A question about simple Weyl reflections

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter naima
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Weyl
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the properties of simple Weyl reflections as described in Belinte's book on Lie algebras. Specifically, it confirms that for distinct indices i and j, the relationship w_i l_j = l_j holds true, while w_i l_i = l_i - α_i, where α_i represents the simple root. The Dynkin indices of reflected weights are expressed as m'_i = m_i - A_ij m_j, establishing a clear connection between the original and reflected weights. The conversation emphasizes the importance of defining mathematical terms for clarity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lie algebras and their structures
  • Familiarity with Weyl reflections and their properties
  • Knowledge of Dynkin diagrams and indices
  • Basic concepts of root systems in algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definitions and properties of simple Weyl reflections in detail
  • Explore the relationship between Dynkin indices and reflected weights
  • Review Belinte's book on Lie algebras for deeper insights
  • Investigate the mathematical implications of root systems and their applications
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying Lie algebras and representation theory, particularly those interested in the properties of Weyl reflections and their applications in theoretical physics.

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).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K