- Commit
- a9a2e0c91cfa4d0de46488591ef03da9a509a4ba
- Parent
- f1f671e0719b0533fd5bd5bbf49e92c140779321
- Author
- Pablo <pablo-escobar@riseup.net>
- Date
Merge branch 'master' into font-change
Source code for my notes on representations of semisimple Lie algebras and Olivier Mathieu's classification of simple weight modules
Merge branch 'master' into font-change
1 file changed, 37 insertions, 23 deletions
Status | File Name | N° Changes | Insertions | Deletions |
Modified | sections/semisimple-algebras.tex | 60 | 37 | 23 |
diff --git a/sections/semisimple-algebras.tex b/sections/semisimple-algebras.tex @@ -135,31 +135,40 @@ Jordan decomposition of a semisimple Lie algebra}. \begin{proposition}[Jordan] Given a finite-dimensional vector space \(V\) and an operator \(T : V \to - V\), there are unique commuting operators \(T_s, T_n : V \to V\), with - \(T_s\) diagonalizable and \(T_n\) nilpotent, such that \(T = T_s + T_n\). - The pair \((T_s, T_n)\) is known as \emph{the Jordan decomposition of \(T\)}. + V\), there are unique commuting operators \(T_{\operatorname{s}}, + T_{\operatorname{n}} : V \to V\), with \(T_{\operatorname{s}}\) + diagonalizable and \(T_{\operatorname{n}}\) nilpotent, such that \(T = + T_{\operatorname{s}} + T_{\operatorname{n}}\). The pair + \((T_{\operatorname{s}}, T_{\operatorname{n}})\) is known as \emph{the Jordan + decomposition of \(T\)}. \end{proposition} \begin{proposition} Given \(\mathfrak{g}\) semisimple and \(X \in \mathfrak{g}\), there are - \(X_s, X_n \in \mathfrak{g}\) such that \(X = X_s + X_n\), \([X_s, X_n] = - 0\), \(\operatorname{ad}(X_s)\) is a diagonalizable operator and - \(\operatorname{ad}(X_n)\) is a nilpotent operator. The pair \((X_s, X_n)\) + \(X_{\operatorname{s}}, X_{\operatorname{n}} \in \mathfrak{g}\) such that \(X + = X_{\operatorname{s}} + X_{\operatorname{n}}\), \([X_{\operatorname{s}}, + X_{\operatorname{n}}] = 0\), \(\operatorname{ad}(X_{\operatorname{s}})\) is a + diagonalizable operator and \(\operatorname{ad}(X_{\operatorname{n}})\) is a + nilpotent operator. The pair \((X_{\operatorname{s}}, X_{\operatorname{n}})\) is known as \emph{the Jordan decomposition of \(X\)}. \end{proposition} -It should be clear from the uniqueness of \(\operatorname{ad}(X)_s\) and -\(\operatorname{ad}(X)_n\) that the Jordan decomposition of -\(\operatorname{ad}(X)\) is \(\operatorname{ad}(X) = \operatorname{ad}(X_s) + -\operatorname{ad}(X_n)\). What's perhaps more remarkable is the fact this holds -for \emph{any} finite-dimensional representation of \(\mathfrak{g}\). In other -words\dots +It should be clear from the uniqueness of +\(\operatorname{ad}(X)_{\operatorname{s}}\) and +\(\operatorname{ad}(X)_{\operatorname{n}}\) that the Jordan decomposition of +\(\operatorname{ad}(X)\) is \(\operatorname{ad}(X) = +\operatorname{ad}(X_{\operatorname{s}}) + +\operatorname{ad}(X_{\operatorname{n}})\). What's perhaps more remarkable is +the fact this holds for \emph{any} finite-dimensional representation of +\(\mathfrak{g}\). In other words\dots \begin{proposition}\label{thm:preservation-jordan-form} Let \(V\) be a finite-dimensional representation of \(\mathfrak{g}\) and \(X \in \mathfrak{g}\). Denote by \(X\!\restriction_V\) the action of \(X\) on - \(V\). Then \(X_s\!\restriction_V = (X\!\restriction_V)_s\) and - \(X_n\!\restriction_V = (X\!\restriction_V)_n\). + \(V\). Then \(X_{\operatorname{s}}\!\restriction_V = + (X\!\restriction_V)_{\operatorname{s}}\) and + \(X_{\operatorname{n}}\!\restriction_V = + (X\!\restriction_V)_{\operatorname{n}}\). \end{proposition} This last result is known as \emph{the preservation of the Jordan form}, and a @@ -187,15 +196,20 @@ implies\dots Fix some \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\). It suffices to show that \(H\!\restriction_V : V \to V\) is a diagonalizable operator. - If we write \(H = H_s + H_n\) for the abstract Jordan decomposition of \(H\), - we know \(\operatorname{ad}(H_s) = \operatorname{ad}(H)_s\). But - \(\operatorname{ad}(H)\) is a diagonalizable operator, so that - \(\operatorname{ad}(H)_s = \operatorname{ad}(H)\). This implies - \(\operatorname{ad}(H_n) = \operatorname{ad}(H)_n = 0\), so that \(H_n\) is a - central element of \(\mathfrak{g}\). Since \(\mathfrak{g}\) is semisimple, - \(H_n = 0\). Proposition~\ref{thm:preservation-jordan-form} then implies - \((H\!\restriction_V)_n = (H_n)\!\restriction_V = 0\), so \(H\!\restriction_V - = (H\!\restriction_V)_s\) is a diagonalizable operator. + If we write \(H = H_{\operatorname{s}} + H_{\operatorname{n}}\) for the + abstract Jordan decomposition of \(H\), we know + \(\operatorname{ad}(H_{\operatorname{s}}) = + \operatorname{ad}(H)_{\operatorname{s}}\). But \(\operatorname{ad}(H)\) is a + diagonalizable operator, so that \(\operatorname{ad}(H)_{\operatorname{s}} = + \operatorname{ad}(H)\). This implies + \(\operatorname{ad}(H_{\operatorname{n}}) = + \operatorname{ad}(H)_{\operatorname{n}} = 0\), so that + \(H_{\operatorname{n}}\) is a central element of \(\mathfrak{g}\). Since + \(\mathfrak{g}\) is semisimple, \(H_{\operatorname{n}} = 0\). + Proposition~\ref{thm:preservation-jordan-form} then implies + \((H\!\restriction_V)_{\operatorname{n}} = + (H_{\operatorname{n}})\!\restriction_V = 0\), so \(H\!\restriction_V = + (H\!\restriction_V)_{\operatorname{s}}\) is a diagonalizable operator. \end{proof} We should point out that this last proof only works for semisimple Lie