- Commit
- 7121a171332d9b0b4e03b770b39786ebbfc9c2ee
- Parent
- d310eab2ea34c3b2e1de91689d21d108440a64f4
- Author
- Pablo <pablo-escobar@riseup.net>
- Date
Added notes on the proof of Cartan's criterium for semisimplicity
Source code for my notes on representations of semisimple Lie algebras and Olivier Mathieu's classification of simple weight modules
Added notes on the proof of Cartan's criterium for semisimplicity
1 file changed, 21 insertions, 6 deletions
Status | File Name | N° Changes | Insertions | Deletions |
Modified | sections/complete-reducibility.tex | 27 | 21 | 6 |
diff --git a/sections/complete-reducibility.tex b/sections/complete-reducibility.tex @@ -303,16 +303,16 @@ Z \in \mathfrak{gl}_n(K)\). In fact this same identity show\dots \end{lemma} The reason why we are disccussing invariant bilinear forms is the following -characterization of finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebras. +characterization of finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebras, known as +\emph{Cartan's criterium for semisimplicity}. -% TODO: Prove this \begin{proposition} Let \(\mathfrak{g}\) be a Lie algebra. The following statements are equivalent. \begin{enumerate} \item \(\mathfrak{g}\) is semisimple. - \item For each finite-dimensional representation \(V\) of \(\mathfrak{g}\), - the \(\mathfrak{g}\)-invariant bilinear form + \item For each non-trivial finite-dimensional representation \(V\) of + \(\mathfrak{g}\), the \(\mathfrak{g}\)-invariant bilinear form \begin{align*} B_V : \mathfrak{g} \times \mathfrak{g} & \to K \\ (X, Y) & @@ -325,8 +325,23 @@ characterization of finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebras. \end{enumerate} \end{proposition} -We refer the reader for \cite[ch. 5]{humphreys} for a proof of this last -result. Without further ado, we may proceed to our\dots +This proof is somewhat techinical, but the idea behind it is simple. First, for +\strong{(i)} \(\implies\) \strong{(ii)} we show that \(\mathfrak{a} = \{ X \in +\mathfrak{g} : B_V(X, Y) = 0 \, \forall Y \in \mathfrak{g}\}\) is a solvable +ideal of \(\mathfrak{g}\). Hence \(\mathfrak{a} = 0\). For \strong{(ii)} +\(\implies\) \strong{(iii)} it suffices to take \(V = \mathfrak{g}\) the +adjoint representation. Finally, for \strong{(iii)} \(\implies\) \strong{(i)} +we note that the orthogonal complement of any \(\mathfrak{a} \normal +\mathfrak{g}\) with respect to the Killing form \(B\) is an ideal +\(\mathfrak{b}\) of \(\mathfrak{g}\) with \(\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{a} \oplus +\mathfrak{b}\). Furtheremore, the Killing form of \(\mathfrak{a}\) is the +restriction \(B\!\restriction_{\mathfrak{a}}\) of the Killing form of +\(\mathfrak{g}\) to \(\mathfrak{a} \times \mathfrak{a}\), which is +non-degenerate. It then follows from induction in \(\dim \mathfrak{a}\) that +\(\mathfrak{g}\) is the sum of simple ideals. + +We refer the reader to \cite[ch. 5]{humphreys} for a complete proof. Without +further ado, we may proceed to our\dots \section{Proof of Complete Reducibility}