lie-algebras-and-their-representations
Source code for my notes on representations of semisimple Lie algebras and Olivier Mathieu's classification of simple weight modules
Name | Size | Mode | |
.. | |||
sections/fin-dim-simple.tex | 60877B | -rw-r--r-- |
0001 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 0009 0010 0011 0012 0013 0014 0015 0016 0017 0018 0019 0020 0021 0022 0023 0024 0025 0026 0027 0028 0029 0030 0031 0032 0033 0034 0035 0036 0037 0038 0039 0040 0041 0042 0043 0044 0045 0046 0047 0048 0049 0050 0051 0052 0053 0054 0055 0056 0057 0058 0059 0060 0061 0062 0063 0064 0065 0066 0067 0068 0069 0070 0071 0072 0073 0074 0075 0076 0077 0078 0079 0080 0081 0082 0083 0084 0085 0086 0087 0088 0089 0090 0091 0092 0093 0094 0095 0096 0097 0098 0099 0100 0101 0102 0103 0104 0105 0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116 0117 0118 0119 0120 0121 0122 0123 0124 0125 0126 0127 0128 0129 0130 0131 0132 0133 0134 0135 0136 0137 0138 0139 0140 0141 0142 0143 0144 0145 0146 0147 0148 0149 0150 0151 0152 0153 0154 0155 0156 0157 0158 0159 0160 0161 0162 0163 0164 0165 0166 0167 0168 0169 0170 0171 0172 0173 0174 0175 0176 0177 0178 0179 0180 0181 0182 0183 0184 0185 0186 0187 0188 0189 0190 0191 0192 0193 0194 0195 0196 0197 0198 0199 0200 0201 0202 0203 0204 0205 0206 0207 0208 0209 0210 0211 0212 0213 0214 0215 0216 0217 0218 0219 0220 0221 0222 0223 0224 0225 0226 0227 0228 0229 0230 0231 0232 0233 0234 0235 0236 0237 0238 0239 0240 0241 0242 0243 0244 0245 0246 0247 0248 0249 0250 0251 0252 0253 0254 0255 0256 0257 0258 0259 0260 0261 0262 0263 0264 0265 0266 0267 0268 0269 0270 0271 0272 0273 0274 0275 0276 0277 0278 0279 0280 0281 0282 0283 0284 0285 0286 0287 0288 0289 0290 0291 0292 0293 0294 0295 0296 0297 0298 0299 0300 0301 0302 0303 0304 0305 0306 0307 0308 0309 0310 0311 0312 0313 0314 0315 0316 0317 0318 0319 0320 0321 0322 0323 0324 0325 0326 0327 0328 0329 0330 0331 0332 0333 0334 0335 0336 0337 0338 0339 0340 0341 0342 0343 0344 0345 0346 0347 0348 0349 0350 0351 0352 0353 0354 0355 0356 0357 0358 0359 0360 0361 0362 0363 0364 0365 0366 0367 0368 0369 0370 0371 0372 0373 0374 0375 0376 0377 0378 0379 0380 0381 0382 0383 0384 0385 0386 0387 0388 0389 0390 0391 0392 0393 0394 0395 0396 0397 0398 0399 0400 0401 0402 0403 0404 0405 0406 0407 0408 0409 0410 0411 0412 0413 0414 0415 0416 0417 0418 0419 0420 0421 0422 0423 0424 0425 0426 0427 0428 0429 0430 0431 0432 0433 0434 0435 0436 0437 0438 0439 0440 0441 0442 0443 0444 0445 0446 0447 0448 0449 0450 0451 0452 0453 0454 0455 0456 0457 0458 0459 0460 0461 0462 0463 0464 0465 0466 0467 0468 0469 0470 0471 0472 0473 0474 0475 0476 0477 0478 0479 0480 0481 0482 0483 0484 0485 0486 0487 0488 0489 0490 0491 0492 0493 0494 0495 0496 0497 0498 0499 0500 0501 0502 0503 0504 0505 0506 0507 0508 0509 0510 0511 0512 0513 0514 0515 0516 0517 0518 0519 0520 0521 0522 0523 0524 0525 0526 0527 0528 0529 0530 0531 0532 0533 0534 0535 0536 0537 0538 0539 0540 0541 0542 0543 0544 0545 0546 0547 0548 0549 0550 0551 0552 0553 0554 0555 0556 0557 0558 0559 0560 0561 0562 0563 0564 0565 0566 0567 0568 0569 0570 0571 0572 0573 0574 0575 0576 0577 0578 0579 0580 0581 0582 0583 0584 0585 0586 0587 0588 0589 0590 0591 0592 0593 0594 0595 0596 0597 0598 0599 0600 0601 0602 0603 0604 0605 0606 0607 0608 0609 0610 0611 0612 0613 0614 0615 0616 0617 0618 0619 0620 0621 0622 0623 0624 0625 0626 0627 0628 0629 0630 0631 0632 0633 0634 0635 0636 0637 0638 0639 0640 0641 0642 0643 0644 0645 0646 0647 0648 0649 0650 0651 0652 0653 0654 0655 0656 0657 0658 0659 0660 0661 0662 0663 0664 0665 0666 0667 0668 0669 0670 0671 0672 0673 0674 0675 0676 0677 0678 0679 0680 0681 0682 0683 0684 0685 0686 0687 0688 0689 0690 0691 0692 0693 0694 0695 0696 0697 0698 0699 0700 0701 0702 0703 0704 0705 0706 0707 0708 0709 0710 0711 0712 0713 0714 0715 0716 0717 0718 0719 0720 0721 0722 0723 0724 0725 0726 0727 0728 0729 0730 0731 0732 0733 0734 0735 0736 0737 0738 0739 0740 0741 0742 0743 0744 0745 0746 0747 0748 0749 0750 0751 0752 0753 0754 0755 0756 0757 0758 0759 0760 0761 0762 0763 0764 0765 0766 0767 0768 0769 0770 0771 0772 0773 0774 0775 0776 0777 0778 0779 0780 0781 0782 0783 0784 0785 0786 0787 0788 0789 0790 0791 0792 0793 0794 0795 0796 0797 0798 0799 0800 0801 0802 0803 0804 0805 0806 0807 0808 0809 0810 0811 0812 0813 0814 0815 0816 0817 0818 0819 0820 0821 0822 0823 0824 0825 0826 0827 0828 0829 0830 0831 0832 0833 0834 0835 0836 0837 0838 0839 0840 0841 0842 0843 0844 0845 0846 0847 0848 0849 0850 0851 0852 0853 0854 0855 0856 0857 0858 0859 0860 0861 0862 0863 0864 0865 0866 0867 0868 0869 0870 0871 0872 0873 0874 0875 0876 0877 0878 0879 0880 0881 0882 0883 0884 0885 0886 0887 0888 0889 0890 0891 0892 0893 0894 0895 0896 0897 0898 0899 0900 0901 0902 0903 0904 0905 0906 0907 0908 0909 0910 0911 0912 0913 0914 0915 0916 0917 0918 0919 0920 0921 0922 0923 0924 0925 0926 0927 0928 0929 0930 0931 0932 0933 0934 0935 0936 0937 0938 0939 0940 0941 0942 0943 0944 0945 0946 0947 0948 0949 0950 0951 0952 0953 0954 0955 0956 0957 0958 0959 0960 0961 0962 0963 0964 0965 0966 0967 0968 0969 0970 0971 0972 0973 0974 0975 0976 0977 0978 0979 0980 0981 0982 0983 0984 0985 0986 0987 0988 0989 0990 0991 0992 0993 0994 0995 0996 0997 0998 0999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192
\chapter{Finite-Dimensional Simple Modules} In this chapter we classify the finite-dimensional simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-modules for a finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebra \(\mathfrak{g}\) over \(K\). At the heart of our analysis of \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) and \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\) was the decision to consider the eigenspace decomposition \begin{equation}\label{sym-diag} M = \bigoplus_\lambda M_\lambda \end{equation} This was simple enough to do in the case of \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\), but the rational behind it and the reason why equation (\ref{sym-diag}) holds are harder to explain in the case of \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\). The eigenspace decomposition associated with an operator \(M \to M\) is a very well-known tool, and readers familiarized with basic concepts of linear algebra should be used to this type of argument. On the other hand, the eigenspace decomposition of \(M\) with respect to the action of an arbitrary subalgebra \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{gl}(M)\) is neither well-known nor does it hold in general: as indicated in the previous chapter, it may very well be that \[ \bigoplus_{\lambda \in \mathfrak{h}^*} M_\lambda \subsetneq M \] We should note, however, that these two cases are not as different as they may sound at first glance. Specifically, we can regard the eigenspace decomposition of a \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\)-module \(M\) with respect to the eigenvalues of the action of \(h\) as the eigenvalue decomposition of \(M\) with respect to the action of the subalgebra \(\mathfrak{h} = K h \subset \mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\). Furthermore, in both cases \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{sl}_n(K)\) is the subalgebra of diagonal matrices, which is Abelian. The fundamental difference between these two cases is thus the fact that \(\dim \mathfrak{h} = 1\) for \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) while \(\dim \mathfrak{h} > 1\) for \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\). The question then is: why did we choose \(\mathfrak{h}\) with \(\dim \mathfrak{h} > 1\) for \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\)? The rational behind fixing an Abelian subalgebra \(\mathfrak{h}\) is a simple one: we have seen in the previous chapter that representations of Abelian algebras are generally much simpler to understand than the general case. Thus it make sense to decompose a given \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module \(M\) of into subspaces invariant under the action of \(\mathfrak{h}\), and then analyze how the remaining elements of \(\mathfrak{g}\) act on these subspaces. The bigger \(\mathfrak{h}\) is, the simpler our problem gets, because there are fewer elements outside of \(\mathfrak{h}\) left to analyze. Hence we are generally interested in maximal Abelian subalgebras \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{g}\), which leads us to the following definition. \begin{definition}\index{Lie subalgebra!Cartan subalgebra} A subalgebra \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{g}\) is called \emph{a Cartan subalgebra of \(\mathfrak{g}\)} if is self-normalizing -- i.e. \([X, H] \in \mathfrak{h}\) for all \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\) if, and only if \(X \in \mathfrak{h}\) -- and nilpotent. Equivalently for reductive \(\mathfrak{g}\), \(\mathfrak{h}\) is called \emph{a Cartan subalgebra of \(\mathfrak{g}\)} if it is Abelian, \(\operatorname{ad}(H)\) is diagonalizable for each \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\) and if \(\mathfrak{h}\) is maximal with respect to the former two properties. \end{definition} \begin{proposition} There exists a Cartan subalgebra \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{g}\). \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Notice that \(0 \subset \mathfrak{g}\) is an Abelian subalgebra whose elements act as diagonal operators via the adjoint \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module. Indeed, \(0\), the only element of \(0 \subset \mathfrak{g}\), is such that \(\operatorname{ad}(0) = 0\) is a diagonalizable operator. Furthermore, given a chain of Abelian subalgebras \[ 0 \subset \mathfrak{h}_1 \subset \mathfrak{h}_2 \subset \cdots \] such that \(\operatorname{ad}(H)\) is a diagonal operator for each \(H \in \mathfrak{h}_i\), the subalgebra \(\bigcup_i \mathfrak{h}_i \subset \mathfrak{g}\) is Abelian, and its elements also act diagonally in \(\mathfrak{g}\). It then follows from Zorn's Lemma that there exists a subalgebra \(\mathfrak{h}\) which is maximal with respect to both these properties, also known as a Cartan subalgebra. \end{proof} We have already seen some concrete examples. Namely\dots \begin{example}\label{ex:cartan-of-gl} The Lie subalgebra \[ \mathfrak{h} = \begin{pmatrix} K & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & K & \cdots & 0 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & K \end{pmatrix} \subset \mathfrak{gl}_n(K) \] of diagonal matrices is a Cartan subalgebra. Indeed, every pair of diagonal matrices commutes, so that \(\mathfrak{h}\) is an Abelian -- and hence nilpotent -- subalgebra. A simple calculation also shows that if \(i \ne j\) then the coefficient of \(E_{i j}\) in \([E_{i i}, X]\) is the same as the coefficient of \(E_{i j}\) in \(X\), for all \(X \in \mathfrak{gl}_n(K)\). In particular, if \([E_{i i}, X]\) is diagonal for all \(i\), then so is \(X\) -- i.e. \(\mathfrak{h}\) is self-normalizing. \end{example} \begin{example}\label{ex:cartan-of-sl} Let \(\mathfrak{h}\) be as in Example~\ref{ex:cartan-of-gl}. Then the subalgebra \(\mathfrak{h} \cap \mathfrak{sl}_n(K)\) of traceless diagonal matrices is a Cartan subalgebra of \(\mathfrak{sl}_n(K)\). \end{example} \begin{example}\label{ex:cartan-of-sp} It is easy to see from Example~\ref{ex:sp2n} that \(\mathfrak{h} = \{X \in \mathfrak{sp}_{2n}(K) : X\ \text{is diagonal} \}\) is a Cartan subalgebra. \end{example} \begin{example}\label{ex:cartan-direct-sum} Let \(\mathfrak{g}_1\) and \(\mathfrak{g}_2\) be Lie algebras and \(\mathfrak{h}_i \subset \mathfrak{g}_i\) be Cartan subalgebras. Then \(\mathfrak{h}_1 \oplus \mathfrak{h}_2\) is a Cartan subalgebra of \(\mathfrak{g}_1 \oplus \mathfrak{g}_2\). \end{example} \index{Cartan subalgebra!simultaneous diagonalization} The intersection of such subalgebra with \(\mathfrak{sl}_n(K)\) -- i.e. the subalgebra of traceless diagonal matrices -- is a Cartan subalgebra of \(\mathfrak{sl}_n(K)\). In particular, if \(n = 2\) or \(n = 3\) we get to the subalgebras described the previous chapter. The remaining question then is: if \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{g}\) is a Cartan subalgebra and \(M\) is a \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module, does the eigenspace decomposition \[ M = \bigoplus_\lambda M_\lambda \] of \(M\) hold? The answer to this question turns out to be yes. This is a consequence of something known as \emph{simultaneous diagonalization}, which is the primary tool we will use to generalize the results of the previous section. What is simultaneous diagonalization all about then? \begin{definition}\label{def:sim-diag} Given a \(K\)-vector space \(V\), a set of operators \(\{T_j : V \to V\}_j\) is called \emph{simultaneously diagonalizable} if there is a basis \(\{v_1, \ldots, v_n\}\) for \(V\) such that \(T_j v_i\) is a scalar multiple of \(v_i\), for all \(i, j\). \end{definition} \begin{proposition} Given a \emph{finite-dimensional} vector space \(V\), a set of diagonalizable operators \(V \to V\) is simultaneously diagonalizable if, and only if all of its elements commute with one another. \end{proposition} We should point out that simultaneous diagonalization \emph{only works in the finite-dimensional setting}. In fact, simultaneous diagonalization is usually framed as an equivalent statement about diagonalizable \(n \times n\) matrices. Simultaneous diagonalization implies that to show \(M = \bigoplus_\lambda M_\lambda\) it suffices to show that \(H\!\restriction_M : M \to M\) is a diagonalizable operator for each \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\). To that end, we introduce \emph{the Jordan decomposition of an operator} and \emph{the abstract 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 \(T_{\operatorname{ss}}, T_{\operatorname{nil}} : V \to V\), with \(T_{\operatorname{ss}}\) diagonalizable and \(T_{\operatorname{nil}}\) nilpotent, such that \(T = T_{\operatorname{ss}} + T_{\operatorname{nil}}\). The pair \((T_{\operatorname{ss}}, T_{\operatorname{nil}})\) is known as \emph{the Jordan decomposition of \(T\)}. \end{proposition} \begin{proposition}\index{abstract Jordan decomposition} Given \(\mathfrak{g}\) semisimple and \(X \in \mathfrak{g}\), there are \(X_{\operatorname{ss}}, X_{\operatorname{nil}} \in \mathfrak{g}\) such that \(X = X_{\operatorname{ss}} + X_{\operatorname{nil}}\), \([X_{\operatorname{ss}}, X_{\operatorname{nil}}] = 0\), \(\operatorname{ad}(X_{\operatorname{ss}})\) is a diagonalizable operator and \(\operatorname{ad}(X_{\operatorname{nil}})\) is a nilpotent operator. The pair \((X_{\operatorname{ss}}, X_{\operatorname{nil}})\) is known as \emph{the Jordan decomposition of \(X\)}. \end{proposition} It should be clear from the uniqueness of \(\operatorname{ad}(X)_{\operatorname{ss}}\) and \(\operatorname{ad}(X)_{\operatorname{nil}}\) that the Jordan decomposition of \(\operatorname{ad}(X)\) is \(\operatorname{ad}(X) = \operatorname{ad}(X_{\operatorname{ss}}) + \operatorname{ad}(X_{\operatorname{nil}})\). What is perhaps more remarkable is the fact this holds for \emph{any} finite-dimensional \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module. In other words\dots \begin{proposition}\label{thm:preservation-jordan-form} Let \(M\) be a finite-dimensional \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module and \(X \in \mathfrak{g}\). Denote by \(X\!\restriction_M\) the action of \(X\) on \(M\). Then \(X_{\operatorname{ss}}\!\restriction_M = (X\!\restriction_M)_{\operatorname{ss}}\) and \(X_{\operatorname{nil}}\!\restriction_M = (X\!\restriction_M)_{\operatorname{nil}}\). \end{proposition} This last result is known as \emph{the preservation of the Jordan form}, and a proof can be found in appendix C of \cite{fulton-harris}. As promised this implies\dots \begin{corollary}\label{thm:finite-dim-is-weight-mod} Let \(\mathfrak{g}\) be a semisimple Lie algebra, \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{g}\) be a Cartan subalgebra and \(M\) be any finite-dimensional \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module. Then there is a basis \(\{m_1, \ldots, m_r\}\) of \(M\) so that each \(m_i\) is simultaneously an eigenvector of all elements of \(\mathfrak{h}\) -- i.e. each element of \(\mathfrak{h}\) acts as a diagonal matrix in this basis. In other words, there are linear functionals \(\lambda_i \in \mathfrak{h}^*\) so that \( H \cdot m_i = \lambda_i(H) m_i \) for all \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\). In particular, \[ M = \bigoplus_{\lambda \in \mathfrak{h}^*} M_\lambda \] \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Fix some \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\). It suffices to show that \(H\!\restriction_M : M \to M\) is a diagonalizable operator. If we write \(H = H_{\operatorname{ss}} + H_{\operatorname{nil}}\) for the abstract Jordan decomposition of \(H\), we know \(\operatorname{ad}(H_{\operatorname{ss}}) = \operatorname{ad}(H)_{\operatorname{ss}}\). But \(\operatorname{ad}(H)\) is a diagonalizable operator, so that \(\operatorname{ad}(H)_{\operatorname{ss}} = \operatorname{ad}(H)\). This implies \(\operatorname{ad}(H_{\operatorname{nil}}) = \operatorname{ad}(H)_{\operatorname{nil}} = 0\), so that \(H_{\operatorname{nil}}\) is a central element of \(\mathfrak{g}\). Since \(\mathfrak{g}\) is semisimple, \(H_{\operatorname{nil}} = 0\). Proposition~\ref{thm:preservation-jordan-form} then implies \((H\!\restriction_M)_{\operatorname{nil}} = H_{\operatorname{nil}}\!\restriction_M = 0\), so \(H\!\restriction_M = (H\!\restriction_M)_{\operatorname{ss}}\) is a diagonalizable operator. \end{proof} We should point out that this last proof only works for semisimple Lie algebras. This is because we rely heavily on Proposition~\ref{thm:preservation-jordan-form}, as well in the fact that semisimple Lie algebras are centerless. In fact, Corollary~\ref{thm:finite-dim-is-weight-mod} fails even for reductive Lie algebras. For a counterexample, consider the algebra \(\mathfrak{g} = K\): the Cartan subalgebra of \(\mathfrak{g}\) is \(\mathfrak{g}\) itself, and a \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module is simply a vector space \(M\) endowed with an operator \(M \to M\) -- which corresponds to the action of \(1 \in \mathfrak{g}\) on \(M\). In particular, if we choose an operator \(M \to M\) which is \emph{not} diagonalizable we find \(M \ne \bigoplus_{\lambda \in \mathfrak{h}^*} M_\lambda\). However, Corollary~\ref{thm:finite-dim-is-weight-mod} does work for reductive \(\mathfrak{g}\) if we assume that the \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module \(M\) in question is simple, since central elements of \(\mathfrak{g}\) act on simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-modules as scalar operators. The hypothesis of finite-dimensionality is also of huge importance. For instance, consider\dots \begin{example}\label{ex:regular-mod-is-not-weight-mod} Let \(\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})\) denote the regular \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module. Notice that \(\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})_\lambda = 0\) for all \(\lambda \in \mathfrak{h}^*\). Indeed, since \(\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})\) is a domain, if \((H - \lambda(H)) u = 0\) for some nonzero \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\) then \(u = 0\). In particular, \[ \bigoplus_{\lambda \in \mathfrak{h}^*} \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})_\lambda = 0 \neq \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}) \] \end{example} As a first consequence of Corollary~\ref{thm:finite-dim-is-weight-mod} we show\dots \begin{corollary} The restriction of the Killing form \(\kappa\) to \(\mathfrak{h}\) is non-degenerate. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Consider the root space decomposition \(\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{g}_0 \oplus \bigoplus_\alpha \mathfrak{g}_\alpha\) of the adjoint \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module, where \(\alpha\) ranges over all nonzero eigenvalues of the adjoint action of \(\mathfrak{h}\). We claim \(\mathfrak{g}_0 = \mathfrak{h}\). Indeed, since \(\mathfrak{h}\) is Abelian, \(\operatorname{ad}(\mathfrak{h}) \mathfrak{h} = 0\) -- i.e. \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{g}_0\). On the other hand, since \(\mathfrak{h}\) is self-normalizing, if \([X, H] = 0 \in \mathfrak{h}\) for all \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\) then \(X \in \mathfrak{h}\) -- i.e. \(\mathfrak{g}_0 \subset \mathfrak{h}\). So the eigenspace decomposition becomes \[ \mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{h} \oplus \bigoplus_\alpha \mathfrak{g}_\alpha \] We furthermore claim that \(\mathfrak{h} = \mathfrak{g}_0\) is orthogonal to \(\mathfrak{g}_\alpha\) with respect to \(\kappa\) for any \(\alpha \ne 0\). Indeed, given \(X \in \mathfrak{g}_\alpha\) and \(H_1, H_2 \in \mathfrak{h}\) with \(\alpha(H_1) \ne 0\) we have \[ \alpha(H_1) \cdot \kappa(X, H_2) = \kappa([H_1, X], H_2) = - \kappa([X, H_1], H_2) = - \kappa(X, [H_1, H_2]) = 0 \] Hence the non-degeneracy of \(\kappa\) implies the non-degeneracy of its restriction. \end{proof} We should point out that the restriction of \(\kappa\) to \(\mathfrak{h}\) is \emph{not} the Killing form of \(\mathfrak{h}\). In fact, since \(\mathfrak{h}\) is Abelian, its Killing form is identically zero -- which is hardly ever a non-degenerate form. \begin{note} Since \(\kappa\) induces an isomorphism \(\mathfrak{h} \isoto \mathfrak{h}^*\), it induces a bilinear form \((\kappa(X, \cdot), \kappa(Y, \cdot)) \mapsto \kappa(X, Y)\) in \(\mathfrak{h}^*\). As in section~\ref{sec:sl3-reps}, we denote this form by \(\kappa\) as well. \end{note} We now have most of the necessary tools to reproduce the results of the previous chapter in a general setting. Let \(\mathfrak{g}\) be a finite-dimensional semisimple algebra with a Cartan subalgebra \(\mathfrak{h}\) and let \(M\) be a finite-dimensional simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module. We will proceed, as we did before, by generalizing the results of the previous two sections in order. By now the pattern should be starting to become clear, so we will mostly omit technical details and proofs analogous to the ones on the previous sections. Further details can be found in appendix D of \cite{fulton-harris} and in \cite{humphreys}. \section{The Geometry of Roots and Weights} We begin our analysis, as we did for \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) and \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\), by investigating the locus of roots of and weights of \(\mathfrak{g}\). Throughout chapter~\ref{ch:sl3} we have seen that the weights of any given finite-dimensional module of \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) or \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\) can only assume very rigid configurations. For instance, we have seen that the roots of \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) and \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\) are symmetric with respect to the origin. In this chapter we will generalize most results from chapter~\ref{ch:sl3} regarding the rigidity of the geometry of the set of weights of a given module. As for the aforementioned result on the symmetry of roots, this turns out to be a general fact, which is a consequence of the non-degeneracy of the restriction of the Killing form to the Cartan subalgebra. \begin{proposition}\label{thm:weights-symmetric-span} The roots \(\alpha\) of \(\mathfrak{g}\) are symmetrical about the origin -- i.e. \(- \alpha\) is also a root -- and they span all of \(\mathfrak{h}^*\). \end{proposition} \begin{proof} We will start with the first claim. Let \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) be two roots. Notice \([\mathfrak{g}_\alpha, \mathfrak{g}_\beta] \subset \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha + \beta}\). Indeed, if \(X \in \mathfrak{g}_\alpha\) and \(Y \in \mathfrak{g}_\beta\) then \[ [H, [X, Y]] = [X, [H, Y]] - [Y, [H, X]] = (\alpha + \beta)(H) \cdot [X, Y] \] for all \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\). This implies that if \(\alpha + \beta \ne 0\) then \(\operatorname{ad}(X) \operatorname{ad}(Y)\) is nilpotent: if \(Z \in \mathfrak{g}_\gamma\) then \[ (\operatorname{ad}(X) \operatorname{ad}(Y))^r Z = [X, [Y, [ \ldots, [X, [Y, Z]]] \ldots ] \in \mathfrak{g}_{r \alpha + r \beta + \gamma} = 0 \] for \(r\) large enough. In particular, \(\kappa(X, Y) = \operatorname{Tr}(\operatorname{ad}(X) \operatorname{ad}(Y)) = 0\). Now if \(- \alpha\) is not an eigenvalue we find \(\kappa(X, \mathfrak{g}_\beta) = 0\) for all roots \(\beta\), which contradicts the non-degeneracy of \(\kappa\). Hence \(- \alpha\) must be an eigenvalue of the adjoint action of \(\mathfrak{h}\). For the second statement, note that if the roots of \(\mathfrak{g}\) do not span all of \(\mathfrak{h}^*\) then there is some nonzero \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\) such that \(\alpha(H) = 0\) for all roots \(\alpha\), which is to say, \(\operatorname{ad}(H) X = [H, X] = 0\) for all \(X \in \mathfrak{g}\). Another way of putting it is to say \(H\) is an element of the center \(\mathfrak{z} = 0\) of \(\mathfrak{g}\), a contradiction. \end{proof} Furthermore, as in the case of \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) and \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\) one can show\dots \begin{proposition}\label{thm:root-space-dim-1} The root spaces \(\mathfrak{g}_\alpha\) are all \(1\)-dimensional. \end{proposition} The proof of the first statement of Proposition~\ref{thm:weights-symmetric-span} highlights something interesting: if we fix some eigenvalue \(\alpha\) of the adjoint action of \(\mathfrak{h}\) on \(\mathfrak{g}\) and a eigenvector \(X \in \mathfrak{g}_\alpha\), then for each \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\) and \(m \in M_\lambda\) we find \[ H \cdot (X \cdot m) = X H \cdot m + [H, X] \cdot m = (\lambda + \alpha)(H) X \cdot m \] Thus \(X\) sends \(m\) to \(M_{\lambda + \alpha}\). We have encountered this formula twice in these notes: again, we find \(\mathfrak{g}_\alpha\) \emph{acts on \(M\) by translating vectors between eigenspaces}. In particular, if we denote by \(\Delta\) the set of all roots of \(\mathfrak{g}\) then\dots \begin{theorem}\label{thm:weights-congruent-mod-root}\index{weights!root lattice} The weights of a finite-dimensional simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module \(M\) are all congruent modulo the root lattice \(Q = \mathbb{Z} \Delta\) of \(\mathfrak{g}\). In other words, all weights of \(M\) lie in the same \(Q\)-coset \(\xi \in \mfrac{\mathfrak{h}^*}{Q}\). \end{theorem} Again, we may leverage our knowledge of \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) to obtain further restrictions on the geometry of the locus of weights of \(M\). Namely, as in the case of \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\) we show\dots \begin{proposition}\label{thm:distinguished-subalgebra} Given a root \(\alpha\) of \(\mathfrak{g}\) the subspace \(\mathfrak{s}_\alpha = \mathfrak{g}_\alpha \oplus \mathfrak{g}_{- \alpha} \oplus [\mathfrak{g}_\alpha, \mathfrak{g}_{- \alpha}]\) is a subalgebra isomorphic to \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\). \end{proposition} \begin{corollary}\label{thm:distinguished-subalg-rep} For all weights \(\mu\), the subspace \[ \bigoplus_k M_{\mu - k \alpha} \] is invariant under the action of the subalgebra \(\mathfrak{s}_\alpha\) and the weight spaces in this string match the eigenspaces of \(h\). \end{corollary} The proof of Proposition~\ref{thm:distinguished-subalgebra} is very technical in nature and we won't include it here, but the idea behind it is simple: recall that \(\mathfrak{g}_\alpha\) and \(\mathfrak{g}_{- \alpha}\) are both \(1\)-dimensional, so that \(\dim [\mathfrak{g}_\alpha, \mathfrak{g}_{- \alpha}]\) is at most 1. We check that \([\mathfrak{g}_\alpha, \mathfrak{g}_{- \alpha}] \ne 0\) and that no generator of \([\mathfrak{g}_\alpha, \mathfrak{g}_{- \alpha}]\) is annihilated by \(\alpha\), so that by adjusting scalars we can find \(E_\alpha \in \mathfrak{g}_\alpha\) and \(F_\alpha \in \mathfrak{g}_{- \alpha}\) such that \(H_\alpha = [E_\alpha, F_\alpha]\) satisfies \begin{align*} [H_\alpha, F_\alpha] & = -2 F_\alpha & [H_\alpha, E_\alpha] & = 2 E_\alpha \end{align*} The elements \(E_\alpha, F_\alpha \in \mathfrak{g}\) are not uniquely determined by this condition, but \(H_\alpha\) is. As promised, the second statement of Corollary~\ref{thm:distinguished-subalg-rep} imposes strong restrictions on the weights of \(M\). Namely, if \(\lambda\) is a weight, \(\lambda(H_\alpha)\) is an eigenvalue of \(h\) on some \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\)-module, so it must be an integer. In other words\dots \begin{definition}\label{def:weight-lattice}\index{weights!weight lattice} The lattice \(P = \{ \lambda \in \mathfrak{h}^* : \lambda(H_\alpha) \in \mathbb{Z} \, \forall \alpha \in \Delta \} \subset \mathfrak{h}^*\) is called \emph{the weight lattice of \(\mathfrak{g}\)}. We call the elements of \(P\) \emph{integral}. \end{definition} \begin{proposition}\label{thm:weights-fit-in-weight-lattice} The weights of a finite-dimensional simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module \(M\) of all lie in the weight lattice \(P\). \end{proposition} Proposition~\ref{thm:weights-fit-in-weight-lattice} is clearly analogous to Corollary~\ref{thm:sl3-weights-fit-in-weight-lattice}. In fact, the weight lattice of \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\) -- as in Definition~\ref{def:weight-lattice} -- is precisely \(\mathbb{Z} \langle \epsilon_1, \epsilon_2, \epsilon_3 \rangle\). To proceed further, we would like to take \emph{the highest weight of \(M\)} as in section~\ref{sec:sl3-reps}, but the meaning of \emph{highest} is again unclear in this situation. We could simply fix a linear function \(\mathbb{Q} P \to \mathbb{Q}\) -- as we did in section~\ref{sec:sl3-reps} -- and choose a weight \(\lambda\) of \(M\) that maximizes this functional, but at this point it is convenient to introduce some additional tools to our arsenal. These tools are called \emph{basis}. \begin{definition}\label{def:basis-of-root}\index{weights!basis} A subset \(\Sigma = \{\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_r\} \subset \Delta\) of linearly independent roots is called \emph{a basis for \(\Delta\)} if, given \(\alpha \in \Delta\), there are unique \(k_1, \ldots, k_r \in \mathbb{N}\) such that \(\alpha = \pm(k_1 \beta_1 + \cdots + k_r \beta_r)\). \end{definition} \begin{example}\label{ex:sl-canonical-basis} Suppose \(\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sl}_n(K)\) and \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{g}\) is the subalgebra of diagonal matrices, as in Example~\ref{ex:cartan-of-sl}. Consider the linear functionals \(\epsilon_1, \ldots, \epsilon_n \in \mathfrak{h}^*\) such that \(\epsilon_i(H)\) is the \(i\)-th entry of the diagonal of \(H\). As observed in section~\ref{sec:sl3-reps} for \(n = 3\), the roots of \(\mathfrak{sl}_n(K)\) are \(\epsilon_i - \epsilon_j\) for \(i \ne j\) -- with root vectors given by \(E_{i j}\) -- and we may take the basis \(\Sigma = \{\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_{n-1}\}\) with \(\beta_i = \epsilon_i - \epsilon_{i+1}\). \end{example} \begin{example}\label{ex:sp-canonical-basis} Suppose \(\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sp}_{2n}(K)\) and \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{g}\) is the subalgebra of diagonal matrices, as in Example~\ref{ex:cartan-of-sp}. Consider the linear functionals \(\epsilon_1, \ldots, \epsilon_n \in \mathfrak{h}^*\) such that \(\epsilon_i(H)\) is the \(i\)-th entry of the diagonal of \(H\). Then the roots of \(\mathfrak{sp}_{2n}(K)\) are \(\pm \epsilon_i \pm \epsilon_j\) for \(i \ne j\) and \(\pm 2 \epsilon_i\) -- see \cite[ch.~16]{fulton-harris}. In this case, we may take the basis \(\Sigma = \{\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_n\}\) with \(\beta_i = \epsilon_i - \epsilon_{i+1}\) for \(i < n\) and \(\beta_n = 2 \epsilon_n\). \end{example} The interesting thing about basis for \(\Delta\) is that they allow us to compare weights of a given \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module. At this point the reader should be asking himself: how? Definition~\ref{def:basis-of-root} isn't exactly all that intuitive. Well, the thing is that any choice of basis \(\Sigma\) induces an order in \(Q\), where elements are ordered by their \emph{\(\Sigma\)-coordinates}. \begin{definition}\index{weights!orderings of roots} Let \(\Sigma = \{\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_r\}\) be a basis for \(\Delta\). Given \(\alpha = k_1 \beta_1 + \cdots + k_r \beta_r \in Q\) with \(k_1, \ldots, k_r \in \mathbb{Z}\), we call the vector \(\alpha_\Sigma = (k_1, \ldots, k_r) \in \mathbb{Z}^r\) \emph{the \(\Sigma\)-coordinate of \(\alpha\)}. We say that \(\alpha \preceq \beta\) if \(\alpha_\Sigma \le \beta_\Sigma\) in the lexicographical order. \end{definition} \begin{definition} Given a basis \(\Sigma\) for \(\Delta\), there is a canonical partition\footnote{Notice that $\operatorname{ht}(\alpha) = 0$ if, and only if $\alpha = 0$. Since $0$ is, by definition, not a root, the sets $\Delta^+$ and $\Delta^-$ account for all roots.} \(\Delta^+ \cup \Delta^- = \Delta\), where \(\Delta^+ = \{ \alpha \in \Delta : \alpha \succ 0 \}\) and \(\Delta^- = \{ \alpha \in \Delta : \alpha \prec 0 \}\). The elements of \(\Delta^+\) and \(\Delta^-\) are called \emph{positive} and \emph{negative roots}, respectively. \end{definition} \begin{example} If \(\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\) and \(\Sigma\) is as in Example~\ref{ex:sl-canonical-basis} then the partition \(\Delta^+ \cup \Delta^-\) induced by \(\Sigma\) is the same as the one described in section~\ref{sec:sl3-reps}. \end{example} \begin{definition}\index{Lie subalgebra!Borel subalgebra}\index{Lie subalgebra!parabolic subalgebra} Let \(\Sigma\) be a basis for \(\Delta\). The subalgebra \(\mathfrak{b} = \mathfrak{h} \oplus \bigoplus_{\alpha \in \Delta^+} \mathfrak{g}_\alpha\) is called \emph{the Borel subalgebra associated with \(\mathfrak{h}\) and \(\Sigma\)}. A subalgebra \(\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathfrak{g}\) is called \emph{parabolic} if \(\mathfrak{p} \supset \mathfrak{b}\). \end{definition} It should be obvious that the binary relation \(\preceq\) in \(Q\) is a total order. In addition, we may compare the elements of a given \(Q\)-coset \(\lambda + Q\) by comparing their difference with \(0 \in Q\). In other words, given \(\lambda \in \mu + Q\), we say \(\lambda \preceq \mu\) if \(\lambda - \mu \preceq 0\). In particular, since the weights of \(M\) all lie in a single \(Q\)-coset, we may compare them in this way. Given a basis \(\Sigma\) for \(\Delta\) we may take ``the highest weight of \(M\)'' as a maximal weight \(\lambda\) of \(M\). The obvious question then is: can we always find a basis for \(\Delta\)? \begin{proposition} There is a basis \(\Sigma\) for \(\Delta\). \end{proposition} The intuition behind the proof of this proposition is similar to our original idea of fixing a direction in \(\mathfrak{h}^*\) in the case of \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\). Namely, one can show that \(\kappa(\alpha, \beta) \in \mathbb{Z}\) for all \(\alpha, \beta \in \Delta\), so that the Killing form \(\kappa\) restricts to a nondegenerate \(\mathbb{Q}\)-bilinear form \(\mathbb{Q} \Delta \times \mathbb{Q} \Delta \to \mathbb{Q}\). We can then fix a nonzero vector \(\gamma \in \mathbb{Q} \Delta\) and consider the orthogonal projection \(f : \mathbb{Q} \Delta \to \mathbb{Q} \gamma \cong \mathbb{Q}\). We say a root \(\alpha \in \Delta\) is \emph{positive} if \(f(\alpha) > 0\), and we call a positive root \(\alpha\) \emph{simple} if it cannot be written as the sum two other positive roots. The subset \(\Sigma \subset \Delta\) of all simple roots is a basis for \(\Delta\), and all other basis can be shown to arise in this way. Fix some basis \(\Sigma\) for \(\Delta\), with corresponding decomposition \(\Delta^+ \cup \Delta^- = \Delta\). Let \(\lambda\) be a maximal weight of \(M\). We call \(\lambda\) \emph{the highest weight of \(M\)}, and we call any nonzero \(m \in M_\lambda\) \emph{a highest weight vector}. The strategy then is to describe all weight spaces of \(M\) in terms of \(\lambda\) and \(m\), as in Theorem~\ref{thm:sl3-irr-weights-class}. Unsurprisingly we do so by reproducing the proof of the case of \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\). First, we note that any highest weight vector \(m \in M_\lambda\) is annihilated by all positive root spaces, for if \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\) then \(E_\alpha \cdot m \in M_{\lambda + \alpha}\) must be zero -- or otherwise we would have that \(\lambda + \alpha\) is a weight with \(\lambda \prec \lambda + \alpha\). In particular, \[ \bigoplus_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} M_{\lambda - k \alpha} = \bigoplus_{k \in \mathbb{N}} M_{\lambda - k \alpha} \] and \(\lambda(H_\alpha)\) is the right-most eigenvalue of the action of \(h\) on the \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\)-module \(\bigoplus_k M_{\lambda - k \alpha}\). This has a number of important consequences. For instance\dots \begin{corollary} If \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\) and \(\sigma_\alpha : \mathfrak{h}^* \to \mathfrak{h}^*\) is the reflection in the hyperplane perpendicular to \(\alpha\) with respect to the Killing form, the weights of \(M\) occurring in the line joining \(\lambda\) and \(\sigma_\alpha\) are precisely the \(\mu \in P\) lying between \(\lambda\) and \(\sigma_\alpha(\lambda)\). \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Notice that any \(\mu \in P\) in the line joining \(\lambda\) and \(\sigma_\alpha(\lambda)\) has the form \(\mu = \lambda - k \alpha\) for some \(k\), so that \(M_\mu\) corresponds the eigenspace associated with the eigenvalue \(\lambda(H_\alpha) - 2k\) of the action of \(h\) on \(\bigoplus_k M_{\lambda - k \alpha}\). If \(\mu\) lies between \(\lambda\) and \(\sigma_\alpha(\lambda)\) then \(k\) lies between \(0\) and \(\lambda(H_\alpha)\), in which case \(M_\mu \neq 0\) and therefore \(\mu\) is a weight. On the other hand, if \(\mu\) does not lie between \(\lambda\) and \(\sigma_\alpha(\lambda)\) then either \(k < 0\) or \(k > \lambda(H_\alpha)\). Suppose \(\mu\) is a weight. In the first case \(\mu \succ \lambda\), a contradiction. On the second case the fact that \(M_\mu \ne 0\) implies \(M_{\lambda + (k - \lambda(H_\alpha)) \alpha} = M_{\sigma_\alpha(\mu)} \ne 0\), which contradicts the fact that \(M_{\lambda + \ell \alpha} = 0\) for all \(\ell \ge 0\). \end{proof} This is entirely analogous to the situation of \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\), where we found that the weights of the simple \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\)-modules formed continuous strings symmetric with respect to the lines \(K \alpha\) with \(\kappa(\epsilon_i - \epsilon_j, \alpha) = 0\). As in the case of \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\), the same sort of arguments leads us to the conclusion\dots \begin{definition}\index{Weyl group} We refer to the (finite) group \(W = \langle \sigma_\alpha : \alpha \in \Delta \rangle = \langle \sigma_\beta : \beta \in \Sigma \rangle \subset \operatorname{O}(\mathfrak{h}^*)\) as \emph{the Weyl group of \(\mathfrak{g}\)}. \end{definition} \begin{theorem}\label{thm:irr-weight-class} The weights of a simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module \(M\) with highest weight \(\lambda\) are precisely the elements of the weight lattice \(P\) congruent to \(\lambda\) modulo the root lattice \(Q\) lying inside the convex hull of the orbit of \(\lambda\) under the action of the Weyl group \(W\). \end{theorem} At this point we are basically done with results regarding the geometry of the weights of \(M\), but it is convenient to introduce some further notation. Aside from showing up in the previous theorem, the Weyl group will also play an important role in chapter~\ref{ch:mathieu} by virtue of the existence of a canonical action of \(W\) on \(\mathfrak{h}\). \begin{definition}\index{Weyl group!natural action}\index{Weyl group!dot action} The canonical action of \(W\) on \(\mathfrak{h}^*\) given by \(\sigma \cdot \lambda = \sigma(\lambda)\) is called \emph{the natural action of \(W\)}. We also consider the equivalent ``shifted'' action \(\sigma \bullet \lambda = \sigma(\lambda + \rho) - \rho\) of \(W\) on \(\mathfrak{h}^*\), known as \emph{the dot action of \(W\)} -- here \(\rho = \sfrac{1}{2} \beta_1 + \cdots \sfrac{1}{2} \beta_r\). \end{definition} This already allow us to compute some examples of Weyl groups. \begin{example}\label{ex:sl-weyl-group} Suppose \(\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sl}_n(K)\) and \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{g}\) is as in Example~\ref{ex:cartan-of-sl}. Let \(\epsilon_1, \ldots, \epsilon_n \in \mathfrak{h}^*\) be as in Example~\ref{ex:sl-canonical-basis} and take the associated basis \(\Sigma = \{\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_{n-1}\}\) for \(\Delta\), \(\beta_i = \epsilon_i - \epsilon_{i + 1}\). Then a simple calculation shows that \(\sigma_{\beta_i}\) permutes \(\epsilon_i\) and \(\epsilon_{i+1}\) and fixes the other \(\epsilon_j\). This translates to a canonical isomorphism \begin{align*} W & \isoto S_n \\ \sigma_{\beta_i} & \mapsto \sigma_i = (i \; i\!+\!1) \end{align*} \end{example} \begin{example}\label{ex:sp-weyl-group} Suppose \(\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sp}_{2n}(K)\) and \(\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{g}\) is as in Example~\ref{ex:cartan-of-sp}. Let \(\epsilon_1, \ldots, \epsilon_n \in \mathfrak{h}^*\) be as in Example~\ref{ex:sp-canonical-basis} and take the associated basis \(\Sigma = \{\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_n\}\) for \(\Delta\). Then a simple calculation shows that \(\sigma_{\beta_i}\) permutes \(\epsilon_i\) and \(\epsilon_{i+1}\) for \(i < n\) and \(\sigma_{\beta_n}\) switches the sign of \(\epsilon_n\). This translates to a canonical isomorphism \begin{align*} W & \isoto S_n \ltimes (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^n \\ \sigma_{\beta_i} & \mapsto (\sigma_i, (\bar 0, \ldots, \bar 0)) \\ \sigma_{\beta_n} & \mapsto (1, (\bar 0, \ldots, \bar 0, \bar 1)), \end{align*} where \(\sigma_i = (i \ i\!+\!1)\) are the canonical transpositions. \end{example} If we conjugate some \(\sigma \in W\) by the isomorphism \(\mathfrak{h}^* \isoto \mathfrak{h}\) afforded by the restriction of the Killing for to \(\mathfrak{h}\) we get a linear action of \(W\) on \(\mathfrak{h}\), which is given by \(\kappa(\sigma \cdot H, \cdot) = \sigma \cdot \kappa(H, \cdot)\). As it turns out, this action can be extended to an action of \(W\) on \(\mathfrak{g}\) by automorphisms of Lie algebras. This translates into the following results, which we do not prove -- but see \cite[sec.~14.3]{humphreys}. \begin{proposition}\label{thm:weyl-group-action} Given \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\), there is an automorphism of Lie algebras \(f_\alpha : \mathfrak{g} \isoto \mathfrak{g}\) such that \(f_\alpha(H) = \sigma_\alpha \cdot H\) for all \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\). In addition, these automorphisms can be chosen in such a way that the family \(\{f_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in \Delta^+}\) defines an action of \(W\) on \(\mathfrak{g}\) -- which is obviously compatible with the natural action of \(W\) on \(\mathfrak{h}\). \end{proposition} \begin{note} We should notice the action of \(W\) on \(\mathfrak{g}\) from Proposition~\ref{thm:weyl-group-action} is not canonical, since it depends on the choice of \(E_\alpha\) and \(F_\alpha\). Nevertheless, different choices of \(E_\alpha\) and \(F_\alpha\) yield isomorphic actions and the restriction of these actions to \(\mathfrak{h}\) is independent of any choices. \end{note} We should point out that the results in this section regarding the geometry roots and weights are only the beginning of a well develop axiomatic theory of the so called \emph{root systems}, which was used by Cartan in the early 20th century to classify all finite-dimensional simple complex Lie algebras in terms of Dynking diagrams. This and much more can be found in \cite[III]{humphreys} and \cite[ch.~21]{fulton-harris}. Having found all of the weights of \(M\), the only thing we are missing for a complete classification is an existence and uniqueness theorem analogous to Theorem~\ref{thm:sl2-exist-unique} and Theorem~\ref{thm:sl3-existence-uniqueness}. This will be the focus of the next section. \section{Highest Weight Modules \& the Highest Weight Theorem} It is already clear from the previous discussion that if \(\lambda\) is the highest weight of \(M\) then \(\lambda(H_\alpha) \ge 0\) for all positive roots \(\alpha\). Indeed, as in the \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\), for each \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\) we know \(\lambda(H_\alpha)\) is the highest eigenvalue of the action of \(h\) in the \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\)-module \(\bigoplus_k M_{\lambda - k \alpha}\) -- which must be a non-negative integer. This fact may be summarized in the following proposition. \begin{definition}\index{weights!dominant weight}\index{weights!integral weight} An element \(\lambda\) of \(P\) such that \(\lambda(H_\alpha) \ge 0\) for all \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\) is referred to as an \emph{dominant integral weight of \(\mathfrak{g}\)}. The set of all dominant integral weights is denotes by \(P^+\). \end{definition} \begin{proposition}\label{thm:highes-weight-of-fin-dim-is-dominant} Suppose \(M\) is a finite-dimensional simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module and \(\lambda\) is its highest weight. Then \(\lambda\) is a dominant integral weight of \(\mathfrak{g}\). \end{proposition} The condition that \(\lambda \in P^+\) is thus necessary for the existence of a simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module with highest weight given by \(\lambda\). Given our previous experience with \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) and \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\), it is perhaps unsurprising that this condition is also sufficient. \begin{theorem}\label{thm:dominant-weight-theo}\index{weights!Highest Weight Theorem} For each dominant integral \(\lambda \in P^+\) there exists precisely one finite-dimensional simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module \(M\) whose highest weight is \(\lambda\). \end{theorem} This is known as \emph{the Highest Weight Theorem}, and its proof is the focus of this section. The ``uniqueness'' part of the theorem follows at once from the arguments used for \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\). However, the ``existence'' part of the theorem is more nuanced. Our first instinct is, of course, to try to generalize the proof used for \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\). Indeed, as in Proposition~\ref{thm:sl3-mod-is-highest-weight}, one is able to show\dots \begin{proposition}\label{thm:fin-dim-simple-mod-has-singular-vector} Let \(M\) be a finite-dimensional simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module. Then there exists a nonzero weight vector \(m \in M\) which is annihilated by all positive root spaces of \(\mathfrak{g}\) -- i.e. \(X \cdot m = 0\) for all \(X \in \mathfrak{g}_\alpha\), \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\). \end{proposition} \begin{proof} If \(\lambda\) is the highest weight of \(M\), it suffices to take any \(m \in M_\lambda\). Indeed, given \(X \in \mathfrak{g}_\alpha\) with \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\), \(X \cdot m \in M_{\lambda + \alpha} = 0\) because \(\lambda + \alpha \succ \lambda\). \end{proof} Unfortunately for us, this is where the parallels with Proposition~\ref{thm:sl3-mod-is-highest-weight} end. The issue is that our proof relied heavily on our knowledge of the roots of \(\mathfrak{sl}_3(K)\). It is thus clear that we need a more systematic approach for the general setting. We begin by asking a simpler question: how can we construct \emph{any} \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module \(M\) whose highest weight is \(\lambda\)? In the process of answering this question we will come across a surprisingly elegant solution to our problem. If \(M\) is a finite-dimensional simple module with highest weight \(\lambda\) and \(m \in M_\lambda\), we already know that \(X \cdot m = 0\) for any \(m \in M_\lambda\) and \(X \in \mathfrak{g}_\alpha\), \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\). Since \(M = \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}) \cdot m\), the restriction of \(M\) to the Borel subalgebra \(\mathfrak{b} \subset \mathfrak{g}\) has a prescribed action. On the other hand, we have essentially no information about the action of the rest of \(\mathfrak{g}\) on \(M\). Nevertheless, given a \(\mathfrak{b}\)-module we may obtain a \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module by \emph{freely} extending the action of \(\mathfrak{b}\) via induction. This leads us to the following definition. \begin{definition}\label{def:verma}\index{\(\mathfrak{g}\)-module!(generalized) Verma modules} Given \(\lambda \in \mathfrak{h}^*\), consider the \(\mathfrak{b}\)-module \(K m^+\) where \(H \cdot m^+ = \lambda(H) m^+\) for all \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\) and \(X \cdot m^+ = 0\) for \(X \in \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}\) with \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\). The \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module \(M(\lambda) = \operatorname{Ind}_{\mathfrak{b}}^{\mathfrak{g}} K m^+\) is called \emph{the Verma module of weight \(\lambda\)}. \end{definition} \begin{example}\label{ex:sl2-verma} If \(\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\), then we can take \(\mathfrak{h} = K h\) and \(\mathfrak{b} = K e \oplus K h\). In this setting, the linear map \(g : \mathfrak{h}^* \to K\) defined by \(g(h) = 1\) affords us a canonical identification \(\mathfrak{h}^* = K g \cong K\), so that given \(\lambda \in K\) we may denote \(M(\lambda g)\) simply by \(M(\lambda)\). Using this notation \(M(\lambda) = \bigoplus_{k \ge 0} K f^k \cdot m^+\), and the action of \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) on \(M(\lambda)\) is given by formula (\ref{eq:sl2-verma-formulas}). \begin{equation}\label{eq:sl2-verma-formulas} \begin{aligned} f^k \cdot m^+ & \overset{e}{\mapsto} k(\lambda+1-k) f^{k-1} \cdot m^+ & f^k \cdot m^+ & \overset{f}{\mapsto} f^{k+1} \cdot m^+ & f^k \cdot m^+ & \overset{h}{\mapsto} (\lambda - 2k) f^k \cdot m^+ & \end{aligned} \end{equation} \end{example} \begin{example}\label{ex:verma-is-not-irr} Consider the \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\)-module \(M(2)\) as described in Example~\ref{ex:sl2-verma}. It follows from formula (\ref{eq:sl2-verma-formulas}) that the action of \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) on \(M(2)\) is given by \begin{center} \begin{tikzcd} \cdots \rar[bend left=60]{-10} & M(2)_{-6} \rar[bend left=60]{-4} \lar[bend left=60]{1} & M(2)_{-4} \rar[bend left=60]{0} \lar[bend left=60]{1} & M(2)_{-2} \rar[bend left=60]{2} \lar[bend left=60]{1} & M(2)_0 \rar[bend left=60]{2} \lar[bend left=60]{1} & M(2)_2 \lar[bend left=60]{1} \end{tikzcd} \end{center} where \(M(2)_{2 - 2 k} = K f^k \cdot m^+\). Here the top arrows represent the action of \(e\) and the bottom arrows represent the action of \(f\). The scalars labeling each arrow indicate to which multiple of \(f^{k \pm 1} \cdot m^+\) the elements \(e\) and \(f\) send \(f^k \cdot m^+\). The string of weight spaces to the left of the diagram is infinite. Since \(e \cdot (f^3 \cdot m^+) = 0\), it is easy to see that subspace \(\bigoplus_{k \ge 3} K f^k \cdot m^+\) is a (maximal) \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\)-submodule, which is isomorphic to \(M(-4)\). \end{example} These last examples show that, unlike most modules we have so far encountered, Verma modules are \emph{highly infinite-dimensional}. Indeed, it follows from the PBW Theorem that the regular module \(\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})\) is a free \(\mathfrak{b}\)-module of infinite rank -- equal to the codimension of \(\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{b})\) in \(\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})\). Hence \(\dim M(\lambda)\), which is the same as the rank of \(\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})\) as a \(\mathfrak{b}\)-module, is also infinite. Nevertheless, it turns out that finite-dimensional modules and Verma module may both be seen as particular cases of a more general pattern. This leads us to the following definitions. \begin{definition} Let \(M\) be a \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module. A vector \(m \in M\) is called \emph{singular} if it is annihilated by all positive weight spaces of \(\mathfrak{g}\) -- i.e. \(X \cdot m = 0\) for all \(X \in \mathfrak{g}_\alpha\), \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\). \end{definition} \begin{definition}\label{def:highest-weight-mod} A \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module \(M\) is called \emph{a highest weight module} if there exists some singular weight vector \(m^+ \in M_\lambda\) such that \(M = \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}) \cdot m^+\). Any such \(m^+\) is called \emph{a highest weight vector}, while \(\lambda\) is called \emph{the highest weight of \(M\)}. \end{definition} \begin{example} Proposition~\ref{thm:fin-dim-simple-mod-has-singular-vector} is equivalent to the fact that every finite-dimensional simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module is a highest weight module. \end{example} \begin{example} It should be obvious from the definitions that \(M(\lambda)\) is a highest weight module of highest weight \(\lambda\) and highest weight vector \(m^+ = 1 \otimes m^+\) as in Definition~\ref{def:verma}. Indeed, \(u \otimes m^+ = u \cdot m^+\) for all \(u \in \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})\), which already shows \(M(\lambda)\) is generated by \(m^+\). In particular, \begin{align*} H \cdot m^+ & = H \otimes m^+ = 1 \otimes H \cdot m^+ = \lambda(H) m^+ \\ X \cdot m^+ & = X \otimes m^+ = 1 \otimes X \cdot m^+ = 0 \end{align*} for all \(H \in \mathfrak{h}\) and \(X \in \mathfrak{g}_\alpha\), \(\alpha \in \Delta^+\). \end{example} While Verma modules show that a highest weight module needs not to be finite-dimensional, it turns out that highest weight modules enjoy many of the features we've grown used to in the past chapters. Explicitly, we may establish the properties described in the following proposition, whose statement should also explain the nomenclature of Definition~\ref{def:highest-weight-mod}. \begin{proposition}\label{thm:high-weight-mod-is-weight-mod} Let \(M\) be a highest weight \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module with highest weight vector \(m \in M_\lambda\). The weight spaces decomposition \[ M = \bigoplus_{\mu \in \mathfrak{h}^*} M_\mu \] holds. Furthermore, \(\dim M_\mu < \infty\) for all \(\mu \in \mathfrak{h}^*\) and \(\dim M_\lambda = 1\) -- i.e. \(M_\lambda = K m\). Finally, given a weight \(\mu\) of \(M\), \(\lambda \succeq \mu\) -- so that the highest weight \(\lambda\) of \(M\) is unique and coincides with the largest of the weights of \(M\). \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Since \(M = \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}) \cdot m\), the PBW Theorem implies that \(M\) is spanned by the vectors \(F_{\alpha_{i_1}} F_{\alpha_{i_2}} \cdots F_{\alpha_{i_s}} \cdot m\) for \(\Delta^+ = \{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_r\}\) and \(F_{\alpha_i} \in \mathfrak{g}_{- \alpha_i}\) as in the proof of Proposition~\ref{thm:distinguished-subalgebra}. But \[ \begin{split} H \cdot (F_{\alpha_{i_1}} F_{\alpha_{i_2}} \cdots F_{\alpha_{i_s}} \cdot m) & = ([H, F_{\alpha_{i_1}}] + F_{\alpha_{i_1}} H) F_{\alpha_{i_2}} \cdots F_{\alpha_{i_s}} \cdot m \\ & = - \alpha_{i_1}(H) F_{\alpha_{i_1}} \cdots F_{\alpha_{i_s}} \cdot m + F_{\alpha_{i_1}} ([H, F_{\alpha_{i_2}}] + F_{\alpha_{i_2}} H) F_{\alpha_{i_2}} \cdots F_{\alpha_{i_s}} \cdot m \\ & \;\; \vdots \\ & = (- \alpha_{i_1} - \cdots - \alpha_{i_s})(H) F_{\alpha_{i_1}} \cdots F_{\alpha_{i_s}} \cdot m + F_{\alpha_{i_1}} \cdots F_{\alpha_{i_s}} H \cdot m \\ & = (\lambda - \alpha_{i_1} - \cdots - \alpha_{i_s})(H) F_{\alpha_{i_1}} \cdots F_{\alpha_{i_s}} \cdot m \\ & \therefore F_{\alpha_{i_1}} \cdots F_{\alpha_{i_s}} \cdot m \in M_{\lambda - \alpha_{i_1} - \cdots - \alpha_{i_s}} \end{split} \] Hence \(M \subset \bigoplus_{\mu \in \mathfrak{h}^*} M_\mu\), as desired. In fact we have established \[ M \subset \bigoplus_{k_i \in \mathbb{N}} M_{\lambda - k_1 \cdot \alpha_1 - \cdots - k_r \cdot \alpha_r} \] where \(\{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_r\} = \Delta^+\), so that all weights of \(M\) have the form \(\mu = \lambda - k_1 \cdot \alpha_1 - \cdots - k_r \cdot \alpha_r\). This already gives us that the weights of \(M\) are bounded by \(\lambda\). To see that \(\dim M_\mu < \infty\), simply note that there are only finitely many monomials \(F_{\alpha_1}^{k_1} F_{\alpha_2}^{k_2} \cdots F_{\alpha_s}^{k_s}\) such that \(\mu = \lambda + k_1 \cdot \alpha_1 + \cdots + k_s \cdot \alpha_s\). Since \(M_\mu\) is spanned by the images of \(m\) under such monomials, we conclude \(\dim M_\mu < \infty\). In particular, there is a single monomial \(F_{\alpha_1}^{k_1} F_{\alpha_2}^{k_2} \cdots F_{\alpha_s}^{k_s}\) such that \(\lambda = \lambda + k_1 \cdot \alpha_1 + \cdots + k_s \cdot \alpha_s\) -- which is, of course, the monomial where \(k_1 = \cdots = k_n = 0\). Hence \(\dim M_\lambda = 1\). \end{proof} At this point it is important to note that, far from a ``misbehaved'' class of examples, Verma modules hold a very special place in the theory of highest weight modules. Intuitively speaking, the Verma module \(M(\lambda)\) should really be though-of as ``the freest highest weight \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module of highest weight \(\lambda\)''. In practice, this translates to the following universal property. \begin{proposition} Let \(M\) be a \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module and \(m \in M_\lambda\) be a singular vector. Then there exists a unique \(\mathfrak{g}\)-homomorphism \(f : M(\lambda) \to M\) such that \(f(m^+) = m\). Furthermore, all homomorphisms \(M(\lambda) \to M\) are given in this fashion. \[ \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathfrak{g}}(M(\lambda), M) \cong \{ m \in M_\lambda : m \ \text{is singular}\} \] \end{proposition} \begin{proof} The result follows directly from Proposition~\ref{thm:frobenius-reciprocity}. Indeed, by the Frobenius Reciprocity Theorem, a \(\mathfrak{g}\)-homomorphism \(f : M(\lambda) \to M\) is the same as a \(\mathfrak{b}\)-homomorphism \(g : K m^+ \to M = \operatorname{Res}_{\mathfrak{b}}^{\mathfrak{g}} M\). More specifically, given a \(\mathfrak{b}\)-homomorphism \(g : K m^+ \to M\), there exists a unique \(\mathfrak{g}\)-homomorphism \(f : M(\lambda) \to M\) such that \(f(u \otimes m^+) = u \cdot g(m^+)\) for all \(u \in \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})\), and all \(\mathfrak{g}\)-homomorphism \(M(\lambda) \to M\) arise in this fashion. Any \(K\)-linear map \(g : K m^+ \to M\) is determined by \(m = g(m^+)\). Finally, notice that \(g\) is a \(\mathfrak{b}\)-homomorphism if, and only if \(m\) is a singular vector lying in \(M_\lambda\). \end{proof} Why is any of this interesting to us, however? After all, Verma modules are not specially well suited candidates for a proof of the Highest Weight Theorem. Indeed, we have seen in Example~\ref{ex:verma-is-not-irr} that in general \(M(\lambda)\) is not simple, nor is it ever finite-dimensional. Nevertheless, we may use \(M(\lambda)\) to establish Theorem~\ref{thm:dominant-weight-theo} as follows. Suppose \(M\) is a highest weight \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module of highest weight \(\lambda\) with highest weight vector \(m\). By the last proposition, there is a \(\mathfrak{g}\)-homomorphism \(f : M(\lambda) \to M\) such that \(f(m^+) = m\). Since \(M = \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}) \cdot m\), \(f\) is surjective and therefore \(M \cong \mfrac{M(\lambda)}{\ker f}\). Hence\dots \begin{proposition} Let \(M\) be a highest weight \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module of highest weight \(\lambda\). Then \(M\) is quotient of \(M(\lambda)\). If \(M\) is simple then \(M\) is the quotient of \(M(\lambda)\) by a maximal \(\mathfrak{g}\)-submodule. \end{proposition} Maximal submodules of Verma modules are thus of primary interest to us. As it turns out, these can be easily classified. \begin{proposition}\label{thm:max-verma-submod-is-weight} Every submodule \(N \subset M(\lambda)\) is the direct sum of its weight spaces. In particular, \(M(\lambda)\) has a unique maximal submodule \(N(\lambda)\) and a unique simple quotient \(L(\lambda) = \sfrac{M(\lambda)}{N(\lambda)}\). Any simple highest weight \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module has the form \(L(\lambda)\) for some unique \(\lambda \in \mathfrak{h}^*\). \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Let \(N \subset M(\lambda)\) be a submodule and take any nonzero \(n \in N\). Because of Proposition~\ref{thm:high-weight-mod-is-weight-mod}, we know there are \(\mu_1, \ldots, \mu_r \in \mathfrak{h}^*\) and nonzero \(m_i \in M(\lambda)_{\mu_i}\) such that \(n = m_1 + \cdots + m_r\). We want to show \(m_i \in N\) for all \(i\). Fix some \(H_2 \in \mathfrak{h}\) such that \(\mu_1(H_2) \ne \mu_2(H_2)\). Then \[ m_1 - \frac{(\mu_3 - \mu_1)(H_2)}{(\mu_2 - \mu_1)(H_2)} \cdot m_3 - \cdots - \frac{(\mu_r - \mu_1)(H_2)}{(\mu_2 - \mu_1)(H_2)} \cdot m_r = \left( 1 - \frac{H_2 - \mu_1(H_2)}{(\mu_2 - \mu_1)(H_2)} \right) \cdot n \in N \] Now take \(H_3 \in \mathfrak{h}\) such that \(\mu_1(H_3) \ne \mu_3(H_3)\). By applying the same procedure again we get \begin{multline*} m_1 - \frac{(\mu_4 - \mu_3)(H_3) \cdot (\mu_4 - \mu_1)(H_2)} {(\mu_3 - \mu_1)(H_3) \cdot (\mu_2 - \mu_1)(H_2)} \cdot m_4 - \cdots - \frac{(\mu_r - \mu_3)(H_3) \cdot (\mu_r - \mu_1)(H_2)} {(\mu_3 - \mu_1)(H_3) \cdot (\mu_2 - \mu_1)(H_2)} \cdot m_r \\ = \left(1 - \frac{H_3 - \mu_1(H_3)}{(\mu_3 - \mu_1)(H_3)} \right) \left(1 - \frac{H_2 - \mu_1(H_2)}{(\mu_2 - \mu_1)(H_2)} \right) \cdot n \in N \end{multline*} By applying the same procedure over and over again we can see that \(m_1 = u \cdot n \in N\) for some \(u \in \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})\). Furthermore, if we reproduce all this for \(m_2 + \cdots + m_r = n - m_1 \in N\) we get that \(m_2 \in N\). All in all we find \(m_1, \ldots, m_r \in N\). Hence \[ N = \bigoplus_\mu N_\mu = \bigoplus_\mu M(\lambda)_\mu \cap N \] Since \(M(\lambda) = \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}) \cdot m^+\), if \(N\) is a proper submodule then \(m^+ \notin N\). Hence any proper submodule lies in the sum of weight spaces other than \(M(\lambda)_\lambda\), so the sum \(N(\lambda)\) of all such submodules is still proper. This implies \(N(\lambda)\) is the unique maximal submodule of \(M(\lambda)\) and \(L(\lambda) = \sfrac{M(\lambda)}{N(\lambda)}\) is its unique simple quotient. \end{proof} \begin{corollary}\label{thm:classification-of-simple-high-weight-mods} Let \(M\) be a simple weight \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module of weight \(\lambda\). Then \(M \cong L(\lambda)\). \end{corollary} We thus know that \(L(\lambda)\) is the only possible candidate for the \(\mathfrak{g}\)-module \(M\) in the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:dominant-weight-theo}. We should also note that our past examples indicate that \(L(\lambda)\) does fulfill its required role. Indeed\dots \begin{example}\label{ex:sl2-verma-quotient} Consider the \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) module \(M(2)\) as described in Example~\ref{ex:sl2-verma}. We can see from Example~\ref{ex:verma-is-not-irr} that \(N(2) = \bigoplus_{k \ge 3} K f^k \cdot m^+\), so that \(L(2)\) is the \(3\)-dimensional simple \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\)-module -- i.e. the finite-dimensional simple module with highest weight \(2\) constructed in chapter~\ref{ch:sl3}. \end{example} All its left to prove the Highest Weight Theorem is verifying that the situation encountered in Example~\ref{ex:sl2-verma-quotient} holds for any dominant integral \(\lambda \in P^+\). In other words, we need to show\dots \begin{proposition}\label{thm:verma-is-finite-dim} If \(\mathfrak{g}\) is semisimple and \(\lambda\) is dominant integral then the unique simple quotient \(L(\lambda)\) of \(M(\lambda)\) is finite-dimensional. \end{proposition} The proof of Proposition~\ref{thm:verma-is-finite-dim} is very technical and we won't include it here, but the idea behind it is to show that the set of weights of \(L(\lambda)\) is stable under the natural action of the Weyl group \(W\) on \(\mathfrak{h}^*\). One can then show that the every weight of \(L(\lambda)\) is conjugate to a single dominant integral weight of \(L(\lambda)\), and that the set of dominant integral weights of \(L(\lambda)\) is finite. Since \(W\) is finitely generated, this implies the set of weights of the unique simple quotient of \(M(\lambda)\) is finite. But each weight space is finite-dimensional. Hence so is the simple quotient \(L(\lambda)\). We refer the reader to \cite[ch. 21]{humphreys} for further details. We are now ready to prove the Highest Weight Theorem. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:dominant-weight-theo}] We begin by the ``existence'' part of the theorem. Let \(\lambda\) be a dominant integral weight of \(\mathfrak{g}\). Since \(\dim L(\lambda) < \infty\), all its left is to show that \(M = L(\lambda)\) is indeed a highest weight module of highest weight \(\lambda\). It is clear from the definitions that \(m^+ + N(\lambda) \in L(\lambda)_\lambda\) is singular and generates all of \(L(\lambda)\). Hence it suffices to show that \(m^+ + N(\lambda)\) is nonzero. But this is the same as checking that \(m^+ \notin N(\lambda)\), which is also clear from the previous definitions. As for the uniqueness of \(M\), it suffices to apply Corollary~\ref{thm:classification-of-simple-high-weight-mods}. \end{proof} We would now like to conclude this chapter by describing the situation where \(\lambda \notin P^+\). We begin by pointing out that Proposition~\ref{thm:verma-is-finite-dim} fails in the general setting. For instance, consider\dots \begin{example}\label{ex:antidominant-verma} The action of \(\mathfrak{sl}_2(K)\) on \(M(-4)\) is given by the following diagram. In general, it is possible to check using formula (\ref{eq:sl2-verma-formulas}) that \(e\) always maps \(f^{k + 1} \cdot m^+\) to a nonzero multiple of \(f^k \cdot m^+\), so we can see that \(M(-4)\) has no proper submodules, \(N(-4) = 0\) and thus \(L(-4) \cong M(-4)\). \begin{center} \begin{tikzcd} \cdots \rar[bend left=60]{-28} & M(-4)_{-10} \rar[bend left=60]{-18} \lar[bend left=60]{1} & M(-4)_{-8} \rar[bend left=60]{-10} \lar[bend left=60]{1} & M(-4)_{-6} \rar[bend left=60]{-4} \lar[bend left=60]{1} & M(-4)_{-4} \lar[bend left=60]{1} \end{tikzcd}, \end{center} \end{example} While \(L(\lambda)\) is always a highest weight module of highest weight \(\lambda\), we can easily see that if \(\lambda \notin P^+\) then \(L(\lambda)\) is infinite-dimensional. Indeed, this is precisely the counterpositive of Proposition~\ref{thm:highes-weight-of-fin-dim-is-dominant}! If \(\lambda = k_1 \beta_1 + \cdots + k_r \beta_r \in P\) is integral and \(k_i < 0\) for all \(i\), then one is additionally able to show that \(M(\lambda) \cong L(\lambda)\) as in Example~\ref{ex:antidominant-verma}. Verma modules can thus serve as examples of infinite-dimensional simple modules. In the next chapter we expand our previous results by exploring the question: what are \emph{all} the infinite-dimensional simple \(\mathfrak{g}\)-modules?