How to Prove Semisimplicity in Classical Linear Lie-Algebras?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CompuChip
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exercises
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the semisimplicity of classical linear Lie-algebras, specifically focusing on the relationship between the radical and the center of the algebra. The original poster outlines their attempts to establish that if the radical equals the center, then the algebra is semisimple, and they seek guidance on how to approach this proof.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to prove that Rad L = Z(L) for classical linear Lie-algebras, questioning the properties that may aid in this proof. They also explore the implications of this relationship for the complete reducibility of representations. Some participants question the definition of 'classical' in this context, while others discuss specific properties of the Lie-algebras involved.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications and definitions, while the original poster has made progress on one of the problems. However, the remaining problem still lacks a clear resolution, and various interpretations and approaches are being explored without explicit consensus.

Contextual Notes

The original poster notes that the proof they are attempting does not hold in general and expresses uncertainty about the common properties of classical linear Lie-algebras that could assist in their proof.

CompuChip
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
4,305
Reaction score
49
[SOLVED] Exercises on Lie-algebras

I'm doing some homework on Lie-algebra's, and there are several things I am missing. Let me list them below in one thread.
  1. The statement is "If L is a classical linear Lie-algebra, then L is semisimple." I have reduced this to proving Rad L [itex]\subseteq[/itex] Z(L) -- then I have that Rad L = Z(L), so L is reductive and I can use an earlier result to conclude that Rad L = 0 so L is semisimple. But I don't know how to show this. Since what I need to prove does not hold in general, I should plug in some (common) property of classical linear Lie-algebras, but I can't really think of anything useful here... any ideas?
  2. Finally, I am required to prove that If any Lie-algebra L satisfies Rad L = Z(L), then all finite-dimensional representations of L in which Z(L) is represented by semisimple endomorphisms are completely reducible (Humphreys' book on Introduction to Lie-algebras and Representation theory, exercise 6.5d). So I took such a representation and found that I can simultaneously diagonalize all elements in the center, but I don't really see how this will give me any information on the reducibility of the entire representation.

I know that I haven't really posted a lot of work, but I did try to reduce the problem to the points I'm really stuck at. I obviously don't expect a fully worked answer, but I'd really appreciate some hints or general steps to solve these problems. Thanks you very much!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I solved and removed one of the problems. The other two remain, so any responses are welcome!
 
What is your definition of 'classical'?
 
They are [tex]\mathfrak{sl}(\ell, \mathsf{F}}, \mathfrak{sp}(2\ell, \mathsf{F}}[/tex] and [tex]\mathfrak{o}(\ell, \mathsf{F}}[/tex] for a field [itex]\mathsf{F}[/itex], that is:
  • [tex]\mathsf{A}_\ell[/tex], the special linear algebra of traceless endomorphisms of an (l+1)-dimensional vector space
  • [tex]\mathsf{B}_\ell[/tex], the orthogonal algebra of all endomorphisms x of a (2l + 1)-dimensional vector space which satisfy f(x(v), w) = -f(v, x(w)) for the bilinear form f whose matrix is [tex]\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & I_\ell \\ 0 & I_\ell & 0 \end{pmatrix}[/tex].
  • [tex]\mathsf{C}_\ell[/tex], the symplectic algebra of all endomorphisms x of a (2l)-dimensional vector space which satisfy f(x(v), w) = -f(v, x(w)) for the bilinear form f whose matrix is [tex]\begin{pmatrix} 0 & I_\ell \\ -I_\ell & 0 \end{pmatrix}[/tex].
  • [tex]\mathsf{D}_{\ell \ge 2}[/tex], the orthogonal algebra which is constructed similarly as [tex]\mathsf{B}_\ell[/tex] but with [tex]s = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & I_\ell \\ I_\ell & 0 \end{pmatrix}[/tex].

Actually, I don't see any common property of these algebra's, except that we had to prove once that they all satisfy L = [L, L] so I thought I'd use that. But that doesn't really help (e.g. I tried proving that [Rad L, L] = 0 using the Jacobi identity but that just got me 0 = 0. I also tried dividing out something, like Rad L or Z(L) or maybe even Z(L) from Rad(L), but that didn't give anything useful either).
 
Last edited:
OK, so I have solved #1 as well, basically by looking at the proof in a set of course notes online, and I must admit it is non-trivial (I would never have thought of it myself, and I wasn't even close.)

As for the remaining problem, I have reduced it to showing that the
[tex]V_\lambda = \{ v \in V | \phi(z) v = \lambda(z) v \}[/tex]
is completely reducible, where vector space V is the module, phi is the representation as in the question, and lambda runs over the linear forms on Z(L).

Woot, 400th post. That's fast.[/size]

[edit]OK, this was as good as trivial. Of course, the eigenspaces V_\lambda are all one-dimensional, so the proof is as good as finished.
Thanks for responding anyway matt.
Still in time for the deadline tomorrow :smile:
[/edit]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K