A Proving Cartan Subalgebra $\mathbb{K} H$ is Self-Normalizer

HDB1
Messages
77
Reaction score
7
TL;DR
Cartan subalgebra
Please, How we can solve this:

$$
\mathfrak{h}=\mathbb{K} H \text { is a Cartan subalgebra of } \mathfrak{s l}_2 \text {. }
$$

it is abelian, but how we can prove it is self-normalizer, please:Dear @fresh_42 , if you could help, :heart: 🥹
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As always: start with what we have.

The normalizer of ##H\in \mathfrak{sl}(2)## is given as ##\{X\in \mathfrak{sl}(2)\,|\,[X,\mathbb{K}H]\subseteq \mathbb{K}H\}.## Now set ##X=eE+hH+fF## and calculate
$$
[X,H]=[eE+hH+fF,H] \in \mathbb{K}\cdot H
$$
This gives you conditions for ##e## and ##f## and so for the form of ##X.##
 
fresh_42 said:
As always: start with what we have.

The normalizer of ##H\in \mathfrak{sl}(2)## is given as ##\{X\in \mathfrak{sl}(2)\,|\,[X,\mathbb{K}H]\subseteq \mathbb{K}H\}.## Now set ##X=eE+hH+fF## and calculate
$$
[X,H]=[eE+hH+fF,H] \in \mathbb{K}\cdot H
$$
This gives you conditions for ##e## and ##f## and so for the form of ##X.##
Thank you so much @fresh_42, please, is ##\mathbb{K}{H}## is the only cartan algebra in ##\mathfrak{sl}{2}##, and does the characteristic of the field matter here?
I wonder why we chose ##\mathbb{K}{H}##? Thank you in advance, I have to find other words to thank you, :heart:
 
HDB1 said:
Thank you so much @fresh_42, please, is ##\mathbb{K}{H}## is the only cartan algebra in ##\mathfrak{sl}{2}##,...
Yes. It is the only CSA ( ... according to that basis; a different basis means a different representation. But ##E,H,F## is the standard basis, and ##\mathfrak{K}H## the standard CSA.
HDB1 said:
... and does the characteristic of the field matter here?
I don't think so, but as always: keep away from characteristic ##2##. I'm not quite sure how they are defined over characteristic ##2## fields.

HDB1 said:
I wonder why we chose ##\mathbb{K}{H}##?
##\mathbb{K}H## is only the linear span, hence the entire subalgebra. We do not choose ##H##. The procedure is as follows:

a) ##\mathfrak{sl}(2)## is not nilpotent, so it's no CSA of itself.
b) ##\mathfrak{sl}(2)## posseses no two-dimensional nilpotent subalgebras. Its two-dimensional subalgebras are solvable, but not nilpotent.
c) So any CSA of ##\mathfrak{sl}(2)## has to be one-dimensional.
d) ##\mathfrak{K}\cdot H## is a one-dimensional CSA of ##\mathfrak{sl}(2).##

That's fine since it suffices for all our purposes. You could assume another one-dimensional CSA of ##\mathfrak{sl}(2),## say ##\mathfrak{K}\cdot (eE+fF+hH).## Maybe there is a solution with ##e\neq 0## or ##f\neq 0.## You could calculate whether this is possible or not, but with regard to chapter 15.3, it doesn't really make sense to search for another one if the first one, ##\mathbb{K}\cdot H##, is so convenient. It will be just another basis in the end that has a more complicated multiplication table.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear, @fresh_42 , Thank for the clarification, but , please, I could not read the last comment, Thanks in advance, :heart:
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
764
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K