MHB Simple Grammar Problem: Is "a" or "the" Ideal in Lie Algebra?

  • Thread starter Thread starter topsquark
  • Start date Start date
topsquark
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
MHB
Messages
2,020
Reaction score
843
My slight confusion here is probably a simple grammatical problem.

Let h and k be ideals of a Lie algebra g.
Now let h be a maximal solvable ideal (i.e.one enclosed in no larger solvable ideal) of g. If k is any other solvable ideal, then so is h + k, and thus the maximality requirement implies h + k = h and hence [math]k \subseteq h[/math].
My question is about the "a." I'm thinking that it should be "the." Aren't all ideals subalgebras of the maximal ideal?

Also: How do you pronounce "Lie?" Is it "lee" or "lye?"

-Dan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
topsquark said:
...Also: How do you pronounce "Lie?" Is it "lee" or "lye?"

-Dan

It is "lee":

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Lie_algebra.html
 
Hi,

There is only one maximal solvable ideal, but the "a" fits better than a "the", because the uniqueness is proved after you have choose the maximal solvable ideal. (Sometimes I'm too demanding, huh?(Wondering)).

This ideal is also called the radical of the Lie algebra g (It will probably appear just after this proof if you have read it on a book.)
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi,

There is only one maximal solvable ideal, but the "a" fits better than a "the", because the uniqueness is proved after you have choose the maximal solvable ideal. (Sometimes I'm too demanding, huh?(Wondering)).

This ideal is also called the radical of the Lie algebra g (It will probably appear just after this proof if you have read it on a book.)
It's a good point. And yes, the text did immediately then show uniqueness. I didn't consider the logical order there since I already knew the maximal solvable ideal was unique.

Thanks!

-Dan
 
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 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
764
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K