- Commit
- a9e9361492c8fa4e867960e9310609c6c87b9ff9
- Parent
- b3c896fe830e68f436b43b7d9d9e5244d74c7e28
- Author
- Pablo <pablo-escobar@riseup.net>
- Date
Fixed some typos
Source code for my notes on representations of semisimple Lie algebras and Olivier Mathieu's classification of simple weight modules
Fixed some typos
2 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions
Status | File Name | N° Changes | Insertions | Deletions |
Modified | sections/mathieu.tex | 10 | 5 | 5 |
Modified | sections/semisimple-algebras.tex | 2 | 1 | 1 |
diff --git a/sections/mathieu.tex b/sections/mathieu.tex @@ -219,8 +219,8 @@ has the natural structure of a representation of Let \(\mathfrak{p}\) be a parabolic subalgebra and \(V\) be an irreducible weight \(\mathfrak{p}\)-module. We should point out that while \(\operatorname{Ind}_{\mathfrak{p}}^{\mathfrak{g}} V\) is a weight -\(\mathfrak{g}\)-modules, it isn't necessarily irreducible. Nevertheless, we -can use it to produce an irreducible weight \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module via a +\(\mathfrak{g}\)-module, it isn't necessarily irreducible. Nevertheless, we can +use it to produce an irreducible weight \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module via a construction very similar to that of Verma modules. \begin{definition} @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ characterizations of cuspidal modules. \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\). \end{example} -Having reduced our classification problem to that o classifying irreducible +Having reduced our classification problem to that of classifying irreducible cuspidal representations, we are now faced the daunting task of actually classifying them. Historically, this was first achieved by Olivier Mathieu in the early 2000's in his paper \citetitle{mathieu} \cite{mathieu}. To do so, @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ We begin our analysis with a simple question: how to do we go about constructing cuspidal representations? Specifically, given a cuspidal \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module, how can we use it to produce new cuspidal representations? To answer this question, we look back at the single example of -a cuspidal representations we have encountered so far: the +a cuspidal representation we have encountered so far: the \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\)-module \(K[x, x^{-1}]\) of Laurent polynomials -- i.e. Example~\ref{ex:laurent-polynomial-mod}. @@ -417,7 +417,7 @@ if \(\lambda \notin 1 + 2 \mathbb{Z}\) then \(e\) and \(f\) act injectively in irreducible. In particular, if \(\lambda, \mu \notin 1 + 2 \mathbb{Z}\) with \(\lambda \notin \mu + 2 \mathbb{Z}\) then \(\varphi_\lambda K[x, x^{-1}]\) and \(\varphi_\mu K[x, x^{-1}]\) are non-isomorphic irreducible cuspidal -\(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\), since their supports differ. These cuspidal +\(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\)-modules, since their supports differ. These cuspidal representations can be ``glued together'' in a \emph{monstrous concoction} by summing over \(\lambda \in K\), as in \[
diff --git a/sections/semisimple-algebras.tex b/sections/semisimple-algebras.tex @@ -644,7 +644,7 @@ Surprisingly, this condition is also sufficient. In other words\dots \begin{definition} An element \(\lambda\) of \(P\) such that \(\lambda(H_\alpha) \ge 0\) for all - \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\) is referred to as an \emph{integral dominant weight + \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\) is referred to as an \emph{dominant integral weight of \(\mathfrak{g}\)}. \end{definition}