Reference Request: Anisotropic Algebraic Groups Have No Unipotent Elements

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I have found the following fact stated in a number of places:



If $k$ is any field, a connected reductive group $G$ is anisotropic if and only if its only unipotent element is $e$ and $mathrmHom_k(G, mathrmG_m)$ is trivial.



For instance, this appears in section 3.4 of Springer's Corvallis article. However, I have been unable to track down a reference for a proof of this result.






reference-request algebraic-groups







share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    I have found the following fact stated in a number of places:



    If $k$ is any field, a connected reductive group $G$ is anisotropic if and only if its only unipotent element is $e$ and $mathrmHom_k(G, mathrmG_m)$ is trivial.



    For instance, this appears in section 3.4 of Springer's Corvallis article. However, I have been unable to track down a reference for a proof of this result.






    reference-request algebraic-groups







    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      I have found the following fact stated in a number of places:



      If $k$ is any field, a connected reductive group $G$ is anisotropic if and only if its only unipotent element is $e$ and $mathrmHom_k(G, mathrmG_m)$ is trivial.



      For instance, this appears in section 3.4 of Springer's Corvallis article. However, I have been unable to track down a reference for a proof of this result.






      reference-request algebraic-groups







      share|cite|improve this question













      I have found the following fact stated in a number of places:



      If $k$ is any field, a connected reductive group $G$ is anisotropic if and only if its only unipotent element is $e$ and $mathrmHom_k(G, mathrmG_m)$ is trivial.



      For instance, this appears in section 3.4 of Springer's Corvallis article. However, I have been unable to track down a reference for a proof of this result.






      reference-request algebraic-groups




      reference-request algebraic-groups






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 2 hours ago









      Alexander

      33416




      33416




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted










          Corollary 8.5 of Borel -Tits proves this in characteristic zero:



          http://www.numdam.org/item?id=PMIHES_1965__27__55_0



          See also section 4 of the same article (where other fields are considered, but it is not said in terms of unipotent elements, because that is false). Indeed, the group $PGL_1(D)$ over a field $k$ of positive characteristic $p$, $D$ a central division algebra over $k$ of degree $p$ , can have "bad" unipotent elements coming from purely inseparable extensions of $k$ lying in $D$. What is true is that $G$ is anisotropic iff it does not have a proper parabolic subgroup defined over $k$.



          In any case, this is the standard reference for reductive groups over arbitrary fields






          share|cite|improve this answer






















            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "504"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f310658%2freference-request-anisotropic-algebraic-groups-have-no-unipotent-elements%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest

















            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            3
            down vote



            accepted










            Corollary 8.5 of Borel -Tits proves this in characteristic zero:



            http://www.numdam.org/item?id=PMIHES_1965__27__55_0



            See also section 4 of the same article (where other fields are considered, but it is not said in terms of unipotent elements, because that is false). Indeed, the group $PGL_1(D)$ over a field $k$ of positive characteristic $p$, $D$ a central division algebra over $k$ of degree $p$ , can have "bad" unipotent elements coming from purely inseparable extensions of $k$ lying in $D$. What is true is that $G$ is anisotropic iff it does not have a proper parabolic subgroup defined over $k$.



            In any case, this is the standard reference for reductive groups over arbitrary fields






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              up vote
              3
              down vote



              accepted










              Corollary 8.5 of Borel -Tits proves this in characteristic zero:



              http://www.numdam.org/item?id=PMIHES_1965__27__55_0



              See also section 4 of the same article (where other fields are considered, but it is not said in terms of unipotent elements, because that is false). Indeed, the group $PGL_1(D)$ over a field $k$ of positive characteristic $p$, $D$ a central division algebra over $k$ of degree $p$ , can have "bad" unipotent elements coming from purely inseparable extensions of $k$ lying in $D$. What is true is that $G$ is anisotropic iff it does not have a proper parabolic subgroup defined over $k$.



              In any case, this is the standard reference for reductive groups over arbitrary fields






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                3
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                3
                down vote



                accepted






                Corollary 8.5 of Borel -Tits proves this in characteristic zero:



                http://www.numdam.org/item?id=PMIHES_1965__27__55_0



                See also section 4 of the same article (where other fields are considered, but it is not said in terms of unipotent elements, because that is false). Indeed, the group $PGL_1(D)$ over a field $k$ of positive characteristic $p$, $D$ a central division algebra over $k$ of degree $p$ , can have "bad" unipotent elements coming from purely inseparable extensions of $k$ lying in $D$. What is true is that $G$ is anisotropic iff it does not have a proper parabolic subgroup defined over $k$.



                In any case, this is the standard reference for reductive groups over arbitrary fields






                share|cite|improve this answer














                Corollary 8.5 of Borel -Tits proves this in characteristic zero:



                http://www.numdam.org/item?id=PMIHES_1965__27__55_0



                See also section 4 of the same article (where other fields are considered, but it is not said in terms of unipotent elements, because that is false). Indeed, the group $PGL_1(D)$ over a field $k$ of positive characteristic $p$, $D$ a central division algebra over $k$ of degree $p$ , can have "bad" unipotent elements coming from purely inseparable extensions of $k$ lying in $D$. What is true is that $G$ is anisotropic iff it does not have a proper parabolic subgroup defined over $k$.



                In any case, this is the standard reference for reductive groups over arbitrary fields







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 1 hour ago

























                answered 1 hour ago









                Venkataramana

                8,25912846




                8,25912846



























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f310658%2freference-request-anisotropic-algebraic-groups-have-no-unipotent-elements%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest
































































                    Comments

                    Post a Comment

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

                    Image
                    Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
                    Read more

                    Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

                    Image
                    Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
                    Read more

                    Confectionery

                    Image
                    Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
                    Read more