Jump to content

Weyl's theorem on complete reducibility: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
missing symbol definition; should I mark this sort of thing as a minor edit?
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


== The enveloping algebra is semisimple ==
== The enveloping algebra is semisimple ==
Weyl's theorem implies (in fact is equivalent to) that the enveloping algebra of a finite-dimensional representation is a [[semisimple ring]] in the following way.
Weyl's theorem implies (in fact is equivalent to) that the [[enveloping algebra of a representation|enveloping algebra of a finite-dimensional representation]] is a [[semisimple ring]] in the following way.


Given a finite-dimensional Lie algebra representation <math>\pi: \mathfrak{g} \to \mathfrak{gl}(V)</math>, let <math>A \subset \operatorname{End}(V)</math> be the associative subalgebra of the endomorphism algebra of ''V'' generated by <math>\pi(\mathfrak g)</math>. The ring ''A'' is called the [[enveloping algebra of a representation|enveloping algebra]] of <math>\pi</math>. If <math>\pi</math> is semisimple, then ''A'' is semisimple.<ref>{{harvnb|Jacobson|1962|loc=Ch. II, § 5, Theorem 10.}}</ref> (Proof: Since ''A'' is a finite-dimensional algebra, it is an Artinian ring; in particular, the Jacobson radical ''J'' is nilpotent. If ''V'' is simple, then <math>JV \subset V</math> implies that <math>JV = 0</math>. In general, ''J'' kills each simple submodule of ''V''; in particular, ''J'' kills ''V'' and so ''J'' is zero.) Conversely, if ''A'' is semisimple, then ''V'' is a semisimple ''A''-module; i.e., semisimple as a <math>\mathfrak g</math>-module. (Note that a module over a semisimple ring is semisimple since a module is a quotient of a free module and "semisimple" is preserved under the free and quotient constructions.)
Given a finite-dimensional Lie algebra representation <math>\pi: \mathfrak{g} \to \mathfrak{gl}(V)</math>, let <math>A \subset \operatorname{End}(V)</math> be the associative subalgebra of the endomorphism algebra of ''V'' generated by <math>\pi(\mathfrak g)</math>. The ring ''A'' is called the enveloping algebra of <math>\pi</math>. If <math>\pi</math> is semisimple, then ''A'' is semisimple.<ref>{{harvnb|Jacobson|1979|loc=Ch. II, § 5, Theorem 10.}}</ref> (Proof: Since ''A'' is a finite-dimensional algebra, it is an Artinian ring; in particular, the Jacobson radical ''J'' is nilpotent. If ''V'' is simple, then <math>JV \subset V</math> implies that <math>JV = 0</math>. In general, ''J'' kills each simple submodule of ''V''; in particular, ''J'' kills ''V'' and so ''J'' is zero.) Conversely, if ''A'' is semisimple, then ''V'' is a semisimple ''A''-module; i.e., semisimple as a <math>\mathfrak g</math>-module. (Note that a module over a semisimple ring is semisimple since a module is a quotient of a free module and "semisimple" is preserved under the free and quotient constructions.)


== Application: preservation of Jordan decomposition ==
== Application: preservation of Jordan decomposition ==
Here is a typical application.<ref>{{harvnb|Jacobson|1962|loc=Ch. III, § 11, Theorem 17.}}</ref>
Here is a typical application.<ref>{{harvnb|Jacobson|1979|loc=Ch. III, § 11, Theorem 17.}}</ref>


{{math_theorem|name=Proposition|math_statement=Let <math>\mathfrak g</math> be a semisimple finite-dimensional Lie algebra over a field of characteristic zero.<ref>Editorial note: this fact is usually stated for a field of characteristic zero, but the proof only needs the base field is perfect.</ref>
{{math_theorem|name=Proposition|math_statement=Let <math>\mathfrak g</math> be a semisimple finite-dimensional Lie algebra over a field of characteristic zero and <math>x</math> an element of <math>\mathfrak g</math>.{{efn|Editorial note: this fact is usually stated for a field of characteristic zero, but the proof needs only that the base field be perfect.}}
# There exists a unique pair of elements <math>x_s, x_n</math> in <math>\mathfrak g</math> such that <math>x = x_s + x_n</math>, <math>\operatorname{ad}(x_s)</math> is semisimple, <math>\operatorname{ad}(x_n)</math> is nilpotent and <math>[x_s, x_n] = 0</math>.
# There exists a unique pair of elements <math>x_s, x_n</math> in <math>\mathfrak g</math> such that <math>x = x_s + x_n</math>, <math>\operatorname{ad}(x_s)</math> is semisimple, <math>\operatorname{ad}(x_n)</math> is nilpotent and <math>[x_s, x_n] = 0</math>.
# If <math>\pi : \mathfrak{g} \to \mathfrak{gl}(V)</math> is a finite-dimensional representation, then <math>\pi(x)_s = \pi(x_s)</math> and <math>\pi(x)_n = \pi(x_n)</math>, where <math>\pi(x)_s, \pi(x)_n</math> denote the Jordan decomposition of the semisimple and nilpotent parts of the endomorphism <math>\pi(x)</math>.
# If <math>\pi : \mathfrak{g} \to \mathfrak{gl}(V)</math> is a finite-dimensional representation, then <math>\pi(x)_s = \pi(x_s)</math> and <math>\pi(x)_n = \pi(x_n)</math>, where <math>\pi(x)_s, \pi(x)_n</math> denote the Jordan decomposition of the semisimple and nilpotent parts of the endomorphism <math>\pi(x)</math>.
In short, the semisimple and nilpotent parts of an element of <math>\mathfrak g</math> are well-defined and are determined independent of a faithful finite-dimensional representation.}}
In short, the semisimple and nilpotent parts of an element of <math>\mathfrak g</math> are well-defined and are determined independent of a faithful finite-dimensional representation.}}


''Proof'': First we prove the special case of (i) and (ii) when <math>\pi</math> is the inclusion; i.e., <math>\mathfrak g</math> is a subalgebra of <math>\mathfrak{gl}_n = \mathfrak{gl}(V)</math>. Let <math>x = S + N</math> be the Jordan decomposition of the endomorphism <math>x</math>, where <math>S, N</math> are semisimple and nilpotent endomorphisms in <math>\mathfrak{gl}_n</math>. Now, <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(x)</math> also has the Jordan decomposition, which can be shown (see [[Jordan–Chevalley decomposition#Lie algebras]]) to respect the above Jordan decomposition; i.e., <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(S), \operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(N)</math> are the semisimple and nilpotent parts of <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(x)</math>. Since <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(S), \operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(N)</math> are polynomials in <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(x)</math> then, we see <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(S), \operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(N) : \mathfrak g \to \mathfrak g</math>. Thus, they are derivations of <math>\mathfrak{g}</math>. Since <math>\mathfrak{g}</math> is semisimple, we can find elements <math>s, n</math> in <math>\mathfrak{g}</math> such that <math>[y, S] = [y, s], y \in \mathfrak{g}</math> and similarly for <math>n</math>. Now, let ''A'' be the enveloping algebra of <math>\mathfrak{g}</math>; i.e., the subalgebra of the endomorphism algebra of ''V'' generated by <math>\mathfrak g</math>. As noted above, ''A'' has zero Jacobson radical. Since <math>[y, N - n] = 0</math>, we see that <math>N - n</math> is a nilpotent element in the center of ''A''. But, in general, a central nilpotent belongs to the Jacobson radical; hence, <math>N = n</math> and thus also <math>S = s</math>. This proves the special case.
''Proof'': First we prove the special case of (i) and (ii) when <math>\pi</math> is the inclusion; i.e., <math>\mathfrak g</math> is a subalgebra of <math>\mathfrak{gl}_n = \mathfrak{gl}(V)</math>. Let <math>x = S + N</math> be the Jordan decomposition of the endomorphism <math>x</math>, where <math>S, N</math> are semisimple and nilpotent endomorphisms in <math>\mathfrak{gl}_n</math>. Now, <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(x)</math> also has the Jordan decomposition, which can be shown (see [[Jordan–Chevalley decomposition#Preservation under representations|Jordan–Chevalley decomposition]]) to respect the above Jordan decomposition; i.e., <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(S), \operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(N)</math> are the semisimple and nilpotent parts of <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(x)</math>. Since <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(S), \operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(N)</math> are polynomials in <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(x)</math> then, we see <math>\operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(S), \operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{gl}_n}(N) : \mathfrak g \to \mathfrak g</math>. Thus, they are derivations of <math>\mathfrak{g}</math>. Since <math>\mathfrak{g}</math> is semisimple, we can find elements <math>s, n</math> in <math>\mathfrak{g}</math> such that <math>[y, S] = [y, s], y \in \mathfrak{g}</math> and similarly for <math>n</math>. Now, let ''A'' be the enveloping algebra of <math>\mathfrak{g}</math>; i.e., the subalgebra of the endomorphism algebra of ''V'' generated by <math>\mathfrak g</math>. As noted above, ''A'' has zero Jacobson radical. Since <math>[y, N - n] = 0</math>, we see that <math>N - n</math> is a nilpotent element in the center of ''A''. But, in general, a central nilpotent belongs to the Jacobson radical; hence, <math>N = n</math> and thus also <math>S = s</math>. This proves the special case.


In general, <math>\pi(x)</math> is semisimple (resp. nilpotent) when <math>\operatorname{ad}(x)</math> is semisimple (resp. nilpotent).{{clarify|why?}} This immediately gives (i) and (ii). <math>\square</math>
In general, <math>\pi(x)</math> is semisimple (resp. nilpotent) when <math>\operatorname{ad}(x)</math> is semisimple (resp. nilpotent).{{clarify|why?|date=October 2020}} This immediately gives (i) and (ii). <math>\square</math>


== Proofs ==
== Proofs ==
=== Analytic proof ===
=== Analytic proof ===
Weyl's original proof (for complex semisimple Lie algebras) was analytic in nature: it famously used the [[unitarian trick]]. Specifically, one can show that every complex semisimple Lie algebra <math>\mathfrak{g}</math> is the complexification of the Lie algebra of a simply connected compact Lie group <math>K</math>.<ref>{{harvnb|Knapp|2002}} Theorem 6.11</ref> (If, for example, <math>\mathfrak{g}=\mathrm{sl}(n;\mathbb{C})</math>, then <math>K=\mathrm{SU}(n)</math>.) Given a representation <math>\pi</math> of <math>\mathfrak{g}</math> on a vector space <math>V,</math> one can first restrict <math>\pi</math> to the Lie algebra <math>\mathfrak{k}</math> of <math>K</math>. Then, [[Lie_group–Lie_algebra_correspondence#The_correspondence|since <math>K</math> is simply connected]],<ref>{{harvnb|Hall|2015}} Theorem 5.10</ref> there is an associated representation <math>\Pi</math> of <math>K</math>. Integration over <math>K</math> produces an inner product on <math>V</math> for which <math>\Pi</math> is unitary.<ref>{{harvnb|Hall|2015}} Theorem 4.28</ref> Complete reducibility of <math>\Pi</math> is then immediate and elementary arguments show that the original representation <math>\pi</math> of <math>\mathfrak{g}</math> is also completely reducible.
Weyl's original proof (for complex semisimple Lie algebras) was analytic in nature: it famously used the [[unitarian trick]]. Specifically, one can show that every complex semisimple Lie algebra <math>\mathfrak{g}</math> is the complexification of the Lie algebra of a simply connected compact [[Lie group]] <math>K</math>.<ref>{{harvnb|Knapp|2002}} Theorem 6.11</ref> (If, for example, <math>\mathfrak{g}=\mathrm{sl}(n;\mathbb{C})</math>, then <math>K=\mathrm{SU}(n)</math>.) Given a representation <math>\pi</math> of <math>\mathfrak{g}</math> on a vector space <math>V,</math> one can first restrict <math>\pi</math> to the Lie algebra <math>\mathfrak{k}</math> of <math>K</math>. Then, [[Lie_group–Lie_algebra_correspondence#The_correspondence|since <math>K</math> is simply connected]],<ref>{{harvnb|Hall|2015}} Theorem 5.10</ref> there is an associated representation <math>\Pi</math> of <math>K</math>. Integration over <math>K</math> produces an inner product on <math>V</math> for which <math>\Pi</math> is unitary.<ref>{{harvnb|Hall|2015}} Theorem 4.28</ref> Complete reducibility of <math>\Pi</math> is then immediate and elementary arguments show that the original representation <math>\pi</math> of <math>\mathfrak{g}</math> is also completely reducible.


===Algebraic proof 1===
===Algebraic proof 1===
Let <math>(\pi, V)</math> be a finite-dimensional representation of a Lie algebra <math>\mathfrak g</math> over a field of characteristic zero. The theorem is an easy consequence of [[Whitehead's lemma (Lie algebra)|Whitehead's lemma]], which says <math>V \to \operatorname{Der}(\mathfrak g, V), v \mapsto \cdot v</math> is surjective, where a linear map <math>f: \mathfrak g \to V</math> is a [[derivation (algebra)|derivation]] if <math>f([x, y]) = x \cdot f(y) - y \cdot f(x)</math>. The proof is essentially due to Whitehead.<ref>{{harvnb|Jacobson|1961|loc=Ch. III, § 7.}}</ref>
Let <math>(\pi, V)</math> be a finite-dimensional representation of a Lie algebra <math>\mathfrak g</math> over a field of characteristic zero. The theorem is an easy consequence of [[Whitehead's lemma (Lie algebra)|Whitehead's lemma]], which says <math>V \to \operatorname{Der}(\mathfrak g, V), v \mapsto \cdot v</math> is surjective, where a linear map <math>f: \mathfrak g \to V</math> is a [[derivation (algebra)|derivation]] if <math>f([x, y]) = x \cdot f(y) - y \cdot f(x)</math>. The proof is essentially due to Whitehead.<ref>{{harvnb|Jacobson|1979|loc=Ch. III, § 7.}}</ref>


Let <math>W \subset V</math> be a subrepresentation. Consider the vector subspace <math>L_W \subset \operatorname{End}(V)</math> that consists of all linear maps <math>t: V \to V</math> such that <math>t(V) \subset W</math> and <math>t(W) = 0</math>. It has a structure of a <math>\mathfrak{g}</math>-module given by: for <math>x \in \mathfrak{g}, t \in L_W</math>,
Let <math>W \subset V</math> be a subrepresentation. Consider the vector subspace <math>L_W \subset \operatorname{End}(V)</math> that consists of all linear maps <math>t: V \to V</math> such that <math>t(V) \subset W</math> and <math>t(W) = 0</math>. It has a structure of a <math>\mathfrak{g}</math>-module given by: for <math>x \in \mathfrak{g}, t \in L_W</math>,
:<math>x \cdot t = [\pi(x), t]</math>.
:<math>x \cdot t = [\pi(x), t]</math>.
Now, pick some projection <math>p : V \to V</math> onto ''W'' and consider <math>f : \mathfrak{g} \to L_W</math> given by <math>f(x) = [p, \pi(x)]</math>. Since <math>f</math> is a derivation, by Whitehead's lemma, we can write <math>f(x) = x \cdot t</math> for some <math>t \in L_W</math>. We then have <math>[\pi(x), p + t] = 0, x \in \mathfrak{g}</math>; that is to say <math>p + t</math> is <math>\mathfrak{g}</math>-linear. Also, as ''t'' kills <math>W</math>, <math>p + t</math> is an idempotent such that <math>(p + t)(V) = W</math>. The kernel of <math>p + t</math> is then a complementary representation to <math>W</math>. <math>\square</math>
Now, pick some projection <math>p : V \to V</math> onto ''W'' and consider <math>f : \mathfrak{g} \to L_W</math> given by <math>f(x) = [p, \pi(x)]</math>. Since <math>f</math> is a derivation, by Whitehead's lemma, we can write <math>f(x) = x \cdot t</math> for some <math>t \in L_W</math>. We then have <math>[\pi(x), p + t] = 0, x \in \mathfrak{g}</math>; that is to say <math>p + t</math> is <math>\mathfrak{g}</math>-linear. Also, as ''t'' kills <math>W</math>, <math>p + t</math> is an idempotent such that <math>(p + t)(V) = W</math>. The kernel of <math>p + t</math> is then a complementary representation to <math>W</math>. <math>\square</math>

See also Weibel's [[homological algebra]] book<!-- where exactly?-->.


=== Algebraic proof 2 ===
=== Algebraic proof 2 ===
Line 47: Line 45:
:<math>V^0 = \bigoplus_{\lambda \in L} V^0_{\lambda}</math>
:<math>V^0 = \bigoplus_{\lambda \in L} V^0_{\lambda}</math>
where <math>L \subset \mathfrak{h}^*</math>. For each <math>\lambda \in L</math>, pick <math>0 \ne v_{\lambda} \in V_{\lambda}</math> and <math>V^{\lambda} \subset V</math> the <math>\mathfrak g</math>-submodule generated by <math>v_{\lambda}</math> and <math>V' \subset V</math> the <math>\mathfrak g</math>-submodule generated by <math>V^0</math>. We claim: <math>V = V'</math>. Suppose <math>V \ne V'</math>. By [[Lie's theorem]], there exists a <math>\mathfrak{b}</math>-weight vector in <math>V/V'</math>; thus, we can find an <math>\mathfrak{h}</math>-weight vector <math>v</math> such that <math>0 \ne e_i(v) \in V'</math> for some <math>e_i</math> among the [[Chevalley generators]]. Now, <math>e_i(v)</math> has weight <math>\mu + \alpha_i</math>. Since <math>L</math> is partially ordered, there is a <math>\lambda \in L</math> such that <math>\lambda \ge \mu + \alpha_i</math>; i.e., <math>\lambda > \mu</math>. But this is a contradiction since <math>\lambda, \mu</math> are both primitive weights (it is known that the primitive weights are incomparable.{{clarify|More details should be given on this matter|date=September 2020}}). Similarly, each <math>V^{\lambda}</math> is simple as a <math>\mathfrak g</math>-module. Indeed, if it is not simple, then, for some <math>\mu < \lambda</math>, <math>V^0_{\mu}</math> contains some nonzero vector that is not a highest-weight vector; again a contradiction.{{clarify|More explanation|date=September 2020}} <math>\square</math>
where <math>L \subset \mathfrak{h}^*</math>. For each <math>\lambda \in L</math>, pick <math>0 \ne v_{\lambda} \in V_{\lambda}</math> and <math>V^{\lambda} \subset V</math> the <math>\mathfrak g</math>-submodule generated by <math>v_{\lambda}</math> and <math>V' \subset V</math> the <math>\mathfrak g</math>-submodule generated by <math>V^0</math>. We claim: <math>V = V'</math>. Suppose <math>V \ne V'</math>. By [[Lie's theorem]], there exists a <math>\mathfrak{b}</math>-weight vector in <math>V/V'</math>; thus, we can find an <math>\mathfrak{h}</math>-weight vector <math>v</math> such that <math>0 \ne e_i(v) \in V'</math> for some <math>e_i</math> among the [[Chevalley generators]]. Now, <math>e_i(v)</math> has weight <math>\mu + \alpha_i</math>. Since <math>L</math> is partially ordered, there is a <math>\lambda \in L</math> such that <math>\lambda \ge \mu + \alpha_i</math>; i.e., <math>\lambda > \mu</math>. But this is a contradiction since <math>\lambda, \mu</math> are both primitive weights (it is known that the primitive weights are incomparable.{{clarify|More details should be given on this matter|date=September 2020}}). Similarly, each <math>V^{\lambda}</math> is simple as a <math>\mathfrak g</math>-module. Indeed, if it is not simple, then, for some <math>\mu < \lambda</math>, <math>V^0_{\mu}</math> contains some nonzero vector that is not a highest-weight vector; again a contradiction.{{clarify|More explanation|date=September 2020}} <math>\square</math>

== Algebraic proof 4 ==
{{expand section|date=July 2024}}
There is also a quick homological algebra proof; see Weibel's [[homological algebra]] book<!-- where exactly?-->.


== External links ==
== External links ==
Line 52: Line 54:


== References ==
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
{{notelist}}
{{Reflist|20em}}
* {{cite book |last=Hall |first=Brian C. |title=Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction|edition = 2nd|series= Graduate Texts in Mathematics|volume=222 |year=2015 |publisher=Springer|isbn=978-3319134666}}
* {{cite book |last=Hall |first=Brian C. |title=Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction|edition = 2nd|series= Graduate Texts in Mathematics|volume=222 |year=2015 |publisher=Springer|isbn=978-3319134666}}
* {{cite book | last=Humphreys | first=James E. | authorlink=James E. Humphreys | title=Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory | edition=Second printing, revised | series=Graduate Texts in Mathematics | volume=9 | publisher=Springer-Verlag | location=New York | year=1973 | isbn=0-387-90053-5 | url-access=registration | url=https://archive.org/details/introductiontoli00jame }}
* {{cite book | last=Humphreys | first=James E. | author-link=James E. Humphreys | title=Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory | edition=Second printing, revised | series=Graduate Texts in Mathematics | volume=9 | publisher=Springer-Verlag | location=New York | year=1973 | isbn=0-387-90053-5 | url-access=registration | url=https://archive.org/details/introductiontoli00jame }}
* [[Nathan Jacobson|Jacobson, Nathan]], ''Lie algebras'', Republication of the 1962 original. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1979. {{ISBN|0-486-63832-4}}
* {{cite book |author-link=Nathan Jacobson |author-last=Jacobson |author-first=Nathan |title=Lie algebras |publisher=Dover Publications, Inc. |place=New York |year=1979 |isbn=0-486-63832-4}} Republication of the 1962 original.
*{{cite book|first=Victor|last=Kac|authorlink=Victor Kac|title=Infinite dimensional Lie algebras|edition= 3rd |publisher= [[Cambridge University Press]] |year=1990|isbn=0-521-46693-8|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kuEjSb9teJwC&lpg=PP1&dq=Victor%20G.%20Kac&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false}}
*{{cite book|first=Victor|last=Kac|author-link=Victor Kac|title=Infinite dimensional Lie algebras|edition= 3rd |publisher= [[Cambridge University Press]] |year=1990 |isbn=0-521-46693-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kuEjSb9teJwC&q=Victor%20G.%20Kac&pg=PP1}}
* {{citation|last=Knapp|first=Anthony W.|authorlink=Anthony Knapp|title=Lie Groups Beyond an Introduction|edition= 2nd|series=Progress in Mathematics|volume=140|publisher=Birkhäuser|place= Boston|year= 2002|isbn=0-8176-4259-5}}
* {{citation|last=Knapp|first=Anthony W.|author-link=Anthony W. Knapp|title=Lie Groups Beyond an Introduction|edition= 2nd|series=Progress in Mathematics|volume=140|publisher=Birkhäuser|place= Boston|year= 2002|isbn=0-8176-4259-5}}
* {{cite book |last=Weibel |first=Charles A. |authorlink=Charles Weibel |title=An Introduction to Homological Algebra |url= |accessdate= |year=1995 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location= |isbn= |page=}}
* {{cite book |last=Weibel |first=Charles A. |author-link=Charles Weibel |title=An Introduction to Homological Algebra |year=1995 |publisher=Cambridge University Press }}


[[Category:Lie algebras]]
[[Category:Lie algebras]]
[[Category:Theorems in representation theory]]

Latest revision as of 14:54, 28 November 2024

In algebra, Weyl's theorem on complete reducibility is a fundamental result in the theory of Lie algebra representations (specifically in the representation theory of semisimple Lie algebras). Let be a semisimple Lie algebra over a field of characteristic zero. The theorem states that every finite-dimensional module over is semisimple as a module (i.e., a direct sum of simple modules.)[1]

The enveloping algebra is semisimple

[edit]

Weyl's theorem implies (in fact is equivalent to) that the enveloping algebra of a finite-dimensional representation is a semisimple ring in the following way.

Given a finite-dimensional Lie algebra representation , let be the associative subalgebra of the endomorphism algebra of V generated by . The ring A is called the enveloping algebra of . If is semisimple, then A is semisimple.[2] (Proof: Since A is a finite-dimensional algebra, it is an Artinian ring; in particular, the Jacobson radical J is nilpotent. If V is simple, then implies that . In general, J kills each simple submodule of V; in particular, J kills V and so J is zero.) Conversely, if A is semisimple, then V is a semisimple A-module; i.e., semisimple as a -module. (Note that a module over a semisimple ring is semisimple since a module is a quotient of a free module and "semisimple" is preserved under the free and quotient constructions.)

Application: preservation of Jordan decomposition

[edit]

Here is a typical application.[3]

Proposition — Let be a semisimple finite-dimensional Lie algebra over a field of characteristic zero and an element of .[a]

  1. There exists a unique pair of elements in such that , is semisimple, is nilpotent and .
  2. If is a finite-dimensional representation, then and , where denote the Jordan decomposition of the semisimple and nilpotent parts of the endomorphism .

In short, the semisimple and nilpotent parts of an element of are well-defined and are determined independent of a faithful finite-dimensional representation.

Proof: First we prove the special case of (i) and (ii) when is the inclusion; i.e., is a subalgebra of . Let be the Jordan decomposition of the endomorphism , where are semisimple and nilpotent endomorphisms in . Now, also has the Jordan decomposition, which can be shown (see Jordan–Chevalley decomposition) to respect the above Jordan decomposition; i.e., are the semisimple and nilpotent parts of . Since are polynomials in then, we see . Thus, they are derivations of . Since is semisimple, we can find elements in such that and similarly for . Now, let A be the enveloping algebra of ; i.e., the subalgebra of the endomorphism algebra of V generated by . As noted above, A has zero Jacobson radical. Since , we see that is a nilpotent element in the center of A. But, in general, a central nilpotent belongs to the Jacobson radical; hence, and thus also . This proves the special case.

In general, is semisimple (resp. nilpotent) when is semisimple (resp. nilpotent).[clarification needed] This immediately gives (i) and (ii).

Proofs

[edit]

Analytic proof

[edit]

Weyl's original proof (for complex semisimple Lie algebras) was analytic in nature: it famously used the unitarian trick. Specifically, one can show that every complex semisimple Lie algebra is the complexification of the Lie algebra of a simply connected compact Lie group .[4] (If, for example, , then .) Given a representation of on a vector space one can first restrict to the Lie algebra of . Then, since is simply connected,[5] there is an associated representation of . Integration over produces an inner product on for which is unitary.[6] Complete reducibility of is then immediate and elementary arguments show that the original representation of is also completely reducible.

Algebraic proof 1

[edit]

Let be a finite-dimensional representation of a Lie algebra over a field of characteristic zero. The theorem is an easy consequence of Whitehead's lemma, which says is surjective, where a linear map is a derivation if . The proof is essentially due to Whitehead.[7]

Let be a subrepresentation. Consider the vector subspace that consists of all linear maps such that and . It has a structure of a -module given by: for ,

.

Now, pick some projection onto W and consider given by . Since is a derivation, by Whitehead's lemma, we can write for some . We then have ; that is to say is -linear. Also, as t kills , is an idempotent such that . The kernel of is then a complementary representation to .

Algebraic proof 2

[edit]

Whitehead's lemma is typically proved by means of the quadratic Casimir element of the universal enveloping algebra,[8] and there is also a proof of the theorem that uses the Casimir element directly instead of Whitehead's lemma.

Since the quadratic Casimir element is in the center of the universal enveloping algebra, Schur's lemma tells us that acts as multiple of the identity in the irreducible representation of with highest weight . A key point is to establish that is nonzero whenever the representation is nontrivial. This can be done by a general argument [9] or by the explicit formula for .

Consider a very special case of the theorem on complete reducibility: the case where a representation contains a nontrivial, irreducible, invariant subspace of codimension one. Let denote the action of on . Since is not irreducible, is not necessarily a multiple of the identity, but it is a self-intertwining operator for . Then the restriction of to is a nonzero multiple of the identity. But since the quotient is a one dimensional—and therefore trivial—representation of , the action of on the quotient is trivial. It then easily follows that must have a nonzero kernel—and the kernel is an invariant subspace, since is a self-intertwiner. The kernel is then a one-dimensional invariant subspace, whose intersection with is zero. Thus, is an invariant complement to , so that decomposes as a direct sum of irreducible subspaces:

.

Although this establishes only a very special case of the desired result, this step is actually the critical one in the general argument.

Algebraic proof 3

[edit]

The theorem can be deduced from the theory of Verma modules, which characterizes a simple module as a quotient of a Verma module by a maximal submodule.[10] This approach has an advantage that it can be used to weaken the finite-dimensionality assumptions (on algebra and representation).

Let be a finite-dimensional representation of a finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebra over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. Let be the Borel subalgebra determined by a choice of a Cartan subalgebra and positive roots. Let . Then is an -module and thus has the -weight space decomposition:

where . For each , pick and the -submodule generated by and the -submodule generated by . We claim: . Suppose . By Lie's theorem, there exists a -weight vector in ; thus, we can find an -weight vector such that for some among the Chevalley generators. Now, has weight . Since is partially ordered, there is a such that ; i.e., . But this is a contradiction since are both primitive weights (it is known that the primitive weights are incomparable.[clarification needed]). Similarly, each is simple as a -module. Indeed, if it is not simple, then, for some , contains some nonzero vector that is not a highest-weight vector; again a contradiction.[clarification needed]

Algebraic proof 4

[edit]

There is also a quick homological algebra proof; see Weibel's homological algebra book.

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Editorial note: this fact is usually stated for a field of characteristic zero, but the proof needs only that the base field be perfect.
  1. ^ Hall 2015 Theorem 10.9
  2. ^ Jacobson 1979, Ch. II, § 5, Theorem 10.
  3. ^ Jacobson 1979, Ch. III, § 11, Theorem 17.
  4. ^ Knapp 2002 Theorem 6.11
  5. ^ Hall 2015 Theorem 5.10
  6. ^ Hall 2015 Theorem 4.28
  7. ^ Jacobson 1979, Ch. III, § 7.
  8. ^ Hall 2015 Section 10.3
  9. ^ Humphreys 1973 Section 6.2
  10. ^ Kac 1990, Lemma 9.5.
  • Hall, Brian C. (2015). Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Vol. 222 (2nd ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3319134666.
  • Humphreys, James E. (1973). Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Vol. 9 (Second printing, revised ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-90053-5.
  • Jacobson, Nathan (1979). Lie algebras. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. ISBN 0-486-63832-4. Republication of the 1962 original.
  • Kac, Victor (1990). Infinite dimensional Lie algebras (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-46693-8.
  • Knapp, Anthony W. (2002), Lie Groups Beyond an Introduction, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 140 (2nd ed.), Boston: Birkhäuser, ISBN 0-8176-4259-5
  • Weibel, Charles A. (1995). An Introduction to Homological Algebra. Cambridge University Press.