Are all root systems defined with respect to a bilinear form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Root Systems
jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
When root system is defined on some vector space V, the definition uses numbers

<br /> \langle x,y\rangle = 2\frac{(x,y)}{\|y\|^2},\quad x,y\in V<br />

where (\cdot,\cdot) is the inner product. This number is handy, because a reflection of vector y with respect to a hyper plane orthogonal to x is given by

<br /> y\mapsto y - \langle y,x\rangle x.<br />

This all makes sense, but when the root system is defined in context of Lie algebras, I'm getting a bit lost with notations. When \mathfrak{g} is some semisimple Lie group, and \mathfrak{h} is a Cartan subalgebra, the roots are linear forms \gamma\in\mathfrak{h}^*. Since the Killing form is nondegenerate, for each root \gamma there exists a vector h_{\lambda}\in\mathfrak{h} so that \gamma(x)=(h_{\gamma},x), where (\cdot,\cdot) is the Killing form. This is then used to define a bilinear form onto \mathfrak{h}^* by setting (\gamma_1,\gamma_2)=(h_{\gamma_1},h_{\gamma_2}). However, this does not define an inner product, so the numbers \langle \gamma_1, \gamma_2\rangle don't seem to have an interpretation with reflections now.

Have I now understood something incorrectly, or is it the case that root systems are always defined with respect to some bilinear form, which is not necessarily an inner product?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\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...
Back
Top