The center conjecture for spherical buildings of types F _4 and E _6

From MaRDI portal
Publication:719683



Abstract: We prove that a convex subcomplex of a spherical building of type F4 or E6 is a subbuilding or the automorphisms of the subcomplex fix a point on it. Our approach is differential-geometric and based on the theory of metric spaces with curvature bounded above. We use these techniques also to give another proof of the same result for the spherical buildings of classical type.


The center conjecture for buildings states that a convex subcomplex \(K\subseteq B\) of a spherical building \(B\) is either a sub-building or the action of \(\mathrm{Stab}_{\mathrm{Aut}(B)}(K)\) on \(K\) of the automorphisms of \(B\) preserving \(K\) has a fixed point. It was first proved for irreducible spherical buildings of classical types \(A_n\), \(B_n\) and \(D_n\) by \textit{B. Mühlherr} and \textit{J. Tits} [J. Algebra 300, No. 2, 687--706 (2006; Zbl 1101.51004)] using combinatorial methods and the incidence geometries of the respective buildings. Recently, \textit{C. Parker} and \textit{K. Tent} [Arch. Math. 97, No. 2, 125--128 (2011; Zbl 1226.51003)] gave a short proof for these classical types. In the paper under review, the authors prove the center conjecture for irreducible spherical buildings of types \(F_4\) and \(E_6\). They also add a new proof for the classical types by using the methods developed for the \(F_4\) and \(E_6\) types. The second author [``The center conjecture for thick spherical buildings (2009), \url{arXiv:0909.2761}] dealt with types \(E_7\) and \(E_8\). Hence, the center conjecture holds for all spherical buildings without factors of type \(H_4\), and, in particular, for all thick spherical buildings. The methods used by the authors are differential-geometric and based on the theory of CAT(1) spaces and on the geometric approach to buildings from the perspective of comparison geometry as in [\textit{B. Kleiner} and the first author, Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes Étud. Sci. 86, 115--197 (1997; Zbl 0910.53035)]. The arguments rely on the specific features of \(F_4\)- and \(E_6\)-geometries. The authors start by giving detailed descriptions of Coxeter complexes of types \(F_4\) and \(E_6\) and by collecting results that allow them to recognize when a convex subcomplex \(C\) of a spherical building \(B\) is a sub-building or when the stabilizer of \(C\) in the automorphism group of \(B\) has a fixed point in \(C\). They then consider a counterexample \(K\subseteq B\) to the center conjecture, that is, \(K\) is a convex subcomplex but is not a sub-building and the action of \(\mathrm{Stab}_{\mathrm{Aut}(B)}(K)\) on \(K\) has no fixed point. Such a counterexample must have dimension at least 2 and cannot contain a singular sphere of codimension one (in \(K\)). Furthermore, \(K\) can neither contain a \(\mathrm{Stab}_{\mathrm{Aut}(B)}(K)\)-invariant subset with circumradius \(< \pi/2\) nor one with diameter \(\leq \pi/2\). The strategy is to show that all vertices of \(K\) have antipodes in \(K\). It follows then by [\textit{J.-P. Serre}, Sém. Bourbaki, Astérisque 299, 195--217, Exp. No. 932 (2005; Zbl 1156.20313)] that \(K\) is a sub-building, and a contradiction is obtained. In case of type \(F_4\) the pattern of 1- and 4-vertices in \(K\) is investigated, because vertices of these types are better separated from each other than 2- and 3-vertices. The crucial case is when \(K\) contains vertices of type 1 or 4 without antipodes in \(K\). It requires a detailed analysis of interior points and points whose links contain certain 2-dimensional hemispheres. The case of type \(E_6\) is even more involved.











This page was built for publication: The center conjecture for spherical buildings of types \(F _{4}\) and \(E _{6}\)

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q719683)