MHB Understanding the Role of Abelian Cartan Subalgebras in Simple Lie Algebras

  • Thread starter Thread starter topsquark
  • Start date Start date
topsquark
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
MHB
Messages
2,020
Reaction score
843
Say we have a simple Lie Algebra, and let's use A1: [math] [H, E^{\pm} ] = \pm 2 E^{\pm}[/math] and [math] [E^+, E^- ][/math] as an example. My text seems to be telling me that we can write this in a decomposition: [math] \{ H \} \oplus g[/math] as H is an (Abelian) Cartan subalgebra of A1.

My question is this: [math]E^{\pm}[/math] can individually be taken as Abelian Cartan subalgebras as well. That would make A1 isomorphic to [math]\{ H \} \oplus \{ E^+ \} \oplus \{ E^- \}[/math], which clearly isn't correct. How do we know to single out H for special treatment?

-Dan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Okay. I finally finished my little project and I just can't see where the text is getting this. A1 (or [math]SL(2, \mathbb{C} )[/math], whichever you please, is clearly a simple Lie Algebra, not a semi-simple one. The text is working with a Cartan Weyl basis, Cartan matrix, root system, etc, all properties of a semi-simple Algebra as if A1 were semi-simple. After a long slog of picky details I finished working out a general basis for A1 and have finally proved that A1 is not isomorphic to the direct sum of a Cartan subalgebra and its other generators, and thus is not semi-simple.

So am I not understanding something (and going half-mad) or is the text wrong to do this?

-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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K