format: text

text:
# On the Parisi-Toulouse hypothesis for the spin glass phase in mean-field theory

## Acknowledgments

One of us (T. T.) acknowledges support from the Hungarian Science Fund (OTKA), Grant No. T032424.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

These last decades, growth, aggregation and fragmentation models have been proposed and discussed with the aim of representing the (multi)-fractal geometry and the resulting scaling properties of a great variety of complex physical systems such as glasses, polymers, colloids, gels, self-similar porous and cellular materials . These studies cover a large range of physical (electrical, dielectric, optical, magnetic and mechanical) properties . It has also been observed that universality is the major feature of their scaling behavior.,.

In the same context, it is more and more accepted that the Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics is not adequate to describe the macroscopic thermodynamic properties of natural phenomena when the effective microscopic interactions and the microscopic memory are long ranged due to complex non-equilibrium growth, aggregation or fragmentation processes. For that reason a generalized form of a nonextensive entropy known as the ”Tsallis entropy”  has been used with some success although the fundamental basis of such a formulation is still the object of many discussions. Recently, Abe and Rajagopal  have shown that Gibbs theorem for canonical ensemble theory is not universal and that counting rule for statistical description can depend on physical systems. This nonuniqueness can lead to various forms of the entropy and to appropriate modifications of the maximum entropy principle. An increasing number of papers are dealing with this problem .

Sotolongo et al.  starting from Tsallis’expression have used the principle of maximum entropy with some natural constraints to derive a fragment size distribution function in a regime in which long-range correlations between all parts and scaling are present. This very general principle gives rise to scaling without additional assumptions and the resulting size distribution can be consider as a paradigm of physical systems where multiscale interactions play the key role in determining the hierarchical form of the fragment or cluster size distribution. It is the reason why we have found interesting to use this distribution to analyze the relaxation properties of complex materials.

Relaxation (dielectric, mechanical, magnetic…) in systems such as the ones we are considering here is a complex stochastic mechanism which depends both of the cluster geometric structure and the collective nature of the interactions. The whole process of regression towards a steady pseudo-equilibrium state when an external field is applied to or release from the material is dynamical in nature. In most cluster models, relaxation is viewed as a complex hierarchical or stochastic process.

We will view here a cluster as a set of units (atoms, molecules, aggregates) relaxing collectively due to their interactions and their geometric structure. The scale of the relaxation is time dependent.Small clusters relax first as a result of intra-cluster interactions. For larger time due to long-range interaction relaxing clusters are connected to the already relaxed clusters and therefore depend on intra- and inte- cluster interactions.

We will consider the relaxation process from a macroscopic perspective and introduced two global parameters one defining the time and space fractal nature of the relaxation ($`\alpha )`$ and a second derived from the maximization of the nonextensive entropy ($`q)`$ and characterizing the hierarchical structure of the cluster geometry.In that way we aim at deriving a macroscopic ”universal” relaxation function valid for many physical systems with different relaxation mechanisms at the micro and meso scale. We consider here only electrical dipolar relaxation.

Indeed in that case, an universal pattern independent of materials and microscopic model has been noticed for a long time , and widely discussed. Experimentally one observes both for large $`t`$ and small $`t`$ a fractional power law dielectric response in the time domain :

$$f(t)=\frac{d\varphi }{dt}=\{\begin{array}{c}(\omega _pt)^n\text{ for }\omega _pt<<1\\ \\ (\omega _pt)^{m1}\text{ for }\omega _pt>>1\end{array}$$
(1)
with $`0<n,m<1.`$ Quite generally it is observed that $`1n<m.`$ The frequency $`\omega _p`$ is material dependent. For intermediate $`t`$, the relaxation function $`\varphi (t)`$ is usually fitted to a stretched exponential, the so-called Williams-Watts form : $`\varphi (t)`$ $`\mathrm{exp}((\omega _pt)^s`$. The small $`t`$ (large $`\omega `$) exponent $`n`$ is related to small clusters relaxation and the large $`t`$ (small frequency) exponent $`m1`$ describes the relaxation of large clusters. As it will appear in this work, they are not independent. This non-Debye behavior has its counterpart in the frequency domain where generalizations of the Cole and Cole dielectric functions with exponents linked to $`n`$ and $`m`$ are commonly used by experimentalists.

The purpose of this letter is to show that our ($`\alpha ,q)`$ model leads naturally to this universal behavior and relates simply the exponents $`n`$ and $`m`$ to the two parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`q`$. Asymptotically and numerically our results coincide with the general dipolar relaxation function derived by Weron and collaborators  using generalizations of the Levy central-limit theorem. This unexpected result gives a physical meaning to the mathematical parameters appearing in the purely stochastic Weron theory.

## 2  Cluster size distribution function

Following references , we start from the expression of the generalized entropy proposed by Tsallis  and formulate the maximization process as in

$$S_q=k_B\frac{1_0^{\mathrm{}}p^q(x)𝑑x}{q1}$$
(2)
The integral runs over all admissible values of the quantity $`x`$ and $`x+dx`$ and $`p(x)dx`$ is the probability of the system being in the state between $`x`$ and $`x+dx`$. The quantity $`q`$ is a real number characterizing the nonadditivity of the entropy (nonextensivity) for system having nonexponential statistical distribution and $`k_B`$ is the Bolzmann constant. When $`q1,`$ one recovers the BG statistics $`i.e`$ $`S_qS=k_B_0^{\mathrm{}}p(x)\mathrm{ln}p(x)𝑑x.`$

If we denote the volume of a cluster by $`V`$ and some typical volume $`V_m`$ characteristic of the distribution (for example the volume having the linear dimension of a disorder or correlation characteristic length), we can define a dimensionless volume $`v=V/V_m`$ which corresponds to the quantity $`x`$ in eq.(2). The first constraint to impose is the normalization condition

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}p(v)𝑑v=1$$
(3)
One has then to impose a mass conservation. As the system is finite and in order to yield a slow decay in the asymptotic behavior of the cluster size distribution, a more general condition, the ”q-conservation of the mass” has been imposed in the form

$$\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}vp^q(v)𝑑v}{_0^{\mathrm{}}p^q(v)𝑑v}=1$$
(4)
and re-worked on the basis of the ”normalized q-expectation values” introduced in .

Eq.(3) and eq.(4) are the constraints to impose in order to derive the $`q`$-dependent CSDF (cluster size distribution function) using the method of Lagrange multipliers . The extremization calculation leads to the following hierarchical CSDF defined for $`1<q<2`$:

$$p(v)=[1\frac{1q}{2q}v]^{\frac{1}{1q}}$$
(5)
which has the same formal form as in , but with different coefficients since here we have used the more correct normalized $`q`$-expectation values using the so-called ”escort” probabilities. This distribution has been used successfully to account for the transition to scaling observed in the behavior of fragments in the process of breaking  as well as more subtle effects as the dimension cross-over between small and large fragment regions when thick clay plates and glass are fractured . This is the cluster distribution we will use to discuss dipolar relaxation in self-similar structured systems.

## 3 Cluster relaxation function

We will assume following a common practice that the observed macroscopic non-exponential relaxation behavior can be interpreted in terms of a weighed average of a Debye exponential relaxation decay $`\mathrm{exp}[t/\tau ]`$ with respect to a distribution of relaxation time $`p_\tau (\tau )`$. In this formulation the relaxation function that describes the polarization decay with time after a steady polarizing electrical field has suddenly been removed, is written as:

$$\varphi (t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}p(\tau )\mathrm{exp}[t/\tau ]d\tau $$
(6)
To relate the cluster distribution eq.(5) to the relaxation rate distribution, we have to make some assumptions on the variation of the relaxation time with the number of relaxing units $`N`$ within a cluster. In a previous paper on relaxation in percolation clusters , following a model of linear polymers, we assumed, as a first approximation, that the cluster relaxation time $`\tau `$ was proportional to the number of atoms (or the volume) in .the percolating cluster and obtained in that case the proper long time scaling behavior. For more complex systems due to intra- and inter-cluster interactions and reasons discussed in the introduction, it is reasonable to assume that the relaxing time increases faster than linearly with $`N`$. The relation of $`\tau `$ with $`N`$ has been mainly discussed for the stress relaxation in the phenomena of polymerization and sol-gel transition. For example, in a simple Rouse model  the cluster relaxation time has been identified with the time scale for diffusion of the cluster over a distance corresponding to its own size. Since in such model $`\tau _N=R_N^2/D_N`$ where$`D_NN^1`$ and $`R_N`$ is the radius of gyration which scales with the fractal mass of the cluster as $`R_NN^{1/d_f}`$ , we get the relation $`\tau =N^{\frac{d_f}{2+d_f}}.`$ Although each relaxation mechanism has its own specificity and is material dependent, it is legitimate to assume quite generally that the relaxation time of a volume made of $`N`$ relaxing elements scales as:

$$\tau =v^{1/\alpha }$$
(7)
with $`0<\alpha 1.`$ The exponent $`\alpha `$ represents macroscopically the ”fractal” geometric and dynamical nature of the relaxation dynamics in other words the geometrical and dynamical ”exploration” to use an expression coined by de Gennes We will therefore assume a relaxation time distribution of the form:

$$p_\tau (\tau )=[1\frac{1q}{2q}\tau ^\alpha ]^{\frac{1}{1q}}$$
(8)
To make the comparison with the Weron  stochastic theory easier we will write the relaxation function in terms of the distribution of relaxation rate $`\beta =1/\tau `$. We therefore write the relaxation function $`\varphi _{\alpha ,q}(t)`$after the proper change of variable as a Laplace transform relation:

$$\varphi _{\alpha ,q}(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}p_\beta (\alpha ,q)\mathrm{exp}[t\beta ]d\beta $$
(9)
with

$$p_\beta (\alpha ,q)=\alpha (1/\beta )^{(1+\alpha )}[1\frac{1q}{2q}(1/\beta )^\alpha ]^{\frac{1}{1q}}$$
(10)
This normalized function belongs to the basin of attraction of the Levy distribution with a Levy tail exponent $`\alpha .`$ Weron $`et`$ $`al.`$ have argued that the $`\beta `$ in eq.(10) are not individual rates but effective relaxation rates corresponding to random relaxation representing the macroscopic behavior of the material.

From the relaxation function one can then derive the relaxation response $`f(t)=\frac{d\varphi }{dt}`$. The one–sided Fourier transform

$$\chi (\omega )=\chi ^{}(\omega )i\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)f(t)𝑑t$$
(11)
yields the susceptibility response in the frequency range .If $`\alpha =1,`$ the derivative of the Laplace transform eq.(9) gives:

$$f_{\alpha =1,q}(t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }[\frac{1}{q1}]U[\frac{1}{q1},1,\frac{(1q)t}{q2}]$$
(12)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Euler gamma function and $`U(a,b,z)`$ is the confluent hypergeometric function : $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{zt}t^{a1}(1+t)^{ba1}𝑑t`$. Using the asymptotic behavior of functions $`U(a,b,z),`$ we get for $`t\mathrm{}`$ a power law.

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}f_{\alpha =1,q}(t)t^{\frac{1}{q1}}$$
(13)
when $`t0,`$ one gets a simple Debye behaviour.This first result indicates that the high $`t`$ power law behavior is associated with the Tsallis $`q`$ entropy parameter. When $`0<\alpha 1,`$ an analytical expression is not available but an analysis of the results for some rational values of $`\alpha `$ and implying MeijerG functions allows us to conjecture the following asymptotic behavior confirmed numerically for any couple of values ($`\alpha ,q`$) in the proper physical range.

$`\underset{t0}{lim}f_{\alpha ,q}(t)`$ $`t^{\alpha 1}`$ (14)
$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}f_{\alpha \text{ },q}(t)`$ $`t^{1\alpha \frac{2q}{q1}}`$ (15)
We see that in this model, the empirical exponent $`n`$ and $`m`$ are simply related to the two parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`q`$ : $`n=1\alpha `$ and $`m=\alpha \frac{2q}{q1}.`$ If $`\alpha =1,`$ one recovers the asymptotic behavior of eq.13. For intermediate time, the response function can be fitted to the derivative of a stretched exponential function with exponent $`\alpha `$ over several orders of magnitude. The condition $`0<m<1`$ defines the range of $`q:\frac{1+2\alpha }{1+\alpha }<q<2.`$The narrower range observed in most experimental data $`1n<m<1`$ defines a narrower physical range$`:\frac{1+2\alpha }{1+\alpha }<q<3/2.`$

At this point it is of interest to compare our results with the only self-contained mathematical theory which can account for the relaxation universality in the framework of modern stochastic theory . It has been demonstrated mathematically , that a stretched exponential relaxation function can be obtained if and only if the relaxation rate probability distribution is a completely asymmetric Levy distribution function. In that case the low $`t`$ exponent can be related to the Levy-$`\alpha `$ parameter i.e. $`n=1\alpha `$, but this model does not yield the large $`t`$ power law . This results has been expressed as a consequence of the Levy central limit theorem. By generalizing further the Levy central limit theorem assuming a randomness in the number of effective relaxation channels , Weron et al.  were able to derive using precise stochastic theory arguments a general simple analytical form of the relaxation function which reconcilliates and unifies the two power-laws and the stretched exponential empirical expressions.

The Weron expression of relaxation function reads

$$\varphi _\alpha ^W(t,k)=[1+k(\omega _ct)^\alpha ]^{1/k}\text{with }0<\alpha 1,k\alpha $$
(16)
The asymptotic behavior of the response function $`f_\alpha ^W(t,k)=\frac{d\varphi ^W(t,k)}{\text{d}t}`$for small and large $`t`$ is given by

$$f_\alpha ^W(t,k)=\{\begin{array}{c}\alpha \omega _c(\omega _ct)^{\alpha 1}\text{ for }\omega _ct<<1\\ \\ \alpha \omega _ck^{11/k}(\omega _ct)^{\alpha /k1}\text{ for }\omega _ct>>1\end{array}$$
(17)
This corresponds with the results of our relaxation ($`\alpha ,q`$) model if we make the identification

$$k=\frac{q1}{2q}$$
(18)
By Fourier transform it can then be shown straightforwardly from the two asymptotic behavior in the time domain that both models obey the Jonscher universal laws :

$$\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\chi ^{^{\prime \prime }}(\omega )}{\chi ^{}(\omega )}=\mathrm{cot}(n\pi /2)$$
(19)
and

$$\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\frac{\chi ^{^{\prime \prime }}(\omega )}{\chi ^{}(0)\chi ^{}(\omega )}=\mathrm{tan}(m\frac{\pi }{2})$$
(20)
with $`n=1\alpha ,`$ $`m=\alpha /k,`$ and $`k=(\frac{q1}{2q}).`$These relations have a thermodynamic content  and the observation that $`m`$ is related to a nonextensive entropy parameter has to be further analyzed.

## 4 Numerical results and discussion

In Fig.1, we show the behavior of the relaxation function $`\varphi _{\alpha ,q}(t)`$ for $`\alpha =0.5`$ and for $`q`$ varying in the range $`1<q<2`$. The slowing down of the relaxation process increases with $`q`$.

Fig.2 shows the response function $`f_{\alpha ,q}(t)`$ in a $`\mathrm{log}`$-$`\mathrm{log}`$ plot for a typical value of $`n=0.48`$ ($`\alpha =0.52)`$ , $`m=0.68(q=1.433).`$for our model. and for the Weron response function $`f_{\alpha ,k}^W(t)`$ with $`k=\frac{q1}{q2}`$ in the same time units ($`\omega _p=1)`$. These values correspond to a typical experimental example quoted and discussed in  .The two models can fit the relaxation and dielectric behavior of a large number of data reported in Jonsher  for dipole relaxation systems. For values around $`t=1`$, $`f(t)`$ behaves as the time derivative of a stretched exponential over 3 or 4 decades and again most of the experimental data found in the literature with $`\alpha `$ ranging from to.$`0.3.`$ to $`0.8`$  can be accounted for.

The main objective of this letter was to open a new line of thinking in this problem and to show that general thermodynamic principles based on extension of the concept of entropy appears to be a natural way to understand the ubiquity of hierarchic self-similarity and power laws in the relaxation behavior of large classes of materials. Moreover as demonstrated in  the power law behavior of statistical distribution is rooted in the central limit theorem and a complete theory of relaxation based on nonextensive arguments should be based on formal stochastic arguments. In this letter we have shown that it is indeed the case since we found a simple relation between the Tsalllis parameter $`q`$ and the stochastic parameter $`k`$ in the Weron generalized relaxation function. It should be emphasized that the Tsallis generalization is not unique. Several alternative definitions of entropy has been elaborated . The relation between $`k`$ and $`q`$ is therefore not unique  and a general discussion of the link of relaxation with nonextensivity will be presented in further publications. We finally want to stress that the ideas developed in this letter are not restricted to dipolar relaxation.

## 5 Acknowledgments

One of us (F.B.) is grateful to Prof.Karina Weron for illuminating discussions. This work was supported by the ”Alma Mater” project (Cuba) and The Communauté Wallonie-Bruxelles Action Concertée 00/05-265 (Belgium).

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig1. Relaxation function $`\varphi _{\alpha ,q}(t)`$ for values $`1<q<2.`$ and $`\alpha =0.5.`$

Fig2. Response function $`f_{\alpha ,q}(t)=\frac{d\varphi _{\alpha ,q}(t)}{dt}`$ for $`\alpha =0.52,q=1.433`$ (full line). The dotted line is the Weron $`f_{\alpha ,}^W(k,t)`$ for $`\alpha =0.52,k=0.765.`$The exponents $`n`$ and $`m`$ are$`.n=48`$ and $`m=0.68.`$ We have used the relation $`k=\frac{q1}{q2}.`$


text:
# Coherence Window in the dynamics of Quantum Nanomagnets

## Abstract

Decoherence in many solid-state systems is anomalously high, frustrating efforts to make solid-state qubits. We show that in nanomagnetic insulators in large transverse fields, there can be a fairly narrow field region in which both phonon and nuclear spin-mediated decoherence are drastically reduced. As examples we calculate decoherence rates for the $`Fe`$-8 nanomolecule, for $`Ni`$ particles, and for $`Ho`$ ions in $`LiHo_xY_{1z}F_4`$. The reduction in the decoherence, compared to low field rates, can exceed 6 orders of magnitude. The results also give limitations on the observability of macroscopic coherence effects in magnetic systems.

Decoherence has emerged as a major challenge, both for fundamental physics, and for attempts to make solid-state qubits preskill . Experimental decoherence rates are often much larger than theoretical estimates mohanty ; squbit \- in complex systems like conductors or superconductors, many low-energy excitations apart from the usual ”oscillator bath” modes cal83 ; weiss  can cause phase decoherence. These include charged defects, dislocations, paramagnetic and nuclear spins, external flux and voltage noise, and junction resistance fluctuations. The advantages of solid-state systems (stable circuits, scalability, etc.) cannot be exploited until decoherence effects are suppressed.

It is often assumed that this is purely an engineering problem. However this is not true- even completely pure systems have intrinsic decoherence, and then theory is essential, to see how this can be quantified and controlled. Here we consider a very interesting possibility, involving nanomagnetic insulators. These are often chemically reproducible, so impurities and defects are kept to a minimum- and electronic decoherence is completely absent. We show they also have another crucial feature, viz., the decoherence can be tuned down to very low values. These results are of wide interest, in the search for magnetic materials showing spin coherence phenomena.

1. Intrinsic Decoherence in a nanomagnetic ”qubit”: At low $`T`$ the spin Hamiltonian of many large-spin nanomagnetic systems (magnetic molecules, rare earth ions, or nanomagnetic particles) reduces to a 2-state form $`_o(\widehat{\tau })=(\mathrm{\Delta }_o\widehat{\tau }_x+ϵ_o\widehat{\tau }_z)`$, with the Pauli spin $`\widehat{\tau }`$ acting on the 2 lowest spin levels wwRev ; tupBB . The spin gap $`E_G`$ to the next levels is typically $`510K`$, and the 2-state picture is valid at energies $`E_G`$. At higher energies the individual electronic spins $`\{𝐬_j\}`$ are assumed to be locked into a nanospin $`𝐒`$ (so that $`𝐒=_j𝐬_j`$) by strong exchange or superexchange interactions. We assume henceforth an ”easy $`\widehat{z}`$-axis” nanomagnet; then the ’bias’ energy $`ϵ_o=g\mu _BS_zH_o^z`$. When $`ϵ_o=0`$, the splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$ between the 2 ”qubit” states $`|,|+`$ (bonding and anti-bonding eigenstates of $`_o(\widehat{\tau })`$) is produced by tunneling between 2 potential wells, each well having a ”small oscillation” energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o`$; typically $`\mathrm{\Omega }_oE_G`$. We define the states $`|,|`$ (eigenstates of $`\widehat{\tau }_z`$) by $`|\pm =[|\pm |]/\sqrt{2}`$. If the total nanomagnetic spin $`𝐒`$ is not too small, these states correspond roughly to semiclassical spin coherent states auerbach , having orientations $`𝐧_\sigma `$ (here $`\sigma =,`$), which depend on both the internal anisotropy field of the nanomagnet, and any transverse external field $`𝐇_o^{}`$. The splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$ depends sensitively on $`𝐇_o^{}`$.

The intrinsic decoherence in insulating nanomagnets comes from entanglement of the nanomagnetic spin wave function with that of the nuclear spins and phonons PS96 . Both of these couplings are well understood. The nuclear spins $`\{𝐈_k\}`$ couple to the electronic spins $`\{𝐬_j\}`$ in $`𝐒`$ via individual hyperfine couplings $`A_{\alpha \beta }^{jk}s_j^\alpha I_k^\beta `$, and the phonons couple to $`𝐒`$ via magnetoacoustic (spin-phonon) interactions vill96 . Without yet specifying the precise form of the hyperfine couplings (which of course depend on the system being studied) we can define quite generally a vector $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_k^{}`$ which specifies the net effect on the $`k`$-th nuclear spin $`𝐈_k`$, of all the hyperfine fields coming from the individual electronic spins in $`𝐒`$:

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }_k^{}\omega _k^{}\widehat{l}_k^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}A_{\alpha \beta }^{jk}(s_j^\alpha ^{}s_j^\alpha ^{})$$
(1)
Here $`\widehat{l}_k`$ is a unit vector in the direction of this total field, with components $`\widehat{l}_k^\alpha `$, and $`s_j^\alpha ^\sigma `$ is the expectation value of $`𝐬_j`$ when $`𝐒S𝐧^\sigma `$. We see that when $`𝐒`$ flips from $`S𝐧_{}`$ to $`S𝐧_{}`$, the energy change is just $`2\omega _k^{}\widehat{l}_k𝐈_k`$, ie., we have a diagonal coupling $`\widehat{\tau }_z\omega _k^{}\widehat{l}_k\widehat{𝐈}_k`$ between the qubit and $`𝐈_k`$. One can also write this coupling as $`\widehat{\tau }_z\xi _z`$, where $`\xi _z=\omega _k^{}\widehat{l}_k\widehat{𝐈}_k`$ acts as an extra bias field, in addition to the external bias field $`ϵ_o`$. Note that the weak interaction between nuclear spins (typically dipolar) causes slow spin diffusion between them. The net effect of this is to make $`\xi _z\xi _z(t)`$, ie., the nuclear bias field acting on the qubit fluctuates in time even when the qubit is frozen. We shall argue below that we can neglect this fluctuation in strong transverse fields.

The $`𝐈_k`$ also couple to the external field $`𝐇_o`$, with Zeeman coupling $`\omega _k^{}\widehat{m}_k\widehat{𝐈}_k`$, where

$$\omega _k^{}\widehat{m}_k=g_k^N\mu _N𝐇_o$$
(2)
and $`\widehat{m}_k`$ is a unit vector along $`𝐇_o`$.

If we now take these terms together, we can write the interaction Hamiltonian between the nanospin $`𝐒`$ and the nuclear spins $`\{𝐈_k\}`$ in the form $`_{NS}=_o(\widehat{\tau })+V(\widehat{\tau },𝐈_k)`$, where

$$V=\widehat{\tau }_z\underset{k}{}\omega _k^{}\widehat{l}_k\widehat{𝐈}_k+\underset{k}{}\omega _k^{}\widehat{m}_k\widehat{𝐈}_k$$
(3)
This form is particularly useful for quantifying the decoherence from the nuclear spins. When we come to particular examples we will specify the couplings in (3).

The magnetoacoustic interaction between the qubit coordinate $`\widehat{\tau }`$ and the phonon coordinate $`x_q`$ is dominated in nanomagnets vill96 ; PS96  by a non-diagonal term $`\widehat{\tau }_x_qc_q^{}x_q`$. This term has strength

$$c_q^{}x_qS\mathrm{\Omega }_o(\omega _q/\theta _D)^{1/2},$$
(4)
where $`\theta _D`$ is the Debye energy, $`\omega _q=qc_s`$ and $`c_s`$ is the sound velocity.

Our basic idea is as follows. The allowed nuclear spin bath states, when the qubit is in some given state, have a density of states which typically has Gaussian lineshape lineshape , with a halfwidth $`E_o`$; in terms of the $`\{\omega _k^{}\}`$ defined above, $`E_o`$ is given trivially by

$$E_o^2=\underset{k}{}\frac{I_k+1}{3I_k}(\omega _k^{}I_k)^2$$
(5)
On the other hand the acoustic phonon energy scale is the Debye energy $`\theta _D`$. Now in a nanomagnetic system $`E_o/\theta _D`$ can be $`10^4`$, suggesting the following tactic for suppressing decoherence. If we tune $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$ so that $`\theta _D\mathrm{\Delta }_oE_o`$, then we will be in a ”coherence window”, in which decoherence will be at a minimum because the qubit dynamics is too slow to disturb most phonons, but too fast for the nuclear spins to react.

Decoherence Rates: To substantiate this idea, we generalise the low field ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_o<E_o`$) calculations of nanomagnetic dynamics PS96 , where incoherent tunneling relaxation is found, to the high-field regime $`\mathrm{\Delta }_oE_o`$. Because at high field the couplings $`\{\omega _k^{}\}`$ of the nuclear spins to the qubit are $``$ the nuclear Zeeman couplings $`\{\omega _k^{}\}`$, and also $`\{\omega _k^{}\}\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$, this dynamics can be solved perturbatively PS00 ; castro93 . We expand about the bare qubit Hamiltonian (3) to 2nd order in $`\omega _k^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (assuming $`ϵ_o=0`$ for simplicity) to get

$`H_{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_o\widehat{\tau }_x+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\omega _k^{}\widehat{m}_k𝐈_k]`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{\tau }_x{\displaystyle \underset{kk^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _k^{}\omega _k^{}^{}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_o}}(\widehat{l}_k𝐈_k)(\widehat{l}_k^{}𝐈_k^{})`$
$`+`$ $`O((\omega _k^{})^4/\mathrm{\Delta }_o^3)`$
The decoherence time $`\tau _\varphi `$ is defined as the characteristic time for decay of the off-diagonal density matrix element, starting in state $`|`$. In the present case we calculate this matrix element as a path integral over pairs of qubit trajectories $`\tau _z(t),\tau _z(t^{})`$ (each taking values $`\pm 1`$, with occasional flips between these values), weighted by an influence functional $`F[\tau _z(t),\tau _z(t^{})]`$ which incorporates the interactions weiss . The contribution from the 2nd term in (6) to this functional is castro93 ; PS00 :

$$\mathrm{ln}F=\underset{k}{}\frac{(\omega _k^{})^2}{8\mathrm{}^2}|_0^t𝑑se^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\omega _k^{}s}\left[\tau _z(s)\tau _z^{}(s)\right]|^2$$
(7)
From this result we can then use standard techniques developed for the spin-boson model weiss , to find a contribution $`\gamma _\varphi ^\kappa `$ to the dimensionless decoherence rate $`\gamma _\varphi =1/\tau _\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }_o`$ (the commonly used ’decoherence quality factor’ squbit  is just $`Q_\varphi =\pi /\gamma _\varphi `$). We find

$`\gamma _\varphi ^\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kk^{}}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(I_k+1)(I_k^{}+1)}{9I_kI_k^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _k^{}\omega _k^{}^{}I_kI_k^{}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_o^2}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_o}{\mathrm{\Delta }_o}}\right)^2`$
which decreases rapidly with increasing qubit operating frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$.

There are 2 other contributions to $`\gamma _\varphi `$ coming from the nuclear spins PS96 ; PS00 . First, in writing (3) we omitted a renormalisation of the tunneling matrix element caused by the coupling to the nuclear spins topoD , which in fact describes the nuclear spin transitions induced directly by electronic spin flips. This adds a contribution $`\gamma _\varphi ^\lambda `$ to $`\gamma _\varphi `$, given by $`\gamma _\varphi ^\lambda =\frac{1}{2}_k|\stackrel{}{\alpha }_k|^2`$, where $`|\stackrel{}{\alpha }_k|=\pi |\omega _k^{}|/2\mathrm{\Omega }_o`$. However when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_oE_o`$, the ratio $`\gamma _\varphi ^\lambda /\gamma _\varphi ^\kappa O(\mathrm{\Delta }_o^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_o^2)1`$ (the usual WKB reduction of the tunneling amplitude), ie., this term can always be neglected to first approximation. Second, we have neglected the instrinsic nuclear spin diffusion dynamics, caused by internuclear interactions. In low fields, when the tunneling is slow, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_oE_o`$, this intrinsic nuclear dynamics renders the tunneling dynamics incoherent PS96 ; wwNS ; thomas ; giraud . However when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_oE_o`$, the nuclear fluctuations are very slow compared to the qubit dynamics (of frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$); they then add a ’noise’ contribution $`\gamma _\varphi ^NN/\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_oT_2`$ to $`\gamma _\varphi `$, where $`N`$ is the number of nuclear spins in each molecule PS00 . Typically $`T_2^110100Hz`$ at low $`T`$ in magnetic molecules morello02 ), whereas we are interested in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_oGHz`$ (see below); thus $`\gamma _\varphi ^N`$ will be very small.

Finally we include the phonon contribution to $`\gamma _\varphi `$. The solution to the spin-boson problem for non-diagonal coupling to phonons weiss  gives a contribution $`\gamma _\varphi ^{ph}`$ of form PS96 :

$$\gamma _\varphi ^{ph}=[(S\mathrm{\Omega }_o\mathrm{\Delta }_o)^2/\mathrm{\Theta }_D^4]\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{\Delta }_o/k_BT)$$
(9)
which increases rapidly with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$.

The phonon and nuclear spin decoherence mechanisms act independently- thus we can get a simple estimate for the optimal decoherence rate $`\gamma _\varphi ^{min}`$ by summing the two dominant contributions (8) and (9), and minimizing their sum $`\gamma _\varphi ^\kappa +\gamma _\varphi ^{ph}`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$, assuming $`k_BT<\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$. This gives

$$\gamma _\varphi ^{min}\sqrt{2}S\mathrm{\Omega }_oE_o/\theta _D^2$$
(10)
at an optimal tunneling splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o^{opt}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_o^{(opt)}\theta _D(E_o/\sqrt{2}S\mathrm{\Omega }_o)^{1/2}.$$
(11)
We see that decoherence is minimized for a given $`S`$ by making $`E_o`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o`$ small, and $`\theta _D`$ large, within the constraint that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o\mathrm{\Delta }_o>k_BT`$. If $`k_BT>\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$ we get a different (less favorable) answer.

These simple results actually give reasonably accurate results when compared with numerical calculations on real systems, as we now see.

2. Three Examples: We present quantitative results for the decoherence rates in 3 different materials. We give most details for the $`Fe`$-8 example, to illustrate our method.

(i) The $`Fe`$-8 molecule: This well-characterized molecule wwRev  behaves below $`10K`$ as an electronic spin-$`10`$ system, with biaxial effective Hamiltonian wwRev ; tupBB  $`_o(𝐒)D\widehat{S}_z^2+E\widehat{S}_x^2+K_4^{}(\widehat{S}_+^4+\widehat{S}_{}^4)g\mu _B𝐇_{}𝐒`$, with $`D/k_B=0.23K`$, $`E/k_B=0.094K`$, and $`K_4/k_B=3.28\times 10^5K`$. The small oscillation frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o=2SC_4\sqrt{DE}4.6K`$, where $`C_4=1.56`$ includes the effects of the $`K_4`$ term; $`T`$-independent tunneling dynamics appears below $`0.4K`$. The tunneling amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o(𝐇_o^{})`$ is trivially determined by diagonalisation of $`_o(𝐒)`$ (Fig. 1), as are the spin orientations $`𝐧^{},𝐧^{}`$ defined previously. At a critical transverse field $`H_c`$ the barrier is destroyed and $`𝐧^{},𝐧^{}`$ merge. When $`𝐇_o^{}`$ is along the hard $`\widehat{x}`$-axis (so the azimuthal angle $`\varphi =0`$ or $`\pi `$), one has $`g\mu _BH_c=2S(D+E)`$ for this Hamiltonian, giving $`H_c4.8T`$. We find by comparing exact diagonalisation with semiclassical calculations, that the latter are accurate up to $`𝐇_o^{}3.34.3T`$ (for $`\varphi =90^o,0^o`$ respectively).

The hyperfine interactions between the 8 $`Fe^{+3}`$ (spin $`5/2`$) ions and the 205 nuclear spins in the molecule (213 if $`{}_{}{}^{57}Fe`$ isotopes are substituted for $`{}_{}{}^{56}Fe`$ nuclei) are of 2 kinds. The $`Fe`$ electronic spins interact with any $`{}_{}{}^{57}Fe`$ ions via contact hyperfine interactions, which we assume to be the same as for $`Fe^{+3}`$ ions in similar materials rado . On the other hand the hyperfine couplings $`A_{\alpha \beta }^{jk}s_j^\alpha I_k^\beta `$ to all the other nuclear spins are thought to be dominated by purely dipolar terms wwNS .

Using the known nuclear positions and moments, the hyperfine interactions and the nuclear Zeeman couplings are then quantified numerically, to find the $`\{\omega _k^{}\}`$ and hence $`E_o`$ (see Fig. 2), and also the $`\{\omega _k^{}\}`$. In spite of the large number of protons, $`E_o`$ is quite small (particularly when we substitute $`{}_{}{}^{2}H`$ nuclei for $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$), making $`Fe`$-8 a reasonable candidate for coherent dynamics in high fields. One may also calculate the nuclear dynamics fine , but here we simply note that NMR experiments morello02  indicate that at low $`T`$, $`T_21030msec`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$ nuclei in magnetic molecules. We then calculate numerically the different nuclear spin contributions to $`\gamma _\varphi `$ (ie., the dominant contribution (8), plus the smaller contributions $`\gamma _\varphi ^\lambda `$ and $`\gamma _\varphi ^N`$), and also the phonon contribution $`\gamma _\varphi ^{ph}`$, as a function of $`𝐇_o^{}`$.

The results are shown for high fields in Fig. 3. Actually almost all experiments on the quantum dynamics of $`Fe`$-8 have been done in the regime $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o<E_o`$, ie., where we expect nuclear spins to cause incoherent tunneling PS96 \- which is what is found experimentally wwNS ; morello02 ; sangr97 ; thomas . However once $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$ exceeds $`E_o`$, all nuclear spin decoherence should fall off very fast. The nuclear noise contribution $`\gamma _\varphi ^N<10^7`$ once $`|𝐇_o^{}|>3.2T`$ (for $`\varphi =0^o`$) or $`>2T`$ (for $`\varphi >90^o`$), so we can safely ignore it. The estimate (10) then gives $`\gamma _\varphi ^{min}5.8\times 10^5`$ at a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o^{opt}0.14K`$, when $`\varphi =0`$ and $`H_o^{}=3.45T`$ (assuming the optimal set of nuclear isotopes, with $`{}_{}{}^{2}H`$ instead of $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$, no $`{}_{}{}^{57}Fe`$, etc). In Fig. 3 we calculate $`\gamma _\varphi `$ numerically, adding all nuclear spin and phonon contributions. For $`\varphi =0`$ we get a numerical value $`\gamma _\varphi ^{min}=6\times 10^5`$, at a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o^{opt}=0.135K`$ when $`H_o^{}=3.45T`$; thus the estimate works well for $`\varphi =0`$. The further reduction of $`\gamma _\varphi ^{min}`$ to $`2.4\times 10^6`$, when $`\varphi 90^o`$ ($`H_o^{}=2.93T`$), comes from decreases in both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o`$ and the effective $`S`$ (since both the tunneling barrier and the change $`|𝐒^{}𝐒^{}|`$ decrease). Fig. 3 clearly illustrates the window for coherent dynamics which opens up at high transverse fields ($`H_o^{}2.93.4T`$, depending on $`\varphi `$) in $`Fe`$-8.

(ii) $`Ni`$-based particles: Consider now a pure $`Ni`$ particle at low $`T`$, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o=1K`$ and spin $`S`$, coupled to a substrate with $`\theta _D=300K`$. The concentration of $`{}_{}{}^{59}Ni`$ nuclei (spin-$`1/2`$) is $`x_{59}0.01`$ in natural $`Ni`$, and the hyperfine coupling $`\omega _k^{}\omega _o1.4mK`$. From (10) we have $`\gamma _\varphi ^{min}SE_o/10^5O(S^{3/2}\omega _ox_{59}^{1/2}/10^5)`$, since $`E_o\omega _oN^{1/2}`$, where $`NS`$ is the number of nuclear spins. Then in natural $`Ni`$, $`\gamma _\varphi ^{min}`$ reaches unity once $`S2.6\times 10^4`$, for a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o^{(opt)}0.2K`$. Isotopic purification by a factor $`10^2`$ (a major undertaking!) would reduce $`\gamma _\varphi ^{min}`$ by only a factor of 10. Note that $`Ni`$ has an unusually low concentration of nuclear spins, with rather weak hyperfine couplings. Thus this example teaches us that to see any macroscopic coherence effects in tunneling magnets for $`S>10^5`$ will require almost complete isotopic purification (there are no known magnetic species not having at least one natural isotope with non-zero nuclear spin). Note further that we only consider here intrinsic decoherence from phonons and nuclear spins inside the particle- we have ignored electronic decoherence, which certainly exists in $`Ni`$.

(iii) $`Ho`$ ions: Not all systems will have an optimal intrinsic decoherence described by (10). Consider the $`LiHo_xY_{1x}F_4`$ system aeppli , in which sharp absorption lines are seen giraud ; ghosh02  at low $`x`$. The $`Ho^{+3}`$ ions (with spin $`=8`$) have a lowest doublet state, with splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o|𝐇_o^{}|^2`$ in a transverse field- only one other state, at an energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o10.6K`$, is important for the low-energy physics (all other electronic spins levels are at energies $`100K`$). The new feature here, which renders (10) inapplicable, is a very strong hyperfine coupling $`\omega _{Ho}^{}=0.039K`$ to the $`I=7/2`$ $`Ho`$ nuclear spin- whereas the couplings to the ”satellite” $`Li,Y`$, and $`F`$ nuclear spins are very weak. Thus instead of having a Gaussian lineshape, the hyperfine multiplet has a ”toothcomb” structure with 15 $`Ho`$ lines spaced in intervals of $`0.039K`$, each weakly broadened (by less than $`1mK`$) by the other nuclei. The quantity $`E_o`$ is then not well-defined lineshape . However one may instead just calculate the coupled $`Ho`$-nuclear spin dynamics in 2nd-order perturbation theory, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o`$ all hyperfine couplings, and all $`Ho`$ transitions go via the single intermediate level. We then find the optimal strategy is to (a) freeze the $`Ho`$ nuclei by cooling to $`k_BT0.039K`$, and (b) make $`𝐇_o^{}`$ large enough so that precessional decoherence from the satellite nuclei is eliminated, but small enough so that $`Ho`$ nuclei are weakly excited. We find that at $`T=3mK`$, tuning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$ to $`30mK`$ (using $`𝐇_o^{}0.3T`$) gives a contribution $`\gamma _\varphi ^{min}1.8\times 10^5`$ from the $`Ho`$ nuclei (phonons giving a contribution $`<10^9`$ here). Some residual decoherence also comes from the ’satellite’ nuclear spins- in this context it is interesting that $`Ho^{+3}`$ ions can be prepared in hosts with almost no other nuclear spins (eg., $`CaWO_4`$, with isotopically purified $`W`$; see giraud ). Thus we can expect a reduction of $`\gamma _\varphi ^{min}`$ to very low levels, limited only by a weak phonon effect, external noise, and any spin impurities.

3. Discussion: In insulating systems where nuclear spin decoherence is suppressed by a transverse field, decoherence optimisation is well described by (10). This means having a small $`S`$, small $`E_o`$, and a ”stiff” system (high $`\theta _D`$). Surprisingly it also means low $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o`$, ie., weak magnetic anisotropy. By taking all these measures, very low values of $`\gamma _\varphi `$ can be attained.

Our results are thus good news for coherence in small nanomagnets, and magnetic qubits. In most materials a correct choice of parameters requires strong transverse fields, but in systems like $`LiHo_xY_{1x}F_4`$ with one very strong hyperfine coupling $`\omega _o^{}`$, and otherwise weak or non-existent ones, it pays to keep $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$ low (ie., not too strong fields), and to have $`kT\omega _o^{}`$ (to suppress thermal nuclear spin noise).

For genuinely macroscopic superpositions of magnetic states, the result (10) is not such good news. Although one may stave off decoherence for large $`S`$ by isotopic purification of nuclear spins, our $`Ni`$ example shows this tactic reaches its limit once $`S10^510^6`$.

So far experiments on nanomagnets have concentrated on field ranges where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o<E_o`$, and so incoherent tunneling is observed- any experiments on, eg., $`Fe`$-8 in the range $`|𝐇_o^{}|34T`$ would be of great interest. In almost all experiments so far, on molecules or rare earth ions, collective tunneling caused by inter-spin dipolar interactions complicate the interpretation aeppli ; giraud ; ghosh02 . A clean observation of coherence, with a measurement of $`\gamma _\varphi `$, will thus involve manipulation at microwave frequencies, on a properly isolated single system.

We thank G.A. Sawatzky for useful discussions, and NSERC, the CIAR, and grant number NS-1767.2003.2 in Russia, for support.


text:
# 1. Construction de 𝐺₃₁

## 1. Construction de $`G_{31}`$

1.A. Puissance extérieure deuxième d’un espace de dimension $`4`$. Soit $`V`$ un espace vectoriel complexe de dimension $`4`$. Nous fixons une fois pour toutes un générateur $`\epsilon `$ de $`^4V`$. Le choix de ce générateur nous permet d’identifier $`^4V`$ avec $``$ et donc de construire une forme bilinéaire

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \beta _{}:& ^2V\times ^2V& & \\ & (x,y)& & xy.\end{array}$$

Il est immédiat que $`\beta _{}`$ est symétrique et non dégénérée.

Nous notons $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(^2V)`$, $`ggg`$. C’est un morphisme de groupes algébriques. On a

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.1}\mathbf{)}`$
$$Ker\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{Id_V,Id_V\}.$$

Le noyau de $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ sera noté $`Z`$ dans la suite. D’autre part, si $`g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ et si $`x`$, $`y^2V`$, alors

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.2}\mathbf{)}`$
$$det\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)=(detg)^3$$

et

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.3}\mathbf{)}`$
$$\beta _{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)(x),\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)(y))=(detg)\beta _{}(x,y).$$

La dernière égalité est simplement une autre écriture de la définition du déterminant. Les égalités $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.2}\mathbf{)}`$ et $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.3}\mathbf{)}`$ montrent que l’image de $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(V)`$ est contenue dans $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(^2V,\beta _{})`$. En fait, pour des raisons de dimension et de connexité, on a

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(V))=\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(\stackrel{2}{}V,\beta _{}).$$

Par conséquent, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ induit un isomorphisme de groupes algébriques

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.4}\mathbf{)}`$
$$\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(V)/\{Id_V,Id_V\}\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(\stackrel{2}{}V,\beta _{}).$$

Remarque 1.5 -  L’isomorphisme $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.4}\mathbf{)}`$ explique l’égalité des diagrammes de Dynkin de type $`A_3`$ et $`D_3`$. Il montre aussi que $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(V)\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(^2V,\beta _{})`$, c’est-à-dire que $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}_4()\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}_6()`$$`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

Remarque 1.6 -  Soit $`\psi ^{}`$ une forme bilinéaire alternée non dégénérée sur $`V`$. On peut voir $`\psi ^{}`$ comme un élément de $`^2V^{}`$. Or, $`^2V^{}(^2V)^{}`$ et $`\beta _{}`$ induit un isomorphisme $`(^2V)^{}^2V`$. Notons $`\psi `$ l’élément de $`^2V`$ correspondant à $`\psi ^{}`$ via ces isomorphismes. Alors $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(V,\psi ^{})`$ stabilise $`\psi `$, donc stabilise $`\psi ^{}`$ (l’orthogonal pour la forme bilinéaire symétrique $`\beta _{}`$). On obtient donc un morphisme de groupes algébriques $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}:\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(V,\psi ^{})\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(\psi ^{},\beta _{})`$. On a $`Ker\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=Ker\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ et $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ est surjectif pour des raisons de dimension et de connexité. On a donc construit un isomorphisme de groupes algébriques

$$\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(V,\psi ^{})/\{Id_V,Id_V\}\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(\psi ^{},\beta _{}).$$

Cet isomorphisme explique l’égalité des diagrammes de Dynkin de type $`B_2`$ et $`C_2`$ et montre que $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(V,\psi ^{})\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(\psi ^{},\beta _{})`$, c’est-à-dire que $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩}_4()\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}_5()`$$`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

1.B. Groupes de Weyl de type $`B_6`$ et $`D_6`$ sur $`^2V`$. Nous fixons maintenant une base orthonormale $`=(\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3,\epsilon _4,\epsilon _5,\epsilon _6)`$ de $`^2V`$. Nous notons $`𝐓`$ le groupe des automorphismes de l’espace vectoriel $`^2V`$ dont la matrice dans la base $``$ est diagonale. Quand nous écrirons un élément de $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(^2V)`$ sous forme matricielle, il sera sous-entendu que c’est relativement à la base $``$. Nous identifions le groupe $`𝔖_6`$ avec le sous-groupe de $`𝐎(^2V,\beta _{})`$ des permutations des éléments de la base $``$. Notons que $`𝔖_6`$ normalise $`𝐓`$ et que l’application

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \gamma :& 𝐓𝔖_6& & ^\times \\ & t\sigma & & dett\end{array}$$

est un morphisme de groupes algébriques. On note

$$\pi :𝐓𝔖_6𝔖_6$$

la projection canonique. Posons maintenant

$`W_6`$ $`=`$ $`𝐎({\displaystyle \stackrel{2}{}}V,\beta _{})(𝐓𝔖_6),`$
$`W_6^+`$ $`=`$ $`W_6Ker(det),`$
$`W_6^{}`$ $`=`$ $`W_6Ker\gamma ,`$
$`𝒲_6`$ $`=`$ $`<W_6^+,iId_{^2V}>`$
$`\mathrm{et}𝒲_6^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒲_6Ker\gamma .`$
Ici, $`i`$ désigne un nombre complexe tel que $`i^2=1`$. Alors $`W_6`$ (respectivement $`W_6^{}`$) est un groupe de Weyl de type $`B_6`$ (respectivement $`D_6`$). On pose maintenant

$$A_6=W_6𝐓=\{diag(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6)𝐓|1k6,a_k^2=1\}$$

$`\mathrm{et}`$
$$A_6^{}=W_6^{}A_6=\{diag(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6)A_6|a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5a_6=1\}.$$

Alors $`A_6(/2)^6`$ et $`A_6^{}(/2)^5`$. On vérifie facilement le résultat suivant :

(1.7)  $`A_6^{}`$ est engendré par $`([\sigma ,a])_{\sigma 𝔄_6,aA_6^{}}`$.

Il découle de 1 que $`D(D(W_6))=D(W_6)=A_6^{}𝔄_6`$. D’autre part, on a

$$A_6^{}=W_6^+A_6=𝒲_6A_6=𝒲_6^{}A_6=D(W_6)A_6$$

et on a des suites exactes

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.8}\mathbf{)}`$
$$1A_6W_6\stackrel{\pi }{}𝔖_61,$$

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.9}\mathbf{)}`$
$$1A_6^{}W_6^{}\stackrel{\pi }{}𝔖_61,$$

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.10}\mathbf{)}`$
$$1A_6^{}W_6^+\stackrel{\pi }{}𝔖_61,$$

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.11}\mathbf{)}`$
$$1𝒲_6𝐓𝒲_6\stackrel{\pi }{}𝔖_61,$$

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.12}\mathbf{)}`$
$$1A_6^{}𝒲_6^{}\stackrel{\pi }{}𝔖_61$$

et

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.13}\mathbf{)}`$
$$1A_6^{}D(W_6)\stackrel{\pi }{}𝔄_61.$$

Par conséquent, on a

$$D(W_6)=D(W_6^{})=D(W_6^+)=D(𝒲_6)=D(𝒲_6^{})=W_6^{}W_6^+,$$

$$|W_6|=|𝒲_6|=46080=2^6.6!=2^{10}.3^2.5$$

$`\mathrm{et}`$
$$|W_6^{}|=|W_6^+|=|𝒲_6^{}|=23040=2^5.6!=2^9.3^2.5.$$

Lemme 1.14. Le groupe $`D(W_6)`$ est un sous-groupe irréductible de $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(^2V)`$.

###### Démonstration.

Supposons trouvé un sous-espace vectoriel $`V^{}`$ non trivial de $`^2V`$ qui est stable par $`D(W_6)`$. Par semi-simplicité, on peut supposer que $`dimV^{}3`$. Puisque $`V^{}`$ est stable sous l’action de $`𝔄_6`$, on a $`V^{}=(\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2+\epsilon _3+\epsilon _4+\epsilon _5+\epsilon _6)`$. Mais $`diag(1,\mathrm{1,1,1,1,1})A_6^{}`$ ne stabilise alors pas $`V^{}`$, ce qui est contraire à l’hypothèse. $`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

Lemme 1.15. Soit $`H`$ un sous-groupe distingué de $`W_6^{}`$ (respectivement $`W_6^+`$, respectivement $`𝒲_6^{}`$) tel que $`\pi (H)=𝔖_6`$. Alors $`H`$ est égal à $`W_6^{}`$ (respectivement $`W_6^+`$, respectivement $`𝒲_6^{}`$).

###### Démonstration.

Il nous suffit de montrer que $`A_6^{}H`$. Si $`\sigma 𝔖_6`$, on note $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ un élément de $`H`$ tel que $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{\sigma })=\sigma `$. Si $`aA_6^{}`$, alors $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }a\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^1=\sigma a\sigma ^1`$. D’autre part, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }a\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^1a^1=[\sigma ,a]H`$ car $`H`$ est distingué. Le résultat découle alors de 1$`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

1.C. Une définition de $`G_{31}`$. Notons $`\sqrt{\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}}(V)`$ le sous-groupe de $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ formé des éléments de déterminant $`1`$ ou $`1`$ et posons $`\mathrm{𝐢𝐒𝐎}(V,\beta _{})=<\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(V,\beta _{}),iId_{^2V}>`$. Il est alors clair que $`\sqrt{\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}}(V)=<\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(V),\zeta Id_V>`$ (où $`\zeta ^\times `$ est une racine primitive huitième de l’unité). Par conséquent,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\mathrm{𝐢𝐒𝐎}(\stackrel{2}{}V,\beta _{}))=\sqrt{\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}}(V)\mathrm{et}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\sqrt{\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}}(V))=\mathrm{𝐢𝐒𝐎}(\stackrel{2}{}V,\beta _{}).$$

Nous posons la définition suivante :

$`G_{31}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(𝒲_6^{})`$

Alors $`G_{31}`$ est un sous-groupe de $`\sqrt{\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}}(V)`$ car $`𝒲_6^{}\mathrm{𝐢𝐒𝐎}(V,\beta _{})`$. Avant de construire un ensemble de réflexions engendrant $`G_{31}`$, nous énonçons un résultat qui nous sera utile :

Lemme 1.16. Soit $`G`$ un sous-groupe de $`G_{31}`$ tel que $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=𝒲_6^{}`$. Alors $`G=G_{31}`$.

###### Démonstration.

On a $`Id_{^2V}𝒲_6^{}`$. Donc au moins l’un des éléments $`iId_V`$ ou $`iId_V`$ appartient à $`G`$. Donc $`Id_V=(iId_V)^2=(iId_V)^2G`$. Par conséquent, $`G=G_{31}`$$`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

Notons $`\mu _0`$ l’élément de $`W_6^+`$ dont la matrice dans la base $``$ est

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right).$$

On note $`M`$ la classe de conjugaison de $`\mu _0`$ dans $`W_6^+`$. Notons que $`\mu _0`$ et $`\mu _0`$ sont conjugués dans $`W_6`$ mais ne le sont pas dans $`W_6^+`$ : en effet, on a

$$\mu _0=t_0\mu _0t_0^1,$$

$`t_0=diag(1,\mathrm{1,1},\mathrm{1,1},1)W_6^+`$ et un calcul élémentaire donne que $`C_{W_6}(\mu _0)W_6^+`$. Cela montre que la classe de conjugaison de $`\mu _0`$ dans $`W_6`$ est la réunion disjointe de $`M`$ et $`M`$.

Si $`\mu M`$, alors le polynôme caractéristique de $`\mu `$ est $`(Xi)^3(X+i)^3`$. Par suite, le polynôme caractéristique de $`i\mu `$ est $`(X1)^3(X+1)^3`$. Donc $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\{i\mu ,i\mu \})=\{\stackrel{~}{\mu },i\stackrel{~}{\mu },\stackrel{~}{\mu },i\stackrel{~}{\mu }\}`$$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ est une réflexion. Or, $`i\mu `$ et $`i\mu `$ appartiennent à $`𝒲_6^{}`$ donc $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }G_{31}`$. On pose $`\stackrel{~}{M}=\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }|\mu M\}`$ ; $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ est un ensemble de réflexions de $`G_{31}`$.

Par la suite, on supposera que $`i`$ est choisi de sorte que $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(i\mu _0)=\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0\}`$.

Lemme 1.17. Si $`\mu M`$, alors $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(i\mu )=\{\stackrel{~}{\mu },\stackrel{~}{\mu }\}`$. De plus, $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ est une classe de conjugaison de $`G_{31}`$.

###### Démonstration.

Soit $`\mu M`$. Puisque $`\mu `$ et $`\mu _0`$ sont conjugués dans $`W_6^+`$ et puisque $`\mu _0D(W_6)`$, il existe $`wD(W_6)`$ tel que $`\mu =w\mu _0w^1`$. De plus, $`D(W_6)𝒲_6^{}`$, donc il existe $`gG_{31}`$ tel que $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)=w`$. Par suite, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0g^1)=wi\mu _0w^1=i\mu `$. Puisque $`g\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0g^1`$ est une réflexion, on en déduit que $`g\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0g^1=\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$. Donc $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(i\mu )=\{\stackrel{~}{\mu },\stackrel{~}{\mu }\}`$ et $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ est bien une classe de conjugaison dans $`G_{31}`$$`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

Théorème 1.18. Le groupe $`G_{31}`$ est un sous-groupe de réflexion complexe irréductible d’ordre $`46080`$ de $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$. On a $`G_{31}=<\stackrel{~}{M}>`$.

###### Démonstration.

Tout d’abord $`G_{31}`$ est irréductible car son image $`𝒲_6^{}`$ est un sous-groupe irréductible de $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(^2V)`$ d’après le lemme 1. D’autre part, $`|G_{31}|=2|𝒲_6^{}|=|W_6|`$.

Notons $`G`$ le sous-groupe de $`G_{31}`$ engendré par $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Alors $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$ est le sous-groupe de $`𝒲_6^{}`$ engendré par $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{M})`$. Or, d’après le lemme 1, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{M})`$ est une classe de conjugaison de $`𝒲_6^{}`$. Donc $`G`$ un sous-groupe distingué de $`𝒲_6^{}`$. D’autre part, $`\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(G))`$ est un sous-groupe distingué de $`𝔖_6`$ contenant $`\pi (\mu _0)=(\mathrm{1,2})(\mathrm{3,4})(\mathrm{5,6})`$. Donc $`\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(G))=𝔖_6`$. Il résulte du lemme 1 que $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=𝒲_6^{}`$. Donc, d’après le lemme 1, on a $`G=G_{31}`$$`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

Le théorème 1 montre que le groupe $`G_{31}`$ est bien le groupe de réflexion complexe noté $`G_{31}`$ dans la classification de Shephard et Todd \[ST\].

## 2. Quelques propriétés du groupe $`G_{31}`$

Nous allons ici établir quelques propriétés bien connues du groupe $`G_{31}`$ (groupe dérivé, centre, $`2`$-sous-groupes distingués, nombre minimal de réflexions engendrant $`G_{31}`$) en utilisant simplement les propriétés du groupe $`𝒲_6^{}`$. Dans cette section, nous noterons $`\rho `$ la matrice

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right).$$

Alors $`\rho W_6^+`$ et $`\gamma (\rho )=1`$. Donc

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.1}\mathbf{)}`$
$$i\rho 𝒲_6^{}\mathrm{et}Tr(i\rho )=2i.$$

2.A. Scission des suites exactes. Nous allons ici essentiellement étudier les suites exactes $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.8}\mathbf{)}`$ à $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.13}\mathbf{)}`$. Nous allons notamment déterminer si elles sont scindées ou non. Nous aurons besoin pour cela du résultat élémentaire suivant :

Lemme 2.2. Soit $`f:𝔖_6𝐓𝔖_6`$ un morphisme de groupes tel que $`\pi f=Id_{𝔖_6}`$. Alors $`f(𝔖_6)Ker\gamma `$.

###### Démonstration.

Notons $`c=(\mathrm{1,2,3,4,5,6})𝔖_6`$. Si $`(t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4,t_5,t_6)(^\times )^6`$, alors

$$cdiag(t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4,t_5,t_6)c^1=diag(t_6,t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4,t_5).$$

Écrivons

$$f(c)=diag(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6)c$$

avec $`(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6)(^\times )^6`$. Puisque $`f(c)^6=Id_{^2V}`$, on a $`a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5a_6=1`$. Donc $`f(c)Ker\gamma `$. Par conséquent, $`f(c^{})Ker\gamma `$ pour tout cycle $`c^{}`$ de longueur $`6`$. Donc $`f(𝔖_6)Ker\gamma `$$`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

Pour la suite de cet article, nous n’aurons besoin que des résultats de la proposition suivante concernant les groupes $`W_6^{}`$ et $`𝒲_6^{}`$. Nous énonçons cependant les autres par souci d’exhaustivité.

Proposition 2.3. $`(\mathrm{a})`$ Les suites $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.8}\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.9}\mathbf{)}`$ et $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.13}\mathbf{)}`$ sont scindées grâce aux inclusions $`𝔖_6W_6^{}W_6`$ et $`𝔄_6D(W_6)`$.

$`(\mathrm{b})`$ La suite exacte

$$1A_6^{}/Z(𝒲_6^{})𝒲_6^{}/Z(𝒲_6^{})𝔖_61$$

n’est pas scindée. Les groupes $`𝒲_6^{}/Z(𝒲_6^{})`$ et $`W_6^{}/Z(W_6^{})`$ ne sont pas isomorphes.

$`(\mathrm{c})`$ Les suites exactes $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.10}\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.11}\mathbf{)}`$ et $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.12}\mathbf{)}`$ ne sont pas scindées.

$`(\mathrm{d})`$ Les groupes $`W_6`$ et $`𝒲_6`$ ne sont pas isomorphes.

$`(\mathrm{e})`$ Les groupes $`𝒲_6^{}`$ et $`W_6^{}`$ ne sont pas isomorphes.

$`(\mathrm{f})`$ Les groupes $`W_6^+`$ et $`W_6^{}`$ ne sont pas isomorphes.

Remarque -  Bien qu’ils ne soient pas isomorphes, un calcul avec GAP montre que les groupes $`W_6^{}/Z(W_6^{})`$ et $`𝒲_6^{}/Z(𝒲_6^{})`$ ont la même table de caractères. En revanche, les groupes $`W_6^{}`$ et $`𝒲_6^{}`$ ont tous deux $`37`$ classes de conjugaison mais n’ont pas la même table de caractères : celle de $`𝒲_6^{}`$ contient des valeurs irrationnelles comme le montre $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.1}\mathbf{)}`$.

Pour finir, toujours d’après GAP, les groupes $`W_6^+`$ et $`𝒲_6^{}`$ ne sont pas isomorphes. $`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

###### Démonstration.

(a) est évident.

$`(\mathrm{b})`$ Compte tenu du (a) et du fait que $`A_6^{}=O_2(𝒲_6^{})=O_2(W_6^{})`$, les deux assertions sont équivalentes. Nous allons montrer que la suite exacte n’est pas scindée.

Supposons-là scindée. Alors il existe deux éléments $`g`$ et $`h`$ dans $`𝒲_6^{}`$ tels que

> $`(\alpha )`$ $`\pi (g)=(\mathrm{1,2,3,4})`$ et $`\pi (h)=(\mathrm{5,6})`$.
>
> $`(\beta )`$ $`h^2Z(𝒲_6^{})`$.
>
> $`(\gamma )`$ $`[g,h]Z(𝒲_6^{})`$.

D’après $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.1}\mathbf{)}`$ et $`(\alpha )`$, il existe $`aA_6^{}`$ tel que $`h=ia\rho `$. Donc, d’après $`(\beta )`$, on a $`a=diag(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,b,b)`$ avec $`a_1^2=a_2^2=a_3^2=a_4^2=b^2=a_1a_2a_3a_4=1`$. D’autre part, d’après $`(\alpha )`$, il existe $`a^{}A_6^{}`$ tel que $`g=ia^{}\sigma `$, où

$$\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccc}0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right).$$

Si on pose $`a^{}=diag(a_1^{},a_2^{},a_3^{},a_4^{},a_5^{},a_6^{})`$, alors

$$[g,h]=diag(a_1a_4,a_1a_2,a_2a_3,a_3a_4,a_5^{}a_6^{},a_5^{}a_6^{}).$$

Donc, d’après $`(\gamma )`$, on a $`a_1a_4=a_2a_3`$, et donc $`a_1a_2a_3a_4=1`$, ce qui est impossible.

$`(\mathrm{c})`$ D’après (b), la suite $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.12}\mathbf{)}`$ n’est pas scindée. Puisque $`W_6^+𝒲_6`$, il ne reste plus qu’à montrer que la suite $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.11}\mathbf{)}`$ n’est pas scindée. Supposons qu’elle est scindée. Notons $`f:𝔖_6𝒲_6`$ une section du morphisme $`\pi `$. D’après le lemme 2, $`f(𝔖_6)Ker\gamma `$. Donc $`f(𝔖_6)𝒲_6^{}`$. En d’autres termes, la suite $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.12}\mathbf{)}`$ est scindée, ce qui n’est pas possible.

$`(\mathrm{d})`$ D’après le lemme 1, le centre de $`𝒲_6`$ est d’ordre $`4`$ tandis que celui de $`W_6`$ est d’ordre $`2`$.

$`(\mathrm{e})`$ et (f) découlent immédiatement de (a), (c) et (d). $`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

2.B. Structure du groupe $`G_{31}`$. La proposition suivante se déduit des propriétés du groupe $`𝒲_6^{}`$ démontrées précédemment.

Proposition 2.4. $`(\mathrm{a})`$ $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ est l’unique classe de conjugaison de $`G_{31}`$ formée de réflexions.

$`(\mathrm{b})`$ $`D(G_{31})=G_{31}\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(V)`$ et $`|G_{31}/D(G_{31})|=2`$.

$`(\mathrm{c})`$ $`Z(G_{31})=<iId_V>`$ et $`Z(G_{31})D(G_{31})`$.

$`(\mathrm{d})`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ induit un isomorphisme $`D(G_{31})/ZD(W_6)`$.

$`(\mathrm{e})`$ $`O_2(G_{31})=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(A_6^{})D(G_{31})`$ est non abélien et $`O_2(G_{31})/ZA_6^{}(/2)^5`$.

$`(\mathrm{f})`$ Les $`2`$-sous-groupes distingués de $`G_{31}`$ sont $`\{1\}`$, $`Z`$, $`Z(G_{31})`$ et $`O_2(G_{31})`$.

$`(\mathrm{g})`$ Les suites exactes

$`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}`$
ne sont pas scindées.

$`(\mathrm{h})`$ Les groupes $`G_{31}/Z(G_{31})`$ et $`W_6^{}/Z(W_6^{})`$ ne sont pas isomorphes.

Remarque -  Dans \[BMR, table 3\], il est annoncé que les groupes $`G_{31}/Z(G_{31})`$ et $`W_6^{}/Z(W_6^{})`$ ne sont pas isomorphes (ce qui est exactement le (h) de la proposition 2 ci-dessus). En revanche, toujours dans \[BMR, table 3\], il est dit que la première suite exacte du (g) est scindée : ce n’est pas vrai comme le prouve l’argument ci-dessous (et comme peuvent le montrer aussi des calculs effectués avec GAP). $`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

###### Démonstration.

(a) Soit $`sG_{31}`$ une réflexion. Alors $`i\mathrm{\Lambda }(s)W_6^+`$ a pour polynôme caractéristique $`(Xi)^3(X+i)^3`$. Or, les seuls éléments de $`W_6^+`$ dont le polynôme caractéristique est $`(Xi)^3(X+i)^3`$ sont les conjugués sous $`W_6`$ de $`\mu _0`$. Donc $`i\mathrm{\Lambda }(s)=\epsilon \mu `$ avec $`\epsilon \{1,1\}`$ et $`\mu M`$. Donc $`s=\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ car $`s`$ est une réflexion.

$`(\mathrm{b})`$ D’après (a), $`G_{31}`$ est engendré par une classe de conjugaison d’éléments d’ordre $`2`$ donc $`|G_{31}/D(G_{31})|2`$. Mais $`D(G_{31})`$ est contenu dans $`G_{31}\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(V)`$ et ce dernier est d’indice $`2`$ dans $`G_{31}`$. D’où le résultat.

$`(\mathrm{c})`$ découle de (b) et du fait que $`G_{31}`$ est irréductible sur $`V`$ (voir theorème 1).

$`(\mathrm{d})`$ Il suffit de remarquer que $`ZD(G_{31})`$, ce qui résulte de (b).

$`(\mathrm{e})`$ Le fait que $`O_2(G_{31})=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(A_6^{})`$ et que $`O_2(G_{31})/ZA_6^{}`$ résulte de ce que $`O_2(𝒲_6^{})=A_6^{}`$ car $`O_2(𝔖_6)=1`$. Le fait que $`O_2(G_{31})D(G_{31})`$ découle alors du (b). Il nous reste à montrer que $`O_2(G_{31})`$ n’est pas abélien.

Le nombre minimal de générateurs de $`O_2(G_{31})`$ est $`5`$ car $`O_2(G_{31})/ZA_6^{}(/2)^5`$. Or, un groupe abélien dont le nombre minimal de générateurs est $`5`$ n’admet pas de représentation fidèle de dimension $`4`$. Donc $`O_2(G_{31})`$ n’est pas abélien.

$`(\mathrm{f})`$ Soit $`H`$ un $`2`$-sous-groupe distingué de $`G_{31}`$ différent de $`\{1\}`$, $`Z`$ et $`O_2(G_{31})`$. Alors $`ZH`$ et, en appliquant le morphisme $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, on obtient que $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(H)`$ est un $`2`$-sous-groupe non trivial de $`A_6^{}`$ stable par l’action de $`𝔖_6`$. Donc $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(H)=\{Id_{^2V},Id_{^2V}\}`$, ce qui montre que $`H=Z(G_{31})`$.

$`(\mathrm{g})`$ Il est clair que la première suite est exacte. Le fait qu’elle est non scindée découle de la proposition 2 (b). Il en résulte immédiatement que la deuxième suite exacte n’est pas scindée.

$`(\mathrm{h})`$ Puisque $`G_{31}/Z(G_{31})=𝒲_6^{}/Z(𝒲_6^{})`$, le résultat découle de la proposition 2 (b). $`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

2.C. Engendrement par $`5`$ réflexions. La proposition suivante précise le lemme 1.

Proposition 2.5. Si $`G`$ est un sous-groupe de $`G_{31}`$, alors les assertions suivantes sont équivalentes :

$`(1)`$ $`G_{31}=G`$.

$`(2)`$ $`𝒲_6^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$.

$`(3)`$ $`𝔖_6=\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(G))`$.

###### Démonstration.

L’équivalence entre (1) et (2) découle du lemme 1. Il est clair que (1) implique (3). Montrons que (3) implique (1). On suppose donc que $`𝔖_6=\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(G))`$. On pose $`A=O_2(G_{31})G`$ et $`A^{}=AZ`$.

Puisque $`ZA^{}`$ et $`O_2(G_{31})/Z`$ est abélien, $`A^{}`$ est distingué dans $`O_2(G_{31})`$. D’autre part, il est normalisé par $`G`$. Donc il est distingué dans $`G_{31}`$. Donc, d’après la proposition 2 (f), on a $`A^{}=Z`$, $`Z(G_{31})`$ ou $`O_2(G_{31})`$. Si $`A^{}=Z`$ ou $`Z(G_{31})`$, alors la première suite exacte de la proposition 2 (g) serait scindée, ce qui est impossible. Donc $`A^{}=O_2(G_{31})`$. Par conséquent, $`G.Z=GA^{}=G_{31}`$ et donc $`G=G_{31}`$ d’après le lemme 1$`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 2.6. Le groupe $`G_{31}`$ est engendré par $`5`$ réflexions mais ne peut pas être engendré par $`4`$ réflexions.

###### Démonstration.

Nous noterons $`\tau :𝔖_6𝔖_6`$ un automorphisme non intérieur de $`𝔖_6`$. Par construction, $`\pi (M)=\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{M}))`$ est la classe de conjugaison de $`𝔖_6`$ formée des produits de trois transpositions à supports disjoints. Par conséquent, $`\tau (\pi (M))`$ est la classe de conjugaison de $`𝔖_6`$ formé des transpositions (c’est-à-dire des réflexions).

Si $`1j5`$, on pose $`s_j=(j,j+1)`$ et $`w_j=(1,j)(2,j+1)`$, ce qui implique que $`s_j=w_js_1w_j^1`$. Posons maintenant $`\mu _j=\tau ^1(w_j)\mu _0\tau ^1(w_j)^1`$. Alors $`\pi (\mu _j)=\tau ^1(s_j)`$ et donc $`𝔖_6=<\pi (\mu _1),\pi (\mu _2),\pi (\mu _3),\pi (\mu _4),\pi (\mu _5)>`$. Par conséquent, d’après la proposition 2, on a $`G_{31}=<\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_3,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_4,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_5>`$. Cela montre la première assertion.

Montrons la deuxième. Soit $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ un ensemble de réflexions qui engendrent $`G_{31}`$. Alors $`\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{S}))`$ engendre $`𝔖_6`$ et donc $`\tau (\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{S})))`$ engendre $`𝔖_6`$. Or il est bien connu que $`𝔖_6`$ ne peut pas être engendré par $`4`$ transpositions (en effet, un sous-groupe de $`𝔖_6`$ engendré par $`4`$ transpositions ne peut pas être transitif sur l’ensemble $`\{\mathrm{1,2,3,4,5,6}\}`$). Donc $`|\stackrel{~}{S}|5`$$`\mathrm{SS}\mathrm{}`$