distinct fields at our disposal:

Theorem 2.1.

Let $K$ be a separably closed field of characteristic $p>0$, and let

$$K^{p}=K_{0}\leq K_{1}\leq K_{2}\leq\cdots\leq K_{m}\leq K_{m+1}=K$$

be a chain of subfields of $K$ containing $K^{p}$, viewed as a structure with predicates for the fields. Then the theory of this structure is stable.

Furthermore, this theory is axiomatized by the stated properties together with a specification of the dimensions $[K_{i+1}:K_{i}]$ (as finite values or the formal symbol $\infty$).

The method of proof will pass through an elimination of quantifiers in an appropriate language—the language customarily used for quantifier elimination in separably closed fields, reviewed below, together with the appropriate unary predicates.

This result already supports the Tits constructions, including some in rank 2, notably in the case of $\operatorname{G_{2}}$, which was first described in [Tits, § 10.3, p. 205 (Remark)].

But as we have explained, we need a more varied supply of coordinatizing structures, involving some additive subgroups as well as subfields—in characteristic $2$. The following will be sufficient for our current purposes, though as previously discussed, the question of stability of the associated simple groups would require even more elaborate coordinatizing structures, at this greater level of generality.

The relevant value of $m$ in the next theorem will be $2$, as we will be working mainly with the two additive groups $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$.

Theorem 2.2.

Let $K$ be a separably closed field in characteristic $p$, and

$$K^{p}=K_{0}\leq K_{1}\leq K_{2}\leq\cdots\leq K_{m}\leq K_{m+1}=K$$

a chain of subfields of $K$ containing $K^{p}$. Furthermore, for $1\leq i\leq m$ let $R_{i}$ be an additive subgroup of $K_{i+1}$ which contains $K_{i}$ and is a vector space over $K_{i}$, and which satisfies, in addition, the following two conditions:

1. $K_{i}=\{a\in K\mid aR_{i}=R_{i}\}$,

2. Any subset of $R_{i}$ which is linearly independent over $K_{i}$ is $p$-independent over $K_{i}$.

Then the structure $(K,K_{1},\ldots,K_{m},R_{1},\ldots,R_{m})$ is stable, and the complete theory is given by the properties stated, together with simple numerical invariants: the dimensions of both $R_{i}$ and $K_{i+1}$ over $K_{i}$, as finite values or the formal symbol $\infty$.

Algebraic preliminaries

Definition 2.3.

Let $F\supset E$ be fields of characteristic $p>0$.

1. A subset $B$ of $F$ is $p$-independent in $F$ if $[F^{p}[C]:F^{p}]=p^{|C|}$ for every finite subset $C$ of $B$; otherwise, it is said to be $p$-dependent. A maximal $p$-independent subset $B$ of $F$ is called a $p$-basis of $F$, and one then has $F^{p}[B]=F$.

2. A subset $B$ of $F$ is $p$-independent over $E$ in $F$ if $[EF^{p}[C]:EF^{p}]=p^{|C|}$ whenever $C$ is a finite subset of $B$. Note that if $E\supset F^{p}$, we could equally say: $B$ is $p$-independent in $E^{1/p}$.

3. The degree of imperfection of the field $E$ is $e\in{\mathbb{N}}\cup\{\infty\}$ such that $[E:E^{p}]=p^{e}$. Equivalently, it is the cardinality of a $p$-basis if $E$ has a finite $p$-basis, and the symbol $\infty$ otherwise.

Notation 2.4.

Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $p>0$.

1. For each $n>0$, we fix an enumeration $m_{i,n}(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $0\leq i<p^{n}$, of the $p$-monomials in $x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}$, i.e., of all monomials on $x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}$ where the exponents are between $0$ and $p-1$. Without loss of generality, $m_{0,n}(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})=1$ for each $n$.

2. The $\lambda$-functions $\lambda_{i,n}$ on $K$ are defined in the following way:

3. $\lambda_{i,n}(a_{1},\ldots,a_{n};b)=0$ if $a_{1},\ldots,a_{n}$ is not $p$-independent in $K$, or if $b$ is not $p$-dependent on $a_{1},\ldots,a_{n}$ in $K$; else,

4. the values of the $\lambda_{i,n}$ are uniquely defined by the condition

   $$b=\sum_{i=0}^{p^{n}-1}\lambda_{i,n}(a_{1},\ldots,a_{n};b)^{p}m_{i,n}(a_{1},\ldots,a_{n}).$$

5. Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be the language of fields $\{+,-,\cdot,{}^{-1},0,1\}$, and let the language ${\mathcal{L}}_{\lambda}$ be ${\mathcal{L}}\cup\{\lambda_{i,n}\mid n\in{\mathbb{N}},0\leq i<p^{n}\}$. Observe that the inverse of the Frobenius map is ${\mathcal{L}}_{\lambda}$-quantifier-free definable on $K^{p}$: if $b\notin K^{p}$, then $\lambda_{0,1}(b;x^{p})=x$.

6. Let $B$ be a $p$-independent subset of $K$. For each $n$ and $i<p^{n}$, we denote by $\lambda^{B}_{i,n}:B^{n}\times K\to K$ the corresponding restriction of $\lambda_{i,n}$. If $a\in K$, we will say that the $\lambda^{B}$-functions are well-defined at $a$ when $a\in K^{p}[B]$. Similarly, the iterates of the $\lambda^{B}$ are said to (all) be well-defined at $a$ if $a\in K^{p^{n}}[B]$ for all $n>0$.

7. Suppose we have a nested sequence of fields

   $$K_{1}\leq\cdots\leq K_{m}\leq K_{m+1}=K.$$

   We define the language

   $${\mathcal{L}}^{m}={\mathcal{L}}_{\lambda}\cup\{K_{1},\ldots,K_{m}\}\cup\{\lambda^{K_{j}}_{i,n}\mid\mbox{$n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $0\leq i<p^{n}$, $j=1,\ldots,m$}\},$$

   where the $K_{j}$ are unary predicates for the subfields $K_{j}$, and the function symbols $\lambda^{K_{j}}$ are interpreted as the usual $\lambda_{i,n}$ functions on the field $K_{j}$, and $0$ outside. If $B_{j}$ is a $p$-basis of $K_{j}$, then $\lambda^{K_{j},B_{j}}$ denotes the $\lambda^{K_{j}}$-functions restricted to $B_{j}^{?}\times K_{j}$.

We now collect some useful results, mostly classical (and trivial if the degree of imperfection of $K$ is finite). We will give most of the proofs, though briefly. More detailed proofs can be found at various points in [B], [D] or [Sr86].

Remark 2.5.

1. Let $E$ be a subfield of $K$. Then the following are equivalent:

   1. $K$ is a separable extension of $E$

   2. $E$ is closed under the $\lambda$-functions of $K$

   3. the elements of any (or, some) $p$-basis of $E$ stay $p$-independent in $K$.

   In this case, the $\lambda$-functions of $E$ and of $K$ agree on $E$.

2. Let $B\subset K$ be $p$-independent. Assume that the iterates of the $\lambda^{B}$-functions are well-defined at the element $a$ of $K$, and let $A_{0}$ denote the set of these iterates. Then ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}(B,A_{0})$ is closed under the $\lambda^{B}$-functions. Hence ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}(B,A_{0})$ has $p$-basis $B$, $K$ is a separable extension of ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}(B,A_{0})$, and ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}(B,A_{0})$ is closed under the $\lambda$-functions of $K$.

3. Let $E$ be a subfield of $K$ closed under the $\lambda$-functions of $K$. Assume that $B$ is a $p$-basis of $K$ such that $E\cap B$ is a $p$-basis of $E$. Let $C\subset K$ be closed under the $\lambda^{B}$-functions. Then $E(C)$ is closed under the $\lambda$-functions of $K$.

   Note that in general it is not true that if $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ are ${\mathcal{L}}_{\lambda}$-substructures of $K$, then so is the field $A_{1}A_{2}$. For example, take $a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},a_{4}$ $p$-independent, and consider $A_{1}={\mathbb{F}}_{p}(a_{1},a_{2})$, $A_{2}={\mathbb{F}}_{p}(a_{3},a_{1}a_{2}+a_{4}^{p})$.

4. Let $E$ be a subfield of $K$ closed under the $\lambda$-functions of $K$, and let $a\in K$. If $A$ is the closure of $E(a)$ under the $\lambda$-functions of $K$, then $A$ is countably generated over $E$.

5. The $\lambda$-functions of $K$ extend uniquely to the separable closure $K^{s}$ of $K$.

6. Suppose the subfield $E$ of $K$ is an ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}$-substructure of $K$, and let $a\in K$. Then the ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}$-substructure $A$ of $K$ generated by $E(a)$ is countably generated over $E$.

7. Let $K^{p}\leq L\leq K$. Let $B_{1}$ be a $p$-basis of $L$ over $K^{p}$, and $B_{2}$ a $p$-basis of $K$ over $L$. Then $B_{1}\cup B_{2}^{p}$ is a $p$-basis of $L$ and

   $$L=\bigcap_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}K^{p^{n}}[B_{1},B_{2}^{p}].$$

8. Let $K$ and $L$ be separably closed fields, and $E\leq K,L$ an ${\mathcal{L}}_{\lambda}$-substructure. Suppose that $K$ and $L$ are both saturated of the same cardinality $\kappa$ with $\kappa>|E|+\aleph_{0}$. Let $B$ be a $p$-basis of $K$ such that $E\cap B$ is a $p$-basis of $E$, and let $B^{\prime}$ be a $p$-basis of $L$ containing $E\cap B$. If $f:B\setminus E\to B^{\prime}\setminus E$ is a bijection, then $f\cup\mathrm{id}_{E}$ extends to an isomorphism $K\to L$.

Proof.

(1) See [B] or a similar (general) text.

(2) If $c$ is a $p$-independent $n$-tuple in $K$ and $a,b$ are two elements of $K^{p}[c]$, then $\lambda_{i,n}(c;a+b)$ and $\lambda_{i,n}(c;ab)$ belong to the ring generated over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p}[c]$ by the elements

$$\lambda_{i,n}(c;a) \lambda_{i,n}(c;b) 0\leq i<p^{n}$$, for .

Moreover, $a^{-1}=a^{-p}(a^{p-1})\in K^{p}[a]$; this gives the first assertion, and the second follows by (1).

(3) By (2), $E(C)$ is closed under the $\lambda^{B}$-functions, and the result follows by (1).

(4) Let $A$ be as above, and extend a $p$-basis of $E$ to a $p$-basis $B$ of $K$. Let $A_{0}$ be the set of $\lambda^{B}$-iterates of $a$. As this set of functions is countable, the set $A_{0}$ is countable, and involves only countably many elements of $B$. That is, there is a countable subset $B_{0}$ of $B$ such that all iterates of the $\lambda^{B_{0}}$-functions are well-defined at $a$.

Now by (3), $E(B_{0}A_{0})$ is closed under the $\lambda$-functions of $K$, and contains $A$.

(5) We know that for each $m$, $a\in K[a^{p^{m}}]$, so that there are polynomials $f_{m}\in K[X]$, depending only on the minimal polynomial of $a$ over $K$, such that $a=f_{m}(a^{p^{m}})$ for all $m$. Given a $p$-basis $B$ of $K$ the polynomials $f_{m}$ determine uniquely the values of the iterates of the $\lambda^{B}_{i,n}(a)$.

(6) For each $j=1,\ldots,m+1$, select a $p$-basis $B_{j}$ of $K_{j}$ such that $B_{j}\cap E_{j}$ is a $p$-basis of $E_{j}$. Then, using (4), we build an increasing sequence $A_{i}$ of subfields of $K$, where $A_{0}$ is the $\lambda^{B_{m+1}}$-closure of $\{a\}$, and for $i>0$, with $i\equiv j\;\mathrm{mod}(m+1)$, $A_{i}$ is the $\lambda^{K_{j},B_{j}}$-closure of $A_{i-1}\cap K_{j}$. Since each $A_{i}$ is countable by (4), so is $A^{\prime}=\bigcup_{n\in\omega}A_{n}$, and by (4), since $E$ and $A^{\prime}$ are closed under the functions $\lambda^{K_{j},B_{j}}$, so is $E(A^{\prime})$.

(7) As $B_{2}$ is a $p$-basis of $K$ over $L$, $B_{2}^{p}$ is a $p$-basis of $K^{p}$ over $L^{p}$, and therefore $L=L^{p}[B_{1},B_{2}^{p}]$ and $B_{1},B_{2}^{p}$ is a $p$-basis of $L$.

Observe now that

$$L=\bigcap_{n}L^{p^{n}}[B_{1},B_{2}^{p}]\leq\bigcap_{n}K^{p^{n}}[B_{1},B_{2}^{p}]\leq K^{p}[B_{1},B_{2}^{p}]=L.$$

(8) This is a straightforward back-and-forth argument, using the stability of the theory of separably closed fields of infinite degree of imperfection.

By (5), $f\cup\mathrm{id}_{E}$ extends to some $\hat{f}$ defined on $E(B)^{s}$. Assume now that we have an isomorphism $g:E_{1}(B)^{s}\to E^{\prime}_{1}(B^{\prime})^{s}$ extending $\hat{f}$, with $E_{1},E^{\prime}_{1}$ ${\mathcal{L}}_{\lambda}$-substructures of $K,L$ respectively, such that $|E_{1}|<\kappa$ and $E_{1}\cap B$ a $p$-basis of $E_{1}$.

Let $a\in K\setminus E_{1}$. By (4), the $\lambda^{B}$-closure $A$ of $E_{1}(a)$ is countably generated over $E_{1}$, and adding countably many elements of $B$ if necessary, we may assume that $A\cap B$ is a $p$-basis of $A$; let $A_{1}$ be countable, closed under the $\lambda^{B}$, and such that $A=E_{1}(A_{1})$.

By saturation of $L$, there is some $A_{1}^{\prime}\in L$ which realizes $g(\mathrm{tp}(A_{1}/E_{1}(A_{1}\cap B)^{s}))$, and as $A_{1}$ is independent from $B$ over $A_{1}\cap B$, is separable over $E_{1}[A_{1}\cap B]$, and $\mathrm{tp}(A_{1}/E_{1}(A_{1}\cap B)^{s})$ is stationary, it follows that $A_{1}^{\prime}$ realizes $g(\mathrm{tp}(A_{1}/E_{1}(B)^{s}))$. This proves one direction, and the other is symmetric. ∎

Proofs

We now give the proofs of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2. We restate Theorem 2.1 in a more explicit form as follows:

Theorem 2.1.  Let $K$ be a separably closed field of characteristic $p>0$, and let

$$K^{p}=K_{0}\leq K_{1}\leq K_{2}\leq\cdots\leq K_{m}\leq K_{m+1}=K$$

be a chain of subfields of $K$ containing $K^{p}$, viewed as a structure with predicates for the fields. Then the theory of this structure is stable.

Furthermore, this theory is axiomatized by the stated properties together with a specification of the dimensions $[K_{i+1}:K_{i}]$ (as finite values or the formal symbol $\infty$), and admits elimination of quantifiers in the associated language ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}$, with the predicates $K_{j}$ and the functions $\lambda_{i,n}^{K_{j}}$ interpreted naturally.

Proof.

Since all $K_{i}$ contain $K^{p}$ and are contained in $K$, the sequence

$$K_{0}\leq K_{1}\leq\cdots\leq K_{m+1}=K$$

is a series of purely inseparable extensions.

Let $T_{K}$ be theory stating that the sequence of fields has the stated properties, and which, in addition, specifies the degrees $[K_{j+1}:K_{j}]$. We show first that this theory is complete and allows quantifier elimination.

Let ${\mathcal{E}}=(E,E_{1},\ldots,E_{m})$ be an ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}$-substructure of $(K,K_{1},\ldots,K_{m})$. Then $K^{p}\cap E=E^{p}\subset E_{1}$, each extension $K/E$, $K_{j}/E_{j}$ is separable, and for $j>0$, $K_{j}$ and $E_{j+1}$ are linearly disjoint over $E_{j}$, since $E_{j+1}/E_{j}$ is purely inseparable.

We may assume that $(K,K_{1},\ldots,K_{m})$ is saturated of cardinality $\kappa>|E|$, and we fix another model $(L,L_{1},\ldots,L_{m})$ of $T_{K}$ containing ${\mathcal{E}}$ which is also saturated of cardinality $\kappa$.

Let $B_{1}$ be a $p$-basis of $E_{1}/E^{p}$, $B_{2}$ a $p$-basis of $E_{2}/E_{1}$, …, $B_{m+1}$ a $p$-basis of $E/E_{m}$; extend $B_{1}$ to a $p$-basis $C_{1}$ of $K_{1}/K^{p}$, $B_{2}$ to a $p$-basis $C_{2}$ of $K_{2}/K_{1}$ (this is possible because $E_{1}$ and $K^{p}$ are linearly disjoint over $E^{p}$, so that $K^{p}\leq K^{p}E_{1}\leq K_{1}$ are purely inseparable extensions), …, $B_{m+1}$ to a $p$-basis $C_{m+1}$ of $K/K_{m}$ (again, use $K/K_{m}E$ purely inseparable).

Then $\tilde{C}:=C_{1}\cup\cdots\cup C_{m+1}$ is a $p$-basis of $K$, and for each $i=1,\ldots,m$, $\tilde{C}_{i}:=\bigcup_{j=i+1}^{m+1}C_{j}^{p}\cup\bigcup_{j=1}^{i}C_{j}$ is a $p$-basis of $K_{i}$. Do the same with $L,L_{1},\ldots,L_{m}$ to obtain corresponding $p$-bases $D_{1},\ldots,D_{m+1}$, and observe that necessarily, either $|C_{i}|=|D_{i}|$ is finite, or $|C_{i}|=|D_{i}|=\kappa$, by saturation of $K$ and $L$.

Thus, if $f$ is a bijection between $\bigcup_{j=1}^{m+1}(C_{j}\setminus B_{j})$ and $\bigcup_{j=1}^{m+1}(D_{j}\setminus B_{j})$ which sends each $C_{j}\setminus B_{j}$ to $D_{j}\setminus B_{j}$, then $\mathrm{id}_{E}\cup f$ extends to an isomorphism of fields $K\to L$, which is the identity on $E$, and sends each $K_{j}$ to $L_{j}$: use (8) and (7) in Remark 2.5. This shows that $T_{K}$ is complete and eliminates quantifiers in ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}$.

Now we show stability of $T_{K}$. Let $a\in K$, and let $A$ be the ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}$-substructure of $K$ generated by $(Ea)$ We may assume the $p$-bases $C_{i}$ are chosen to contain a $p$-basis of $A_{i}$ over $A_{i-1}$ extending $B_{i}$. By Remark 2.5(6) (and (4)), there is a countable ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}$-substructure $A^{\prime}$ of $A$ containing $a$ and such that $EA^{\prime}=A$ and $C\cap A^{\prime}$ is a $p$-basis of $A^{\prime}$. By elimination of quantifiers, $\mathrm{tp}_{T_{K}}(a/E)$ is entirely determined by $\mathrm{qftp}_{{\mathcal{L}}^{m}}(A/E)$, and because $A=EA^{\prime}$ and by Remark 2.5(2), there are at most $|E|^{\aleph_{0}}$ such types. Thus the theory is stable. ∎

The proof of Theorem 2.2 is very similar. Again, we reformulate it in more precise terms:

Theorem 2.2.  Let $K$ be a separably closed field in characteristic $p$, and

$$K^{p}=K_{0}\leq K_{1}\leq K_{2}\leq\cdots\leq K_{m}\leq K_{m+1}=K$$

a chain of subfields of $K$ containing $K^{p}$. Furthermore, for $1\leq i\leq m$ let $R_{i}$ be an additive subgroup of $K_{i+1}$ which contains $K_{i}$ and is a vector space over $K_{i}$, and which satisfies, in addition, the following two conditions:

1. $K_{i}=\{a\in K\mid aR_{i}=R_{i}\}$,

2. Any subset of $R_{i}$ which is linearly independent over $K_{i}$ is $p$-independent over $K_{i}$.

Then the structure $(K,K_{1},\ldots,K_{m},R_{1},\ldots,R_{m})$ is stable, and the complete theory is given by the properties stated together with simple numerical invariants: the dimensions of both $R_{i}$ and $K_{i+1}$ over $K_{i}$, as finite values or the formal symbol $\infty$, and admits elimination of quantifiers in the associated language ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}_{R}$, with the predicates $K_{i},R_{i}$ and the functions $\lambda_{i,n}^{K_{j}}$ interpreted naturally.

Proof.

Let

$${\mathcal{E}}=(E,E_{1},\ldots,E_{m},F_{1},\ldots,F_{m})\subset(K,K_{1},\ldots,K_{m},R_{1},\ldots,R_{m})$$

be a substructure. As in the proof of Theorem 2.1, the sequence

$$E^{p}\leq E_{1}\leq\cdots\leq E_{m}\leq E$$

is purely inseparable, and each $K_{i}/E_{i}$ is separable.

As usual, we suppose that the ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}_{R}$-structure $K$ is saturated, of cardinality $\kappa>|E|+\aleph_{0}$, and that $(L,L_{1},\ldots,L_{m},S_{1},\ldots,S_{m})$ is another such model containing ${\mathcal{E}}$. By saturation, any of the invariants which are not finite take on the value $\kappa$ in both of the ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}$-structures $K$ and $L$.

The only change in what follows, relative to the proof of Theorem 2.1, will lie in the initial choice of $p$-bases $B_{i}$, $C_{i}$ and $D_{i}$, so as to respect the additional structure.

Let $B_{1}$ be a $p$-basis of $E_{1}$ over $E^{p}$ and extend it to a $p$-basis $C_{1}$ of $K_{1}$ over $K^{p}$. For $i\geq 1$, let $B_{i}$ be a $p$-basis of $E_{i+1}$ over $E_{i}$, such that $\{1\}\cup(B_{i}\cap F_{i})$ is an $E_{i}$-basis of the $E_{i}$-vector space $F_{i}$. Extend $B_{i}$ to a $p$-basis $C_{i}$ of $K_{i+1}$ over $K_{i}$ in such a way that $\{1\}\cup(C_{i}\cap R_{i})$ is a $K_{i}$-basis of the $K_{i}$-vector space $R_{i}$; this is possible because $B_{i}\cap F_{i}=B_{i}\cap R_{i}$ is a $p$-basis of the purely inseparable extension $E_{i}[F_{i}]$ of $E_{i}$, so that $K_{i}[F_{i}]\leq K_{i}[R_{i}]$ are also purely inseparable extensions of $K_{i}$. Choose $p$-bases $D_{i}$ within $L$ similarly.

As in Theorem 2.1, if $f_{i}:C_{i}\setminus B_{i}\to D_{i}\setminus B_{i}$ is a bijection for $i=1,\ldots,m$, then $\mathrm{id}_{E}\cup f_{1}\cup\cdots\cup f_{m}$ extends to an ${\mathcal{L}}_{\lambda}$-isomorphism $g:K\to L$, which is an ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}$-isomorphism, and sends $R_{i}$ to $S_{i}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$. This gives completeness of the theory and also quantifier elimination for this language because of the $\lambda$-functions and conditions (1) and (2) on $(K_{i},R_{i})$.

The proof that the theory is stable goes much as before.

Let $E$ and $K$ be as above, with $E=E^{s}$, and let $a\in K$. By Remark 2.5(4)(6), we know that there is some countable $A_{0}\subset K$ containing $a$, closed under the ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}_{R}$-functions, containing a $p$-basis of $A_{0}$, and such that $EA_{0}$ is closed under the ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}_{R}$-functions. By stability of $(K,K_{1},\ldots,K_{m})$, there is some countable substructure $E_{0}$ of $E$, which is separably closed, and such that $\mathrm{tp}_{{\mathcal{L}}^{m}}(A_{0}/E)$ does not fork over $E_{0}$, and enlarging $A_{0}$ we may assume that $A_{0}$ contains $E_{0}$ as an ${\mathcal{L}}_{R}$-substructure. There are $2^{\aleph_{0}}$ possibilities for $\mathrm{qftp}_{{\mathcal{L}}^{m}_{R}}(A_{0}/E_{0})$, and $|E|^{\aleph_{0}}$-many ${\mathcal{L}}^{m}$-formulas saying that $\mathrm{tp}_{{\mathcal{L}}^{m}}(A_{0}/E)$ does not fork over $E_{0}$, so that there are at most $|E|^{\aleph_{0}}$ types over $E$. Thus the theory is stable. ∎

As an easy corollary, we obtain

Theorem 2.6.

Let $K^{2}=K_{0}\leq K_{1}\leq R_{1}\leq\cdots\leq K_{m}\leq R_{m}\leq K$ satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem 2.2, and let $S_{1},\ldots,S_{m}$ be additive subgroups of $K$, with $S_{i}$ a finite-dimensional $K_{i}$-vector space contained in $K_{i+1}$. Then the ${\mathcal{L}}^{2m}_{R}$-structure

$$\mathcal{K^{\prime}}=(K,K_{1},K_{1}[R_{1}+S_{1}],\ldots,K_{m},K_{m}[R_{m}+S_{m}],R_{1}+S_{1},\ldots,R_{m}+S_{m})$$

is stable.

Proof.

As the $S_{i}$ are finite dimensional over $K_{i}$, both $R_{i}+S_{i}$ and $K_{i}[R_{i}+S_{i}]$ are definable (with parameters) in the ${\mathcal{L}}^{2m}_{R}$-structure $\mathcal{K}$. ∎

Lemma 2.7.

Let $K$ be a field in characteristic $p$, and let

$$K^{p}=R_{0}\leq R_{1}\leq R_{2}\leq\cdots\leq R_{m}\leq K$$

an increasing chain of additive subgroups of $K$. Suppose that for all $i$ with $1\leq i\leq m$, $R_{i-1}\cdot R_{i}=R_{i}$. Consider the structure

$${\mathcal{M}}=(R_{m};R_{0},R_{1},\dots,R_{m-1},+,\mu)$$

where the $R_{i}$ are given as subgroups of $R_{m}$ and

$$\mu:R_{m}\times R_{m}\to R_{m}$$

is the function $\mu(a,b)=a^{p}b$.

Then there are ${\mathcal{M}}$-definable fields $K_{0},K_{1},\dots,K_{m},\tilde{K}$ such that

$$\tilde{K}^{p}=K_{1}\leq R_{1}\leq K_{2}\leq\cdots\leq K_{m}\leq R_{m}\leq K\leq\tilde{K}$$

and each $R_{i}$ is a vector space over $K_{i}$.

Proof.

The element $1$ in $R_{m}$ is clearly definable, hence the $p$-th power map $F:R_{m}\to R_{m}$ is definable. The restriction of multiplication to $R_{m}$ is a partial binary operation $a\circ b$ defined by the relation

$$a*F(b)=F(c).$$

Define $K_{m}$ as the multiplicative stabilizer of $R_{m}$ under $\circ$:

$$\{a\in R_{m}\mid a\circ R_{m}=R_{m}\}$$

This is a definable subfield of $R_{m}$ which contains $R_{m-1}$.

Note that the structure on ${\mathcal{M}}$ induces the corresponding structure on all $R_{i}$ and hence we have definable subfields $K_{i}\leq R_{i}$ such that $R_{i}$ is a vector space over $K_{i}$, where in addition $K_{i}$ contains $R_{i-1}$ if $i>1$, and $K_{1}$ contains $K^{p}$. Let $\tilde{K}=K_{1}^{1/p}$. Then $K\leq\tilde{K}$. ∎

From a model theoretic point of view, the reduced structure just on the $R_{i}$ is more convenient for interpretability results as the additional structure may then be treated as coming for free. Normally it would seem prudent, model theoretically, not to add undefinable structure to a given coordinate system. In practice, that can be either highly undesirable or extremely convenient. In the context of Theorem 2.2, adding undefinable fields is harmless, and also at times extremely convenient. We will see instances of the latter eventually (notably in the setting of rank 1 groups).

We conclude this section with some related questions. which concern the choice of the vector spaces in Theorem 2.2, which gives a good understanding of the most extreme case. Beyond that case, there may well be other natural theories of similar kinds.

Problems 2.8.

1. For $p>2$ and $K^{p}\leq K_{1}<K$, choose $(a_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ $p$-independent elements of $K$ over $K_{1}$, and consider $R_{1}=\sum_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}}K_{1}[a_{i}]$. Is $\mathrm{Th}(K,K_{1},R_{1})$ stable? (The case $p=2$ is covered by Theorem 2.2).

   Note that the union $A=\bigcup_{i}\{K_{1}[a_{i}]\setminus K_{1}\mid i\in{\mathbb{N}}\}$ is definable in the specified language via the formula $R_{1}(x)\land R_{1}(x^{2})\land\neg K_{1}(x)$. This tends to suggest a level of complexity that may be incompatible with stability. In the structure as we have defined it, modulo $K_{1}$ all elements of $R_{1}$ have a finite “support” in the set $A$ (and in any model, elements with arbitrary finite supports will occur). Whether this translates concretely into definable complexity remains unclear.

2. Let $K^{p}\leq K_{1}\leq K$ be separably closed fields of infinite degree of imperfection, with $[K_{1}:K^{p}]=[K:K_{1}]=\infty$. Let $\{a_{i},b_{i}\mid i\in{\mathbb{N}}\}$ be a subset of $K$ consisting of elements $p$-independent over $K_{1}$, and set

   $$R_{1}=\sum_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}}K_{1}[a_{i},b_{i}].$$

   Is $\mathrm{Th}(K,K_{1},R_{1})$ stable?

   Note that again a $\kappa$-saturated model will not be of the same form, even if $p=2$.

3. Groups of mixed type $G(k,K)$ according to Tits [Tits]; or a variation

In the present section we will discuss the groups of mixed type over pairs of fields in the spirit of [Tits] (with some slight variation). continuing on from the broad discussion in the introduction, § 1.1. In this context, by applying Theorem 2.1, we can identify some simple stable groups which are not algebraic but which one might reasonably call “algebraic over two intimately connected fields.” In Tits’ monograph the focus was on rank at least $3$ as far as classification is concerned, but the constructions make sense in rank $2$, and in particular the case of $\operatorname{G_{2}}$ was covered in [Tits, § 10.3, p. 205 (Remark)].

Definition 3.1.

Let $G(K)$ be a Chevalley group associated with a root system with roots of two lengths: that is, type $B_{n}$, $C_{n}$, $F_{4}$, or $\operatorname{G_{2}}$.

Fix a pair of fields $(k,K)$ satisfying

$$K^{p}\leq k\leq K$$

where $p=3$ if the type is $\operatorname{G_{2}}$, and $p=2$ otherwise.

For $\alpha$ in the root system, define $U_{\alpha}(k,K)$ to be $U_{\alpha}(K)$ if $\alpha$ is short and $U_{\alpha}(k)$ if $\alpha$ is long.

Let $G_{0}(k,K)$ be the group generated by the root subgroups $U_{\alpha}(k,K)$. The $G_{0}$ notation indicates that we follow Tits’ construction of $G(k,K)$, but not exactly. The question is what part of the torus to take from $G(K)$ and as we will see in Lemma LABEL:Lem:largetorus that there is some latitude in this respect in the case of $C_{2}(k,K)$, and more generally $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$.

Remark 3.2.

The group $G_{0}(k,K)$ has a BN-pair

$$B_{0}(k,K)=T_{0}(k,K)U(k,K),\ \ N_{0}(k,K),$$

where $U(k,K)$ is generated by root subgroups $U_{\alpha}(k,K)$ for $\alpha$ positive, $T_{0}(k,K)$ is generated by the corresponding root tori, which can be defined as the intersection of the rank 1 group $\langle{U_{\alpha}(k,K),U_{-\alpha}(k,K)}\rangle$ with $T(K)$, or more directly as the groups $h_{\alpha}[U_{\alpha}(k,K)^{*}]$ in the notation of [St, Lemma 19]. Then $N_{0}(k,K)$ may be defined as $N_{G(k)}(T(k))T_{0}(k,K)$ (which normalizes $T_{0}(k,K)$ and has as quotient the Weyl group of $G(K)$). That it constitutes a BN-pair can be proved with the classical arguments, using the fact that $U(k,K)$ can be written as a product of the root groups taken in any order, and that the result holds for subgroups of the type of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(k)$ and $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ (treated more generally in § 1.1).

Theorem 3.3.

Suppose that $G(k)$ is of adjoint type (centerless) and split over $k$ Then for $K\neq\mathbb{F}_{2},\mathbb{F}_{3}$, the group $G_{0}(k,K)$ is simple.

Proof.

We use the Tits simplicity criterion for groups with a BN-pair, as can be found in § 29 of [Hum], see in particular Theorem 29.5.

Since our groups have BN-pairs, it suffices to check the following points:

1. $B$ is solvable and centerless.

2. The set of generators of $W$ corresponding to the simple roots does not deompose into a union of disjoint, nontrivial, commuting subsets.

3. $B$ contains no nontrivial normal subgroup of the full group $G$.

4. $G$ is perfect.

Of these four points, the first is the clear, and the second is a basic fact about the classification of the associated root systems. In terms of the usual Dynkin diagram representation it means the diagram is connected. (In the rank two case with which we will be principally concerned, it means that the two simple roots are nonorthogonal—so that the corresponding generators of the Weyl group do not commute.)

The third point may be argued as follows: The group $B$ has a conjugate $B^{w}$ for which $B\cap B^{w}=T$, so any normal subgroup $X$ of the full group contained in $B$ would be contained in $T$. Then $[X,U]\leq X\cap U=1$ and $X$ centralizes $U$, forcing $X=1$ as the torus acts faithfully on $U$. This last point depends on the fact that the group has no center.

The proof that the group is perfect reduces to the condition $U_{\alpha}\leq[U_{\alpha},T]$ for the root subgroups $A$, since the root groups generate the full group. This computation can take place in the rank $1$ group $\langle{U_{\alpha},U_{-\alpha}}\rangle$, which is $\operatorname{SL}_{2}$ or $\operatorname{PSL}_{2}$ over one of the fields $k$ or $K$. Here we may work concretely with $U_{\alpha}$ the group of strictly upper triangular matrices in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}$ and $T$ the group of diagonal matrices.

Writing $x(a)$ for

$$\begin{pmatrix}1&a\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}$$

and $h(t)$ for the diagonal matrix with entries $(t,t^{-1})$, we have the commutator law

$$[h(t),x(a)]=x(a(1-t^{-2}))$$

Now we have only to choose $t$ so that $t$ is nonzero and $t^{2}\neq 1$ to get the general element of $U_{\alpha}$ as a commutator. ∎

We gave the final computation explicitly as it will serve again in the more general setting of Timmesfeld’s rank one groups, below.

Remark 3.4.

There are no exceptions over ${\mathbb{F}}_{3}$, in fact, though for what one might call accidental reasons. Over ${\mathbb{F}}_{3}$, our definitions only allow one group, the algebraic group $\operatorname{G_{2}}({\mathbb{F}}_{3})$, and it is simple, for reasons like the ones we give but more delicate [St, Lemma 32].

Of these, types $\operatorname{G_{2}}$ and $C_{2}$ recur below in the context of Moufang polygons (Moufang hexagons and Moufang quadrangles, respectively). Type $C_{2}$ is a particular case of the class of Moufang quadrangles said to be of indifferent type. As we will see, in a fairly precise sense, the class of groups associated to Moufang polygons of indifferent type is related to the narrower class of groups $C_{2,0}(k,K)$ in exactly the way that Timmesfeld’s groups $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ are related to the usual groups $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(k)$ over fields.

From our point of view the interest of these groups lie in the following:

Theorem 3.5.

Suppose $G(K)$ is simple of type of type $B_{n}$, $C_{n}$, $F_{4}$, or $\operatorname{G_{2}}$ and $(K,k)$ is a pair of fields with

$$K^{p}\leq k\leq K$$

and $p$ the appropriate characteristic ($3$ for type $\operatorname{G_{2}}$, and $2$ otherwise).

Then the following hold:

1. If the pair of fields $(K,k)$ is a stable structure, then the groups $G_{0}(k,K)$ and $G(k,K)$ are stable.

2. If $K$ is separably closed then $G_{0}(k,K)$ and $G(k,K)$ are stable groups.

We will look into this in a sharper form for the case of $\operatorname{G_{2}}$ in § 6. Clearly (1) relates to a couple of claims about interpretability and (2) then follows via Theorem 2.1. But we give a proof of this form, in general.

It is also important to note that we set out with the expectation that something similar would occur in the analogous cases (at greater generality) in ranks 1 and 2, particularly in view of Theorem 2.2, but this is not the case: as already explained in the introduction, things become more subtle in rank 1 and then in rank 2 they remain equally subtle (but no worse).

Proof.

In view of Theorem 2.1 it suffices to prove the first point. For that we will use some coarse definability arguments. One should perhaps prove a bi-interpretability result characterizing definability exactly but it is not necessary for our purposes.

To show that the group is definable from the coordinate system (in first order terms) we work inside the algebraic group $G(K)$, which is certainly definable. It suffices to show that the underlying sets of $G_{0}(k,K)$ and $G(k,K)$ are also definable, in the coordinate system $(K,k)$, as the group multiplication is inherited.

In view of the Bruhat decompositions

$$G_{0}(k,K)=\bigsqcup_{w}B_{0}(k,K)wB_{0}(k,K)\ \ \hbox{and }G(k,K)=\bigsqcup_{w}B(k,K)wB(k,K)$$

with $w$ varying over a finite set of representatives, it suffices to show that $B_{0}(k,K)$ and $B(k,K)$ are definable.

Relative to the extended coordinate system $(K,k)$ the root groups are definable (parametrized by one of the fields). The group $U(k,K)$ is the product (in any order) of its root subgroups, so it is definable.

The root tori that generate $T_{0}(k,K)$ are root tori of $G(K)$ or $G(k)$, hence definable in the coordinate system. So $T_{0}(k,K)$ is definable and $B_{0}(k,K)$ is definable. The torus $T(k,K)$ is a definable subgroup of $T(K)$ (in the pair of fields $(K,k)$), so $B(k,K)$ is definable.∎

Remark 3.6.

It turns out that the condition given in Theorem 3.5(1) is also necessary: one interprets the pair of fields $(K,k)$ in $G_{0}(k,K)$ and in $G(k,K)$, using the commutator relations. We will give the precise computations in two cases, see Theorem LABEL:bidef:G2UKk for $\operatorname{G_{2}}$, and Theorem LABEL:Thm:C2:U(k,K) for $G=\operatorname{PSp}_{4}$. (In fact, in the case of $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(k,K)$ we even prove outright definability.)

Theorem 3.5 sets out the model for what we try to do in this paper. This turns out to be more demanding than we initially expected. Theorem 2.2 prepares the ground by making an ample supply of some coordinate systems needed to generalize Tits’ construction in rank 2, but the definability issues are more severe as well. Namely, when one defines a group as “the group generated by” something, and the coordinate system defines the generators, then the algebraist may be reasonably happy with that (particularly if a Bruhat decomposition results, and one can tell from that what group one has), but the model theorist needs to worry about the definability of the constituents of the Bruhat decomposition as well. One might reasonably object that if we had followed Tits we would also have defined not only the subgroup $U(k,K)$ but the torus $T(k,K)$ and the group $N(k,K)$ as well, from the coordinate system, and the issue would disappear. We will see next why this is clearly not the case when we take up Timmesfeld’s construction in rank 1, and then we will see why the difficulties that appear in rank 1 reappear in rank 2. The only reason they do not appear in higher ranks is that the coordinate systems that appear in higher rank are of a particularly simple type, and in particular the only rank 1 groups that occur in that construction are $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(k)$, $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$, and $\operatorname{PSL}_{2}(K)$.

4. The rank 1 case according to Timmesfeld [Ti]

Timmesfeld presents a very general theory of groups generated by abstract root groups which includes the automorphism groups of most Moufang buildings, and starts off in rank 1 in what amounts to the study of split BN-pairs of rank 1 from another point of view. In particular, even the more exotic rank 1 groups arising as groups generated by pairs of opposite root groups in the context of Moufang buildings are captured by his theory. We are interested in the ones which arise in the specific case of Moufang quadrangles of indifferent type, which we will come to in the next section. In that case, we arrive at the particular rank 1 groups with which Timmesfeld begins his discussion in [Ti], namely his Example 1.5, as specialized further in [Ti, Example 1.6 (2), p. 6].

In the presentation below, we begin with the explicit definition, but work out in detail the standard calculations in the manner of Chevalley or [St], in their minimalist form ($2\times 2$ matrices). These calculations are identical to the usual calculations in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$, but we must pay close attention to where the entries of the matrices lie—and, in particular, which diagonal matrices are actually obtained in Timmesfeld’s setting, and whether or not that set is first order definable from the initial data.

Definition 4.1 ($\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ according to Timmesfeld).

We begin with an imperfect field $K$ of characteristic $2$ and an additive subgroup $L$ satisfying

$$K^{2}\leq L\leq K,$$

where $L$ is a vector space over $K^{2}$. We then define the group $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ to be the subgroup of ${\mathrm{S}L}_{2}(K)$ generated by upper and lower unitriangular matrices in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ with coefficients in $L$.

That is, we have the “root groups” $A$, $A^{\mathrm{op}}$ consisting of the elementary matrices

$$a(t) =\begin{pmatrix}1&t\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix} b(t) =\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\ t&1\end{pmatrix},$$

respectively, with $t\in L$. And we consider the group $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)=\langle{A,A^{\mathrm{op}}}\rangle$.

There is a good deal to be said about the group $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$. Our main concern is with a criterion for stability, which naturally leads us to consider related definability issues, notable the definability of the subgroup of diagonal matrices. This last issue turns out to recur substantially, afterward, in our discussion of rank 2 groups, as some of them contain Timmesfeld’s groups. And for that matter, it is implicit in our treatment of Tits’ construction (where we avoided beginning with a description of the torus), though in that construction the rank 1 tori involved were just the multiplicative groups of the two fields $k,K$. Here things become more delicate.

We begin with the Bruhat decomposition. As a point of notation, we will denote by $L^{*}$ the set of non-zero elements of the additive group $L$. We make elementary calculations but keep track particularly of the diagonal matrices that appear.

Theorem 4.2.

Let $K$ be an imperfect field $K$ of characteristic $2$ and $L$ an additive subgroup satisfying

$$K^{2}\leq L\leq K,$$

where $L$ is a vector space over $K^{2}$. Let $T(L)\leq\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ be the subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ with coordinates in the multiplicative subgroup of $K$ generated by $L^{*}$. Let $B=T(L)A$ and $N=T(L)\langle{w}\rangle$.

Then we have the Bruhat decomposition

$$\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)=B\cup BwB.$$

In particular, $A$ is the group of upper unitriangular matrices in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$, and $T(L)$ is the diagonal subgroup.

Furthermore, $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is simple.

Proof.

Given any $a\neq 1$ in $A$, there is a unique $b\in A^{\mathrm{op}}$ such that $A^{b}=(A^{\mathrm{op}})^{a}$, and we write $b=f(a)$; then $f(a(t))=b(-t^{-1})$. (Even though we are in characteristic $2$, we use the minus sign since the computation works in any characteristic). With $a_{0}=a(1)$, we find that

$$w:=a_{0}f(a_{0})a_{0}=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\ -1&0\end{pmatrix}$$

is an element of the Weyl group of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$, and that the elements $a(t)f(a(t))a(t)w$ are diagonal matrices in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ of the form $\mathrm{Diag}(t,t^{-1})$, for $t\in L^{*}$.

It follows that the subgroup of diagonal elements of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ contains all elements of the group $T(L)$. From the formula $a(t)f(a(t))a(t)=\mathrm{Diag}(t,t^{-1})w$, we deduce that

$$b(-t^{-1})=a(-t)\mathrm{Diag}(t,t^{-1})wa(-t),$$

so that $A^{\mathrm{op}}\leq\langle{A,w,T(L)}\rangle$, and in fact,

$$A^{\mathrm{op}}\subseteq AT(L)wA\cup\{1\}.$$

Now we check that these calculations give

$$\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)=B\cup BwB$$

by formal manipulations, as in the case of fields.

On the one hand, we know that both $T(L)$ and the element $w$ lie in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$, so the inclusion from right to left holds. In the opposite direction it suffices to check that the right hand side is closed under multiplication by $A$ and $A^{\mathrm{op}}$, which is obvious for $A$. Hence for $A^{\mathrm{op}}=wAw$ it suffices to check closure under multiplication by $w$, which reduces to the following relations:

$$wBwB =wT(L)AwB=T(L)wAwB=T(L)A^{\mathrm{op}}B$$

$$\subseteq T(L)(BwA\cup\{1\})B\subseteq B\cup BwB.$$

It now follows that $T(L)$ is the full diagonal subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ and that $A$ is the full subgroup of upper unitriangular matrices of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$, since this is clear in the case of the subgroup $B$, and the double coset $BwB$ is disjoint from it.

For the simplicity of the group we use the BN-pair and follow the line of [Tits-BN, (16), p. 323]. We first show that the group $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is perfect for $|L|>2$. It suffices to show that $A$ is contained in the commutator subgroup, since then the conjugate $A^{\mathrm{op}}$ is also contained in the commutator subgroup, and these two groups generate $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$.

We claim in fact that $[A,T(L)]=A$. We have

$$[\mathrm{Diag}(t^{-1},t),a(s)]=a(s(1-t^{2}))$$

which for $t$ fixed and not equal to $0$ or $1$ represents a general element of $A$. The claim follows.

Now consider a normal subgroup $X$ of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$.

If $X$ is contained in $B$ then $X$ is contained in the conjugate $B^{w}$ and hence in the intersection, which is the group $T(L)$ of diagonal matrices in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$. We then have $[X,A]\subseteq X\cap A=1$, so $X$ is in $C_{T(L)}(A)=1$, that is, $X$ is trivial.

So suppose now $X$ is not contained in $B$. Then the group $XB$ contains $B$ properly, and is a union of $B$ double cosets, so by the Bruhat decomposition $XB=\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$; hence the quotient $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)/X$ is isomorphic to a quotient of $B$, and in particular is solvable. On the other hand as $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is perfect the quotient is also perfect, and a perfect solvable group is trivial. So in this case $X=\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$.

Thus $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is simple. For a statement from a broader point of view see [Ti, I (2.10)]. ∎

One should notice at this point that the torus $T(L)$ is likely to be undefinable in any natural language (at least, a priori; this is an interesting question in itself). Accordingly, even if the structure $(K,L)$ is stable we run the risk that the group $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is not. But there is a closely related group which is definable from the coordinate system, and has $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ as its commutator subgroup: namely, the normalizer of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$. So we examine this.

4.3.

The normalizer of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$

For the present we fix the notation $K,L$ as in Timmesfeld’s setting and consider $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ within $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$.

Remark 4.4.

The full diagonal subgroup $T(K)$ of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ normalizes $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$, and the group $T\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ has the Bruhat decomposition

$$T\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)=\hat{B}\cup\hat{B}w\hat{B}$$

with $\hat{B}=T(K)A$.

The point here is that diagonal matrices $\mathrm{Diag}(t,t^{-1})$ act on $A$ and on $A^{\mathrm{op}}$ by multiplication by $t^{\pm 2}$, so $T(K)$ leaves $A$ and $A^{\mathrm{op}}$ invariant. Then the Bruhat decomposition for $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ gives the Bruhat decomposition for $T(K)\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$.

The interest of this group is that it is definable over $(K,L)$ in view of the Bruhat decomposition, and its commutator subgroup is $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ since $T(K)$ is abelian. Thus we have a definable stable group with simple commutator subgroup associated to any stable coordinate system $(L,K)$; this depends intrinsically on $K$ as well as $L$, though it would be very natural to take for $K$ the field generated by $L$ to get a more canonical construction (in similar settings in rank 2, this is actually part of the standard approach).

We note that in our definition of Tits’ groups we preferred to follow Timmesfeld, and rather than defining a torus in advance, let it be computed in the group generated by root subgroups. As the coordinate system used was a pair of fields, the rank 1 subgroups $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(k)$ and $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ appearing there were not problematic. But we will need to keep these extra complications—and the need in some cases to sacrifice simplicity for definability—firmly in mind going forward.

Lemma 4.5.

In Timmesfeld’s setting, the normalizer in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is $T(K)\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$.

Proof.

We work first in $\operatorname{GL}_{2}(K)$. Let $\hat{T}(K)$ denote the full subgroup of diagonal matrices. This also normalizes $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$. It suffices to check that the normalizer in $\operatorname{GL}_{2}(K)$ of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is $\hat{T}(K)\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$. We have noticed that the normalizer contains this group.

Let $n$ belong to the normalizer of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ in $\operatorname{GL}_{2}(K)$. If $n$ normalizes $A$ then it lies in the Borel subgroup $\hat{T}(K)A(K)$ of $\operatorname{GL}_{2}(K)$ (where $A(K)$ is the full set of strictly upper triangular matrices). Hence after multiplying by an element of $\hat{T}(K)$ we may suppose $n\in A(K)$, and write $n=a(t)$ for $t\in K$. In that case consider $L_{1}=\langle{L,t}\rangle$. Since $a(L_{1})$ and $w$ lie in the normalizer of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$, the group $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L_{1})$ is also contained in the normalizer of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$. But $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L_{1})$ is a simple group, so we find these two groups are equal and $n\in\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$.

If $n$ normalizes $A^{\mathrm{op}}$ then $wn$ normalizes $A$ and we conclude similarly.

So suppose $A^{n}\neq A,A^{\mathrm{op}}$. As the torus $\hat{T}(K)$ acts transitively on the root groups of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ (which correspond to the points of the projective line other than $0$, $\infty$) we may adjust by $\hat{T}(K)$ and suppose that $A$ is conjugated into a root group of the form $A(K)^{b}$ where $b\in\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$. But then adjusting by this element of $\hat{T}(K)$ we may again take $n$ to normalize $A$, and conclude as before. ∎

Thus the family of groups normalizing $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ is parametrized by the family of groups $T_{1}$ lying between $T(L)$ and $T(K)$. We would like to take $T_{1}$ to be definable in $(K,L)$, ideally, but we would be perfectly happy as long as $(K,L,T_{1})$ is stable. Here $T_{1}$ is to be taken either as an abstract multiplicative group with an action on $L$ (corresponding to the action on $A$ in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$), or as the image of the action in $\operatorname{Aut}(L)$, or more concretely as the multiplicative subgroup of $K$ whose action on $L$ is given by multiplication. Note that in the second interpretation the action of $\mathrm{Diag}(t^{-1},t)$ is multiplication by $t^{2}$ and in the third interpretation the multiplicative subgroup is actually the corresponding subgroup of $K^{2}$.

An attractive choice for the intermediate torus is the multiplicative group of the field $K_{L}$ generated by $L^{*}$. This will often not be definable in $(K,L)$, but we can work equally well with $(K_{L},L)$. And there are good chances that $T(L)$ will be equal to $T(K_{L})$ in concrete cases; this leads to interesting questions.

Again: the choice of $T=T(L)$ gives a simple group; the choice of $T=T(K)$ gives a group definable in the original structure $(K,L)$ with $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ as commutator subgroup; and the choice $T_{1}=K_{L}^{\times}$ gives a group which in general is not definable in $(K,L)$, but is definable in $(K_{L},L)$; and if Theorem 2.2 applies to $(K,L)$, it will also apply to $(K_{L},L)$. And as always, what we encounter here recurs in much the same form in rank 2.

We formalize the foregoing discussion further as follows:

Theorem 4.6.

Let $K$ be an imperfect field $K$ of characteristic $2$ and $L$ an additive subgroup satisfying

$$K^{2}\leq L\leq K,$$

where $L$ is a vector space over $K^{2}$. Let $T$ be a group lying between the group $T(L)$ and the group $T(K)$. Let $\bar{T}$ be

$$\{a\in K\mid\mbox{Multiplication by $a$ is induced by some element of $T$ acting on $A$}\}$$

Let $G=T\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$.

Then the following hold:

1. The group $G$ is definable in the structure $(L,\bar{T},\cdot,\sigma)$, where $\cdot$ is the multiplication map on $L\times\bar{T}$, and $\sigma$ is the squaring map.

2. Conversely, this structure is definable in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$.

Proof.

1. One builds the group $B$ from $\bar{T}$, $A$, and the action. One then builds the group $G$ as

$$B\cup BwB=TA\cup TAwA$$

since $w$ normalizes $T$. On the right side elements are uniquely represented either by pairs in $T\times A$ or by triples in $T\times A\times A$ (since $A^{\mathrm{op}}\cap B=1$). Multiplication on this set is then determined by multiplication in $B$ and multiplication by $w$ on the right. This is trivial for the map from $TA$ to $TAw$ and in the case of $TAwAw$ it reduces to the expression of $a(s)^{w}$ in terms of the Bruhat decomposition, given in the proof of Theorem 4.2 as

$$b(-t)=a(-t^{-1})\mathrm{Diag}(t^{-1},t)wa(-t^{-1}).$$

We may set aside the minus signs as superfluous. We need the operation of multiplicative inversion on $L$, which comes from squaring followed by the action of $\bar{T}$ on $L$, and the coordinate of $\mathrm{Diag}(t^{-1},t)$ in $\bar{T}$, which is $t^{2}$.

2. $A$ and $T$ are, respectively, the centralizers in $G$ of any of their nontrivial elements. So $G$ gives $A$ and $T$ and the action of $T$ on $A$. This gives $\bar{T}$ as a subset of $A$.

The element $w$ allows us to define the function $f$ used in the proof of Theorem 4.2 to compute the map from $a(t)$ in $A$ to $\mathrm{Diag}(t,t^{-1})$ in $T$. Thus we have the map from $a(t)$ to multiplication by $t^{-2}$ on $L$. This then gives both the set $\bar{T}$ as a subset of $L$, and its action on $L$ by multiplication. That is, $\bar{T}$ is the image of $a(1)$ under $T$, the image of $a(t)$ under the corresponding element $\mathrm{Diag}(t,t^{-1})$ of $T$ is $a(t^{-1})$, and the squaring map is given by $a(t^{-1}\mapsto\mathrm{Diag}(t^{-1},t)\mapsto t^{2}$. ∎

Corollary 4.7.

A group of the form $T\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ in Timmesfeld’s setting is stable if and only if the coordinatizing structure

$$(L,\bar{T},\cdot,\sigma)$$

is stable.

Now let us give a coordinatization that looks more normal from the algebraic point of view.

Theorem 4.8.

Let $K$ be an imperfect field of characteristic $2$, $L$ an additive subgroup of $K$, and $\bar{T}$ a multiplicative subgroup of $K^{2}$ which contains $L^{2}$. Suppose that ${\bar{T}}\cdot L\subseteq L$. Then the structure

$$(L,\bar{T},\cdot,\sigma)$$

in which $\cdot$ gives the multiplication on $\bar{T}$ and $\sigma$ gives the squaring map from $L$ to $\bar{T}$, is bi-interpretable with a structure

$$(K_{1},L,\bar{T})$$

where $K_{1}$ is a field satisfying Timmesfeld’s conditions:

$$K_{1}^{2}\leq L\leq{K_{1}}$$

and $\bar{T}\subseteq K_{1}^{2}$.

Proof.

We have the multiplication on $\bar{T}$ and the squaring map to $T$. The restriction $*$ of multiplication from $K$ to $L$ is given, as a partial function, by $a*b=c$ iff $a^{2}\cdot b^{2}=c^{2}$.

Let $K_{1}$ be the multiplicative stabilizer of $L$ in $L$:

$$\{a\in K\mid aL\leq L\}.$$

This is definable from $*$ and is a field containing $T$. Let $\tilde{K}$ be $K_{1}^{1/2}$ with its field structure, taken as an isomorphic copy of $K_{1}$ with an embedding $L\to\tilde{K}$ corresponding to the squaring map to $K_{1}$. We then have the structure

$$T\leq\tilde{K}^{2}\leq L\leq\tilde{K}$$

with the multiplication on $\tilde{K}$ inducing the remaining structure. ∎

Corollary 4.9.

In the (slightly generalized) Timmesfeld setting, the following are equivalent:

1. $T\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ is stable.

2. The structure $(L,\bar{T},\cdot,\sigma)$ with $\bar{T}\subseteq L$, $\cdot$ the multiplication on $\bar{T}$, and $\sigma$ the squaring map from $L$ to $\bar{T}$, is stable.

3. The structure $(\tilde{K},L,\bar{T})$, with $\tilde{K}$ as above is stable.

In the last clause, note also that the group $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ in the sense of $K$ is also $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ in the sense of $\tilde{K}$)

One can do something quite similar in the rank $2$ indifferent case, in principle; namely there will be two rank 1 groups of Timmesfeld type and the condition is that both are stable (i.e., both exist within a single stable structure).

Let us come back now to the case of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$, and consider the problem of stability. This raises interesting questions of model theoretic algebra. We are considering structures

$$(K,L,T)$$

where $T=T(L)$ is the subgroup of $K^{\times}$ generated by $L^{*}$, given as an additional element of structure. By proper choice of $K$, the problem of stability for $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ becomes the problem of stability for structures of this kind. If $T$ is definable in $(K,L)$ there is no difficulty (Theorem 2.2). If $T$ happens to be the multiplicative group of the field $K_{L}$ generated by $L$, then we may take the ambient field to be $K_{L}$, apply Theorem 2.2 to that, and in this way force $T(L)$ to be definable. It is not yet clear how often that is the case. So the questions are of two sorts: when is $T(L)$ in fact the multiplicative group of a field, and in general, when is the expanded structure stable?

Lemma 4.10.

Let $K$ be an imperfect field of characteristic $2$, and $L$ an additive subgroup of $K$ with

$$K^{2}\leq L\leq K$$

and $L$ a vector space over $K^{2}$. Suppose in addition that $L$ contains a subfield of codimension $1$ (as a vector space over $K^{2}$). Then $T(L)$ is the multiplicative group of the field generated by $L$, and every element of $T(L)$ is the product of two elements of $L^{*}$.

Proof.

We write $L=K_{1}\oplus K^{2}u$ for some $u\in L$, with $K_{1}$ a field.

Then $L$ generates the field $K_{1}(b)=K_{1}\oplus K_{1}b=K_{1}\cdot L\subseteq L\cdot L$. The claim follows. ∎

Note therefore that we can always make $T(L)$ definable, in this setting by including the field $K_{1}$ in the coordinate system. In the context of Theorem 2.2, the theorem will continue to apply.

In particular, we have the following:

Corollary 4.11.

Let $K$ be an imperfect field of characteristic $2$, with $[K:K^{2}]\geq 4$. Let $a,b$ be $2$-independent elements of $K$, and consider $L=K^{2}+aK^{2}+bK^{2}$. Then every nonzero element of $K^{2}[a,b]$ is the product of 2 elements of $L^{*}$, and therefore $T(L)=K^{2}[a,b]^{\times}$ is definable in $(K,L)$.

Proof.

As $K_{1}=K^{2}(a)$ is a subfield of $L$ of codimension $1$, Lemma 4.10 applies. ∎

Issues of stability in the groups $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ have led us to consider issues of definability in the underlying coordinate systems. It is clear that the field $K_{L}$ generated by $L$ plays a special role here. One has in general the question of definability of $K_{L}$ in some particular coordinate system, but when working in the context of separably closed fields, which is the only concrete case known currently, we have observed that this field should be added to the coordinate system and one should consider the issue of definability of $T(L)$ in the extended coordinate system, and in particular the question as to whether $T(L)$ always coincides with the multiplicative group of $K_{L}$, a question which reduces to the case of $T(L)$ finite dimensional over $K^{2}$.

Question 4.12.

Let $K$ be an imperfect field of characteristic $2$, and $L$ an additive subgroup of $K$ containing $K^{2}$ which is a vector space over $K^{2}$.

1. Is $T(L)$ the multiplicative group of $K_{L}$? Does this hold at least if $K$ is separably closed?

2. If this is not the case, and the field $K$ is separably closed, is it possible for $T(L)$ to be definable in $(K,K_{L})$ nonetheless?

3. Can $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$ be stable when $(K,K_{L})$ is not stable?

The first question, restricted to the case of $K$ separably closed, is the main question at present. In the event of a negative solution, the second question should be taken as the natural refinement. Finally, in a situation in which $T(L)$ is not definable in any structure covered by Theorem 2.2, the third question remains. This is not strictly a group theoretic question but a question about extending Theorem 2.2 to include certain multiplicative subgroups as well as additive subgroups, which seems very difficult.

Since question (1) reduces to the finite dimensional case and one can in principle make detailed computations in that case, it would be of interest to take up the minimal open cases, in which $L$ has dimension $4$ over $K^{2}$, or more generally, where $L$ contains a subfield of codimension $2$. This seems accessible.

5. The rank 2 case: Automorphism groups of Moufang polygons

Our own introduction to this subject came via the elegant work of Tits and Weiss in [TW] concerning certain rank $2$ groups (or rather, the geometries on which they act). So now we come, finally, to what was our point of departure. In practice we will focus on two of the cases which they consider, where the results of Theorem 2.2, or the special case Theorem 2.1, are directly applicable. In one case the group considered is the group $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)$ already considered by Tits (though we give it a slightly different definition, one should bear in mind). In the other case it is a substantial generalization of the Tits group of type $C_{2}$ in which the pair of fields used by Tits is replaced by a pair of suitably chosen abelian subgroups of fields in the manner of Timmesfeld.

Here we run over the point of view of [TW], though as we find the groups easier to work with as subgroups of algebraic groups, we will adopt Tits’ point of view for the more concrete discussions afterward. So this section indicates only how these groups were originally identified, within the scope of a broad classification project (a project initially proposed in [Tits] in a remark toward the end of the monograph).

The subject of [Tits] is the theory of buildings, the geometries on which simple algebraic groups, classical groups, and some other groups act naturally; a classification is given in dimension at least $3$, which can be taken as a classification of the corresponding groups. These geometries generalize projective geometry, and just as high dimensional projective geometries satisfy the Desargues condition and can then be classified, all the higher dimensional buildings satisfy a related Moufang condition, and are thus called Moufang buildings. Tits proposed the problem of classifying all Moufang buildings in dimension $2$ or higher; or more specifically, classifying them in dimension $2$ specifically and then reducing the higher dimensional classification to that one. The project is carried through in [TW], with some surprises along the way.

In rank 2 the Moufang buildings are called Moufang polygons. They are combinatorial point-line geometries which are naturally represented as bipartite graphs where the parts are the points and lines, and the edge relation is incidence. One may also interpret the same graph with the points taken as lines and the lines taken as points, which would be treated as a dual geometry. Accordingly the automorphisms are taken to leave the points and lines invariant, and any graph automorphism which switches the parts would be called an anti-automorphism in the geometric terminology. Tits and Weiss consider in great detail the structure of the geometric automorphism group $\operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma)$ of a Moufang polygon $\Gamma$ and in particular a certain subgroup $G^{\dagger}$ which is almost always simple and which includes the usual Chevalley groups along with many other groups with a very similar structure. In particular, the theory begins with a definition of root subgroups directly in terms of the action of the automorphism group on the graph, and $G^{\dagger}$ is by definition the subgroup generated by a certain family of root groups (those associated with the vertices of an“apartment”, which is a cycle of minimal length in the graph).

As in the case of Chevalley groups, one may define a “maximal unipotent” subgroup $U$ generated by half of the root groups (taking a path which covers half of the cycle), which turns out to be a nilpotent group generated with the root groups as generators and a generalized Chevalley commutator formula as defining relations. We will consider some cases in which these commutator relations are the ones realized in some Chevalley groups.

Namely, we consider the Moufang hexagons which correspond to type $\operatorname{G_{2}}$ and more specifically to the groups $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)$, and then the richer family of Moufang quadrangles of indifferent type which correspond to type $C_{2}$, and are realized in $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}$ (or $\operatorname{Sp}_{4}$ since we work in characteristic $2$). In general, the polygon is called an $n$-gon if the shortest cycle length is $2n$: geometrically an $n$-gon has $n$ points and $n$ lines and forms a cycle of length $2n$ in the incidence graph. In particular the group $U$ is the (noncommuting) product of $n$ root groups in a Moufang $n$-gon.

The main result of [TW] is a classification theorem for Moufang polygons. Accordingly the various things known about Chevalley groups must not only be generalized, but proved in detail from first principles in a combinatorial setting. This complicates matters relative to the theory of Chevalley groups or algebraic groups, where the main facts are proved algebraically and may even be taken as belonging in part to the initial definition of the group (as in [St]).

But in addition to this, [TW] contains detailed studies of the automorphism groups in all of the cases identified in the classification theorem, including that of the (mostly) simple group $G^{\dagger}$ as well as the full automorphism group and the quotient $\operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma)/G^{\dagger}$, which can be viewed as a group of automorphisms of $U$. One of the main results of this analysis is the BN-pair structure for all of the groups between $G^{\dagger}$ and $\operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma)$. As we have seen in the case of Timmesfeld’s groups $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L)$, we have reasons to consider larger groups than $G^{\dagger}$ from the point of view of definability—though we will set aside the portion of $\operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma)$ which corresponds to nontrivial automorphisms of the coordinate system, which is not useful from the point of view of first order definability, and which does not appear in the corresponding algebraic group (when there is one).

Remark 5.1.

A very general lemma of [TW, (7.5)] states that a Moufang polygon is uniquely determined by the associated automorphism group $U$ and its sequence of root subgroups $U_{1},\dots,U_{n}$. In particular the Chevalley commutator formula in $U$ determines the group $G^{\dagger}$.

We now describe the groups corresponding to the coordinate systems of indifferent type, which generalize Timmesfeld’s systems $(K,L)$.

Definition 5.2.

A weak indifferent set is a triple $(K,K_{0},L_{0})$, where $K$ is a field of characteristic $2$, and $K_{0},L_{0}$ are additive subgroups of $K$ for which

$$K^{2}\leq L_{0}\leq K_{0}\leq K,$$

$L_{0}$ is a vector space over $K_{0}^{2}$, and $K_{0}$ is a vector space over the field generated by $L_{0}$.

If a weak indifferent set satisfies the additional constraint that the field $K$ is generated by the set $K_{0}$ then it is called an indifferent set.

It is customary to use indifferent sets in the strong sense in the literature, and we are introducing the terminology weak indifferent set here to emphasize the variation. The distinction is not very significant from an algebraic perspective as there would be no harm in replacing the large field $K$ in a weak indifferent set by the field generated by $K_{0}$. However, from a model theoretic point of view, the notion of weak indifferent set is axiomatizable, and the notion of indifferent set is not, so there is some advantage to allowing the broader notion into the formalism. It does not create any new examples of groups, however.

It is tempting to call a weak indifferent set an indifferent pair (even though it is a triple) because the groups $L_{0},K_{0}$ play the roles previously played by the pair of fields $k,K$ in mixed type groups.

Definition 5.3.

Let $(K,K_{0},L_{0})$ be a weak indifferent set. Then

$$\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$$

is the subgroup of $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(K)$ generated by the subgroups $U_{\alpha}(K_{0})$ for $\alpha$ a short root, and by $U_{\alpha}(L_{0})$ for $\alpha$ a long root. We call these groups the root subgroups of $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$ (which will require a little justification).

Remark 5.4.

The group $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$ is defined by analogy with $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(k,K)$, replacing the pair $k,K$ by an indifferent set. As such it should more properly be denoted

$$\operatorname{PSp}_{4,0}(L_{0},K_{0})$$

and we may make use of that heavier notation if the point requires emphasis.

We have also identified a suitable torus in the verification of the BN-pair condition and the Bruhat property, and so we could also have followed the route taken by Tits in defining $G(k,K)$. But in any case it is important to us (and to [TW]) that this group is generated by its root subgroups.

There is some pathology in this construction, inherited from the rank 1 case, which will require close attention to the torus that appears in $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$, and to other tori that normalize this group.

The definition of weak indifferent pair ensures that this group has more or less the same properties as $G_{0}(k,K)$ where $G=\operatorname{PSp}_{4}$ and $k=L_{0}$, $K=K_{0}$ are fields. We recall the relevant properties now.

First, the Chevalley commutator formula makes sense: that is, for positive roots $\alpha$, $\beta$, and writing $U_{\alpha}$, $U_{\beta}$ for the root groups relative to $L_{0}$ or $K_{0}$ (as specified), the formula giving coordinates of elements of $[U_{\alpha},U_{\beta}]$ in the root groups of $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(K)$ lie in the corresponding root groups of $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$. However: this only works because in the special characteristics we consider, some terms in the general Chevalley commutator formula vanish, and the corresponding entries do not occur. So this actually is what makes everything work.

At the same time, the rank 1 groups $L_{\alpha}=\langle{U_{\alpha},U_{-\alpha}}\rangle$ become $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(L_{0})$ or $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K_{0})$ in the sense of Timmesfeld.

One gets the BN-pair property, the corresponding Bruhat decomposition, and simplicity as previously. The computations we made in rank 1 close the gap between the usual $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(K)$ and the Timmesfeld variations, and the rest of the argument for the BN-pair is formal, modulo the rank 1 case.

Notice also that $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$ lies between $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(K^{2})$ and $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(K)$.

Lemma 5.5.

The groups $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)$ and $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$ are simple (for $K$, $K_{0}\neq{\mathbb{F}}_{2}$).

Proof.

We use the Tits simplicity criterion for groups with a BN-pair, as can be found in § 29 of [Hum], see in particular Theorem 29.5. Since our groups have BN-pairs, it suffices to check the following points: (a) $B$ is solvable and centerless; (b) the set of generators of $W$ corresponding to the simple roots does not decompose into a union of disjoint, nontrivial, commuting subsets; (c) $B$ contains no nontrivial normal subgroup of the full group $G$; and (d) $G$ is perfect.

Of these four points, the first two are clear since there are only two simple roots and the corresponding reflections do not commute ($W$ is a dihedral group of order greater than $4$). The other two points were noticed in the proof of the rank 1 case (Theorem 4.2), and the proofs given there continue to work. We repeat the main points. The group $B$ has a conjugate $B^{w}$ for which $B\cap B^{w}=T$, so any normal subgroup of the full group contained in $B$ would be contained in $T$, after which it follows easily that it centralizes $U$, hence lies in $U$, hence is trivial. The proof that the group is perfect reduces to the condition $A\leq[A,T]$ for the root subgroups $A$, which is already shown in the rank $1$ case.∎

Lemma 5.6.

The groups $\operatorname{G_{2}}(k,K)$ and $\operatorname{PSp}_{4}(L_{0},K_{0})$ are the groups $G^{\dagger}$ of [TW] corresponding to the Moufang hexagons of type $(1/F)$ and the Moufang quadrangles of indifferent type in the sense of [TW].

Proof.

We suppose the field $K\neq\mathbb{F}_{2}$. By [DemT, Thm. 6.1], if $G$ is the universal Steinberg group with the same presentation as $G^{\dagger}$ then $G/Z(G)$ is simple.

Since $G^{\dagger}$ and the groups of type $\operatorname{G_{2}}$ or indifferent type are generated by root groups satisfying the same relations, both are homomorphic images of $G$. Furthermore both groups are simple by Theorem 3.3, Remark 3.4, Lemma LABEL:lem:Gdag=G2kK and [TW, (37.3)]. So the kernel in both cases is $Z(G)$ and the two quotients are isomorphic. ∎

6. Some Moufang hexagons