Semi-Simple Lie Algebra Representations

lion8172
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to prove that any representation of a semisimple Lie algebra can be uniquely decomposed into irreducible representations.

I have seen some sketches of proofs that show that any representation \phi of a semisimple Lie algebra which acts on a finite-dimensional complex vector space V is completely reducible (i.e. V = V_1 \oplus V_2 \oplus \cdots \oplus V_k, such that the restriction of \phi to each V_i is irreducible). But how do we know that this decomposition is unique?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You show that in two decompositions

V\cong \oplus V_i \cong W_j

that one of the summands V_r is isomorphic to one W_s, wlog V_1 and W_1, then use induction on V/V_1.
 
question

So two representations \phi and \phi ' for \mathfrak{g} are said to be equivalent if there is an isomorphism E between the underlying vector spaces such that E \phi (X) = \phi' (X) E, \forall X \in \mathfrak{g}. How do we know that the restriction of a representation to a given V_i above is equivalent to a restriction of that representation to a given W_i?
Note that, by irreducible, I mean a vector space with no invariant subspaces under the given representation (except zero and itself).
 
Last edited:
The identity map on V restricts to the identity map on V_1. This must then factor through one of the W_i, wlog W_1, hence V_1 is isomorphic to W_1.
 
Could you be a little more explicit?
Note that I'm trying to prove this for an arbitrary representation.
 
I know what you're trying to do; I was explicit; where do you see me do something not for an arbitrary representation? You want to show that V_1 is isomorphic to W_1 (after reordering the indices of the W_i). That is what I did.

1. You want to find an isomrphism from V_1 to W_1, that is maps f,g such that gf= Id on V_1 and fg=Id on W_1. That is the definition of isomorphism.

2. Consider Id on V. This maps \oplus V_i to \oplus W_j, and back again.

3. Look at V_1 mapping under Id to \oplus W_j.

4. The image must lie in at least one of the W_j. WLOG W_1.

5. So we have a map, Id restricted to V_1, call it f, that maps to W_1.

6. Call Id restricted to W_1 g.

7. What is gf? It is Id on V_1.

I really can't be any more explicit. In fact that is precisely what I wrote before.
 
##\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...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top