A question about simple Weyl reflections

  • Thread starter Thread starter naima
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Weyl
naima
Gold Member
Messages
936
Reaction score
54
I am readin Belinte's book about Lie algebras (I have also the Cahn) .
And I try to understand this. He writes

"Each basic weight is invariant under all but one of the simple Weyl reflections since w_i l_j = l_j for i<>j while w_i l_i = l_i - alpha_i
(alpha_i is simple by definition of simple reflections). Hence th Dynkin indices m' of the reflected weights w_j mu are related to the indices m_i of mu by m'_i = m_i - A_ij m_j"

Could you, please, tell me how to prove that w_i l_j = l_j for i<>j
thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the future it would be helpful if you defined all your terms. I had to google the phrase "Each basic weight is invariant under all but one" to find the book you're reading just so I could understand what it is you're asking.

Anyway, this pretty much follows right from the definition of w_i: $$w_i \lambda_j = \lambda_j - 2\frac{\langle \alpha_i, \lambda_j \rangle}{\langle \alpha_i, \alpha_i \rangle} \alpha_i = \lambda_j - \delta_{ij} \alpha_i. $$
 
Great.

Thank you Morphism.

Being more often on the physics forums, I sometimes ignore what are the terms to be specified in mathematics.
You were very efficient (and useful).
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top