PDA

View Full Version : This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 233)


John Baez
May21-06, 04:00 AM
Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week233.html

May 20, 2006
This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 233)
John Baez

On Tuesday I'm supposed to talk with Lee Smolin about an idea he's
been working on with Fotini Markopoulou and Sundance Bilson-Thompson.
This idea relates the elementary particles in one generation of the
Standard Model to certain 3-strand framed braids:

1) Sundance O. Bilson-Thompson, A topological model of composite preons,
available as hep-ph/0503213.

2) Sundance O. Bilson-Thompson, Fotini Markopoulou, and Lee Smolin,
Quantum gravity and the Standard Model, hep-th/0603022.

It's a very speculative idea: they've found some interesting relations,
but nobody knows if these are coincidental or not.

Luckily, one of my hobbies is collecting mysterious relationships between
basic mathematical objects and trying to figure out what's going on.
So, I already happen to know a bunch of weird facts about 3-strand braids.
I figure I'll tell Smolin about this stuff. But if you don't mind, I'll
practice on you!

So, today I'll try to tell a story connecting the 3-strand braid group,
the trefoil knot, rational tangles, the groups SL(2,Z) and PSL(2,Z),
conformal field theory, and Monstrous Moonshine.

I've talked about some of these things before, but now I'll introduce
some new puzzle pieces, which come from two places:

3) Imre Tuba and Hans Wenzl, Representations of the braid
group B_3 and of SL(2,Z), available as math.RT/9912013.

4) Terry Gannon, The algebraic meaning of genus-zero, available as
math.NT/0512248.

You could call it "a tale of two groups".

On the one hand, the 3-strand braid group has generators

| | |
\ / |
A = / |
/ \ |
| | |

and

| | |
| \ /
B = | /
| / \
| | |

and the only relation is

ABA = BAB

otherwise known as the "third Reidemeister move":

| | | | | |
\ / | | \ /
/ | | /
/ \ | | / \
| \ / \ / |
| / = / |
| / \ / \ |
\ / | | \ /
/ | | /
/ \ | | / \

On other hand, the group SL(2,Z) consists of 2x2 integer matrices
with determinant 1. It's important in number theory, complex analysis,
string theory and other branches of pure mathematics. I've described
some of its charms in "week125", "week229" and elsewhere.

These groups look pretty different at first. But, there's a
homomorphism from B_3 onto SL(2,Z)! It goes like this:

1 1
A |->
0 1


1 0
B |->
-1 1

Both these matrices describe "shears" in the plane. You may enjoy
drawing these shears and visualizing the equation ABA = BAB in these
terms. I did.

I would like to understand this better... and here are some clues.

The center of B_3 is generated by the element (AB)^3. This
element corresponds to a "full twist". In other words, it's
the braid you get by hanging 3 strings from the ceiling, grabbing
them all with one hand at the bottom, and giving them a full 360-degree
twist:

| | |
\ / |
/ | A
/ \ |
| \ /
| / B
| / \
\ / |
/ | A
/ \ |
| \ /
| / B
| / \
\ / |
/ | A
/ \ |
| \ /
| / B
| / \
| | |

This full twist gets sent to -1 in SL(2,Z):

-1 0
(AB)^3 |->
0 -1

So, the double twist gets sent to the identity:

1 0
(AB)^6 |->
0 1

In fact, Tuba and Wenzl say the double twist *generates* the kernel
of our homomorphism from B_3 to SL(2,Z). So, SL(2,Z) is isomorphic
to the group of 3-strand braids modulo double twists!

This reminds me of spinors... since you have to twist an electron
around *twice* to get its wavefunction back to where it started.
And indeed, SL(2,Z) is a subgroup of SL(2,C), which is the double
cover of the Lorentz group. So, 3-strand braids indeed act on the
state space of a spin-1/2 particle, with double twists acting
trivially!

(For more on this, check out Trautman's work on "Pythagorean spinors"
in "week196". There's also a version where we use integers mod 7,
described in "week219".)

If instead we take 3-strand braids modulo full twists, we get the
so-called "modular group":

PSL(2,Z) = SL(2,Z)/{+-1}

Now, SL(2,Z) is famous for being the "mapping class group" of the torus -
that is, the group of orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms, modulo
diffeomorphisms connected to the identity. Similary, PSL(2,Z) is famous
for acting on the rational numbers together with a point at infinity
by means of fractional linear transformations:

az + b
z |-> -------
cz + d

where a,b,c,d are integers and ad-bc = 1. The group PSL(2,Z) also
acts on certain 2-stand tangles called "rational tangles". In
"week229", I told a nice story I heard from Michael Hutchings,
explaining how these three facts fit together in a neat package.

But now let's combine those facts with the stuff I just said!
Since PSL(2,Z) acts on rational tangles, and there's a homomorphism
from B_3 to PSL(2,Z), 3-strand braids must act on rational tangles.
How does that go?

There's an obvious guess, or two, or three, or four, but let's just
work it out.

I just said that the 3-strand braid A gets mapped to this shear:

1 1
A |->
0 1

In "week229" I said what this shear does to a rational tangle.
It gives it a 180 degree twist at the bottom, like this:

| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
------- -------
| T | |----> | T |
------- -------
| | \ /
| | /
| | / \

Next, Tuba and Wenzl point out that

0 1
ABA = BAB |->
-1 0

which is a quarter turn. From "week229" you can see how this quarter
turn acts on a rational tangle:

| | | |
| | ____ | |
| | / \ | |
------- | ------- |
| T | |----> | | T | |
------- | ------- |
| | | | \____/
| | | |
| | | |

It gives it a quarter turn!

From these facts, we can figure out what the braid B does to a
rational tangle. So, let me do the calculation.

Scribble, scribble, curse and scribble.... Eureka!

Since we know what A does, and what ABA does, we can figure out
what B must do. But, to make the answer look cute, I needed a
sneaky fact about rational tangles, which is that A *also* acts
like this:

| | \ /
| | /
| | / \
------- -------
| T | |----> | T |
------- -------
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |

This is proved in Goldman and Kauffman's paper cited in "week228".
With the help of this, I can show B acts like this:

| | | |
| | | ___ |
| | | / \ |
------- | / -------
| T | |----> \ | T |
------- / \ -------
| | | \___/ |
| | | |
| | | |

And this is *great*! It means our action of 3-strand braids on
rational tangles is really easy to describe. Just take your tangle
and let the upper left strand dangle down:

|
____ |
/ \ |
| -------
| | T |
| -------
| | |
| | |
| | |

To let a 3-strand braid act on this, just attach it to the bottom of
the picture!

(That's why there were *four* obvious guesses about this would work:
one can easily imagine four variations on this trick, depending on
which strand is the "odd man out" - here it's the upper right. It's
just a matter of convention which we use, but my conventions give this.)

In fact, even the group of 4-strand braids acts on rational tangles in
an obvious way, but the 3-strand braid group is enough for now.

Let me summarize. The 3-strand braid group B_3 acts on rational tangles
in an obvious way. The subgroup that acts trivially is precisely the
center of B_3, generated by the full twist. Using stuff from "week230",
it follows that the quotient of B_3 by its center acts on the projectivized
rational homology of the torus. We thus get a topological explanation
of why B_3 mod its center is PSL(2,Z).

But there's more.

For starters, the 3-strand braid group is also the fundamental group of
R^3 minus the trefoil knot!

And, R^3 minus the trefoil knot is secretly the same as SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z)!

In fact, Terry Gannon writes that the 3-strand braid group can be regarded
as "the universal central extension of the modular group, and the universal
symmetry of its modular forms". I'm not completely sure what that means,
but here's *part* of what it means.

Just as PSL(2,C) is the Lorentz group in 4d spacetime, PSL(2,R) is the
Lorentz group in 3d spacetime. This group has a double cover SL(2,R),
which shows up when you study spinors. But, it also has a universal
cover, which shows up when you study anyons. The universal cover has
infinitely many sheets. And up in this universal cover, sitting over
the subgroup SL(2,Z), we get... the 3-strand braid group!

In math jargon, we have this commutative diagram:


B_3 --------> SL(2,Z) --------> PSL(2,Z)

| | |
| | |
| | |
v v v

SL(2,R)~ -----> SL(2,R) ---------> SO_0(2,1)

Here SL(2,R)~ is the universal cover of SL(2,R). This universal cover
is related to something called the Maslov index.

Gannon believes that number theorists should think about all this stuff,
since he thinks it's lurking behind that weird network of ideas called
Monstrous Moonshine (see "week66").

And here's the basic reason why. I'll try to get this right....

Any rational conformal field theory has a "chiral algebra" A which acts
on the left-moving states. Mathematicians call this sort of thing a
"vertex operator algebra". A representation of this on some vector
space V is a space of states for the circle in some "sector" of our
theory. Let's pick some state v in V. Then we can define a
"one-point function" where we take a Riemann surface with little
disk cut out and insert this state on the boundary. This is a number,
essentially the amplitude for a string in the give state to evolve like
this Riemann surface says.

In fact, instead of chopping out a little disk it's nice to just
remove a point - a "puncture", they call it. But, we get an ambiguous
answer unless we pick coordinates at this point, or in the lingo of
complex analysis, a choice of "uniforming parameter". Then our
one-point function becomes a function on the moduli space of Riemann
surfaces equipped with a puncture and a choice of uniformizing parameter.

If we didn't have this uniformizing parameter to worry about, we'd
just have the moduli space of tori equipped with a marked point,
which is nothing but the usual moduli space of elliptic curves,

H/PSL(2,Z)

where H is the complex upper halfplane. Then our one-point function
would have nice transformation properties under PSL(2,Z).

But, with this uniformizing parameter to worry about, our one-point
function only has nice transformation properties under B_3. This
is somehow supposed to be related to how B_3 is the "universal
central extension" of PSL(2,Z): in conformal field theory, all sorts
of naive symmetries hold only up to a phase, so you have to replace
various groups by central extensions thereof... and here that's what's
happening to PSL(2,Z)!

That last paragraph was pretty vague. If I'm going to understand this
better, either someone has to help me or I've got to read something
like this:

5) Y. Zhu, Modular invariance of characters of vertex operator algebras,
J. Amer. Math. Soc 9 (1996), 237-302. Also available at
http://www.ams.org/jams/1996-9-01/S0894-0347-96-00182-8/home.html

But I shouldn't need any conformal field theory to see how the moduli
space of punctured tori with uniformizing parameter is related to the
3-strand braid group! I bet this moduli space is X/B_3 for some space
X, or something like that. There's something simple at the bottom of
all this, I'm sure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous issues of "This Week's Finds" and other expository articles on
mathematics and physics, as well as some of my research papers, can be
obtained at

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/

For a table of contents of all the issues of This Week's Finds, try

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twfcontents.html

A simple jumping-off point to the old issues is available at

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twfshort.html

If you just want the latest issue, go to

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/this.week.html

John Eristu
May22-06, 04:00 AM
I found this article very interesting, partly because I did some work on the
PSL(2,Z). The region H/PSL(2,Z) where H is the upper half plane, is referred
to as the 'Fundamental Region' of PSL(2,Z). There are intriguing geometrical
properties of the Fundamental Region, and I personally view it as a
Visualization Tool for the way PSL(2,Z) acts upon H.

I will read some more on your other references and get back to you. In the
meantime, I refer to a simple case where a subgroup of PSL(2,Z) is used to
analyze the Scattering Amplitude of a 2-2 scattering using the analyticity
properties of the amplitude in the complex plane. See the reference below.

"Unified treatment: analyticity, Regge trajectories, Veneziano amplitude,
fundamental regions and Moebius transformations", Euro Physics Journal, C29,
59-64, 2003.

Let me know what you think, if you have some ideas on next steps. Thanks in
advance.


"John Baez" <baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu> wrote in message
news:e4om3u$ejt$1@bigbang.richmond.edu...
>
> Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week233.html
>
> May 20, 2006
> This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 233)
> John Baez

Daniel Moskovich
May24-06, 04:00 AM
> And, R^3 minus the trefoil knot is secretly the same as SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z)!

This is actually incredibly interesting for me- what is a reference for
this? (I couldn't find it in either cited paper, and Gannon gives no
source).
Also, how does this generalize to other twist knots? Is a cinquefoil (a
5_1 knot) secretly a quotient of algebraic groups?
This week you really outdid yourself- wonderful piece!!!

John Baez
May31-06, 04:00 AM
In article <e4q217$lnj$2@emma.aioe.org>,
John Eristu <Eristu@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I found this article very interesting, partly because I did some work on the
>PSL(2,Z). The region H/PSL(2,Z) where H is the upper half plane, is referred
>to as the 'Fundamental Region' of PSL(2,Z). There are intriguing geometrical
>properties of the Fundamental Region, and I personally view it as a
>Visualization Tool for the way PSL(2,Z) acts upon H.

Yes, it's fun stuff. I wrote a little about elliptic functions
and elliptic curves here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week13.html

Of course H/PSL(Z) is the space of all elliptic curves - or
more precisely, the "moduli space" of elliptic curves.

Later I pondered how the geometry of this space sheds light
on why bosonic string theory works best in 26 dimensions:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week125.html

>I will read some more on your other references and get back to you. In the
>meantime, I refer to a simple case where a subgroup of PSL(2,Z) is used to
>analyze the Scattering Amplitude of a 2-2 scattering using the analyticity
>properties of the amplitude in the complex plane. See the reference below.
>
>"Unified treatment: analyticity, Regge trajectories, Veneziano amplitude,
>fundamental regions and Moebius transformations", Euro Physics Journal, C29,
>59-64, 2003.
>
>Let me know what you think, if you have some ideas on next steps. Thanks in
>advance.

Alas, I'm too lazy to hike to a university, look up that journal,
and read that article. Believe it or not, the Perimeter Institute
doesn't have access to journals online. Maybe you can just summarize
the key ideas? Is this stuff the same or different than the appearance
of PSL(2,Z) in string theory? I know a bit about all the buzzwords
mentioned in the title, so you don't need to explain those.

John Baez
May31-06, 04:00 AM
In article <1148262406.418804.233710@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
Daniel Moskovich <dmoskovich@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And, R^3 minus the trefoil knot is secretly the same as SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z)!

>This is actually incredibly interesting for me- what is a reference for
>this? (I couldn't find it in either cited paper, and Gannon gives no
>source).

As usual, I gave all the references I know. I too find this fact
incredibly interesting. I first heard of it from Chris Hillman:

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-04/msg0040885.html

I feel I can *almost* prove it, but not quite.

SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z) is the space of unit-area lattices in the plane.
If we take the hexagonal lattice

* * * *

* * *

* * * *

and gradually rotate it 60 degrees, we get back to the
same lattice. So, we have traced out a certain loop A in
SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z). If we take the square lattice:

* * * *

* * * *

* * * *

and rotate it 90 degrees, we get another loop B.

I believe that these define elements of pi_1(SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z))
satisfying A^3 = B^2. This is the usual presentation for the
fundamental group of the complement of the trefoil knot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trefoil_knot

I think the loop A corresponds to going around a "meridian"
and B corresponds to going around a "longitude" - or maybe
vice versa, since I can never remember the difference between
the "meridian" and the "longitude" of a knot.

But, there should be some more direct way to see what's going on!

Since the Wikipedia article gives an analytic formula for the
trefoil knot, maybe someone come up with an analytic formula
for a diffeomorphism

f: SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z) -> R^3 - {trefoil}

Help, anyone?

Bruce Ikenaga
Jun3-06, 04:00 AM
On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:06:24 +0000, John Baez wrote:

> In article <1148262406.418804.233710@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> Daniel Moskovich <dmoskovich@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And, R^3 minus the trefoil knot is secretly the same as SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z)!
>
>>This is actually incredibly interesting for me- what is a reference for
>>this? (I couldn't find it in either cited paper, and Gannon gives no
>>source).
>
> As usual, I gave all the references I know. I too find this fact
> incredibly interesting. I first heard of it from Chris Hillman:
>
> http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-04/msg0040885.html
>
> I feel I can *almost* prove it, but not quite.
>
> SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z) is the space of unit-area lattices in the plane.
> If we take the hexagonal lattice
>
> * * * *
>
> * * *
>
> * * * *
>
> and gradually rotate it 60 degrees, we get back to the
> same lattice. So, we have traced out a certain loop A in
> SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z). If we take the square lattice:
>
> * * * *
>
> * * * *
>
> * * * *
>
> and rotate it 90 degrees, we get another loop B.
>
> I believe that these define elements of pi_1(SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z))
> satisfying A^3 = B^2. This is the usual presentation for the
> fundamental group of the complement of the trefoil knot:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trefoil_knot
>
> I think the loop A corresponds to going around a "meridian"
> and B corresponds to going around a "longitude" - or maybe
> vice versa, since I can never remember the difference between
> the "meridian" and the "longitude" of a knot.
>
> But, there should be some more direct way to see what's going on!
>
> Since the Wikipedia article gives an analytic formula for the
> trefoil knot, maybe someone come up with an analytic formula
> for a diffeomorphism
>
> f: SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z) -> R^3 - {trefoil}
>
> Help, anyone?

Quillen's proof is on pages 84-85 of Milnor's "Introduction to
Algebraic K-Theory".

Bruce Ikenaga

Daniel Moskovich
Jun3-06, 04:00 AM
In the mean time, I had a look at this with Tomotada Ohtsuki, and we
found the answer...
Basically, the easiest way to see this is to remember that the
complement of the trefoil is a Seifert fibred space with slopes 1/3 and
1/2 (M(0,1;1/2,1/3) in the notation of Hatcher-- see also Budney's
paper on the JSJ decomposition of knot complements
http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.GT/0506523). Now we prove that
SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z) is equal to this. This is a SFS over the same space by
modding out on the left by an S^{1} action, to get H^{2}/SL(2,Z), where
H^{2} is the upper half plane. We check that the slopes are correct
the way that you mentioned (A corresponds to the meridian, and B to the
longitude, by the way). So basically your proof is fine if we think of
the trefoil complement as an SFS.
But again, as you say:

> But, there should be some more direct way to see what's going on!

... because the proof we are talking about does not allow us to
directly see "braids" as elements of the fundamental group- we are
essentially viewing the braid group B_3 as a free product of Z_2 and
Z_3, rather than as a group of braids. This is unsatisfying (to me at
least).
I'm looking at this now, because I actually think I might be able to
use in in my work, so maybe I'll have more to say soon...

> Since the Wikipedia article gives an analytic formula for the
> trefoil knot, maybe someone come up with an analytic formula
> for a diffeomorphism
>
> f: SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z) -> R^3 - {trefoil}

That would be amazing really- because then we could compose with
modular forms and maybe obtain something interesting! I would also
definitely like the answer to this.

Joe Christy
Jun3-06, 04:00 AM
Vis-a-vis John's note of 05/30/2006 03:06 PM:
> In article <1148262406.418804.233710@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> Daniel Moskovich <dmoskovich@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And, R^3 minus the trefoil knot is secretly the same as SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z)!
>
>> This is actually incredibly interesting for me- what is a reference for
>> this? (I couldn't find it in either cited paper, and Gannon gives no
>> source).
>
> As usual, I gave all the references I know. I too find this fact
> incredibly interesting. I first heard of it from Chris Hillman:
>
> http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-04/msg0040885.html
>
> ...

I wouldn't be surprised if this was known to Seifert in the 30's,
though I can't lay my hands on Seifert & Threfall at the moment to
check. Likewise for Hirzebruch, Brieskorn, Pham & Milnor in the 60's in
relation to singularities of complex hypersurfaces and exotic spheres.
When I was learning topology in the 80's it was considered a warm up
case of Thurston's Geometrization Program - the trefoil knot complement
has PSL_2(R) geometric structure.

In any case, peruse Milnor's Annals of Math Studies for concrete
references. There is a (typically) elegant proof on p.84 of
"Introduction to Algebraic K-theory" [study 72], which Milnor credits to
to Quillen. It contains the missing piece of John's argument:
introducing the Weierstrass P-function and remarking that the
differential equation that it satisfies gives the diffeomorphism to
S^3-trefoil as the boundary of the pair (discriminant of diff-eq, C^2 =
(P,P')-space).
This point of view grows out of some observations of Zariski, fleshed
out in "Singular Points of Complex Hypersurfaces" [study 61]. The
geometric viewpoint is made explicit in the paper "On the Brieskorn
Manifolds M(p,q,r)" in "Knots, Groups, and 3-manifolds" [study 84].

It is also related to the intermediate case between the classical
Platonic solids and John's favorite Platonic surface - the Klein quartic
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/klein.html. By way of a hint, look to
relate the trefoil, qua torus knot, the seven-vertex triangulation of
the torus, and the dual hexagonal tiling of a (flat) Clifford torus in S^3.

Joe

--
============================= Joe Christy ==============================
------------------ http://xri.net/=joe.christy ------------------
== If I can save you any time, give it to me, I'll keep it with mine. ==

LEJ Brouwer
Jun3-06, 04:00 AM
If you refer to the work of Trayling and Baylis you should be able to
deduce a simple physical interpretation for all of this in terms of the
representations of the Clifford algebra Cl(7,1), which encodes the
symmetries of (7+1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Hope this helps.

- Sabbir.

John Baez wrote:
> Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week233.html
>
> May 20, 2006
> This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 233)
> John Baez
[...]

[ Mod. note: Snipped 400 quoted lines, please quote reasonably. -ik ]

Swiatoslaw Gal
Jun3-06, 04:00 AM
> > f: SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z) -> R^3 - {trefoil}
>
> That would be amazing really- because then we could compose with
> modular forms and maybe obtain something interesting! I would also
> definitely like the answer to this.

Not realy.
In fact the isomorphism is a part of the modular theory:

Looking for

f: Gl(2,R)/Sl(2,Z)\to C^2-{x^2=y^3}

(there is an obvious action of R_+ on both sides:
M\to tM (M\in Gl(2,R) , x\to t^6 x, y\to t^4 y,
and that the quotient is what we want).

Gl(2,R)/Sl(2,Z) is a space of lattices in C.
Such a lattice L has classical invariants
g_2(L) = 60 \sum_{z\in L'} z^{-4}, and
g_3(L) = 140 \sum_{z\in L'} z^{-6},
where L'=L-{0}

The modular theory asserts that
1. For every pain (g_2,g_3) there exist a lattice L,
such that g_2(L)=g_2, and g_3(L)=g_3 provided
(g_2/3)^2\neq g_3.
2. Such a lattice is unique.

Best,
S. R. Gal

tessel@um.bot
Jun6-06, 04:00 AM
On Tue, 30 May 2006, John Baez wrote:

>>> And, R^3 minus the trefoil knot is secretly the same as SL(2,R)/SL(2,Z)!
>
>> This is actually incredibly interesting for me- what is a reference for
>> this? (I couldn't find it in either cited paper, and Gannon gives no
>> source).
>
> As usual, I gave all the references I know. I too find this fact
> incredibly interesting. I first heard of it from Chris Hillman:
>
> http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-04/msg0040885.html

Maybe ask Graeme Segal (Math, University of Cambridge) for a citation?
This is mentioned (without further explanation) on p. 59 of "Lie Groups"
by Segal, which is comprises third of the inspiring little book

Roger Carter, Graeme Segal, Ian MacDonald
Lectures on Lie Algebras and Lie Groups
London Mathematical Society Student Texts 32
Cambridge University Press, 1995

Great stuff, BTW!

"T. Essel"