MHB What is the Definition of a Derivation for a Lie Algebra?

topsquark
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
MHB
Messages
2,020
Reaction score
843
Loosely speaking a derivation D is defined as a function on an algebra A that has the property D(ab) = (Da)b + a(Db).

Now, if we define the map [math]ad_x: y \mapsto [x,y] [/math] and apply this to the Jacobi identity we get [math]ad_x[y,z] = [ ad_x(y),z ] + [ y, ad_x(z) ] [/math]. This does not look quite like the definition of the derivation given above. It is considered a derivation because of the ordering inside the brackets? Or does is this simply the definition of a derivation for a Lie algebra?

Ooh! Wait a minute. The brackets are there because multiplication in the Lie algebra is given by [math] [,]: L \times L \mapsto L[/math]? (My notes are not clear that this is to represent multiplication.)

-Dan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
topsquark said:
Loosely speaking a derivation D is defined as a function on an algebra A that has the property D(ab) = (Da)b + a(Db).

Now, if we define the map [math]ad_x: y \mapsto [x,y] [/math] and apply this to the Jacobi identity we get [math]ad_x[y,z] = [ ad_x(y),z ] + [ y, ad_x(z) ] [/math]. This does not look quite like the definition of the derivation given above. It is considered a derivation because of the ordering inside the brackets? Or does is this simply the definition of a derivation for a Lie algebra?

Ooh! Wait a minute. The brackets are there because multiplication in the Lie algebra is given by [math] [,]: L \times L \mapsto L[/math]? (My notes are not clear that this is to represent multiplication.)

-Dan

Hi Dan,

It is common to use brackets to represent multiplication in a Lie algebra. The identity you have above for $ad_x$ shows that $ad_x$ is a derivation.

Here's something to keep in mind. Suppose $A$ is an associative algebra. Define $[x, y]$ to be the additive commutator $xy - yx$. Then $[x, x] = 0$ for all $x\in A$ and Jacobi's identity is satisfied with $[\, ,\,]$. So $[\, ,\,]$ is a Lie bracket on $A$, and $(A, [\, ,\,])$ is a Lie algebra. This gives a connection between associative algebras and Lie algebras.
 
Thank you for the reply. I didn't think of it until later but this explains the notations in some of the more arcane set of proofs in my QFT texts.

One further question. The definition of a Lie group on set L gives a multiplicative operation [math]m: L \times L \to L[/math]. Does this imply a unique form of [,] in the Lie algebra or can we have more than one Lie algebra corresponding to a given Lie group?

-Dan

Edit:
This gives a connection between associative algebras and Lie algebras.

There are non-associative algebras??
 
topsquark said:
Thank you for the reply. I didn't think of it until later but this explains the notations in some of the more arcane set of proofs in my QFT texts.

One further question. The definition of a Lie group on set L gives a multiplicative operation [math]m: L \times L \to L[/math].

What do you mean by a "Lie group on set L"?

topsquark said:
There are non-associative algebras??

Yes. Here's one that you'll be familiar with. Consider $\Bbb R^3$ with multiplication defined by the cross product. This defines an algebra over $\Bbb R$. Let $\textbf{u} = (2, 3, 1)$, $\textbf{v} = (1, 0, 2)$, and $\textbf{w} = (0, 0, 1)$. Then $\textbf{u} \times (\textbf{v} \times \textbf{w}) = (2, 3, 1) \times (0, -1, 0) = (1, 0, -2)$ and $(\textbf{u} \times \textbf{v}) \times \textbf{w} = (6,-3,-3) \times (0,0,1) = (-3,-6,0)$. Therefore, $\textbf{u} \times (\textbf{v} \times \textbf{w}) \neq (\textbf{u} \times \textbf{v}) \times \textbf{w}$. Geometrically speaking, the cross products $\textbf{u} \times (\textbf{v} \times \textbf{w})$ and $(\textbf{u} \times \textbf{v}) \times \textbf{w}$ lie in different planes in general, so they are usually not equal.

To every algebra $A$ there corresponds a (multilinear) ternary operation $[\cdot, \cdot, \cdot] : A \times A \times A \to A$, called the $\textit{associator}$, defined by $[x,y,z] = (xy)z - x(yz)$. Of course, the associator of $A$ is trivial if and only if $A$ is associative. Make sure not to assume algebras are associative in your texts unless mentioned otherwise.
 
Euge said:
What do you mean by a "Lie group on set L"?
Sorry. It was a badly worded question anyway but apparently I was so set on assuming that a Lie algebra was created from a Lie group that I didn't see that the definition says that a Lie algebra is created from a vector space. Please ignore the question.

-Dan
 
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...
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
428
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top