How do we prove that a nonzero nilpotent Lie algebra has a nontrivial center?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around proving that a nonzero nilpotent Lie algebra has a nontrivial center, as stated in a proposition from J. E. Humphreys' book. Participants explore the definitions and implications of nilpotency and its relationship to the center of the Lie algebra, along with related concepts such as solvability.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants discuss the definition of nilpotent Lie algebras, noting that a Lie algebra ##\mathfrak{g}## is nilpotent if there exists an integer ##n## such that ##\mathfrak{g}^n=0##.
  • There is a suggestion that if ##\mathfrak{g}^n=0##, then there exists a vector ##x \in \mathfrak{g}^{n-1} \backslash \{0\}##, which may imply that ##x## is in the center, leading to the conclusion that ##Z(\mathfrak{g}) \neq 0##.
  • One participant raises a question about the relationship between the nilpotency of the quotient ##\mathfrak{g} / Z(\mathfrak{g})## and the nilpotency of ##\mathfrak{g}## itself, seeking clarification on how to prove this implication.
  • Another participant inquires about proving that every nilpotent Lie algebra is solvable, noting that the converse does not hold, as exemplified by upper triangular matrices.
  • There is a mention of a proof strategy involving induction to show that if the derived series of a Lie algebra reaches zero, then the algebra is nilpotent.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints and questions regarding the implications of nilpotency and solvability, indicating that there is no consensus on the proofs or relationships discussed. Multiple competing views remain on how to approach the proofs and the implications of the definitions.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions involve assumptions about the properties of nilpotent and solvable Lie algebras, as well as the definitions of derived series and centers, which may not be fully resolved within the thread.

HDB1
Messages
77
Reaction score
7
Please, in the book of Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory J. E. Humphreys p.12, I have a question:

Proposition. (3.2)
. Let ##L## be a Lie algebra.

(c) If ##L## is nilpotent and nonzero, then ##Z(L) \neq 0##.

how we prove this,

Thanks in advance,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dear @fresh_42 , if you could help, I would appreciate that, :heart:🥹
 
Let's start a little tutoring so that you get used to these calculations. Start with what you have.

##L## is nilpotent. Means what?
 
if ##
\mathfrak{g}^0=\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{g}^1=[\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{g}], \mathfrak{g}^2=\left[\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{g}^1\right], \ldots, \mathfrak{g}^i=\left[\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{g}^{i-1}\right]
##
A Lie algebra ##\mathfrak{g}## is called a nilpotent if ##\mathfrak{g}^n=0##,
 
HDB1 said:
if ##
\mathfrak{g}^0=\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{g}^1=[\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{g}], \mathfrak{g}^2=\left[\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{g}^1\right], \ldots, \mathfrak{g}^i=\left[\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{g}^{i-1}\right]
##
A Lie algebra ##\mathfrak{g}## is called a nilpotent if ##\mathfrak{g}^n=0##,
Yes. And that means if we write it out
$$
[\mathfrak{g},\underbrace{[\mathfrak{g},[\mathfrak{g},[\mathfrak{g},[\ldots[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]\ldots ]]]]}_{=:\mathfrak{g}^{n-1}}]=0
$$
If we pick the smallest ##n## such that ##g^{n}=0## then ##g^{n-1}\neq 0## and we can pick a vector ##x\in \mathfrak{g}^{n-1}\backslash \{0\}.##

What can we say about ##x##?
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: HDB1
fresh_42 said:
Yes. And that means if we write it out
$$
[\mathfrak{g},\underbrace{[\mathfrak{g},[\mathfrak{g},[\mathfrak{g},[\ldots[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]\ldots ]]]]}_{=:\mathfrak{g}^{n-1}}]=0
$$
If we pick the smallest ##n## such that ##g^{n}=0## then ##g^{n-1}\neq 0## and we can pick a vector ##x\in \mathfrak{g}^{n-1}\backslash \{0\}.##

What can we say about ##x##?
##x## will be in the centre, means ##Z(g)\neq 0##?

thanks a lot, :heart:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42 and malawi_glenn
Please, @fresh_42 , what is about this :
If ##\mathfrak{g} / Z(\mathfrak{g})## is nilpotent, then ##\mathfrak{g}## is nilpotent .
I know the idea, but how we can move from to ##\mathfrak{g} / Z(\mathfrak{g})## to ##\mathfrak{g}## to prove it is nilpotent,

Thanks in advance, :heart:
 
Please, @fresh_42 , in general how we can prove that every nilpotent is solvable?

the opposite direction is not true, because the upper triangular matrix is nilpotent but not solvable.

Thanks in advance, :heart:
 
HDB1 said:
Please, @fresh_42 , what is about this :
If ##\mathfrak{g} / Z(\mathfrak{g})## is nilpotent, then ##\mathfrak{g}## is nilpotent .
I know the idea, but how we can move from to ##\mathfrak{g} / Z(\mathfrak{g})## to ##\mathfrak{g}## to prove it is nilpotent,

Thanks in advance, :heart:
This is again about the quotient's multiplication rules. We have that ##\mathfrak{g} / Z(\mathfrak{g})## is nilpotent, so ##\left(\mathfrak{g} / Z(\mathfrak{g})\right)^n=\{\bar 0\}.## So what is ##\bar 0 \in \mathfrak{g}/Z(\mathfrak{g})##? It is the set ##\bar 0 =0+ Z(\mathfrak{g})=Z(\mathfrak{g}).## We also have
$$
[\mathfrak{g}/Z(\mathfrak{g})\, , \,\mathfrak{g}/Z(\mathfrak{g})]=[\mathfrak{g}\, , \,\mathfrak{g}]+Z(\mathfrak{g})
$$
This means that ##0+Z(\mathfrak{g})=\bar 0=\left(\mathfrak{g} / Z(\mathfrak{g})\right)^n= \mathfrak{g}^n+ Z(\mathfrak{g})## or in other words ##\mathfrak{g}^n\subseteq Z(\mathfrak{g}).## But if ##\mathfrak{g}^n## is in the center of ##\mathfrak{g}## then
$$
\mathfrak{g}^{n+1} =[\mathfrak{g}\, , \,\mathfrak{g}^n]\subseteq [\mathfrak{g}\, , \,Z(\mathfrak{g}^n)]=\{0\}
$$
and ##\mathfrak{g}## is nilpotent.
 
  • #10
HDB1 said:
Please, @fresh_42 , in general how we can prove that every nilpotent is solvable?

the opposite direction is not true, because the upper triangular matrix is nilpotent but not solvable.

Thanks in advance, :heart:
We prove that ##L^{(n)}\subseteq L^{n}.## If the RHS gets zero (nilpotency) for some ##n## so does the LHS (solvability).

The proof is formally by induction.
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: HDB1

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K