2019
DOI: 10.1007/s00209-019-02301-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Splendid Morita equivalences for principal 2-blocks with dihedral defect groups

Abstract: Given a dihedral 2-group P of order at least 8, we classify the splendid Morita equivalence classes of principal 2-blocks with defect groups isomorphic to P . To this end we construct explicit stable equivalences of Morita type induced by specific Scott modules using Brauer indecomposability and gluing methods; we then determine when these stable equivalences are actually Morita equivalences, and hence automatically splendid Morita equivalences. Finally, we compute the generalised decomposition numbers in each… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Theorem 2.1 ([CEKL11] and [KL17]). Let G be an arbitrary finite group with a dihedral Sylow 2-subgroup P = D 2 n of order 2 n with n ≥ 2.…”
Section: Preliminariesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Theorem 2.1 ([CEKL11] and [KL17]). Let G be an arbitrary finite group with a dihedral Sylow 2-subgroup P = D 2 n of order 2 n with n ≥ 2.…”
Section: Preliminariesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [KL17] the proof of the statements for n ≥ 3 partly relies on the Brauer indecomposability of the Scott module Sc(G × H, ∆P ) inducing the splendid Morita equivalence. Passing to generalised quaternion Sylow 2-subgroup we won't need to use arguments involving Brauer indecomposability, however we note that the other way around a Scott module realising a splendid Morita equivalence is necessarily Brauer indecomposable.…”
Section: Preliminariesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These theorems in a sense generalize [11][12][13][14], and there are results on Brauer indecomposability of Scott modules also in [15,21]. Notation 1.3.…”
Section: Introduction and Notationmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…We claim here that By (13), the Mackey formula and (15), (∆Q) )(k) = Ind C C∩N ∆P (∆Q) (k) = Ind C C ∆P (∆Q) (k). Hence, by noting that C P (Q) = P 0 by the assumption (I), we have (16) Res…”
Section: Case (I)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, (14) and (16), so that X | Ind C ∆P 0 (k). So, let us restrict these kC-modules to P 0 × P 0 .…”
Section: Case (I)mentioning
confidence: 99%