Introduction
The guiding question of this paper is how much of the architecture of classical Lie theory survives in symmetric tensor categories over fields of arbitrary characteristic. Many classical arguments depend on properties of vector spaces that need not persist in this setting. For instance, in positive characteristic, a skew-symmetric bracket satisfying the Jacobi identity need not have the PBW property [9 ] . Thus, extending Lie theory from vector spaces to symmetric tensor categories requires more than a formal translation.
There is a particular reason to ask this question now. Over a field of characteristic zero, Deligne proved that every pre-Tannakian category of moderate growth admits a fiber functor to supervector spaces [6 ] , and hence can be reconstructed from ordinary or super group theory. The direct analogue fails in characteristic p p p . The fundamental counterexamples are the Verlinde categories V e r p \mathrm{Ver}_p Ver p , obtained by semisimplifying the category of tilting modules for S L 2 \mathrm{SL}_2 SL 2 ; for p ≥ 5 p \ge5 p ≥ 5 , they admit no symmetric tensor functor to either V e c \mathrm{Vec} Vec or s V e c \mathrm{sVec} sVec . Moreover, V e r p \mathrm{Ver}_p Ver p plays an important role: Ostrik proved that every symmetric fusion category in characteristic p p p admits a symmetric tensor functor to V e r p \mathrm{Ver}_p Ver p [O], and Coulembier, Etingof, and Ostrik subsequently extended this result to semisimple pre-Tannakian categories of moderate growth [4 ] .
The study of algebraic structures in symmetric tensor categories has expanded considerably in recent years. Much of the recent work has focused on the Verlinde categories, including affine group schemes and Harish–Chandra pairs [V2, M2], representations of general linear groups [V1, K, U], categorical Chevalley–Eilenberg cohomology [11 ] , and the construction and classification of Lie algebra objects [2 , 12 N] . Contragredient Lie algebras have also been defined in arbitrary symmetric tensor categories [3 ] .
The present paper develops some of the general tools needed for this program. Let C \mathcal{C} C be a symmetric tensor category over an algebraically closed field k k k , and let g \mathfrak{g} g be an operadic Lie algebra in C \mathcal{C} C . Although the natural map g → U ( g ) \mathfrak{g} \to U(\mathfrak{g}) g → U ( g ) need not be injective [9 ] , its kernel is always central. If C \mathcal{C} C is quasi-semisimple, meaning that symmetric algebras preserve monomorphisms, then the quotient by this kernel has the PBW property; see Proposition 2.3 . In particular, every simple operadic Lie algebra in a quasi-semisimple symmetric tensor category has the PBW property.
Our first main result is a categorical version of Engel’s theorem: if the underlying object of a finite-dimensional Lie algebra g \mathfrak{g} g is semisimple and every simple subobject of g \mathfrak{g} g acts nilpotently on a finite-dimensional representation V V V , then V V V admits a finite filtration strictly lowered by g \mathfrak{g} g ; see Theorem 3.3 .
We then study invariant bilinear forms. We call an operadic Lie algebra quadratic if it admits a symmetric invariant nondegenerate form, and strongly semisimple if its Killing form is nondegenerate. We prove that a finite-dimensional quadratic operadic Lie algebra with no non-zero abelian ideals is semisimple. Applied to the Killing form, this yields a categorical Cartan criterion, see Theorem 4.10 . We also show that every derivation of a strongly semisimple Lie algebra is inner.
We next establish a rigidity result for Lie algebra homomorphisms. In classical theory, the vanishing of the first Chevalley–Eilenberg cohomology gives rigidity only up to conjugation. In C \mathcal{C} C , however, a non-zero object X X X may be invariantless , meaning that Hom C ( 1 , X ) = 0 \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(\mathbf{1},X) = 0 Hom C ( 1 , X ) = 0 . For an invariantless a \mathfrak{a} a , we prove that the affine scheme of Lie algebra homomorphisms g → a \mathfrak{g} \to\mathfrak{a} g → a is finite and reduced when the relevant first cohomology vanishes. In particular, this holds when g \mathfrak{g} g is linearly reductive. This result has no nontrivial analogue in ordinary vector spaces, where the only invariantless object is zero.
We then define a graded category O \mathcal{O} O and Verma modules Δ ( X , d ) \Delta(X,d) Δ ( X , d ) . As in classical highest-weight theory, every Verma module has a unique graded-simple quotient, and every graded-simple object of O \mathcal{O} O arises in this way, see Theorems 6.3 and 6.15 . In particular, for g \mathfrak{g} g in V e r p \mathrm{Ver}_p Ver p , we prove U ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) is noetherian and O \mathcal{O} O is abelian. The key categorical input is that the symmetric algebra of the nonclassical part of g \mathfrak{g} g is finite-dimensional; this is Theorem 6.11 .
We also define categorical Shapovalov maps to study the reducibility of Verma modules. In characteristic zero, a nondegenerate grading makes every Shapovalov determinant generically nonzero, which yields generic graded simplicity of Verma modules; see Theorem 6.24 . In characteristic p p p , central p p p -th powers obstruct the corresponding result for ordinary Verma modules. Under a p p p -nilpotence hypothesis in V e r p \mathrm{Ver}_p Ver p , we prove instead that baby Verma modules are graded-simple on a nonempty Zariski open set; see Theorem 6.26 . We also construct an example illustrating the category O \mathcal{O} O and Shapovalov maps.
The final part of the paper concerns contragredient Lie algebras in quasi-semisimple symmetric tensor categories. In this setting, the Cartan matrix is replaced by representation-theoretic data [3 ] . We prove a simplicity criterion and show that, whenever the relevant root strings are finite, reflection of the generating data is realized by a Lie algebra isomorphism; see Theorems 7.12 and 7.17 . This allows us to develop a root system, see Theorem 7.23 . We end this section with the computation of an explicit example.
Lie algebras in symmetric tensor categories
A pseudo-tensor category over k \mathbf{k} k is a k \mathbf{k} k -linear Karoubian rigid monoidal category whose tensor product is k \mathbf{k} k -bilinear, with finite-dimensional Hom spaces and End ( 1 ) = k \operatorname{End}(\mathbf{1})=\mathbf{k} End ( 1 ) = k . A tensor category is a pseudo-tensor category that is abelian and in which every object has finite length. When a pseudo-tensor category is endowed with a braided structure, we say the category is braided. If the braiding satisfies that the square of the braid is trivial for every pair of objects, we call the category symmetric. For the general theory of tensor categories, we follow [8 ] .
Unless stated otherwise, C \mathcal{C} C is a symmetric tensor category with simple unit over the algebraically closed field k \mathbf{k} k ; it is not assumed semisimple. Tensor product and duality are exact. We suppress associativity constraints and symmetry morphisms, and write C i n d \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{ind}} C ind for the ind-completion. An object of C i n d \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{ind}} C ind is called finite-dimensional if it belongs to C \mathcal{C} C .
We call C \mathcal{C} C quasi-semisimple if every monomorphism X → Y X\to Y X → Y induces a monomorphism S ( X ) → S ( Y ) S(X)\to S(Y) S ( X ) → S ( Y ) [9 Definition 7.5] . Every semisimple symmetric tensor category is quasi-semisimple. In characteristic zero, every symmetric tensor category is quasi-semisimple, since symmetric powers are the images of symmetrizer idempotents on tensor powers. In positive characteristic quasi-semisimplicity may fail, although all known counterexamples are in characteristic 2 [9 §7.3] .
Schematic notation
We frequently express identities of morphisms using element notation. If X ∈ C X\in\mathcal{C} X ∈ C , a symbol x ∈ X x\in X x ∈ X appearing in such a formula is a placeholder for a tensor factor; it is not assumed to be a classical element 1 → X \mathbf{1}\to X 1 → X . Thus this notation remains meaningful even when Hom C ( 1 , X ) = 0 \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(\mathbf{1},X)=0 Hom C ( 1 , X ) = 0 .
More precisely, let A A A be a commutative algebra object of C \mathcal{C} C . The set of A A A -valued points of an object X X X is
X ( A ) : = Hom C ( 1 , A ⊗ X ) ≅ Hom A - m o d ( A , A ⊗ X ) . X(A):=\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(\mathbf{1},A\otimes X)\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{A\text{-}\mathrm{mod}}(A,A\otimes X). X ( A ) := Hom C ( 1 , A ⊗ X ) ≅ Hom A - mod ( A , A ⊗ X ) .
A morphism f : X 1 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ X n → Y f:X_1\otimes\cdots\otimes X_n\to Y f : X 1 ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ X n → Y induces a map f A : X 1 ( A ) × ⋯ × X n ( A ) → Y ( A ) f_A:X_1(A)\times\cdots\times X_n(A)\to Y(A) f A : X 1 ( A ) × ⋯ × X n ( A ) → Y ( A ) . It is obtained by tensoring the given A A A -valued points, using the symmetry to move the copies of A A A next to one another, multiplying them in A A A , and then applying f f f .
At the categorical level, every such formula denotes an equality between morphisms with the same source and target, with the necessary associativity and symmetry morphisms inserted. For example, if b : g ⊗ g → g b:\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{g} b : g ⊗ g → g is a Lie bracket, then
[ x , y ] = − [ y , x ] [x,y]=-[y,x] [ x , y ] = − [ y , x ]
denotes the morphism identity
b = − b ∘ c g , g . b=-b\circ c_{\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}}. b = − b ∘ c g , g .
For further examples of this notation, see Definition 4.2 and the proof of Lemma 4.3 .
Basic notions
For V ∈ C V\in\mathcal{C} V ∈ C , write ⋀ n V \bigwedge^n V ⋀ n V for the ordinary exterior power, i.e., the object of alternating coinvariants, and
Λ n V : = ( ⋀ n V ∗ ) ∗ \Lambda^n V:=\left(\bigwedge^n V^*\right)^* Λ n V := ( ⋀ n V ∗ ) ∗
for the divided exterior power, i.e., the object of alternating invariants. There is a natural morphism ⋀ n V → Λ n V \bigwedge^n V\to\Lambda^n V ⋀ n V → Λ n V . It is an isomorphism when n ! n! n ! is invertible. It is also an isomorphism for every V ∈ Ver p + V\in\operatorname{Ver}_p^+ V ∈ Ver p + and every n n n ; see [11 Lemma 2.2] .
For V ∈ C V\in\mathcal{C} V ∈ C , a classical element of V V V is a morphism x : 1 → V x:1\to V x : 1 → V . We set
g l ( V ) : = End ( V ) : = V ⊗ V ∗ \mathfrak{gl}(V):=\operatorname{End}(V):=V\otimes V^* gl ( V ) := End ( V ) := V ⊗ V ∗
with its associative multiplication and commutator bracket. If A ⊆ End ( V ) A\subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) A ⊆ End ( V ) is a subobject, then A r ⊆ End ( V ) A^r\subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) A r ⊆ End ( V ) denotes the image of the r r r -fold composition map.
Definition 2.1. An operadic Lie algebra in a symmetric pseudo-tensor category is an object g \mathfrak{g} g with a skew-symmetric bracket [ , ] : g ⊗ g → g [\ ,\ ]:\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{g} [ , ] : g ⊗ g → g satisfying the Jacobi identity. If the category is a symmetric tensor category, its enveloping algebra is schematically
U ( g ) : = T ( g ) / ( x ⊗ y − y ⊗ x − [ x , y ] ) . U(\mathfrak{g}):=T(\mathfrak{g})/(x\otimes y-y\otimes x-[x,y]). U ( g ) := T ( g ) / ( x ⊗ y − y ⊗ x − [ x , y ]) . The tensor-degree filtration gives a natural surjection
S ( g ) ⟶ gr U ( g ) . S(\mathfrak{g})\longrightarrow\operatorname{gr}U(\mathfrak{g}). S ( g ) ⟶ gr U ( g ) . We call g \mathfrak{g} g a Lie algebra if this map is an isomorphism. This is the PBW property.
Definition 2.2. We say that an operadic Lie algebra g \mathfrak{g} g is
simple if it is nonabelian and has no non-zero proper ideals,
semisimple if it is a finite direct sum of simple ideals,
perfect if [ g , g ] = g [\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]=\mathfrak{g} [ g , g ] = g .
A representation of g \mathfrak{g} g on V V V is an operadic Lie algebra morphism g → g l ( V ) \mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{gl}(V) g → gl ( V ) . We write V g V^{\mathfrak{g}} V g for the largest subobject of V V V annihilated by g \mathfrak{g} g ; equivalently,
V g : = ker ( V ⟶ g ∗ ⊗ V ) , V^{\mathfrak{g}}:=\ker\left(V\longrightarrow\mathfrak{g}^*\otimes V\right), V g := ker ( V ⟶ g ∗ ⊗ V ) ,
where the arrow is adjoint to the action g ⊗ V → V \mathfrak{g}\otimes V\to V g ⊗ V → V . In particular, the adjoint representation
ad : g ⟶ End ( g ) (1) \operatorname{ad}:\mathfrak{g}\longrightarrow\operatorname{End}(\mathfrak{g}) \tag*{(1)} ad : g ⟶ End ( g ) (1)
is a morphism of operadic Lie algebras by the Jacobi identity.
An ideal of g \mathfrak{g} g is a subobject stable under the adjoint action.
In characteristic zero the PBW property is automatic [16 , 9 ] . In positive characteristic it is an additional condition. For a finite-dimensional operadic Lie algebra g ∈ C \mathfrak{g}\in\mathcal{C} g ∈ C , let
I ( g ) : = ker ( g ⟶ U ( g ) ) . I(\mathfrak{g}):=\ker\left(\mathfrak{g}\longrightarrow U(\mathfrak{g})\right). I ( g ) := ker ( g ⟶ U ( g ) ) .
Proposition 2.3. The subobject I ( g ) I(\mathfrak{g}) I ( g ) is a central ideal of g \mathfrak{g} g . If C C C is quasi-semisimple, then g / I ( g ) \mathfrak{g}/I(\mathfrak{g}) g / I ( g ) is a Lie algebra. In particular, every simple operadic Lie algebra in a quasi-semisimple symmetric tensor category is a Lie algebra.
Proof. The image of the natural map g → U ( g ) \mathfrak{g} \to U(\mathfrak{g}) g → U ( g ) lies in the commutator Lie algebra of U ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) , so its kernel is an ideal. The adjoint representation (1) extends uniquely to an algebra morphism U ( g ) → End ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) \to\operatorname{End}(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) → End ( g ) . It follows that I ( g ) ⊆ ker ( ad ) I(\mathfrak{g}) \subseteq\ker(\operatorname{ad}) I ( g ) ⊆ ker ( ad ) .
Assume now that C C C is quasi-semisimple. The induced map g / I ( g ) → U ( g ) \mathfrak{g}/I(\mathfrak{g}) \to U(\mathfrak{g}) g / I ( g ) → U ( g ) is a monomorphism of operadic Lie algebras. By [9 Proposition 7.7] , its source has the PBW property, so it is a Lie algebra in the sense of Definition 2.1 . If g \mathfrak{g} g is simple, then the central ideal I ( g ) I(\mathfrak{g}) I ( g ) is zero, since g \mathfrak{g} g is nonabelian. The final assertion follows. □
Lemma 2.4. Let j : L ↪ A j : L \hookrightarrow A j : L ↪ A be a monomorphism of operadic Lie algebras in a symmetric tensor category. Suppose that A A A has the PBW property and that j j j has a retraction as a morphism of underlying objects. Then L L L has the PBW property. In particular, this applies when A A A is an associative algebra with its commutator bracket.
Proof. Let η L : S ( L ) ↠ gr U ( L ) \eta_L : S(L) \twoheadrightarrow\operatorname{gr} U(L) η L : S ( L ) ↠ gr U ( L ) and η A : S ( A ) ↠ gr U ( A ) \eta_A : S(A) \twoheadrightarrow\operatorname{gr} U(A) η A : S ( A ) ↠ gr U ( A ) be the canonical morphisms. Naturality gives
gr U ( j ) ∘ η L = η A ∘ S ( j ) . \operatorname{gr} U(j) \circ\eta_L = \eta_A \circ S(j). gr U ( j ) ∘ η L = η A ∘ S ( j ) .
The right-hand side is a monomorphism: η A \eta_A η A is an isomorphism, and S ( j ) S(j) S ( j ) is split injective because the symmetric-algebra functor preserves the chosen retraction. Thus η L \eta_L η L is a monomorphism, and hence an isomorphism. The last assertion uses [9 Corollary 7.3] . □
For C = Ver p C = \operatorname{Ver}_p C = Ver p , the PBW property is equivalent to the p p p -Jacobi condition of [9 Theorem 6.6] . The preceding proposition gives, in particular, that I ( g ) ⊆ ker ( ad ) = Z ( g ) I(\mathfrak{g}) \subseteq\ker(\operatorname{ad}) = Z(\mathfrak{g}) I ( g ) ⊆ ker ( ad ) = Z ( g ) ; compare [N, Proposition 2.3].
An object X ∈ C X \in C X ∈ C is invariantless if Hom C ( 1 , X ) = 0 \operatorname{Hom}_C(1, X) = 0 Hom C ( 1 , X ) = 0 . A finite-dimensional Lie algebra g \mathfrak{g} g is linearly reductive if the category of its finite-dimensional modules in C C C is semisimple.
If C C C is quasi-semisimple, then Proposition 2.3 implies that every simple or semisimple operadic Lie algebra is a Lie algebra. A simple operadic Lie algebra is perfect and has zero center. Distinct simple ideals in a direct sum commute.
Engel's theorem
In this section C C C is an arbitrary symmetric tensor category, and k \Bbbk k need not be algebraically closed.
Let V ∈ C V \in C V ∈ C . A subobject U ⊆ End ( V ) U \subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) U ⊆ End ( V ) is nilpotent if U n = 0 U^n = 0 U n = 0 for some n ≥ 1 n \ge1 n ≥ 1 . We will need the following lemmas.
Lemma 3.1. A subobject U ⊆ End ( V ) U \subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) U ⊆ End ( V ) is nilpotent if and only if there is a finite filtration
0 = F 0 V ⊆ F 1 V ⊆ ⋯ ⊆ F N V = V 0 = F_0V \subseteq F_1V \subseteq\cdots\subseteq F_NV = V 0 = F 0 V ⊆ F 1 V ⊆ ⋯ ⊆ F N V = V such that
U ⋅ F i V ⊆ F i − 1 V for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N . U \cdot F_iV \subseteq F_{i-1}V \qquad\text{for every } 1 \leq i \leq N. U ⋅ F i V ⊆ F i − 1 V for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N .
Proof. Let a i : U ⊗ i ⊗ V → V a_i: U^{\otimes i} \otimes V \to V a i : U ⊗ i ⊗ V → V be the iterated action and let a ~ i : V → ( U ⊗ i ) ∗ ⊗ V \widetilde{a}_i: V \to(U^{\otimes i})^* \otimes V a i : V → ( U ⊗ i ) ∗ ⊗ V be its adjoint. Set F i V : = ker a ~ i F_iV := \ker\widetilde{a}_i F i V := ker a i . Then F 0 V = 0 F_0V = 0 F 0 V = 0 , F N V = V F_NV = V F N V = V , and U ⋅ F i V ⊆ F i − 1 V U \cdot F_iV \subseteq F_{i-1}V U ⋅ F i V ⊆ F i − 1 V . Conversely, the inclusions imply that U N ⋅ V = 0 U^N \cdot V = 0 U N ⋅ V = 0 , and hence U N = 0 U^N = 0 U N = 0 . □ \square □
Lemma 3.2. If U ⊆ End ( V ) U \subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) U ⊆ End ( V ) satisfies U N = 0 U^N = 0 U N = 0 for some N ≥ 1 N \geq1 N ≥ 1 , then the commutator action of U U U on End ( V ) \operatorname{End}(V) End ( V ) satisfies
( ad U ) 2 N − 1 = 0. (\operatorname{ad} U)^{2N-1} = 0. ( ad U ) 2 N − 1 = 0.
Proof. Put m = 2 N − 1 m = 2N - 1 m = 2 N − 1 . We expand
( ad u 1 ) ⋯ ( ad u m ) ( T ) , u i ∈ U , T ∈ End ( V ) . (\operatorname{ad} u_1)\cdots(\operatorname{ad} u_m)(T), \qquad u_i \in U,\quad T \in\operatorname{End}(V). ( ad u 1 ) ⋯ ( ad u m ) ( T ) , u i ∈ U , T ∈ End ( V ) .
Each summand is a product of a a a factors from U U U , followed by T T T , followed by m − a m-a m − a factors from U U U . Since either a ≥ N a \geq N a ≥ N or m − a ≥ N m-a \geq N m − a ≥ N , every summand vanishes by U N = 0 U^N = 0 U N = 0 . Thus the entire morphism U ⊗ m ⊗ End ( V ) → End ( V ) U^{\otimes m} \otimes\operatorname{End}(V) \to\operatorname{End}(V) U ⊗ m ⊗ End ( V ) → End ( V ) is zero. □ \square □
Let g \mathfrak{g} g be a finite-dimensional Lie algebra in C C C . For a Lie subalgebra h ⊆ g \mathfrak{h} \subseteq\mathfrak{g} h ⊆ g , we consider the composite
g ⊗ h → [ , ] g ⟶ g / h . \mathfrak{g} \otimes\mathfrak{h} \xrightarrow{[\, ,\, ]} \mathfrak{g} \longrightarrow\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}. g ⊗ h [ , ] g ⟶ g / h .
By adjunction, this determines a morphism
g ⟶ ( g / h ) ⊗ h ∗ . \mathfrak{g} \longrightarrow(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}) \otimes\mathfrak{h}^*. g ⟶ ( g / h ) ⊗ h ∗ .
The normalizer N g ( h ) N_{\mathfrak{g}}(\mathfrak{h}) N g ( h ) is defined to be its kernel. Schematically, N g ( h ) = { x ∈ g : [ x , h ] ⊆ h } N_{\mathfrak{g}}(\mathfrak{h}) = \{x \in\mathfrak{g} : [x,\mathfrak{h}] \subseteq\mathfrak{h}\} N g ( h ) = { x ∈ g : [ x , h ] ⊆ h } . The Jacobi identity implies that N g ( h ) N_{\mathfrak{g}}(\mathfrak{h}) N g ( h ) is a Lie subalgebra of g \mathfrak{g} g .
Theorem 3.3 (Engel’s theorem for representations). Let V ∈ C V \in C V ∈ C , and let g \mathfrak{g} g be a finite-dimensional Lie algebra acting on V V V whose underlying object in C C C is semisimple. Assume that every simple subobject X ⊆ g X \subseteq\mathfrak{g} X ⊆ g acts nilpotently on V V V . Then there is a finite filtration
0 = F 0 V ⊆ F 1 V ⊆ ⋯ ⊆ F N V = V 0 = F_0V \subseteq F_1V \subseteq\cdots\subseteq F_NV = V 0 = F 0 V ⊆ F 1 V ⊆ ⋯ ⊆ F N V = V such that
g ⋅ F i V ⊆ F i − 1 V for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N . \mathfrak{g} \cdot F_iV \subseteq F_{i-1}V \qquad\text{for every } 1 \leq i \leq N. g ⋅ F i V ⊆ F i − 1 V for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N .
Proof. Every subquotient of the underlying object of g \mathfrak{g} g is semisimple. In particular, every simple subobject of its image lifts to a simple subobject of g \mathfrak{g} g , so the hypothesis is preserved. The image still has the PBW property, as a quotient of g \mathfrak{g} g [9 Lemma 7.6(i)] . We may therefore assume that g ⊆ End ( V ) \mathfrak{g} \subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) g ⊆ End ( V ) .
We first prove that V g ≠ 0 V^{\mathfrak{g}} \ne0 V g = 0 when V ≠ 0 V \ne0 V = 0 . We argue by induction on the length of g \mathfrak{g} g . All underlying subquotients of g \mathfrak{g} g are semisimple. The Lie subalgebras used in the induction have the PBW property by Lemma 2.4, and their images have PBW by [9 Lemma 7.6(i)] . Their underlying objects are semisimple, since they are subquotients of g \mathfrak{g} g . The statement is clear for g = 0 \mathfrak{g} = 0 g = 0 .
Let h ⊊ g \mathfrak{h} \subsetneq\mathfrak{g} h ⊊ g be a proper Lie subalgebra of maximal length. Note that, if h = 0 \mathfrak{h} = 0 h = 0 , then for any simple subobject X ⊆ g X \subseteq\mathfrak{g} X ⊆ g , the Lie subalgebra generated by X X X is non-zero, hence equals g \mathfrak{g} g . Since X X X is nilpotent in End ( V ) \operatorname{End}(V) End ( V ) , the nonunital associative algebra generated by X X X is nilpotent. It contains g \mathfrak{g} g , so V g ≠ 0 V^{\mathfrak{g}} \ne0 V g = 0 by Lemma 3.1, as desired. Assume then that h ≠ 0 \mathfrak{h} \ne0 h = 0 . Every simple subobject of h \mathfrak{h} h acts nilpotently on V V V . By Lemma 3.2, it also acts nilpotently on g / h \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h} g / h through the adjoint action. By the induction hypothesis applied to the image of h \mathfrak{h} h in End ( g / h ) \operatorname{End}(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}) End ( g / h ) , there exists a non-zero simple subobject
X ‾ ⊂ ( g / h ) h . \overline{X} \subset(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h})^{\mathfrak{h}}. X ⊂ ( g / h ) h .
Since the underlying object of g \mathfrak{g} g is semisimple, the quotient map g ↠ g / h \mathfrak{g} \twoheadrightarrow\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h} g ↠ g / h splits in C \mathcal{C} C ; hence X ‾ \overline{X} X lifts to a simple subobject X ⊆ g X \subseteq\mathfrak{g} X ⊆ g . Then X ⊈ h X \not\subseteq\mathfrak{h} X ⊆ h and [ h , X ] ⊆ h [\mathfrak{h},X] \subseteq\mathfrak{h} [ h , X ] ⊆ h . Thus N g ( h ) N_{\mathfrak{g}}(\mathfrak{h}) N g ( h ) strictly contains h \mathfrak{h} h . Since h \mathfrak{h} h is of maximal length, we get that N g ( h ) = g N_{\mathfrak{g}}(\mathfrak{h}) = \mathfrak{g} N g ( h ) = g , so h \mathfrak{h} h is an ideal. By induction, W : = V h W := V^{\mathfrak{h}} W := V h is non-zero. Since h \mathfrak{h} h is an ideal, W W W is stable under g \mathfrak{g} g , and g / h \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h} g / h acts on W W W . Every simple subobject of the image of g / h \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h} g / h in End ( W ) \operatorname{End}(W) End ( W ) lifts to a simple subobject of g \mathfrak{g} g and is nilpotent. Applying the induction hypothesis once more we obtain that
0 ≠ W g / h = V g . 0 \ne W^{\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}} = V^{\mathfrak{g}}. 0 = W g / h = V g .
We now construct the filtration. Choose a simple subobject Y ⊆ V g Y \subseteq V^{\mathfrak{g}} Y ⊆ V g . The hypothesis descends to the induced action on V / Y V/Y V / Y . By induction on the length, we have a filtration for V / Y V/Y V / Y strictly lowered by g \mathfrak{g} g . Hence we get a filtration of V V V strictly lowered by g \mathfrak{g} g by pullback of this filtration of V / Y V/Y V / Y . □
The lower central series of g \mathfrak{g} g is the descending sequence of ideals
g = γ 1 ( g ) ⊇ γ 2 ( g ) ⊇ γ 3 ( g ) ⊇ ⋯ \mathfrak{g} = \gamma_1(\mathfrak{g}) \supseteq\gamma_2(\mathfrak{g}) \supseteq\gamma_3(\mathfrak{g}) \supseteq\cdots g = γ 1 ( g ) ⊇ γ 2 ( g ) ⊇ γ 3 ( g ) ⊇ ⋯
defined recursively by
γ r + 1 ( g ) : = [ g , γ r ( g ) ] . \gamma_{r+1}(\mathfrak{g}) := [\mathfrak{g},\gamma_r(\mathfrak{g})]. γ r + 1 ( g ) := [ g , γ r ( g )] .
We call g \mathfrak{g} g nilpotent if γ N ( g ) = 0 \gamma_N(\mathfrak{g}) = 0 γ N ( g ) = 0 for some N N N .
Corollary 3.4 (Engel’s theorem). Let g \mathfrak{g} g be a finite-dimensional Lie algebra whose underlying object in C \mathcal{C} C is semisimple. Then g \mathfrak{g} g is nilpotent if and only if every simple subobject X ⊆ g X \subseteq\mathfrak{g} X ⊆ g acts nilpotently on g \mathfrak{g} g through the adjoint action.
Proof. The forward implication is straightforward. For the converse, we apply Theorem 3.3 to the image of ad : g → g l ( g ) \operatorname{ad} : \mathfrak{g} \to\mathfrak{gl}(\mathfrak{g}) ad : g → gl ( g ) . The resulting filtration of g \mathfrak{g} g is strictly lowered by the adjoint action, so the lower central series terminates. □
Remark 3.5. Our proof closely follows the proof of Engel’s theorem for generalized Lie algebras given in [KR].
Remark 3.6. The semisimplicity hypothesis on the underlying object of g \mathfrak{g} g cannot be dropped. In characteristic zero, take C = Rep ( G a ) \mathcal{C} = \operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{G}_a) C = Rep ( G a ) and let
g = k h ⊕ k e , [ h , e ] = e , t ⋅ h = h + t e , t ⋅ e = e . \mathfrak{g} = k h \oplus k e,\qquad[h,e] = e,\qquad t \cdot h = h + t e,\qquad t \cdot e = e. g = k h ⊕ k e , [ h , e ] = e , t ⋅ h = h + t e , t ⋅ e = e .
The displayed G a \mathbb{G}_a G a -action preserves the bracket. The only simple subobject of g \mathfrak{g} g is k e k e k e , and its adjoint action is nilpotent, since ( ad e ) 2 = 0 (\operatorname{ad} e)^2 = 0 ( ad e ) 2 = 0 . Nevertheless, ( ad h ) ( e ) = e (\operatorname{ad} h)(e) = e ( ad h ) ( e ) = e , so the adjoint action of g \mathfrak{g} g is not nilpotent; indeed, γ n ( g ) = k e \gamma_n(\mathfrak{g}) = k e γ n ( g ) = k e for every n ≥ 2 n \ge2 n ≥ 2 .
Quadratic Lie algebras, the Killing form, and derivations
Throughout this section, C \mathcal{C} C is an arbitrary symmetric tensor category and char k ≠ 2 \operatorname{char} k \ne2 char k = 2 .
Invariant bilinear forms
Let V V V be a g \mathfrak{g} g -module, with action ρ : g ⊗ V → V \rho:\mathfrak{g}\otimes V\to V ρ : g ⊗ V → V . A bilinear form B : V ⊗ V → 1 B:V\otimes V\to1 B : V ⊗ V → 1 is invariant if
B ∘ ( ρ ⊗ id V ) + B ∘ ( id V ⊗ ρ ) ∘ ( c g , V ⊗ id V ) = 0. B\circ(\rho\otimes\operatorname{id}_V)+B\circ(\operatorname{id}_V\otimes\rho)\circ(c_{\mathfrak{g},V}\otimes\operatorname{id}_V)=0. B ∘ ( ρ ⊗ id V ) + B ∘ ( id V ⊗ ρ ) ∘ ( c g , V ⊗ id V ) = 0.
Schematically, this means
B ( a ⋅ v , w ) + B ( v , a ⋅ w ) = 0. (2) B(a\cdot v,w)+B(v,a\cdot w)=0. \tag*{(2)} B ( a ⋅ v , w ) + B ( v , a ⋅ w ) = 0. (2)
Equivalently, the induced morphism V → V ∗ V\to V^* V → V ∗ is a morphism of g \mathfrak{g} g -modules. The left and right radicals of an invariant bilinear form are g \mathfrak{g} g -submodules.
For the adjoint representation V = g V=\mathfrak{g} V = g , invariance can be written (schematically) as
B ( [ a , b ] , c ) = B ( a , [ b , c ] ) . B([a,b],c)=B(a,[b,c]). B ([ a , b ] , c ) = B ( a , [ b , c ]) .
Definition 4.1. An operadic Lie algebra g \mathfrak{g} g is quadratic if it admits a symmetric invariant nondegenerate bilinear form.
Definition 4.2. Let ϕ : g ⊗ g → 1 \phi:\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{g}\to1 ϕ : g ⊗ g → 1 be a symmetric bilinear form, and let h ⊂ g \mathfrak{h}\subset\mathfrak{g} h ⊂ g be a subobject. The orthogonal complement h ⊥ \mathfrak{h}^{\perp} h ⊥ is defined as the kernel of the composite
p h : g → ϕ ~ g ∗ ↠ h ∗ , p_{\mathfrak{h}}:\mathfrak{g}\xrightarrow{\widetilde{\phi}}\mathfrak{g}^*\twoheadrightarrow\mathfrak{h}^*, p h : g ϕ g ∗ ↠ h ∗ , where ϕ ~ : g → g ∗ \widetilde{\phi}:\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{g}^* ϕ : g → g ∗ is the map induced from ϕ \phi ϕ by the natural adjunction. Schematically, h ⊥ \mathfrak{h}^{\perp} h ⊥ is the set of x ∈ g x\in\mathfrak{g} x ∈ g such that
ϕ ( x , y ) = 0 , for all y ∈ h . \phi(x,y)=0,\quad\text{for all }y\in\mathfrak{h}. ϕ ( x , y ) = 0 , for all y ∈ h .
Lemma 4.3. Let ϕ \phi ϕ be a symmetric invariant bilinear form. If h ⊂ g \mathfrak{h}\subset\mathfrak{g} h ⊂ g is an ideal, then h ⊥ \mathfrak{h}^{\perp} h ⊥ is also an ideal.
Proof. We give both the morphism-theoretic argument and its schematic translation, to further illustrate our use of schematic notation. It suffices to show that the composite
g ⊗ h ⊥ → [ , ] g → p h h ∗ \mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{h}^{\perp}\xrightarrow{[\, ,\,]}\mathfrak{g}\xrightarrow{p_{\mathfrak{h}}}\mathfrak{h}^* g ⊗ h ⊥ [ , ] g p h h ∗
is zero. Equivalently, using the adjunction, it suffices to show that the associated morphism
ϕ ∘ ( id h ⊗ [ , ] ) : h ⊗ g ⊗ h ⊥ → 1 \phi\circ(\operatorname{id}_{\mathfrak{h}}\otimes[\, ,\,]):\mathfrak{h}\otimes\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{h}^{\perp}\to1 ϕ ∘ ( id h ⊗ [ , ]) : h ⊗ g ⊗ h ⊥ → 1
is zero. By invariance of ϕ \phi ϕ , this is the same as the morphism ϕ ∘ ( [ , ] ⊗ id h ⊥ ) \phi\circ([\, ,\,]\otimes\operatorname{id}_{\mathfrak{h}^{\perp}}) ϕ ∘ ([ , ] ⊗ id h ⊥ ) , which is zero. In fact, because h \mathfrak{h} h is an ideal, the bracket [ h ⊗ g ] → g [\mathfrak{h}\otimes\mathfrak{g}]\to\mathfrak{g} [ h ⊗ g ] → g factors through h \mathfrak{h} h . Following this by ϕ \phi ϕ thus results in zero, as the pairing of h ⊥ \mathfrak{h}^{\perp} h ⊥ with h \mathfrak{h} h is zero.
Schematically, if a ∈ g a\in\mathfrak{g} a ∈ g , x ∈ h ⊥ x\in\mathfrak{h}^{\perp} x ∈ h ⊥ , and y ∈ h y\in\mathfrak{h} y ∈ h , then invariance gives
ϕ ( [ a , x ] , y ) = − ϕ ( x , [ a , y ] ) = 0 , \phi([a,x],y)=-\phi(x,[a,y])=0, ϕ ([ a , x ] , y ) = − ϕ ( x , [ a , y ]) = 0 ,
because [ a , y ] ∈ h [a,y]\in\mathfrak{h} [ a , y ] ∈ h . Hence [ a , x ] ∈ h ⊥ [a,x]\in\mathfrak{h}^{\perp} [ a , x ] ∈ h ⊥ , so h ⊥ \mathfrak{h}^{\perp} h ⊥ is an ideal. □
Proposition 4.4. Let g \mathfrak{g} g be simple . Every non-zero invariant bilinear form on g \mathfrak{g} g is symmetric and nondegenerate. If such a form exists, it is unique up to a scalar. In particular, g \mathfrak{g} g is quadratic.
Proof. The left and right radicals are ideals. Since the form is non-zero and g \mathfrak{g} g is simple, both radicals are zero. Thus g ≅ g ∗ \mathfrak{g} \cong\mathfrak{g}^{*} g ≅ g ∗ as a g \mathfrak{g} g -module, and Schur’s lemma shows that the space of invariant forms is one-dimensional.
Let B t ( x , y ) : = B ( y , x ) B^{t}(x,y) := B(y,x) B t ( x , y ) := B ( y , x ) . Since B t B^{t} B t is invariant, B t = c B B^{t} = cB B t = c B for some c ∈ k × c \in\mathbb{k}^{\times} c ∈ k × . Transposing twice gives c 2 = 1 c^{2} = 1 c 2 = 1 , so c = 1 c = 1 c = 1 or c = − 1 c = -1 c = − 1 . Suppose c = − 1 c = -1 c = − 1 . Set T ( x , y , z ) : = B ( [ x , y ] , z ) T(x,y,z) := B([x,y],z) T ( x , y , z ) := B ([ x , y ] , z ) . Invariance and skew-symmetry give
T ( x , y , z ) = − T ( y , z , x ) . T(x,y,z) = -T(y,z,x). T ( x , y , z ) = − T ( y , z , x ) .
Applying this identity three times gives T = − T T = -T T = − T . Hence T = 0 T = 0 T = 0 because char k ≠ 2 \operatorname{char}\mathbb{k} \ne2 char k = 2 . Since g \mathfrak{g} g is perfect, this implies B = 0 B = 0 B = 0 , a contradiction. Therefore c = 1 c = 1 c = 1 .
The following theorem relates quadratic operadic Lie algebras with semisimplicity. We will use it in the following subsection to prove Cartan’s criterion.
Theorem 4.5. Let ( g , B ) (\mathfrak{g}, B) ( g , B ) be a finite-dimensional quadratic operadic Lie algebra. If g \mathfrak{g} g has no non-zero abelian ideals, then g \mathfrak{g} g is semisimple.
Proof. We use induction on the length of g \mathfrak{g} g . Let m ⊆ g \mathfrak{m} \subseteq\mathfrak{g} m ⊆ g be a minimal non-zero ideal. The ideal [ m , m ] [\mathfrak{m},\mathfrak{m}] [ m , m ] is either zero or m \mathfrak{m} m . The first case is excluded by the hypothesis, so [ m , m ] = m [\mathfrak{m},\mathfrak{m}] = \mathfrak{m} [ m , m ] = m .
The intersection m ∩ m ⊥ \mathfrak{m} \cap\mathfrak{m}^{\perp} m ∩ m ⊥ is an ideal contained in m \mathfrak{m} m . It is therefore zero or m \mathfrak{m} m . If m ⊆ m ⊥ \mathfrak{m} \subseteq\mathfrak{m}^{\perp} m ⊆ m ⊥ , then by invariance we obtain
B ( [ x , y ] , z ) = B ( x , [ y , z ] ) = 0 , x , y ∈ m , z ∈ g . B([x,y],z) = B(x,[y,z]) = 0, \qquad x,y \in\mathfrak{m},\quad z \in\mathfrak{g}. B ([ x , y ] , z ) = B ( x , [ y , z ]) = 0 , x , y ∈ m , z ∈ g . Since [ m , m ] = m [\mathfrak{m},\mathfrak{m}] = \mathfrak{m} [ m , m ] = m , this implies B ( m , g ) = 0 B(\mathfrak{m},\mathfrak{g}) = 0 B ( m , g ) = 0 , contradicting nondegeneracy. Hence m ∩ m ⊥ = 0 \mathfrak{m} \cap\mathfrak{m}^{\perp} = 0 m ∩ m ⊥ = 0 .
The map g → m ∗ \mathfrak{g} \to\mathfrak{m}^{*} g → m ∗ induced by B B B has kernel m ⊥ \mathfrak{m}^{\perp} m ⊥ . Its restriction m → m ∗ \mathfrak{m} \to\mathfrak{m}^{*} m → m ∗ is a non-zero morphism between simple g \mathfrak{g} g -modules, hence an isomorphism. Hence, if i : m ↪ g i : \mathfrak{m} \hookrightarrow\mathfrak{g} i : m ↪ g is the inclusion, b : g → g ∗ b : \mathfrak{g} \to\mathfrak{g}^{*} b : g → g ∗ is induced by B B B , and b m = i ∗ b i b_{\mathfrak{m}} = i^{*}b i b m = i ∗ bi , then
r = b m − 1 i ∗ b : g ⟶ m r = b_{\mathfrak{m}}^{-1}i^{*}b : \mathfrak{g} \longrightarrow\mathfrak{m} r = b m − 1 i ∗ b : g ⟶ m is a retraction of i i i , with kernel m ⊥ \mathfrak{m}^{\perp} m ⊥ . Thus
g = m ⊕ m ⊥ \mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{m} \oplus\mathfrak{m}^{\perp} g = m ⊕ m ⊥ as a direct sum of ideals. Since the two ideals commute, every ideal of m \mathfrak{m} m is an ideal of g \mathfrak{g} g . By the minimality assumption, m \mathfrak{m} m is simple. Any abelian ideal of m ⊥ \mathfrak{m}^{\perp} m ⊥ is an abelian ideal of g \mathfrak{g} g , so m ⊥ \mathfrak{m}^{\perp} m ⊥ satisfies the same hypotheses. The proof follows by induction.
The Killing form and Cartan’s criterion.
Definition 4.6. The Killing form of a Lie algebra g \mathfrak{g} g is the morphism
K g : g ⊗ g ⟶ 1 K_{\mathfrak{g}} : \mathfrak{g} \otimes\mathfrak{g} \longrightarrow\mathbb{1} K g : g ⊗ g ⟶ 1
defined as the composition
g ⊗ g → ad ⊗ ad ( g ⊗ g ∗ ) ⊗ ( g ⊗ g ∗ ) → ev g ⊗ g ∗ → tr g = ev 1. \mathfrak{g} \otimes\mathfrak{g}
\xrightarrow{\operatorname{ad}\otimes\operatorname{ad}}
(\mathfrak{g} \otimes\mathfrak{g}^{*}) \otimes(\mathfrak{g} \otimes\mathfrak{g}^{*})
\xrightarrow{\operatorname{ev}}
\mathfrak{g} \otimes\mathfrak{g}^{*}
\xrightarrow{\operatorname{tr}_{\mathfrak{g}}=\operatorname{ev}}
\mathbb{1}. g ⊗ g ad ⊗ ad ( g ⊗ g ∗ ) ⊗ ( g ⊗ g ∗ ) ev g ⊗ g ∗ tr g = ev 1.
Schematically,
K g ( x , y ) : = tr g ( ad ( x ) ad ( y ) ) . (3) K_{\mathfrak{g}}(x,y) := \operatorname{tr}_{\mathfrak{g}}(\operatorname{ad}(x)\operatorname{ad}(y)). \tag*{(3)} K g ( x , y ) := tr g ( ad ( x ) ad ( y )) . (3)
Notice that the Killing form is symmetric and invariant.
Definition 4.7. An operadic Lie algebra g \mathfrak{g} g in a symmetric pseudo-tensor category is strongly semisimple if its Killing form induces an isomorphism g → ∼ g ∗ \mathfrak{g} \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathfrak{g}^{*} g ∼ g ∗ .
Thus, a strongly semisimple operadic Lie algebra is quadratic, with its Killing form as a distinguished quadratic form. We will need the following technical lemmas.
Lemma 4.8. If U ⊆ End ( V ) U \subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) U ⊆ End ( V ) is nilpotent , then the trace morphism U → 1 U \to1 U → 1 is zero.
Proof. Let a : U ⊗ V ⟶ V a: U \otimes V \longrightarrow V a : U ⊗ V ⟶ V be the evaluation action. We argue by induction on its nilpotence degree. If a = 0 a=0 a = 0 , the result is immediate. Otherwise, let W = im ( a ) W=\operatorname{im}(a) W = im ( a ) and write
a : U ⊗ V → b W → i V . a: U \otimes V \xrightarrow{b} W \xrightarrow{i} V. a : U ⊗ V b W i V . The action of U U U on W W W is given by
a W = b ( id U ⊗ i ) : U ⊗ W ⟶ W . a_W=b(\operatorname{id}_U\otimes i): U \otimes W \longrightarrow W. a W = b ( id U ⊗ i ) : U ⊗ W ⟶ W . If the N N N -fold action of U U U on V V V is zero, then the ( N − 1 ) (N-1) ( N − 1 ) -fold action on W W W is zero. Indeed, this follows from the factorization above, since i i i is a monomorphism and tensor product preserves epimorphisms. Thus, by induction, tr W ( a W ) = 0 \operatorname{tr}_W(a_W)=0 tr W ( a W ) = 0 . Finally,
tr V ( a ) = tr V ( i b ) = tr W ( b ( id U ⊗ i ) ) = tr W ( a W ) = 0. \operatorname{tr}_V(a)=\operatorname{tr}_V(ib)=\operatorname{tr}_W\bigl(b(\operatorname{id}_U\otimes i)\bigr)=\operatorname{tr}_W(a_W)=0. tr V ( a ) = tr V ( ib ) = tr W ( b ( id U ⊗ i ) ) = tr W ( a W ) = 0. Since tr V ( a ) : U → 1 \operatorname{tr}_V(a): U \to1 tr V ( a ) : U → 1 is the restriction to U U U of the categorical trace, the result follows. □
Lemma 4.9. A strongly semisimple operadic Lie algebra has no non-zero abelian ideals.
Proof. Let a ⊆ g \mathfrak{a}\subseteq\mathfrak{g} a ⊆ g be an abelian ideal and set
A : = ( ad a ) ( ad g ) ⊆ End ( g ) . A := (\operatorname{ad}\mathfrak{a})(\operatorname{ad}\mathfrak{g}) \subseteq\operatorname{End}(\mathfrak{g}). A := ( ad a ) ( ad g ) ⊆ End ( g ) . Then A 2 = 0 A^2=0 A 2 = 0 . Indeed,
[ a , [ g , [ a , [ g , g ] ] ] ] ⊆ [ a , [ g , a ] ] ⊆ [ a , a ] = 0. [\mathfrak{a},[\mathfrak{g},[\mathfrak{a},[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]]]]\subseteq[\mathfrak{a},[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{a}]]\subseteq[\mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{a}]=0. [ a , [ g , [ a , [ g , g ]]]] ⊆ [ a , [ g , a ]] ⊆ [ a , a ] = 0. By Lemma 4.8, the trace vanishes on A A A . Therefore K g ( a , g ) = 0 K_{\mathfrak{g}}(\mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{g})=0 K g ( a , g ) = 0 . By strong semisimplicity, we get that a = 0 \mathfrak{a}=0 a = 0 . □
The following proof of Cartan’s criterion is the categorical version of the short classical argument of Dieudonné [7 ] .
Theorem 4.10 (Cartan’s criterion). Every finite-dimensional strongly semisimple operadic Lie algebra in C \mathcal{C} C is semisimple. In particular, it is a Lie algebra.
Proof. We apply Lemma 4.9 and Theorem 4.5 to the Killing form to obtain that g \mathfrak{g} g is semisimple.
To prove the PBW property, set A = End ( g ) A=\operatorname{End}(\mathfrak{g}) A = End ( g ) and let j = ad : g → A j=\operatorname{ad}:\mathfrak{g}\to A j = ad : g → A . We define
q : A ⟶ g ∗ , q ( T ) ( x ) = tr g ( T ad x ) . q:A\longrightarrow\mathfrak{g}^{*}, \qquad q(T)(x)=\operatorname{tr}_{\mathfrak{g}}(T\operatorname{ad}x). q : A ⟶ g ∗ , q ( T ) ( x ) = tr g ( T ad x ) . Then q j = K g qj=K_{\mathfrak{g}} q j = K g , so K g − 1 q K_{\mathfrak{g}}^{-1}q K g − 1 q is a retraction of j j j as a morphism of underlying objects. The commutator Lie algebra of A A A has the PBW property by [9 Corollary 7.3] . Consequently the canonical map η g : S ( g ) ↠ gr U ( g ) \eta_{\mathfrak{g}}:S(\mathfrak{g})\twoheadrightarrow\operatorname{gr}U(\mathfrak{g}) η g : S ( g ) ↠ gr U ( g ) is injective: indeed,
gr U ( j ) ∘ η g = η A ∘ S ( j ) , \operatorname{gr}U(j)\circ\eta_{\mathfrak{g}}=\eta_A\circ S(j), gr U ( j ) ∘ η g = η A ∘ S ( j ) ,
and the right-hand side is a monomorphism because S ( j ) S(j) S ( j ) is split injective. Thus η g \eta_{\mathfrak{g}} η g is an isomorphism, as required. □
If char k = 0 \operatorname{char} \Bbbk= 0 char k = 0 , every finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebra in Vec k \operatorname{Vec}_{\Bbbk} Vec k is strongly semisimple. In positive characteristic, the implication from semisimplicity to strong semisimplicity can fail. Likewise, even in characteristic zero, a semisimple Lie algebra in sVec k \operatorname{sVec}_{\Bbbk} sVec k may have degenerate Killing form; see, for example, [18 Mu] .
Proposition 4.11. Let F : D → E F : \mathcal{D} \to\mathcal{E} F : D → E be an additive symmetric monoidal functor between symmetric pseudo-tensor categories. If an operadic Lie algebra g ∈ D \mathfrak{g} \in\mathcal{D} g ∈ D is strongly semisimple, then F ( g ) F(\mathfrak{g}) F ( g ) is strongly semisimple.
Proof. A symmetric monoidal functor preserves duals, categorical traces, and the Killing form. It sends the isomorphism K g : g → g ∗ K_{\mathfrak{g}} : \mathfrak{g} \to\mathfrak{g}^{*} K g : g → g ∗ to the isomorphism K F ( g ) : F ( g ) → F ( g ) ∗ K_{F(\mathfrak{g})} : F(\mathfrak{g}) \to F(\mathfrak{g})^{*} K F ( g ) : F ( g ) → F ( g ) ∗ , and the statement follows. □
Derivations
In this subsection we study derivations; the main argument here is formally identical to the classical proof that every derivation of a finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebra in characteristic zero is inner; see [16 Section 5.3] .
Let Der ( g ) ⊆ End ( g ) \operatorname{Der}(\mathfrak{g}) \subseteq\operatorname{End}(\mathfrak{g}) Der ( g ) ⊆ End ( g ) be the kernel of the Leibniz defect
d ⟼ d ∘ [ , ] − [ , ] ∘ ( d ⊗ id + id ⊗ d ) . d \longmapsto d \circ[\ ,\ ] - [\ ,\ ] \circ(d \otimes\operatorname{id} + \operatorname{id} \otimes d). d ⟼ d ∘ [ , ] − [ , ] ∘ ( d ⊗ id + id ⊗ d ) .
It is an operadic Lie subalgebra of End ( g ) \operatorname{End}(\mathfrak{g}) End ( g ) , and the adjoint map ad : g → Der ( g ) \operatorname{ad} : \mathfrak{g} \to\operatorname{Der}(\mathfrak{g}) ad : g → Der ( g ) is a morphism of operadic Lie algebras.
Theorem 4.12. If g \mathfrak{g} g is strongly semisimple, then ad : g → ∼ Der ( g ) \operatorname{ad} : \mathfrak{g} \xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Der}(\mathfrak{g}) ad : g ∼ Der ( g ) is an isomorphism.
Proof. The center of g \mathfrak{g} g lies in the radical of the Killing form, so it is zero. Thus ad \operatorname{ad} ad is injective. On Der ( g ) \operatorname{Der}(\mathfrak{g}) Der ( g ) consider the trace form T ( d , e ) : = tr g ( d e ) T(d,e) := \operatorname{tr}_{\mathfrak{g}}(de) T ( d , e ) := tr g ( d e ) . Its restriction to ad ( g ) \operatorname{ad}(\mathfrak{g}) ad ( g ) is the Killing form. Hence this restriction is nondegenerate, and
Der ( g ) = ad ( g ) ⊕ I , I : = ad ( g ) ⊥ . \operatorname{Der}(\mathfrak{g}) = \operatorname{ad}(\mathfrak{g}) \oplus I,\qquad I := \operatorname{ad}(\mathfrak{g})^{\perp}. Der ( g ) = ad ( g ) ⊕ I , I := ad ( g ) ⊥ . The trace form is invariant under the commutator bracket. Since ad ( g ) \operatorname{ad}(\mathfrak{g}) ad ( g ) is an ideal of Der ( g ) \operatorname{Der}(\mathfrak{g}) Der ( g ) , its orthogonal complement I I I is also an ideal, see Lemma 4.3. Therefore
[ I , ad ( g ) ] ⊆ I ∩ ad ( g ) = 0. [I,\operatorname{ad}(\mathfrak{g})] \subseteq I \cap\operatorname{ad}(\mathfrak{g}) = 0. [ I , ad ( g )] ⊆ I ∩ ad ( g ) = 0. For d ∈ I d \in I d ∈ I and x ∈ g x \in\mathfrak{g} x ∈ g , the derivation identity gives
[ d , ad ( x ) ] = ad ( d ( x ) ) . [d,\operatorname{ad}(x)] = \operatorname{ad}(d(x)). [ d , ad ( x )] = ad ( d ( x )) . Hence d ( x ) d(x) d ( x ) is central for every x x x . The center is zero, so d = 0 d = 0 d = 0 . Thus I = 0 I = 0 I = 0 . □
Rigidity of Lie algebra homomorphisms
In this section, let C \mathcal{C} C be an arbitrary symmetric tensor category. Let H C E 1 ( g , M ) H^1_{\mathrm{CE}}(\mathfrak{g},M) H CE 1 ( g , M ) denote the ordinary vector space of 1-cocycles c : g → M c : \mathfrak{g} \to M c : g → M modulo the coboundaries coming from classical elements m : 1 → M m : 1 \to M m : 1 → M . Equivalently, it is the first cohomology of the complex of morphism spaces obtained from the internal Chevalley–Eilenberg complex [11 ] by applying $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(1,-)`.
For finite-dimensional Lie algebras g \mathfrak{g} g and a \mathfrak{a} a in C C C , the Lie algebra homomorphisms g → a \mathfrak{g} \to\mathfrak{a} g → a form a closed affine subscheme
Hom L i e ( g , a ) ⊆ Hom C ( g , a ) . \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{Lie}}(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{a}) \subseteq\operatorname{Hom}_{C}(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{a}). Hom Lie ( g , a ) ⊆ Hom C ( g , a ) .
The defining equations say that a linear morphism preserves the bracket. It is clear that this affine scheme is of finite type, and we will use this fact in what follows.
Proposition 5.1. Let g \mathfrak{g} g and a \mathfrak{a} a be finite-dimensional Lie algebras in C C C . Assume that a \mathfrak{a} a is invariantless and that
H C E 1 ( g , M ) = 0 H^{1}_{\mathrm{CE}}(\mathfrak{g},M)=0 H CE 1 ( g , M ) = 0 for every finite-dimensional invariantless g \mathfrak{g} g -module M M M . Then Hom L i e ( g , a ) \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{Lie}}(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{a}) Hom Lie ( g , a ) is a finite reduced scheme. In particular, the set of Lie algebra homomorphisms g → a \mathfrak{g} \to\mathfrak{a} g → a is finite.
Proof. Fix a homomorphism f : g → a f:\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{a} f : g → a , and let a f \mathfrak{a}_{f} a f denote a \mathfrak{a} a with the g \mathfrak{g} g -action ad ∘ f \operatorname{ad}\circ f ad ∘ f . A first-order deformation f + ϵ c f+\epsilon c f + ϵc over k [ ϵ ] / ( ϵ 2 ) k[\epsilon]/(\epsilon^{2}) k [ ϵ ] / ( ϵ 2 ) preserves the bracket exactly when, schematically,
c ( [ x , y ] ) = x ⋅ c ( y ) − y ⋅ c ( x ) . c([x,y])=x\cdot c(y)-y\cdot c(x). c ([ x , y ]) = x ⋅ c ( y ) − y ⋅ c ( x ) .
Thus the Zariski tangent space to the scheme at f f f is
T f Hom L i e ( g , a ) = Z C E 1 ( g , a f ) . T_{f}\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{Lie}}(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{a})=Z^{1}_{\mathrm{CE}}(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{a}_{f}). T f Hom Lie ( g , a ) = Z CE 1 ( g , a f ) .
Moreover,
C C E 0 ( g , a f ) = Hom C ( 1 , a ) = 0 , C^{0}_{\mathrm{CE}}(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{a}_{f})=\operatorname{Hom}_{C}(1,\mathfrak{a})=0, C CE 0 ( g , a f ) = Hom C ( 1 , a ) = 0 ,
so B C E 1 ( g , a f ) = 0 B^{1}_{\mathrm{CE}}(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{a}_{f})=0 B CE 1 ( g , a f ) = 0 . The hypothesis therefore gives Z C E 1 ( g , a f ) = 0 Z^{1}_{\mathrm{CE}}(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{a}_{f})=0 Z CE 1 ( g , a f ) = 0 . Hence every Zariski tangent space of the finite-type affine scheme Hom L i e ( g , a ) \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{Lie}}(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{a}) Hom Lie ( g , a ) is zero. Thus every closed point is reduced and isolated. A finite-type affine scheme over an algebraically closed field with this property is finite and reduced. □
Corollary 5.2. If g \mathfrak{g} g is linearly reductive and a \mathfrak{a} a is invariantless, then the set Hom L i e ( g , a ) \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{Lie}}(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{a}) Hom Lie ( g , a ) is finite.
Proof. Let M M M be a finite-dimensional g \mathfrak{g} g -module. A 1-cocycle c : g → M c:\mathfrak{g}\to M c : g → M defines an extension of g \mathfrak{g} g -modules
0 ⟶ M ⟶ M ⊕ 1 ⟶ 1 ⟶ 0 0\longrightarrow M\longrightarrow M\oplus1\longrightarrow1\longrightarrow0 0 ⟶ M ⟶ M ⊕ 1 ⟶ 1 ⟶ 0
by the schematic formula
x ⋅ ( m , t ) = x ⋅ m + t c ( x ) . x\cdot(m,t)=x\cdot m+tc(x). x ⋅ ( m , t ) = x ⋅ m + t c ( x ) .
By the linear reductivity assumption this extension splits, and so c c c is a coboundary. Hence H C E 1 ( g , M ) = 0 H^{1}_{\mathrm{CE}}(\mathfrak{g},M)=0 H CE 1 ( g , M ) = 0 for every M M M , and we can apply Proposition 5.1. □
Graded Lie algebras and category O
Let C \mathcal{C} C be an arbitrary symmetric tensor category. Next we develop several aspects of the representation theory of Z \mathbb{Z} Z -graded Lie algebras. After some basic results we introduce the graded category O \mathcal{O} O and the Shapovalov determinant. We also include examples where we explicitly compute the data involved here.
Z \mathbb{Z} Z -graded Lie algebras, Verma and simple modules
Let g = ⨁ i ∈ Z g i \mathfrak{g}=\bigoplus_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{g}_i g = ⨁ i ∈ Z g i be a finite-dimensional Z \mathbb{Z} Z -graded Lie algebra. Set
h : = g 0 , n + : = ⨁ i > 0 g i , n − : = ⨁ i < 0 g i , b ± : = h ⊕ n ± . \mathfrak{h}:=\mathfrak{g}_0,\qquad\mathfrak{n}^{+}:=\bigoplus_{i>0}\mathfrak{g}_i,\qquad\mathfrak{n}^{-}:=\bigoplus_{i<0}\mathfrak{g}_i,\qquad\mathfrak{b}^{\pm}:=\mathfrak{h}\oplus\mathfrak{n}^{\pm}. h := g 0 , n + := i > 0 ⨁ g i , n − := i < 0 ⨁ g i , b ± := h ⊕ n ± .
Thus g = n − ⊕ h ⊕ n + \mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{n}^{-}\oplus\mathfrak{h}\oplus\mathfrak{n}^{+} g = n − ⊕ h ⊕ n + as an object. The subalgebras n + \mathfrak{n}^{+} n + and n − \mathfrak{n}^{-} n − are nilpotent. The inclusions of n − \mathfrak{n}^{-} n − , h \mathfrak{h} h , n + \mathfrak{n}^{+} n + , and b ± \mathfrak{b}^{\pm} b ± into g \mathfrak{g} g split as morphisms of underlying objects. By Lemma 2.4 , these subalgebras inherit the PBW property. Hence
U ( n − ) ⊗ U ( h ) ⊗ U ( n + ) → ∼ U ( g ) . U(\mathfrak{n}^{-})\otimes U(\mathfrak{h})\otimes U(\mathfrak{n}^{+})\xrightarrow{\sim} U(\mathfrak{g}). U ( n − ) ⊗ U ( h ) ⊗ U ( n + ) ∼ U ( g ) .
Indeed, the associated graded map is the isomorphism induced by
S ( g ) = S ( n − ) ⊗ S ( h ) ⊗ S ( n + ) . S(\mathfrak{g})=S(\mathfrak{n}^{-})\otimes S(\mathfrak{h})\otimes S(\mathfrak{n}^{+}). S ( g ) = S ( n − ) ⊗ S ( h ) ⊗ S ( n + ) .
Given a g \mathfrak{g} g -module V V V , we set V ± V^{\pm} V ± as the maximal subobject of V V V where n ± \mathfrak{n}_{\pm} n ± acts trivially. Notice that V ± V^{\pm} V ± is a g 0 \mathfrak{g}_0 g 0 -submodule of V V V .
Lemma 6.1. Let Y Y Y be a h \mathfrak{h} h -submodule of V + V^{+} V + . Then W = U ( n − ) ⋅ Y W=U(\mathfrak{n}^{-})\cdot Y W = U ( n − ) ⋅ Y is a g \mathfrak{g} g -submodule of V V V .
Proof. Clearly, n − ⋅ W ⊆ W \mathfrak{n}^{-}\cdot W\subseteq W n − ⋅ W ⊆ W , and also h ⋅ W ⊆ W \mathfrak{h}\cdot W\subseteq W h ⋅ W ⊆ W since h U ( n − ) ⊆ U ( n − ) + U ( n − ) h \mathfrak{h}U(\mathfrak{n}^{-})\subseteq U(\mathfrak{n}^{-})+U(\mathfrak{n}^{-})\mathfrak{h} h U ( n − ) ⊆ U ( n − ) + U ( n − ) h and Y Y Y is an h \mathfrak{h} h -submodule. Finally, as n + U ( n − ) ⊆ U ( b − ) + U ( n − ) n + \mathfrak{n}^{+}U(\mathfrak{n}^{-})\subseteq U(\mathfrak{b}^{-})+U(\mathfrak{n}^{-})\mathfrak{n}^{+} n + U ( n − ) ⊆ U ( b − ) + U ( n − ) n + and n + \mathfrak{n}^{+} n + annihilates Y Y Y , we get that n + ⋅ W ⊆ W \mathfrak{n}^{+}\cdot W\subseteq W n + ⋅ W ⊆ W □ \square □
Next we study Z \mathbb{Z} Z -graded g \mathfrak{g} g -modules M = ⨁ k ∈ Z M k M=\bigoplus_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}M_k M = ⨁ k ∈ Z M k . We define the shifted module M ⟨ d ⟩ M\langle d\rangle M ⟨ d ⟩ by
( M ⟨ d ⟩ ) r : = M r − d . (M\langle d\rangle)_r:=M_{r-d}. ( M ⟨ d ⟩ ) r := M r − d .
Let X X X be an irreducible h \mathfrak{h} h -module. We regard X X X as a b + \mathfrak{b}^{+} b + -module by letting n + \mathfrak{n}^{+} n + act trivially.
Definition 6.2. For d ∈ Z d\in\mathbb{Z} d ∈ Z , the graded Verma module of highest weight ( X , d ) (X,d) ( X , d ) is
Δ ( X , d ) : = U ( g ) ⊗ U ( b + ) X ⟨ d ⟩ . (4) \Delta(X,d):=U(\mathfrak{g})\otimes_{U(\mathfrak{b}^{+})}X\langle d\rangle. \tag*{(4)} Δ ( X , d ) := U ( g ) ⊗ U ( b + ) X ⟨ d ⟩ . (4)
Theorem 6.3. Let X X X be an irreducible h \mathfrak{h} h -module, d ∈ Z d\in\mathbb{Z} d ∈ Z . The Verma module Δ ( X , d ) \Delta(X,d) Δ ( X , d ) has a unique maximal proper graded submodule. Its graded-simple quotient is denoted by L ( X , d ) L(X,d) L ( X , d ) .
Proof. The component of degree d d d of Δ ( X , d ) \Delta(X,d) Δ ( X , d ) is the simple h \mathfrak{h} h -module X X X , and it generates the Verma module. A graded submodule is proper exactly when its component of degree d d d is zero. The sum of all proper graded submodules is therefore still proper and is the unique maximal proper submodule. □ \square □
Lemma 6.4. With the notation of the theorem above, L ( X , d ) + = X L(X,d)^{+}=X L ( X , d ) + = X .
Proof. Notice that L ( X , d ) + L(X,d)^{+} L ( X , d ) + is a Z \mathbb{Z} Z -graded h \mathfrak{h} h -submodule of L ( X , d ) L(X,d) L ( X , d ) :
L ( X , d ) + = ⨁ k ≥ 0 L ( X , d ) d − k , L ( X , d ) j + ⊆ L ( X , d ) j , L ( X , d ) d + = X . L(X,d)^{+}=\bigoplus_{k\geq0}L(X,d)_{d-k},\qquad L(X,d)^{+}_{j}\subseteq L(X,d)_{j},\qquad L(X,d)^{+}_{d}=X. L ( X , d ) + = k ≥ 0 ⨁ L ( X , d ) d − k , L ( X , d ) j + ⊆ L ( X , d ) j , L ( X , d ) d + = X .
For each k > 0 k>0 k > 0 , L ( X , d ) d − k + L(X,d)^{+}_{d-k} L ( X , d ) d − k + is an h \mathfrak{h} h -submodule of L ( X , d ) + L(X,d)^{+} L ( X , d ) + , so by Lemma 6.1 W = U ( n − ) ⋅ L ( X , d ) d − k + W=U(\mathfrak{n}_{-})\cdot L(X,d)^{+}_{d-k} W = U ( n − ) ⋅ L ( X , d ) d − k + is a g \mathfrak{g} g -submodule of L ( X , d ) L(X,d) L ( X , d ) . In addition, W W W is graded. As W ⊆ L ( X , d ) W\subseteq L(X,d) W ⊆ L ( X , d ) , we have that W = 0 W=0 W = 0 , and in particular W d − k = L ( X , d ) d − k + = 0 W_{d-k}=L(X,d)^{+}_{d-k}=0 W d − k = L ( X , d ) d − k + = 0 for k > 0 k>0 k > 0 .
Next we give a generalization of [KW, Theorem 4] (which in turn was generalized in [1 ] for Lie superalgebras) for Lie algebras in symmetric tensor categories. We characterize simple g \mathfrak{g} g -modules in C \mathcal{C} C (instead of C i n d \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{ind}} C ind ) under mild hypotheses. We write L ( X ) L(X) L ( X ) for the underlying ungraded module of L ( X , 0 ) L(X,0) L ( X , 0 ) , and similarly forget the grading of Δ ( X , 0 ) \Delta(X,0) Δ ( X , 0 ) when discussing ungraded modules. We return to the notation Δ ( X , d ) \Delta(X,d) Δ ( X , d ) and L ( X , d ) L(X,d) L ( X , d ) in Subsection 6.2.
Theorem 6.5. Let g = ⨁ k ∈ Z g k ∈ C i n d \mathfrak{g}=\bigoplus_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{g}_{k}\in\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{ind}} g = ⨁ k ∈ Z g k ∈ C ind be a Z \mathbb{Z} Z -graded Lie algebra generated by
g l o c : = g − 1 ⊕ h ⊕ g 1 . (5) \mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{loc}}:=\mathfrak{g}_{-1}\oplus\mathfrak{h}\oplus\mathfrak{g}_{1}. \tag*{(5)} g loc := g − 1 ⊕ h ⊕ g 1 . (5) Let V ∈ C V\in\mathcal{C} V ∈ C be a g \mathfrak{g} g -module. Then the following are equivalent:
(i) There exists a simple h \mathfrak{h} h -module X X X such that V ≃ L ( X ) V\simeq L(X) V ≃ L ( X ) .
(ii) V V V is a simple g \mathfrak{g} g -module and the action of n ± \mathfrak{n}_{\pm} n ± is nilpotent.
Moreover, two simple g \mathfrak{g} g -modules V , W ∈ C V,W\in\mathcal{C} V , W ∈ C with nilpotent action of n ± \mathfrak{n}_{\pm} n ± are isomorphic if and only if V + ≃ W + V^{+}\simeq W^{+} V + ≃ W + as h \mathfrak{h} h -modules.
Proof. (i) ⟹ \Longrightarrow ⟹ (ii) Let X X X be a simple h \mathfrak{h} h -module such that L ( X ) ∈ C L(X)\in\mathcal{C} L ( X ) ∈ C . As L ( X ) L(X) L ( X ) is Z \mathbb{Z} Z -graded with a finite number of non-zero homogeneous components, the action of both n + \mathfrak{n}_{+} n + and n − \mathfrak{n}_{-} n − is nilpotent.
It remains to prove that L ( X ) L(X) L ( X ) is simple. Let W ≠ 0 W\neq0 W = 0 be a g \mathfrak{g} g -submodule of L ( X ) L(X) L ( X ) . Choose the largest j > 0 j>0 j > 0 for which the iterated image ( n + ) j W (\mathfrak{n}_{+})^{j}W ( n + ) j W is nonzero. This image is annihilated by n + \mathfrak{n}_{+} n + , so W + ≠ 0 W^{+}\neq0 W + = 0 . By Theorem 6.4, W + ⊆ L ( X ) + = X W^{+}\subseteq L(X)^{+}=X W + ⊆ L ( X ) + = X as h \mathfrak{h} h -modules. Simplicity of X X X gives W + = X W^{+}=X W + = X , and hence L ( X ) = U ( g ) X ⊆ W L(X)=U(\mathfrak{g})X\subseteq W L ( X ) = U ( g ) X ⊆ W . Thus W = L ( X ) W=L(X) W = L ( X ) .
(ii) ⟹ \Longrightarrow ⟹ (i) Again, nilpotence gives V + ≠ 0 V^{+}\neq0 V + = 0 . Set
V j : = U ( n − ) − j ⋅ V + ( j ≥ 0 ) , V j : = 0 ( j < 0 ) . V_{j}:=U(\mathfrak{n}_{-})_{-j}\cdot V^{+}\quad(j\geq0),\qquad V_{j}:=0\quad(j<0). V j := U ( n − ) − j ⋅ V + ( j ≥ 0 ) , V j := 0 ( j < 0 ) .
The PBW decomposition implies
g i ⋅ V j ⊆ V j − i ( i ∈ Z , j ≥ 0 ) . \mathfrak{g}_{i}\cdot V_{j}\subseteq V_{j-i}\quad(i\in\mathbb{Z},\ j\geq0). g i ⋅ V j ⊆ V j − i ( i ∈ Z , j ≥ 0 ) .
Thus ∑ j ≥ 0 V j \sum_{j\geq0}V_{j} ∑ j ≥ 0 V j is a nonzero g \mathfrak{g} g -submodule and equals V V V .
Note that the h \mathfrak{h} h -submodule V + ∩ n − V = 0 V^{+}\cap\mathfrak{n}_{-}V=0 V + ∩ n − V = 0 . In fact, if it were nonzero, Lemma 6.1 and simplicity would imply
V = U ( n − ) ⋅ ( V + ∩ n − V ) ⊆ n − V , V=U(\mathfrak{n}_{-})\cdot(V^{+}\cap\mathfrak{n}_{-}V)\subseteq\mathfrak{n}_{-}V, V = U ( n − ) ⋅ ( V + ∩ n − V ) ⊆ n − V ,
and iterating would contradict nilpotence of the action of n − \mathfrak{n}_{-} n − .
For j > 0 j>0 j > 0 , let
Z j : = V j ∩ ∑ 0 ≤ k < j V k . Z_{j}:=V_{j}\cap\sum_{0\leq k<j}V_{k}. Z j := V j ∩ 0 ≤ k < j ∑ V k .
We prove Z j = 0 Z_j=0 Z j = 0 by induction on j j j . For i > 0 i>0 i > 0 ,
g i Z j ⊆ V j − i ∩ ⨁ 0 ≤ k < j V k − i . \mathfrak{g}_i Z_j \subseteq V_{j-i}\cap\bigoplus_{0\leq k<j}V_{k-i}. g i Z j ⊆ V j − i ∩ 0 ≤ k < j ⨁ V k − i .
If 0 < i < j 0<i<j 0 < i < j , the right-hand side is Z j − i Z_{j-i} Z j − i and vanishes by induction; if i ≥ j i\geq j i ≥ j , it is zero directly. Hence Z j ⊆ V + Z_j\subseteq V^+ Z j ⊆ V + . Since V j ⊆ n − V V_j\subseteq\mathfrak{n}^-V V j ⊆ n − V for j > 0 j>0 j > 0 , the preceding intersection result gives Z j = 0 Z_j=0 Z j = 0 . Therefore V = ⨁ j ≥ 0 V j V=\bigoplus_{j\geq0}V_j V = ⨁ j ≥ 0 V j , and placing V j V_j V j in degree − j -j − j defines a g \mathfrak{g} g -module grading.
Let 0 ≠ Y ⊆ V + 0\ne Y\subseteq V^+ 0 = Y ⊆ V + be an h \mathfrak{h} h -submodule. Lemma 6.1 gives U ( n − ) ⋅ Y = V U(\mathfrak{n}^-)\cdot Y=V U ( n − ) ⋅ Y = V . Comparing the components of degree zero yields Y = V + Y=V^+ Y = V + , so V + V^+ V + is simple as an h \mathfrak{h} h -module. The canonical graded epimorphism Δ ( V + ) ↠ V \Delta(V^+)\twoheadrightarrow V Δ ( V + ) ↠ V , therefore identifies V V V with L ( V + ) L(V^+) L ( V + ) . Finally, the classification assertion follows from L ( X ) + = X L(X)^+=X L ( X ) + = X . □
Corollary 6.6. Let V ∈ C V\in\mathcal{C} V ∈ C be a simple g \mathfrak{g} g -module such that the action of n ± \mathfrak{n}_{\pm} n ± is nilpotent. Then V V V admits a non-degenerate invariant bilinear form V ⊗ V → 1 V\otimes V\to\mathbb{1} V ⊗ V → 1 if and only if V + ≅ ( V − ) ∗ V^+\cong(V^-)^* V + ≅ ( V − ) ∗ as h \mathfrak{h} h -modules.
Proof. By Theorem 6.5, we can choose a grading V = ⨁ r = a b V r V=\bigoplus_{r=a}^{b}V_r V = ⨁ r = a b V r , with V a , V b ≠ 0 V_a,V_b\ne0 V a , V b = 0 . Applying the same theorem with the grading reversed, and using Lemma 6.4, gives
V + = V b , V − = V a . V^+=V_b,\qquad V^-=V_a. V + = V b , V − = V a .
The dual module is simple, with grading ( V ∗ ) r = ( V − r ) ∗ (V^*)_r=(V_{-r})^* ( V ∗ ) r = ( V − r ) ∗ , so ( V ∗ ) + = ( V a ) ∗ = ( V − ) ∗ (V^*)^+=(V_a)^*=(V^-)^* ( V ∗ ) + = ( V a ) ∗ = ( V − ) ∗ . A nondegenerate invariant bilinear form on V V V is equivalent to an isomorphism V ≅ V ∗ V\cong V^* V ≅ V ∗ of g \mathfrak{g} g -modules. By the classification in Theorem 6.5, such an isomorphism exists exactly when V + ≅ ( V ∗ ) + = ( V − ) ∗ V^+\cong(V^*)^+=(V^-)^* V + ≅ ( V ∗ ) + = ( V − ) ∗ . □
Next we generalize [18 Proposition 1.2.5] .
Proposition 6.7. Assume that g ∈ C \mathfrak{g}\in\mathcal{C} g ∈ C , so g = ⨁ − n ≤ k ≤ m g k \mathfrak{g}=\bigoplus_{-n\leq k\leq m}\mathfrak{g}_k g = ⨁ − n ≤ k ≤ m g k for some m , n ≥ 0 m,n\geq0 m , n ≥ 0 such that g − n , g m ≠ 0 \mathfrak{g}_{-n},\mathfrak{g}_m\ne0 g − n , g m = 0 , and g \mathfrak{g} g is simple. Then g \mathfrak{g} g admits a non-degenerate invariant bilinear form B : g ⊗ g → 1 B:\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{g}\to\mathbb{1} B : g ⊗ g → 1 if and only if g m ∗ ≅ g − n \mathfrak{g}_m^*\cong\mathfrak{g}_{-n} g m ∗ ≅ g − n as h \mathfrak{h} h -modules. If this happens, then B ( g h ⊗ g k ) = 0 B(\mathfrak{g}_h\otimes\mathfrak{g}_k)=0 B ( g h ⊗ g k ) = 0 for all h , k h,k h , k such that h + k ≠ m − n h+k\ne m-n h + k = m − n .
Proof. The first statement follows as in loc. cit. using Corollary 6.6 with V = g V=\mathfrak{g} V = g . For the second assertion, let B ~ : g → g ∗ \widetilde{B}:\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{g}^* B : g → g ∗ be the isomorphism corresponding to the form, and decompose it into homogeneous g \mathfrak{g} g -module maps. Every nonzero homogeneous component is an isomorphism by simplicity. A homogeneous isomorphism of degree s s s must take the highest degree m m m of g \mathfrak{g} g to the highest degree n n n of g ∗ \mathfrak{g}^* g ∗ , so s = n − m s=n-m s = n − m . Hence every nonzero component has this degree, and
B ~ ( g i ) ⊆ ( g ∗ ) i + n − m = g m − n − i ∗ . \widetilde{B}(\mathfrak{g}_i)\subseteq(\mathfrak{g}^*)_{i+n-m}=\mathfrak{g}^*_{m-n-i}. B ( g i ) ⊆ ( g ∗ ) i + n − m = g m − n − i ∗ .
This is exactly the stated orthogonality condition. □
The graded category O \mathcal{O} O
Let g \mathfrak{g} g be as in Subsection 6.1. Write
U : = U ( g ) , U 0 : = U ( h ) , U + : = U ( n + ) , U − : = U ( n − ) . U:=U(\mathfrak{g}),\qquad U^0:=U(\mathfrak{h}),\qquad U^+:=U(\mathfrak{n}^+),\qquad U^-:=U(\mathfrak{n}^-). U := U ( g ) , U 0 := U ( h ) , U + := U ( n + ) , U − := U ( n − ) .
The PBW theorem gives an isomorphism of graded objects
U − ⊗ U 0 ⊗ U + → ∼ U . (6) U^-\otimes U^0\otimes U^+\xrightarrow{\sim}U. \tag*{(6)} U − ⊗ U 0 ⊗ U + ∼ U . (6)
Let
P : = Irr ( Rep C ( h ) ) . P := \operatorname{Irr}(\operatorname{Rep}_{\mathbb{C}}(\mathfrak{h})). P := Irr ( Rep C ( h )) .
Definition 6.8. The category O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) consists of graded U U U -modules M = ⨁ r M r M=\bigoplus_r M_r M = ⨁ r M r in C i n d \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{ind}} C ind such that (i) M M M is finitely generated as a graded U U U -module; (ii) M r = 0 M_r=0 M r = 0 for r ≫ 0 r\gg0 r ≫ 0 ; (iii) M r M_r M r is finite-dimensional, that is, M r ∈ C M_r\in\mathcal{C} M r ∈ C , for every r r r . Morphisms preserve the grading.
Remark 6.9. Condition (iii) does not say that the h \mathfrak{h} h -modules M r M_r M r are semisimple. Neither C \mathcal{C} C nor Rep C ( h ) \operatorname{Rep}_{\mathbb{C}}(\mathfrak{h}) Rep C ( h ) are assumed semisimple. The definition above is independent of an auxiliary choice of semisimple h \mathfrak{h} h -modules and allows nonsplit h \mathfrak{h} h -module extensions in individual degrees. The arguments below require only that each M r M_r M r have finite length as an h \mathfrak{h} h -module. This follows from M r ∈ C M_r\in\mathcal{C} M r ∈ C , since every chain of h \mathfrak{h} h -submodules of M r M_r M r is a chain of subobjects of M r M_r M r in C \mathcal{C} C .
We may also construct a restrictive semisimple version. Namely, let W ⊂ Rep C ( h ) \mathcal{W}\subset\operatorname{Rep}_{\mathbb{C}}(\mathfrak{h}) W ⊂ Rep C ( h ) be a full semisimple subcategory that is closed under subquotients. Suppose that
U − r ⊗ X ∈ W for every X ∈ W and r ≥ 0. U_{-r}\otimes X\in\mathcal{W}\qquad\text{for every }X\in\mathcal{W}\text{ and }r\geq0. U − r ⊗ X ∈ W for every X ∈ W and r ≥ 0.
Define
O W g r ( g ) : = { M ∈ O g r ( g ) : M r ∈ W for every r } . \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}_{\mathcal{W}}(\mathfrak{g}):=\{M\in\mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}):M_r\in\mathcal{W}\text{ for every }r\}. O W gr ( g ) := { M ∈ O gr ( g ) : M r ∈ W for every r } .
Under the noetherian hypothesis in Proposition 6.10, this is an abelian full subcategory of O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) , and the argument of Theorem 6.15 identifies its graded-simple objects with the modules L ( X , d ) L(X,d) L ( X , d ) for ( X , d ) ∈ Irr ( W ) × Z (X,d)\in\operatorname{Irr}(\mathcal{W})\times\mathbb{Z} ( X , d ) ∈ Irr ( W ) × Z .
The boundedness condition implies that n + \mathfrak{n}^{+} n + acts locally nilpotently.
Proposition 6.10. If U ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) is left noetherian, then O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) is abelian.
Proof. Let f : M → N f:M\to N f : M → N be a morphism in O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) . The kernel is a graded submodule of the finitely generated module M M M , hence is finitely generated. It is bounded above, and each homogeneous component ( ker f ) r (\ker f)_r ( ker f ) r is a subobject of M r ∈ C M_r\in\mathcal{C} M r ∈ C , so it belongs to C \mathcal{C} C . The same properties for the cokernel are immediate. □
We now prove the noetherianity statement needed for Lie algebras in a Verlinde category. Let p ≥ 5 p\geq5 p ≥ 5 and let g ∈ Ver p \mathfrak{g}\in\operatorname{Ver}_p g ∈ Ver p . Since Ver p \operatorname{Ver}_p Ver p is semisimple, there is a canonical decomposition
g = g c l ⊕ g n c , (7) \mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}\oplus\mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{nc}}, \tag*{(7)} g = g cl ⊕ g nc , (7)
where g c l \mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{cl}} g cl is a sum of copies of 1 \mathbf{1} 1 and g n c \mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{nc}} g nc has no copy of 1 \mathbf{1} 1 . The first summand is an ordinary finite-dimensional Lie algebra, and it preserves the second summand.
An algebra object A A A in C i n d \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{ind}} C ind is called left noetherian if every submodule of a finitely generated left A A A -module is finitely generated. Right noetherianity is defined analogously.
Theorem 6.11. Let g \mathfrak{g} g be a finite-dimensional Lie algebra in Ver p \operatorname{Ver}_p Ver p . Then U ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) is left and right noetherian. More precisely, it is finite as a left and as a right module over the ordinary enveloping algebra U ( g c l ) U(\mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}) U ( g cl ) .
Proof. By the PBW property and decomposition (7) ,
gr U ( g ) ≅ S ( g ) ≅ S ( g c l ) ⊗ S ( g n c ) , (8) \operatorname{gr} U(\mathfrak{g}) \cong S(\mathfrak{g}) \cong S(\mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}) \otimes S(\mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{nc}}), \tag*{(8)} gr U ( g ) ≅ S ( g ) ≅ S ( g cl ) ⊗ S ( g nc ) , (8)
since symmetric algebras turn direct sums into tensor products. The symmetric algebra of a non-trivial simple object is finite-dimensional by [9 Section 5.1] , so S ( g n c ) S(\mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{nc}}) S ( g nc ) is finite-dimensional. It follows from (8) , by the usual filtered lifting argument, that U ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) is finite as a left and as a right U ( g c l ) U(\mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}) U ( g cl ) -module.
The ordinary algebra R : = U ( g c l ) R := U(\mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{cl}}) R := U ( g cl ) is left and right noetherian. If M M M is a finitely generated left R R R -module in Ver p i n d \operatorname{Ver}_{p}^{\mathrm{ind}} Ver p ind , write
M = ⨁ S ∈ Irr ( Ver p ) S ⊗ M S . M = \bigoplus_{S \in\operatorname{Irr}(\operatorname{Ver}_{p})} S \otimes M_{S}. M = S ∈ Irr ( Ver p ) ⨁ S ⊗ M S .
Since R R R is classical, its action preserves each isotypic component, and each multiplicity space M S M_{S} M S is a finitely generated ordinary R R R -module. Thus every M S M_{S} M S is noetherian. Submodules are described by their multiplicity submodules, so M M M is noetherian. The right-module argument is identical.
Finally, an algebra that is a finite module over a left or right noetherian algebra is noetherian on the corresponding side. This proves the theorem. □
The following is a direct consequence of the previous theorem.
Corollary 6.12. If g \mathfrak{g} g is a finite-dimensional graded Lie algebra in Ver p \operatorname{Ver}_{p} Ver p , then O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) is abelian.
We can extend this beyond Ver p \operatorname{Ver}_{p} Ver p as follows.
Corollary 6.13. Let p ≥ 5 p \ge5 p ≥ 5 , and suppose that C \mathcal{C} C admits an exact faithful symmetric tensor functor F : C → Ver p F \colon\mathcal{C} \to\operatorname{Ver}_{p} F : C → Ver p . For every finite-dimensional Lie algebra g ∈ C \mathfrak{g} \in\mathcal{C} g ∈ C , the algebra U ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) is left and right noetherian. If g \mathfrak{g} g is graded, then O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) is abelian.
Proof. The extension of F F F to ind-objects is exact and faithful, and
F ( U ( g ) ) ≅ U ( F ( g ) ) . F(U(\mathfrak{g})) \cong U(F(\mathfrak{g})). F ( U ( g )) ≅ U ( F ( g )) .
Moreover, F ( g ) F(\mathfrak{g}) F ( g ) has the PBW property, since F F F preserves the defining constructions and their filtrations. If M M M is a finitely generated U ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) -module, then F ( M ) F(M) F ( M ) is finitely generated over U ( F ( g ) ) U(F(\mathfrak{g})) U ( F ( g )) . By Theorem 6.11 , every ascending chain of submodules of F ( M ) F(M) F ( M ) stabilizes. Exactness and faithfulness therefore imply that every ascending chain of submodules of M M M stabilizes. Every ind-module is the directed union of its submodules generated by finite subobjects; consequently every submodule of M M M is finitely generated. This proves left noetherianity. The right-module argument is identical, and Proposition 6.10 gives the last assertion. □
Since U − r − U^{-}_{-r} U − r − and X X X belong to C \mathcal{C} C , every homogeneous component of Δ ( X , d ) \Delta(X,d) Δ ( X , d ) belongs to C \mathcal{C} C . Thus Δ ( X , d ) \Delta(X,d) Δ ( X , d ) belongs to O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) .
For any M M M in this category, induction gives the universal property
Hom g g r ( Δ ( X , d ) , M ) ≅ Hom h ( X , ( M d ) n + ) (10) \operatorname{Hom}^{\mathrm{gr}}_{\mathfrak{g}}(\Delta(X,d),M)\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathfrak{h}}(X,(M_d)^{\mathfrak{n}^{+}}) \tag*{(10)} Hom g gr ( Δ ( X , d ) , M ) ≅ Hom h ( X , ( M d ) n + ) (10)
Next we characterize simple modules in O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) . This resembles Theorem 6.5, but the hypotheses are slightly different.
Theorem 6.15. The graded-simple objects of O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) are, up to isomorphism, the modules
L ( X , d ) , ( X , d ) ∈ P × Z . L(X,d),\qquad(X,d)\in P\times\mathbb{Z}. L ( X , d ) , ( X , d ) ∈ P × Z . Moreover, these modules are pairwise nonisomorphic.
Proof. Let L L L be graded simple. Choose the largest d d d with L d ≠ 0 L_d\ne0 L d = 0 . Since L d ∈ C L_d\in\mathcal{C} L d ∈ C , it has finite length as an h \mathfrak{h} h -module. Choose a simple h \mathfrak{h} h -subobject X ⊆ L d X\subseteq L_d X ⊆ L d . Since n + X = 0 \mathfrak{n}^{+}X=0 n + X = 0 , the universal property gives a non-zero map Δ ( X , d ) → L \Delta(X,d)\to L Δ ( X , d ) → L , which is surjective. Its image in degree d d d is X X X , so surjectivity also shows that L d = X L_d=X L d = X is simple. Hence L ≅ L ( X , d ) L\cong L(X,d) L ≅ L ( X , d ) . Conversely, L ( X , d ) L(X,d) L ( X , d ) is graded-simple by Theorem 6.3, and Remark 6.14 shows that it belongs to O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) . The highest degree and its h \mathfrak{h} h -module recover ( X , d ) (X,d) ( X , d ) , proving uniqueness. □
We conclude this subsection with a discussion on gradability of simple modules over finite graded algebras. The following lemma resembles Theorem 6.5, but here we assume the algebra is in C \mathcal{C} C , and that C \mathcal{C} C is a fusion category.
Lemma 6.16. Let B = ⨁ n ∈ Z B n B=\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}B_n B = ⨁ n ∈ Z B n be a Z \mathbb{Z} Z -graded algebra object in a finite tensor category C \mathcal{C} C . Then every simple B B B -module V V V admits a grading. Any two gradings on V V V differ by a shift.
Proof. For each t ∈ G m t\in\mathbb{G}_m t ∈ G m , the grading of B B B defines an algebra automorphism
ϕ t : B ⟶ B , ϕ t ∣ B n = t n id B n . \phi_t:B\longrightarrow B,\qquad\phi_t|_{B_n}=t^n\operatorname{id}_{B_n}. ϕ t : B ⟶ B , ϕ t ∣ B n = t n id B n .
If V V V is a B B B -module, let ϕ t V \phi_tV ϕ t V denote the module with the same underlying object as V V V and with action twisted by ϕ t \phi_t ϕ t . Let P P P be a projective generator of C \mathcal{C} C . Then B ⊗ P B\otimes P B ⊗ P is a projective generator of the category of finite B B B -modules, because
Hom B ( B ⊗ P , M ) ≅ Hom C ( P , M ) . \operatorname{Hom}_B(B\otimes P,M)\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(P,M). Hom B ( B ⊗ P , M ) ≅ Hom C ( P , M ) .
Indeed, the right side is exact, and an epimorphism P ⊕ n ↠ M P^{\oplus n}\twoheadrightarrow M P ⊕ n ↠ M induces an epimorphism ( B ⊗ P ) ⊕ n ↠ M (B\otimes P)^{\oplus n}\twoheadrightarrow M ( B ⊗ P ) ⊕ n ↠ M . Since B ⊗ P B\otimes P B ⊗ P has finite length, the category of finite B B B -modules has only finitely many isomorphism classes of simples. Twisting defines an action of k × \mathbb{k}^{\times} k × on this finite set. Since k \mathbb{k} k is algebraically closed, k × \mathbb{k}^{\times} k × is a divisible abelian group. Its image in a finite permutation group is therefore a finite divisible abelian group and must be trivial. Consequently, ϕ t V ≅ V \phi_tV\cong V ϕ t V ≅ V for every t ∈ k × t\in\mathbb{k}^{\times} t ∈ k × .
We choose these isomorphisms compatibly as t t t varies. Consider the algebraic group
T ~ V = { ( t , F ) : t ∈ G m , F : V → ∼ ϕ t V is a B -module isomorphism } . \widetilde{T}_V=\{(t,F):t\in\mathbb{G}_m,\ F:V\xrightarrow{\sim}\phi_tV\text{ is a }B\text{-module isomorphism}\}. T V = {( t , F ) : t ∈ G m , F : V ∼ ϕ t V is a B -module isomorphism } .
The spaces Hom B ( V , ϕ t V ) \operatorname{Hom}_B(V,\phi_tV) Hom B ( V , ϕ t V ) are the kernels of a polynomial family of linear maps between fixed finite-dimensional morphism spaces. Every fiber has dimension one, by Schur’s lemma and the isomorphisms ϕ t V ≅ V \phi_tV \cong V ϕ t V ≅ V already proved. These kernels therefore form a line bundle over G m \mathbb{G}_m G m . Its complement of the zero section is precisely T ~ V \widetilde{T}_V T V , since every nonzero map in such a fiber is an isomorphism. Thus T ~ V \widetilde{T}_V T V is a smooth G m \mathbb{G}_m G m -torsor over G m \mathbb{G}_m G m .
Projection onto the first coordinate gives a surjective homomorphism π : T ~ V ⟶ G m \pi:\widetilde{T}_V \longrightarrow\mathbb{G}_m π : T V ⟶ G m . The kernel consists of the B B B -module automorphisms of V V V . Since V V V is simple, Schur’s lemma gives ker π = Aut B ( V ) = G m \ker\pi=\operatorname{Aut}_B(V)=\mathbb{G}_m ker π = Aut B ( V ) = G m , acting by scalar automorphisms. Taking the identity component T ~ V ∘ \widetilde{T}_V^\circ T V ∘ , we obtain an exact sequence
1 ⟶ G m ⟶ T ~ V ∘ → π G m ⟶ 1. 1 \longrightarrow\mathbb{G}_m \longrightarrow\widetilde{T}_V^\circ\xrightarrow{\pi} \mathbb{G}_m \longrightarrow1. 1 ⟶ G m ⟶ T V ∘ π G m ⟶ 1.
We claim that T ~ V ∘ \widetilde{T}_V^\circ T V ∘ is a torus. Its unipotent radical maps trivially to the quotient G m \mathbb{G}_m G m and hence lies in the kernel, which is also a torus. Therefore, the unipotent radical is trivial, so T ~ V ∘ \widetilde{T}_V^\circ T V ∘ is reductive. Its derived subgroup also maps trivially to the abelian quotient and hence lies in the central torus ker π \ker\pi ker π . Since a semisimple group cannot be a nontrivial subgroup of a torus, the derived subgroup is trivial. Thus T ~ V ∘ \widetilde{T}_V^\circ T V ∘ is a torus.
Since k k k is algebraically closed, such an extension splits, so there is a homomorphism
s : G m ⟶ T ~ V ∘ , s ( t ) = ( t , F t ) , s:\mathbb{G}_m \longrightarrow\widetilde{T}_V^\circ,\qquad s(t)=(t,F_t), s : G m ⟶ T V ∘ , s ( t ) = ( t , F t ) ,
such that π ∘ s = id G m \pi\circ s=\operatorname{id}_{\mathbb{G}_m} π ∘ s = id G m . The maps F t F_t F t define an action of G m \mathbb{G}_m G m on the underlying object of V V V , and hence a weight decomposition
V = ⨁ m ∈ Z V m , F t ∣ V m = t m id V m . V=\bigoplus_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}V_m,\qquad F_t|_{V_m}=t^m\operatorname{id}_{V_m}. V = m ∈ Z ⨁ V m , F t ∣ V m = t m id V m .
It remains to check that this weight decomposition is a B B B -module grading. If b ∈ B n b\in B_n b ∈ B n and v ∈ V m v\in V_m v ∈ V m , then the fact that F t : V → ϕ t V F_t:V\to\phi_tV F t : V → ϕ t V is a B B B -module map gives
F t ( b v ) = ϕ t ( b ) F t ( v ) = t n b t m v = t n + m b v . F_t(bv)=\phi_t(b)F_t(v)=t^n b\,t^m v=t^{n+m}bv. F t ( b v ) = ϕ t ( b ) F t ( v ) = t n b t m v = t n + m b v .
Therefore, B n V m ⊆ V n + m B_nV_m\subseteq V_{n+m} B n V m ⊆ V n + m , as desired.
Finally, suppose that two gradings of V V V give compatible families ( F t ) (F_t) ( F t ) and ( F t ′ ) (F'_t) ( F t ′ ) . For each t t t , the automorphism F t ′ − 1 F t : V → V F_t'^{-1}F_t:V\to V F t ′ − 1 F t : V → V is B B B -linear and hence scalar by Schur’s lemma. Compatibility with multiplication in G m \mathbb{G}_m G m shows that these scalars form a character of G m \mathbb{G}_m G m , so they have the form t ↦ t d t\mapsto t^d t ↦ t d for some d ∈ Z d\in\mathbb{Z} d ∈ Z . Thus F t ′ = t d F t F'_t=t^dF_t F t ′ = t d F t , which shifts every weight by the same integer d d d . □
The category O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) need not be a highest weight category in the sense of [5 ] . For example, take C = Vect k \mathcal{C}=\operatorname{Vect}_k C = Vect k and let g = k f \mathfrak{g}=kf g = k f be one-dimensional abelian, concentrated in degree − 1 -1 − 1 . Then
Δ ( 1 , d ) = k [ f ] ⟨ d ⟩ \Delta(1,d)=k[f]\langle d\rangle Δ ( 1 , d ) = k [ f ] ⟨ d ⟩
has the strictly descending chain
Δ ( 1 , d ) ⊃ f Δ ( 1 , d ) ⊃ f 2 Δ ( 1 , d ) ⊃ ⋯ . \Delta(1,d)\supset f\Delta(1,d)\supset f^2\Delta(1,d)\supset\cdots. Δ ( 1 , d ) ⊃ f Δ ( 1 , d ) ⊃ f 2 Δ ( 1 , d ) ⊃ ⋯ .
Thus O g r ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{gr}}(\mathfrak{g}) O gr ( g ) is not artinian.
Question 6.17. For integers a ≤ b a\le b a ≤ b , let O [ a , b ] ( g ) \mathcal{O}^{[a,b]}(\mathfrak{g}) O [ a , b ] ( g ) be the full subcategory of modules supported in degrees a , … , b a,\ldots,b a , … , b . Under what additional hypotheses is this a highest weight category, with standard objects given by the largest quotients of the Verma modules supported in [ a , b ] [a,b] [ a , b ] ?
Shapovalov maps and generic graded irreducibility
We follow the notation of Subsection 6.1. Let
X ( h ) : = Hom L i e ( h , 1 ) = Hom C ( h / [ h , h ] , 1 ) \mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h}) := \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{Lie}}(\mathfrak{h},1) = \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb{C}}(\mathfrak{h}/[\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{h}],1) X ( h ) := Hom Lie ( h , 1 ) = Hom C ( h / [ h , h ] , 1 )
be the vector space of characters of h \mathfrak{h} h . For λ ∈ X ( h ) \lambda\in\mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h}) λ ∈ X ( h ) and i > 0 i > 0 i > 0 , define
β λ , i : g i ⊗ g − i ⟶ 1 , β λ , i ( x , y ) = λ ( [ x , y ] ) . \beta_{\lambda,i}:\mathfrak{g}_i \otimes\mathfrak{g}_{-i} \longrightarrow1,\qquad\beta_{\lambda,i}(x,y)=\lambda([x,y]). β λ , i : g i ⊗ g − i ⟶ 1 , β λ , i ( x , y ) = λ ([ x , y ]) .
We extend the pairings β λ , i \beta_{\lambda,i} β λ , i to a pairing β λ : n + ⊗ n − ⟶ 1 \beta_\lambda:\mathfrak{n}^{+}\otimes\mathfrak{n}^{-}\longrightarrow1 β λ : n + ⊗ n − ⟶ 1 by setting
β λ ∣ g i ⊗ g − j = { β λ , i , i = j , 0 , i ≠ j . \left.\beta_\lambda\right|_{\mathfrak{g}_i\otimes\mathfrak{g}_{-j}} =
\begin{cases}
\beta_{\lambda,i}, & i=j,\\
0, & i\ne j.
\end{cases} β λ ∣ g i ⊗ g − j = { β λ , i , 0 , i = j , i = j .
Thus homogeneous components of different absolute degrees are orthogonal.
Definition 6.18. The graded Lie algebra g \mathfrak{g} g is nondegenerate if there is a character λ ∈ X ( h ) \lambda\in\mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h}) λ ∈ X ( h ) for which every pairing β λ , i \beta_{\lambda,i} β λ , i is nondegenerate, or equivalently β λ \beta_\lambda β λ is nondegenerate.
The locus
X ( h ) n d : = { λ : β λ , i is nondegenerate for all i > 0 } \mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h})_{\mathrm{nd}} := \{\lambda: \beta_{\lambda,i}\text{ is nondegenerate for all }i>0\} X ( h ) nd := { λ : β λ , i is nondegenerate for all i > 0 }
is Zariski open. Indeed, for each i i i such that g i ≅ g − i ∗ \mathfrak{g}_i \cong\mathfrak{g}_{-i}^{*} g i ≅ g − i ∗ , choose an isomorphism c i : g i → ∼ g − i ∗ c_i:\mathfrak{g}_i \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathfrak{g}_{-i}^{*} c i : g i ∼ g − i ∗ and define
D i ( λ ) : = det C ( L c i − 1 β λ , i : End C ( g i ) ⟶ End C ( g i ) ) . D_i(\lambda):=\det_{\mathbb{C}}\left(L_{c_i^{-1}\beta_{\lambda,i}}:\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb{C}}(\mathfrak{g}_i)\longrightarrow\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb{C}}(\mathfrak{g}_i)\right). D i ( λ ) := C det ( L c i − 1 β λ , i : End C ( g i ) ⟶ End C ( g i ) ) .
This is a polynomial in λ \lambda λ , and it is nonzero precisely when β λ , i \beta_{\lambda,i} β λ , i is an isomorphism. If g i ≇ g − i ∗ \mathfrak{g}_i\not\cong\mathfrak{g}_{-i}^{*} g i ≅ g − i ∗ , the locus is empty. Since only finitely many degrees occur, X ( h ) n d \mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h})_{\mathrm{nd}} X ( h ) nd is Zariski open. Thus g \mathfrak{g} g is nondegenerate exactly when this open set is nonempty.
Remark 6.19. Strong semisimplicity gives a sufficient condition for the grading to be nondegenerate. Assume that char k ≠ 2 \operatorname{char} k\ne2 char k = 2 and that g \mathfrak{g} g is strongly semisimple. Then the degree derivation is ad ( h ) \operatorname{ad}(h) ad ( h ) for some h ∈ h h\in\mathfrak{h} h ∈ h by Theorem 4.12, and the Killing form B B B has degree zero, i.e., B ( g i , g j ) = 0 B(\mathfrak{g}_i,\mathfrak{g}_j)=0 B ( g i , g j ) = 0 when i + j ≠ 0 i+j\ne0 i + j = 0 . The character λ h ( z ) : = B ( h , z ) \lambda_h(z):=B(h,z) λ h ( z ) := B ( h , z ) satisfies β λ h , i ( x , y ) = i B ( x , y ) \beta_{\lambda_h,i}(x,y)=iB(x,y) β λ h , i ( x , y ) = i B ( x , y ) . Consequently, the grading is nondegenerate in characteristic zero. It is also nondegenerate in characteristic p p p provided that g i = 0 \mathfrak{g}_i=0 g i = 0 for every non-zero i ∈ p Z i\in p\mathbb{Z} i ∈ p Z .
Let X X X be an h \mathfrak{h} h -module. For λ ∈ X ( h ) \lambda\in\mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h}) λ ∈ X ( h ) , let 1 λ \mathbf{1}_\lambda 1 λ be the corresponding one-dimensional h \mathfrak{h} h -module and set
X λ : = X ⊗ 1 λ . X_\lambda:= X\otimes\mathbf{1}_\lambda. X λ := X ⊗ 1 λ .
Notice that if X X X is simple, then so is X λ X_\lambda X λ .
The triangular decomposition of g \mathfrak{g} g , together with the PBW theorem, gives an isomorphism of graded objects
m : U − ⊗ U ( h ) ⊗ U + → ∼ U ( g ) . m:U^{-}\otimes U(\mathfrak{h})\otimes U^{+}\xrightarrow{\sim}U(\mathfrak{g}). m : U − ⊗ U ( h ) ⊗ U + ∼ U ( g ) .
The associated Harish–Chandra projection is
HC : U ( g ) ⟶ U ( h ) HC = ( ε − ⊗ id U ( h ) ⊗ ε + ) ∘ m − 1 , \operatorname{HC}:U(\mathfrak{g})\longrightarrow U(\mathfrak{h})\qquad\operatorname{HC}=(\varepsilon^{-}\otimes\operatorname{id}_{U(\mathfrak{h})}\otimes\varepsilon^{+})\circ m^{-1}, HC : U ( g ) ⟶ U ( h ) HC = ( ε − ⊗ id U ( h ) ⊗ ε + ) ∘ m − 1 ,
that is, we take the component with no factor from n − \mathfrak{n}^{-} n − or n + \mathfrak{n}^{+} n + .
Definition 6.20. For r > 0 r > 0 r > 0 , define the (degree r r r ) Shapovalov map
S r , X ( λ ) : U − r − ⊗ X λ ⟶ ( U r + ) ∗ ⊗ X λ (11) S_{r,X}(\lambda): U^{-}_{-r} \otimes X_{\lambda} \longrightarrow(U^{+}_{r})^* \otimes X_{\lambda} \tag*{(11)} S r , X ( λ ) : U − r − ⊗ X λ ⟶ ( U r + ) ∗ ⊗ X λ (11)
by
( S r , X ( λ ) ( u ⊗ x ) ) ( v ) : = HC ( v u ) ⋅ x , x ∈ X λ , u ∈ U − r − , v ∈ U r + . (12) (S_{r,X}(\lambda)(u \otimes x))(v) := \operatorname{HC}(vu) \cdot x, \qquad x \in X_{\lambda},\ u \in U^{-}_{-r},\ v \in U^{+}_{r}. \tag*{(12)} ( S r , X ( λ ) ( u ⊗ x )) ( v ) := HC ( v u ) ⋅ x , x ∈ X λ , u ∈ U − r − , v ∈ U r + . (12)
From now on, assume X X X is simple. In the rest of this subsection, we extend the classical theory of Shapovalov maps to our context.
Lemma 6.21. If S r , X ( λ ) S_{r,X}(\lambda) S r , X ( λ ) is injective for every r > 0 r > 0 r > 0 , then Δ ( X λ , d ) \Delta(X_{\lambda},d) Δ ( X λ , d ) is graded-simple.
Proof. Let N = ⨁ j ≤ d N j N = \bigoplus_{j \leq d}N_j N = ⨁ j ≤ d N j be a non-zero proper graded submodule. Since the simple object X λ = Δ ( X λ , d ) d X_{\lambda} = \Delta(X_{\lambda},d)_d X λ = Δ ( X λ , d ) d generates the Verma module, N d = 0 N_d = 0 N d = 0 . Choose r > 0 r > 0 r > 0 minimal such that N d − r ≠ 0 N_{d-r} \neq0 N d − r = 0 . Then n + ⋅ N d − r = 0 \mathfrak{n}^{+} \cdot N_{d-r} = 0 n + ⋅ N d − r = 0 , so S r , X ( λ ) S_{r,X}(\lambda) S r , X ( λ ) vanishes on the non-zero subobject N d − r N_{d-r} N d − r . This contradicts injectivity. □
The Shapovalov maps depend algebraically on the character λ \lambda λ , and we will use their determinants to study injectivity for generic λ \lambda λ . This requires evaluating them at the generic point of X ( h ) \mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h}) X ( h ) , which is defined over the function field k ( X ( h ) ) \Bbbk(\mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h})) k ( X ( h )) rather than over k \Bbbk k . The resulting maps therefore live in a scalar extension of C \mathcal{C} C .
For a field extension K / k K/\Bbbk K / k , we use the abelian scalar extension C K \mathcal{C}_K C K . It is again a symmetric tensor category, the scalar-extension functor is exact, and
Hom C K ( A K , B K ) ≅ K ⊗ k Hom C ( A , B ) ; \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}_K}(A_K,B_K) \cong K \otimes_{\Bbbk} \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(A,B); Hom C K ( A K , B K ) ≅ K ⊗ k Hom C ( A , B ) ;
see [St, Theorem 1.3.18 and Proposition 2.2.2].
When C \mathcal{C} C is semisimple, writing objects of C K \mathcal{C}_K C K as A ≅ ⨁ S S K ⊗ K V S A \cong\bigoplus_S S_K \otimes_K V_S A ≅ ⨁ S S K ⊗ K V S and B ≅ ⨁ S S K ⊗ K W S B \cong\bigoplus_S S_K \otimes_K W_S B ≅ ⨁ S S K ⊗ K W S , a morphism f : A → B f:A \to B f : A → B is determined by linear maps f S : V S → W S f_S:V_S \to W_S f S : V S → W S between the corresponding multiplicity spaces. When every f S f_S f S is square, we define det ( f ) : = ∏ S det ( f S ) \det(f) := \prod_S \det(f_S) det ( f ) := ∏ S det ( f S ) . Although this determinant depends on the chosen decompositions and bases up to a non-zero scalar, its vanishing does not.
We take the filtration of U + U^{+} U + and U − U^{-} U − given by the number of Lie algebra factors in a PBW monomial. This induces filtrations on the source and target of each Shapovalov map (11) . We will need the following technical results.
Lemma 6.22. Let λ ∈ X ( h ) n d \lambda\in\mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h})_{\mathrm{nd}} λ ∈ X ( h ) nd . On the PBW length-q q q piece, write u = x 1 ⋯ x q ∈ U − r − u = x_1 \cdots x_q \in U^{-}_{-r} u = x 1 ⋯ x q ∈ U − r − and v = y 1 ⋯ y q ∈ U r + v = y_1 \cdots y_q \in U^{+}_{r} v = y 1 ⋯ y q ∈ U r + . The coefficient of t q t^q t q in S r , X ( t λ ) S_{r,X}(t\lambda) S r , X ( t λ ) is given by
( y 1 ⋯ y q , x 1 ⋯ x q ) ⟼ ∑ σ ∈ S q ∏ j = 1 q β λ ( y j , x σ ( j ) ) . (13) (y_1 \cdots y_q,x_1 \cdots x_q) \longmapsto\sum_{\sigma\in S_q}\prod_{j=1}^{q}\beta_{\lambda}(y_j,x_{\sigma(j)}). \tag*{(13)} ( y 1 ⋯ y q , x 1 ⋯ x q ) ⟼ σ ∈ S q ∑ j = 1 ∏ q β λ ( y j , x σ ( j ) ) . (13)
Proof. By (12) , the matrix coefficient is obtained by applying HC \operatorname{HC} HC to v u vu v u . We move the positive generators y 1 , … , y q y_1,\ldots,y_q y 1 , … , y q past the negative generators x 1 , … , x q x_1,\ldots,x_q x 1 , … , x q . A contribution of degree q q q in t t t can arise only by pairing every y j y_j y j with one of the x i x_i x i and letting the resulting degree-zero commutator act on X t λ X_{t\lambda} X t λ through the character t λ t\lambda t λ . Then the possible complete pairings are indexed by σ ∈ S q \sigma\in S_q σ ∈ S q , and we obtain the formula in the statement. □
Remark 6.23. Assume char k = 0 \operatorname{char} \mathbb{k}=0 char k = 0 and X ( h ) n d ≠ ∅ \mathfrak{X}(\mathfrak{h})_{\mathrm{nd}}\ne\varnothing X ( h ) nd = ∅ . Then, for every r > 0 r>0 r > 0 , the Shapovalov map S r , X ( λ ) S_{r,X}(\lambda) S r , X ( λ ) is an isomorphism at the generic point λ \lambda λ of X ( h ) \mathfrak{X}(\mathfrak{h}) X ( h ) , after extending scalars to K = k ( X ( h ) ) K=\mathbb{k}(\mathfrak{X}(\mathfrak{h})) K = k ( X ( h )) .
Indeed, fix λ 0 ∈ X ( h ) n d \lambda_0\in\mathfrak{X}(\mathfrak{h})_{\mathrm{nd}} λ 0 ∈ X ( h ) nd and set
A r = U − r ⊗ X , B r = ( U r + ) ∗ ⊗ X . A_r=U_{-r}\otimes X,\qquad B_r=(U_r^+)^*\otimes X. A r = U − r ⊗ X , B r = ( U r + ) ∗ ⊗ X .
PBW symmetrization and the perfect pairing β λ 0 \beta_{\lambda_0} β λ 0 give an isomorphism c r : A r ⟶ ∼ B r c_r:A_r\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}B_r c r : A r ⟶ ∼ B r . Define
D r ( λ ) : = det k ( L c r − 1 S r , X ( λ ) : End C ( A r ) ⟶ End C ( A r ) ) . D_r(\lambda):=\det_{\mathbb{k}}\left(L_{c_r}^{-1}S_{r,X}(\lambda):\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb{C}}(A_r)\longrightarrow\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb{C}}(A_r)\right). D r ( λ ) := k det ( L c r − 1 S r , X ( λ ) : End C ( A r ) ⟶ End C ( A r ) ) .
Thus D r ( λ ) ≠ 0 D_r(\lambda)\ne0 D r ( λ ) = 0 precisely when S r , X ( λ ) S_{r,X}(\lambda) S r , X ( λ ) is an isomorphism.
To see that D r D_r D r is not identically zero, restrict to λ = t λ 0 \lambda=t\lambda_0 λ = t λ 0 and decompose A r A_r A r and B r B_r B r by PBW length. The block pairing terms of lengths p p p and q q q has degree at most min ( p , q ) \min(p,q) min ( p , q ) in t t t , since each occurrence of λ \lambda λ uses one positive and one negative factor. When p = q p=q p = q , its leading coefficient is the full contraction induced by β λ 0 \beta_{\lambda_0} β λ 0 , multiplied by q ! q! q ! and tensored with id X \operatorname{id}_X id X , and is therefore invertible. After rescaling the target summand of length q q q by t − q t^{-q} t − q , the matrix at t = ∞ t=\infty t = ∞ is triangular with invertible diagonal blocks. Hence S r , X ( t λ 0 ) S_{r,X}(t\lambda_0) S r , X ( t λ 0 ) is invertible over k ( t ) \mathbb{k}(t) k ( t ) , so D r D_r D r is not the zero polynomial.
Consequently,
{ λ ∈ X ( h ) : S r , X ( λ ) is an isomorphism } \{\lambda\in\mathfrak{X}(\mathfrak{h}):S_{r,X}(\lambda)\text{ is an isomorphism}\} { λ ∈ X ( h ) : S r , X ( λ ) is an isomorphism }
is a nonempty Zariski open subset of X ( h ) \mathfrak{X}(\mathfrak{h}) X ( h ) .
We prove now our first main result in this subsection. Let η \eta η be the generic point of X ( h ) \mathfrak{X}(\mathfrak{h}) X ( h ) , and let K = k ( X ( h ) ) K=\mathbb{k}(\mathfrak{X}(\mathfrak{h})) K = k ( X ( h )) be its function field. Denote by C K \mathcal{C}_K C K the scalar extension of C \mathcal{C} C from k \mathbb{k} k to K K K . Viewing η \eta η as a K K K -valued character of h K \mathfrak{h}_K h K , set
X η : = X K ⊗ 1 η . X_\eta:=X_K\otimes1_\eta. X η := X K ⊗ 1 η .
For completeness, a simple h \mathfrak{h} h -module X X X remains simple after this scalar extension. Viewed over k \mathbb{k} k , K ⊗ k X K\otimes_{\mathbb{k}}X K ⊗ k X is a direct sum of copies of X X X , and End h ( X ) = k \operatorname{End}_{\mathfrak{h}}(X)=\mathbb{k} End h ( X ) = k . Any finite underlying subobject is contained in finitely many copies of X X X , so the h \mathfrak{h} h -submodule it generates is still finite. Thus h \mathfrak{h} h -subobjects of this isotypic ind-object correspond to k \mathbb{k} k -subspaces of K K K . A K K K -linear subobject corresponds to a subspace stable under multiplication by K K K , and is consequently zero or the whole object. Hence X K X_K X K , and therefore X η X_\eta X η , is simple.
Theorem 6.24 (Generic irreducibility in characteristic zero). Assume that char k = 0 \operatorname{char}\mathbb{k}=0 char k = 0 . Let g \mathfrak{g} g be a nondegenerate graded Lie algebra, let X ∈ P X\in\mathcal{P} X ∈ P , and let d ∈ Z d\in\mathbb{Z} d ∈ Z . Then (i) Δ ( X η , d ) \Delta(X_\eta,d) Δ ( X η , d ) is graded-simple as a g K \mathfrak{g}_K g K -module. (ii) For every N ≥ 1 N\ge1 N ≥ 1 , there is a nonempty Zariski open subset U N ⊆ X ( h ) U_N\subseteq\mathfrak{X}(\mathfrak{h}) U N ⊆ X ( h ) such that, for every λ ∈ U N \lambda\in U_N λ ∈ U N , the Verma module Δ ( X λ , d ) \Delta(X_\lambda,d) Δ ( X λ , d ) has no non-zero singular vectors in degrees d − 1 , … , d − N d-1,\ldots,d-N d − 1 , … , d − N . (iii) If k \mathbb{k} k is uncountable, there is a countable union Z Z Z of proper closed subsets of X ( h ) ∗ s u c h t h a t ∗ \mathfrak{X}(\mathfrak{h}) *such that* X ( h ) ∗ s u c h t ha t ∗ \Delta(X_\lambda,d)$ is graded-simple for λ ∉ Z \lambda\notin Z λ ∈ / Z . In particular, such characters exist. (iv) Every graded-simple Verma module Δ ( X λ , d ) \Delta(X_\lambda,d) Δ ( X λ , d ) is simple as a g \mathfrak{g} g -module.
Proof. Part (i) follows from Remark 6.23 and Lemma 6.21. For part (ii), let N ≥ 1 N \ge1 N ≥ 1 and set
U N : = ⋂ r = 1 N { λ ∈ X ( h ) : D r ( λ ) ≠ 0 } . U_N := \bigcap_{r=1}^{N}\{\lambda\in\mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h}) : D_r(\lambda) \ne0\}. U N := r = 1 ⋂ N { λ ∈ X ( h ) : D r ( λ ) = 0 } .
By Remark 6.23, every D r D_r D r is a nonzero polynomial, so U N U_N U N is a nonempty Zariski open subset of X ( h ) \mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h}) X ( h ) . For λ ∈ U N \lambda\in U_N λ ∈ U N , the maps S r , X ( λ ) S_{r,X}(\lambda) S r , X ( λ ) are injective for 1 ≤ r ≤ N 1 \le r \le N 1 ≤ r ≤ N , so Δ ( X λ , d ) \Delta(X_\lambda,d) Δ ( X λ , d ) has no non-zero singular vectors in degrees d − 1 , … , d − N d-1,\ldots,d-N d − 1 , … , d − N .
We now prove part (iii). Assume k \mathbb{k} k is uncountable. A finite-dimensional affine space over k \mathbb{k} k cannot be the union of countably many proper closed subsets. Therefore ⋂ N ≥ 1 U N ≠ ∅ \bigcap_{N\ge1} U_N \ne\varnothing ⋂ N ≥ 1 U N = ∅ . For every λ \lambda λ in this intersection, all the Shapovalov maps are injective, and hence Δ ( X λ , d ) \Delta(X_\lambda,d) Δ ( X λ , d ) is graded-simple by Lemma 6.21.
Lastly, we look at part (iv). Let M = Δ ( X λ , d ) M=\Delta(X_\lambda,d) M = Δ ( X λ , d ) be graded-simple. By Lemma 6.4, its n + \mathfrak{n}^{+} n + -invariants are exactly its simple highest-weight submodule X λ X_\lambda X λ . If 0 ≠ W ⊆ M 0 \ne W \subseteq M 0 = W ⊆ M is an ungraded g \mathfrak{g} g -submodule, choose a nonzero finite subobject A ⊆ W A \subseteq W A ⊆ W . The image of A A A is contained in a finite sum of homogeneous components of M M M . Since the grading is bounded above and n + \mathfrak{n}^{+} n + raises degrees, a sufficiently long iterated action of n + \mathfrak{n}^{+} n + on A A A is zero. Its last nonzero image is therefore a nonzero subobject of W + W^{+} W + . Thus 0 ≠ W + ⊆ X λ 0 \ne W^{+} \subseteq X_\lambda 0 = W + ⊆ X λ , and simplicity of X λ X_\lambda X λ gives X λ ⊆ W X_\lambda\subseteq W X λ ⊆ W . Since the top generates M M M , we have W = M W=M W = M . □ \square □
Assume now that C = Ver p \mathcal{C}=\operatorname{Ver}_p C = Ver p and that the grading of g \mathfrak{g} g is nondegenerate. In the classical setting, Verma modules in characteristic p p p often have singular vectors coming from central p p p -th powers. We now define the baby Verma modules in Ver p \operatorname{Ver}_p Ver p . Write n c l + \mathfrak{n}_{\mathrm{cl}}^{+} n cl + and n c l − \mathfrak{n}_{\mathrm{cl}}^{-} n cl − for the classical parts of n + \mathfrak{n}^{+} n + and n − \mathfrak{n}^{-} n − . Suppose that
( ad x ) p = 0 for every x ∈ n c l + ∪ n c l − . (14) (\operatorname{ad} x)^p=0 \qquad\text{for every } x\in\mathfrak{n}_{\mathrm{cl}}^{+}\cup\mathfrak{n}_{\mathrm{cl}}^{-}. \tag*{(14)} ( ad x ) p = 0 for every x ∈ n cl + ∪ n cl − . (14)
Then x p x^p x p is central in U ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) , since [ x p , y ] = ( ad x ) p ( y ) [x^p,y]=(\operatorname{ad}x)^p(y) [ x p , y ] = ( ad x ) p ( y ) . Let J − ⊆ U − J^{-}\subseteq U^{-} J − ⊆ U − be the ideal generated by x p x^p x p for all homogeneous x ∈ n c l − x\in\mathfrak{n}_{\mathrm{cl}}^{-} x ∈ n cl − . We define the baby Verma module as
Δ b ( X λ , d ) : = Δ ( X λ , d ) / J − Δ ( X λ , d ) . (15) \Delta_b(X_\lambda,d):=\Delta(X_\lambda,d)/J^{-}\Delta(X_\lambda,d). \tag*{(15)} Δ b ( X λ , d ) := Δ ( X λ , d ) / J − Δ ( X λ , d ) . (15)
Let J + ⊆ U + J^{+}\subseteq U^{+} J + ⊆ U + be generated by x p x^p x p for homogeneous x ∈ n c l + x\in\mathfrak{n}_{\mathrm{cl}}^{+} x ∈ n cl + . This ideal acts by zero on Δ b ( X λ , d ) \Delta_b(X_\lambda,d) Δ b ( X λ , d ) : its generators are central in U ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) and annihilate the highest weight subobject. Set U ‾ ± : = U ± / J ± \overline{U}^{\pm}:=U^{\pm}/J^{\pm} U ± := U ± / J ± . Formula (6.9) therefore induces baby Shapovalov maps
S r , X b ( λ ) : U ‾ − r ⊗ X λ ⟶ ( U ‾ r ) ∗ ⊗ X λ . (16) S^{b}_{r,X}(\lambda):\overline{U}_{-r}\otimes X_\lambda\longrightarrow(\overline{U}_{r})^{*}\otimes X_\lambda. \tag*{(16)} S r , X b ( λ ) : U − r ⊗ X λ ⟶ ( U r ) ∗ ⊗ X λ . (16)
As in Lemma 6.21, injectivity of all these maps implies graded simplicity of the baby Verma module.
Fix λ 0 ∈ X ( h ) n d \lambda_0\in\mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h})_{\mathrm{nd}} λ 0 ∈ X ( h ) nd . Then Z ( g ) ∩ n + = Z ( g ) ∩ n − = 0 Z(\mathfrak{g})\cap\mathfrak{n}^{+}=Z(\mathfrak{g})\cap\mathfrak{n}^{-}=0 Z ( g ) ∩ n + = Z ( g ) ∩ n − = 0 , since every central homogeneous subobject of nonzero degree lies in the radical of the corresponding pairing β λ 0 , i \beta_{\lambda_0,i} β λ 0 , i . For x , y ∈ n c l + x,y\in\mathfrak{n}_{\mathrm{cl}}^{+} x , y ∈ n cl + , respectively x , y ∈ n c l − x,y\in\mathfrak{n}_{\mathrm{cl}}^{-} x , y ∈ n cl − , the Jacobson identity says that ( x + y ) p − x p − y p (x+y)^p-x^p-y^p ( x + y ) p − x p − y p is a Lie element in the same nilpotent part. By (6.11) it is central in U ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) , and hence is zero. Therefore the map x ↦ x p x\mapsto x^p x ↦ x p on each classical part is Frobenius-semilinear. Since the generators x p x^p x p are homogeneous for both the PBW filtration and the Z \mathbb{Z} Z -grading, the associated graded ideals of J ± J^{\pm} J ± are identified with the ideals generated by the corresponding p p p -th powers. Thus the associated graded positive and negative parts are
S b ( n + ) : = S ( n + ) / ( x p : x ∈ n c l + ) , S b ( n − ) : = S ( n − ) / ( x p : x ∈ n c l − ) . (17) S_b(\mathfrak{n}^{+}) := S(\mathfrak{n}^{+})/(x^p : x \in\mathfrak{n}^{+}_{\mathrm{cl}}), \qquad S_b(\mathfrak{n}^{-}) := S(\mathfrak{n}^{-})/(x^p : x \in\mathfrak{n}^{-}_{\mathrm{cl}}). \tag*{(17)} S b ( n + ) := S ( n + ) / ( x p : x ∈ n cl + ) , S b ( n − ) := S ( n − ) / ( x p : x ∈ n cl − ) . (17)
They are finite-dimensional. Indeed, the classical polynomial components are truncated at degree p p p , while the symmetric algebra of each nonclassical part is finite-dimensional in Ver p \operatorname{Ver}_p Ver p .
Lemma 6.25. Let λ 0 ∈ X ( h ) n d \lambda_0 \in\mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h})_{\mathrm{nd}} λ 0 ∈ X ( h ) nd . The pairing β λ 0 \beta_{\lambda_0} β λ 0 induces a nondegenerate pairing
S b ( n + ) ⊗ S b ( n − ) ⟶ 1. S_b(\mathfrak{n}^{+}) \otimes S_b(\mathfrak{n}^{-}) \longrightarrow\mathbf{1}. S b ( n + ) ⊗ S b ( n − ) ⟶ 1 .
Proof. We split n + \mathfrak{n}^{+} n + and n − \mathfrak{n}^{-} n − into their classical and nonclassical parts. On the classical parts, the pairing is the usual perfect pairing between truncated polynomial rings: monomials have exponents between 0 0 0 and p − 1 p-1 p − 1 , so the relevant factorials are non-zero in k k k .
On the nonclassical parts, the pairing identifies the negative part with the dual of the positive part. Their symmetric algebras have finite length. The natural action of the corresponding Weyl algebra on the symmetric algebra identifies the Weyl algebra with its full endomorphism algebra by [10 Corollary 3.4(ii)] . Equivalently, the contraction pairing of the two symmetric algebras is nondegenerate. We tensor the classical and nonclassical pairings to obtain the desired nondegenerate pairing. □
We now prove our second main result of this subsection.
Theorem 6.26 (Generic irreducibility in Ver p \operatorname{Ver}_p Ver p ). Assume C = Ver p \mathcal{C} = \operatorname{Ver}_p C = Ver p and p ≥ 5 p \ge5 p ≥ 5 . Let g \mathfrak{g} g be a nondegenerate graded Lie algebra satisfying (6.11), let X ∈ P X \in\mathcal{P} X ∈ P , and let d ∈ Z d \in\mathbb{Z} d ∈ Z . Then there is a nonempty Zariski open subset U ⊆ X ( h ) U \subseteq\mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h}) U ⊆ X ( h ) such that Δ b ( X λ , d ) \Delta_b(X_\lambda,d) Δ b ( X λ , d ) is graded-simple for every λ ∈ U \lambda\in U λ ∈ U .
Proof. By Lemma 6.22 and Lemma 6.25, the determinant of each map (6.13) is a non-zero polynomial in λ \lambda λ . Only finitely many degree components of U ‾ ± \overline{U}^{\pm} U ± are nonzero. Hence the intersection of the nonvanishing loci of the finitely many relevant Shapovalov determinants is a nonempty Zariski open subset. On this subset all baby Shapovalov maps are isomorphisms. We then apply the baby version of Lemma 6.21 to prove the statement. □
Example: restricted representations of s l ( 1 ⊕ L 3 ) \mathfrak{sl}(1 \oplus L_3) sl ( 1 ⊕ L 3 ) in Ver 5 + \operatorname{Ver}^{+}_5 Ver 5 +
We now illustrate the preceding constructions in a single example. We compute the baby Verma modules and their simple quotients, use Shapovalov maps to determine exactly which baby Verma modules are simple, and then describe the projective covers and blocks. In particular, the example shows that a category built from highest-weight modules need not itself be a highest weight category.
Assume that char k = 5 \operatorname{char} k = 5 char k = 5 , put X = L 3 ∈ Ver 5 + X = L_3 \in\operatorname{Ver}^{+}_5 X = L 3 ∈ Ver 5 + , and let
g = s l ( 1 ⊕ X ) . \mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sl}(1 \oplus X). g = sl ( 1 ⊕ X ) .
The block decomposition of 1 ⊕ X 1 \oplus X 1 ⊕ X gives a Z \mathbb{Z} Z -grading
g = g ( − 1 ) ⊕ g ( 0 ) ⊕ g ( 1 ) . \mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{g}(-1) \oplus\mathfrak{g}(0) \oplus\mathfrak{g}(1). g = g ( − 1 ) ⊕ g ( 0 ) ⊕ g ( 1 ) .
Let h : = 2 id 1 ⊕ id X ∈ End ( 1 ⊕ X ) h := 2\operatorname{id}_{1} \oplus\operatorname{id}_{X} \in\operatorname{End}(1 \oplus X) h := 2 id 1 ⊕ id X ∈ End ( 1 ⊕ X ) . Thus h h h acts by the scalar 2 2 2 on 1 1 1 and by the scalar 1 1 1 on X X X . Since dim ( X ) = 3 \dim(X) = 3 dim ( X ) = 3 in Ver 5 + \operatorname{Ver}^{+}_{5} Ver 5 + and char k = 5 \operatorname{char} k = 5 char k = 5 , we have
tr ( h ) = 2 dim ( 1 ) + dim ( X ) = 2 + 3 = 0. \operatorname{tr}(h) = 2\dim(1) + \dim(X) = 2 + 3 = 0. tr ( h ) = 2 dim ( 1 ) + dim ( X ) = 2 + 3 = 0.
Hence h ∈ g = s l ( 1 ⊕ X ) h \in\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sl}(1 \oplus X) h ∈ g = sl ( 1 ⊕ X ) . Moreover, g ( 0 ) = k h ⊕ X \mathfrak{g}(0) = kh \oplus X g ( 0 ) = k h ⊕ X , and g ( 1 ) \mathfrak{g}(1) g ( 1 ) and g ( − 1 ) \mathfrak{g}(-1) g ( − 1 ) are the upper and lower copies of X X X , respectively. Thus [ h , g ( i ) ] = i g ( i ) [h,\mathfrak{g}(i)] = i\mathfrak{g}(i) [ h , g ( i )] = i g ( i ) .
The element h 5 − h h^{5} - h h 5 − h is central and primitive in U ( g ) U(\mathfrak{g}) U ( g ) . We consider the restricted enveloping algebra u ( g ) : = U ( g ) / ( h 5 − h ) u(\mathfrak{g}) := U(\mathfrak{g})/(h^{5} - h) u ( g ) := U ( g ) / ( h 5 − h ) . Set s : = s l ( X ) ⊆ g ( 0 ) \mathfrak{s} := \mathfrak{sl}(X) \subseteq\mathfrak{g}(0) s := sl ( X ) ⊆ g ( 0 ) . For M ∈ Ver 5 + M \in\operatorname{Ver}^{+}_{5} M ∈ Ver 5 + , we define a M : s ⊗ M → M a_{M} : \mathfrak{s} \otimes M \to M a M : s ⊗ M → M on the isotypic summands of M M M using the trivial action on 1 1 1 and the natural action on X X X . This is natural in M M M and compatible with tensor products. In this example we consider the full subcategory
R : = { ( M , ρ M ) ∈ Rep Ver 5 + ( u ( g ) ) : ρ M ∣ s ⊗ M = a M } . \mathcal{R} := \left\{(M,\rho_{M}) \in\operatorname{Rep}_{\operatorname{Ver}^{+}_{5}}(u(\mathfrak{g})) : \rho_{M}|_{\mathfrak{s}\otimes M} = a_{M}\right\}. R := { ( M , ρ M ) ∈ Rep Ver 5 + ( u ( g )) : ρ M ∣ s ⊗ M = a M } .
Baby Verma modules
For n ∈ F 5 n \in\mathbb{F}_{5} n ∈ F 5 and Z ∈ { 1 , X } Z \in\{1, X\} Z ∈ { 1 , X } , let Z n Z_{n} Z n be the simple g ( 0 ) \mathfrak{g}(0) g ( 0 ) -module on which h h h acts by n n n and the copy of X X X acts canonically. The corresponding highest-weight baby Verma module is
Δ ( Z , n ) : = u ( g ) ⊗ u ( b + ) Z n . (18) \Delta(Z,n) := u(\mathfrak{g}) \otimes_{u(\mathfrak{b}^{+})} Z_{n}. \tag*{(18)} Δ ( Z , n ) := u ( g ) ⊗ u ( b + ) Z n . (18)
Since
S ( X ) = 1 ⊕ X ⊕ 1 , X ⊗ X = 1 ⊕ X , S(X) = 1 \oplus X \oplus1,\qquad X \otimes X = 1 \oplus X, S ( X ) = 1 ⊕ X ⊕ 1 , X ⊗ X = 1 ⊕ X ,
we get the graded objects
Δ ( 1 , n ) = 1 n ⊕ X n − 1 ⊕ 1 n − 2 , \Delta(1,n) = 1_{n} \oplus X_{n-1} \oplus1_{n-2}, Δ ( 1 , n ) = 1 n ⊕ X n − 1 ⊕ 1 n − 2 ,
Δ ( X , n ) = X n ⊕ ( 1 n − 1 ⊕ X n − 1 ) ⊕ X n − 2 . (19) \Delta(X,n) = X_{n} \oplus(1_{n-1} \oplus X_{n-1}) \oplus X_{n-2}. \tag*{(19)} Δ ( X , n ) = X n ⊕ ( 1 n − 1 ⊕ X n − 1 ) ⊕ X n − 2 . (19)
where subscripts record the h h h -weight, read modulo 5 5 5 .
The algebra u ( g ) u(\mathfrak{g}) u ( g ) is finite and graded. Hence Theorem 6.16 shows that every simple object of R \mathcal{R} R admits a grading. Its highest homogeneous component is one of the ten simple u ( g ( 0 ) ) u(\mathfrak{g}(0)) u ( g ( 0 )) -modules Z n Z_{n} Z n , with Z ∈ { 1 , X } Z \in\{1, X\} Z ∈ { 1 , X } and n ∈ F 5 n \in\mathbb{F}_{5} n ∈ F 5 . Therefore the simple quotients of the ten baby Verma modules in (6.16) exhaust the simple objects of R \mathcal{R} R . We determine these quotients using Shapovalov maps.
Shapovalov maps and simple modules
The Shapovalov calculation is particularly short: the positive and negative parts are nonclassical, and only two degrees occur. Indeed,
g − 1 ≅ X , h = g 0 ≅ k h ⊕ X , g 1 ≅ X . \mathfrak{g}_{-1} \cong X,\qquad\mathfrak{h} = \mathfrak{g}_{0} \cong kh \oplus X,\qquad\mathfrak{g}_{1} \cong X. g − 1 ≅ X , h = g 0 ≅ k h ⊕ X , g 1 ≅ X .
Since Hom C ( X , 1 ) = 0 \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(X,1) = 0 Hom C ( X , 1 ) = 0 , a character of h \mathfrak{h} h is determined by its value on h h h . For a ∈ k a \in k a ∈ k , let λ a \lambda_{a} λ a be the character given by
λ a ( h ) = a , λ a ∣ X = 0. \lambda_{a}(h) = a,\qquad\lambda_{a}|_{X} = 0. λ a ( h ) = a , λ a ∣ X = 0.
Thus X ( h ) ≅ A 1 \mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h}) \cong\mathbb{A}^{1} X ( h ) ≅ A 1 . The pairing β λ a , 1 : X ⊗ X → 1 \beta_{\lambda_{a},1} : X \otimes X \to1 β λ a , 1 : X ⊗ X → 1 is a non-zero scalar multiple of a ev X a\,\operatorname{ev}_{X} a ev X . Consequently,
X ( h ) n d = A 1 ∖ { 0 } , \mathcal{X}(\mathfrak{h})_{\mathrm{nd}} = \mathbb{A}^{1} \setminus\{0\}, X ( h ) nd = A 1 ∖ { 0 } ,
and in particular the grading is nondegenerate.
For the Shapovalov calculation, we allow arbitrary a ∈ k a \in\mathbb{k} a ∈ k and place the highest-weight object Z a Z_a Z a in degree d d d ; the grading shift is suppressed in the notation for the baby Verma modules above. Recall S ( X ) = 1 ⊕ X ⊕ 1 S(X)=\mathbf{1}\oplus X\oplus\mathbf{1} S ( X ) = 1 ⊕ X ⊕ 1 , and the summands have degrees 0 , 1 , 2 0,1,2 0 , 1 , 2 . Hence
U − 1 ≅ U 1 + ≅ X , U − 2 ≅ U 2 + ≅ 1 , U_{-1}\cong U^+_1\cong X,\qquad U_{-2}\cong U^+_2\cong\mathbf{1}, U − 1 ≅ U 1 + ≅ X , U − 2 ≅ U 2 + ≅ 1 ,
and there are no Shapovalov maps in higher degrees. Moreover, n + \mathfrak{n}^+ n + and n − \mathfrak{n}^- n − are abelian and have no classical summands, so J + = J − = 0 J^+=J^-=0 J + = J − = 0 . Thus the ordinary and baby Shapovalov maps coincide in this example.
Using (12) and X ⊗ X = 1 ⊕ X X\otimes X=\mathbf{1}\oplus X X ⊗ X = 1 ⊕ X , we obtain the following determinants. Here f = ˙ g f\mathrel{\dot=}g f = ˙ g means equality up to a non-zero scalar independent of a a a .
Table 1.
We include here a brief explanation of this table. First, S 1 , 1 ( λ a ) S_{1,\mathbf{1}}(\lambda_a) S 1 , 1 ( λ a ) is a scalar endomorphism of X X X . Since HC ( y x ) = [ y , x ] \operatorname{HC}(yx)=[y,x] HC ( y x ) = [ y , x ] for y ∈ g 1 y\in\mathfrak{g}_1 y ∈ g 1 and x ∈ g − 1 x\in\mathfrak{g}_{-1} x ∈ g − 1 , only the h \mathfrak{h} h -component of [ y , x ] [y,x] [ y , x ] acts on 1 a \mathbf{1}_a 1 a , giving the factor a a a . Here, we identify s l ( X ) \mathfrak{sl}(X) sl ( X ) with s l ( L 2 ) \mathfrak{sl}(L_2) sl ( L 2 ) through the latter’s action on X = S 2 L 2 X=S^2L_2 X = S 2 L 2 . We normalize the Casimir using the trace form on L 2 L_2 L 2 . For Z = X Z=X Z = X , the degree-one source is X ⊗ X = 1 ⊕ X X\otimes X=\mathbf{1}\oplus X X ⊗ X = 1 ⊕ X . The map S 1 , X ( λ a ) S_{1,X}(\lambda_a) S 1 , X ( λ a ) is g ( 0 ) \mathfrak{g}(0) g ( 0 ) -equivariant, so it acts by a scalar on each summand. More precisely, up to an overall non-zero scalar, it is a 2 id + Ω \frac{a}{2}\operatorname{id}+\Omega 2 a id + Ω , where Ω \Omega Ω is the tensor Casimir for the copy of X X X in g ( 0 ) \mathfrak{g}(0) g ( 0 ) . The Casimir acts by 1 1 1 on the 1 \mathbf{1} 1 -summand and by − 2 -2 − 2 on the X X X -summand. Therefore,
S 1 , X ( λ a ) ∣ 1 = ( a 2 + 1 ) id 1 = ( a − 3 ) id 1 , S 1 , X ( λ a ) ∣ X = ( a 2 − 2 ) id X = ( a − 4 ) id X . S_{1,X}(\lambda_a)|_{\mathbf{1}}=\left(\frac{a}{2}+1\right)\operatorname{id}_{\mathbf{1}}=(a-3)\operatorname{id}_{\mathbf{1}},\qquad S_{1,X}(\lambda_a)|_X=\left(\frac{a}{2}-2\right)\operatorname{id}_X=(a-4)\operatorname{id}_X. S 1 , X ( λ a ) ∣ 1 = ( 2 a + 1 ) id 1 = ( a − 3 ) id 1 , S 1 , X ( λ a ) ∣ X = ( 2 a − 2 ) id X = ( a − 4 ) id X .
Thus det S 1 , X ( λ a ) = ˙ ( a − 3 ) ( a − 4 ) \det S_{1,X}(\lambda_a)\mathrel{\dot=}(a-3)(a-4) det S 1 , X ( λ a ) = ˙ ( a − 3 ) ( a − 4 ) .
For the degree-two maps, S 2 , Z ( λ a ) S_{2,Z}(\lambda_a) S 2 , Z ( λ a ) is a scalar endomorphism of Z Z Z . Moving two positive generators past two negative generators in (12) gives
S 2 , Z ( λ a ) = ˙ ( a 2 − 2 a − 2 c Z ) id Z , S_{2,Z}(\lambda_a)\mathrel{\dot=}(a^2-2a-2c_Z)\operatorname{id}_Z, S 2 , Z ( λ a ) = ˙ ( a 2 − 2 a − 2 c Z ) id Z ,
where c Z c_Z c Z is the scalar by which the Casimir of the copy of X X X in g ( 0 ) \mathfrak{g}(0) g ( 0 ) acts on Z Z Z . Since c 1 = 0 c_{\mathbf{1}}=0 c 1 = 0 , and c X = 4 c_X=4 c X = 4 , we obtain det S 2 , 1 ( λ a ) = ˙ a ( a − 2 ) \det S_{2,\mathbf{1}}(\lambda_a)\mathrel{\dot=}a(a-2) det S 2 , 1 ( λ a ) = ˙ a ( a − 2 ) and det S 2 , X ( λ a ) = ˙ ( a − 3 ) ( a − 4 ) \det S_{2,X}(\lambda_a)\mathrel{\dot=}(a-3)(a-4) det S 2 , X ( λ a ) = ˙ ( a − 3 ) ( a − 4 ) .
It follows that
Δ ( 1 a , d ) is graded-simple ⟺ a ∉ { 0 , 2 } , Δ ( X a , d ) is graded-simple ⟺ a ∉ { 3 , 4 } . \Delta(\mathbf{1}_a,d)\text{ is graded-simple}\ \Longleftrightarrow\ a\notin\{0,2\},\qquad\Delta(X_a,d)\text{ is graded-simple}\ \Longleftrightarrow\ a\notin\{3,4\}. Δ ( 1 a , d ) is graded-simple ⟺ a ∈ / { 0 , 2 } , Δ ( X a , d ) is graded-simple ⟺ a ∈ / { 3 , 4 } .
At the exceptional values, the first singular subobjects occur as follows:
Table 2.
We now impose h 5 − h = 0 h^5-h=0 h 5 − h = 0 , so the parameter a a a lies in F 5 \mathbb{F}_5 F 5 . Write I n I_n I n and Y n Y_n Y n for the simple quotients of Δ ( 1 , n ) \Delta(1,n) Δ ( 1 , n ) and Δ ( X , n ) \Delta(X,n) Δ ( X , n ) , respectively. At the four exceptional values, following the singular subobject through the remaining homogeneous degree and using (6.16) gives
I 0 = 1 0 , Y 4 = X 4 ⊕ 1 3 , Y 3 = X 3 ⊕ X 2 , I 2 = 1 2 ⊕ X 1 . (20) \begin{aligned}
I_0 &= \mathbf{1}_0, & Y_4 &= X_4 \oplus\mathbf{1}_3,\\
Y_3 &= X_3 \oplus X_2, & I_2 &= \mathbf{1}_2 \oplus X_1. \tag*{(20)}
\end{aligned} I 0 Y 3 = 1 0 , = X 3 ⊕ X 2 , Y 4 I 2 = X 4 ⊕ 1 3 , = 1 2 ⊕ X 1 . (20)
and the four nonsplit exact sequences
0 ⟶ Y 4 ⟶ Δ ( 1 , 0 ) ⟶ I 0 ⟶ 0 , 0 ⟶ Y 3 ⟶ Δ ( X , 4 ) ⟶ Y 4 ⟶ 0 , 0 ⟶ I 2 ⟶ Δ ( X , 3 ) ⟶ Y 3 ⟶ 0 , 0 ⟶ I 0 ⟶ Δ ( 1 , 2 ) ⟶ I 2 ⟶ 0. (21) \begin{aligned}
0 &\longrightarrow Y_4 \longrightarrow\Delta(1,0) \longrightarrow I_0 \longrightarrow0,\\
0 &\longrightarrow Y_3 \longrightarrow\Delta(X,4) \longrightarrow Y_4 \longrightarrow0,\\
0 &\longrightarrow I_2 \longrightarrow\Delta(X,3) \longrightarrow Y_3 \longrightarrow0,\\
0 &\longrightarrow I_0 \longrightarrow\Delta(1,2) \longrightarrow I_2 \longrightarrow0. \tag*{(21)}
\end{aligned} 0 0 0 0 ⟶ Y 4 ⟶ Δ ( 1 , 0 ) ⟶ I 0 ⟶ 0 , ⟶ Y 3 ⟶ Δ ( X , 4 ) ⟶ Y 4 ⟶ 0 , ⟶ I 2 ⟶ Δ ( X , 3 ) ⟶ Y 3 ⟶ 0 , ⟶ I 0 ⟶ Δ ( 1 , 2 ) ⟶ I 2 ⟶ 0. (21)
For the other six values, every Shapovalov map is an isomorphism. Therefore Lemma 6.21 shows that
Δ ( 1 , 1 ) = I 1 , Δ ( 1 , 3 ) = I 3 , Δ ( 1 , 4 ) = I 4 , \Delta(1,1)=I_1,\qquad\Delta(1,3)=I_3,\qquad\Delta(1,4)=I_4, Δ ( 1 , 1 ) = I 1 , Δ ( 1 , 3 ) = I 3 , Δ ( 1 , 4 ) = I 4 ,
Δ ( X , 0 ) = Y 0 , Δ ( X , 1 ) = Y 1 , Δ ( X , 2 ) = Y 2 \Delta(X,0)=Y_0,\qquad\Delta(X,1)=Y_1,\qquad\Delta(X,2)=Y_2 Δ ( X , 0 ) = Y 0 , Δ ( X , 1 ) = Y 1 , Δ ( X , 2 ) = Y 2
are simple. More explicitly, as graded g ( 0 ) \mathfrak{g}(0) g ( 0 ) -modules,
I n = 1 n ⊕ X n − 1 ⊕ 1 n − 2 for n ∈ { 1 , 3 , 4 } , I_n=\mathbf{1}_n\oplus X_{n-1}\oplus\mathbf{1}_{n-2}
\qquad\text{for }n\in\{1,3,4\}, I n = 1 n ⊕ X n − 1 ⊕ 1 n − 2 for n ∈ { 1 , 3 , 4 } ,
Y n = X n ⊕ ( 1 n − 1 ⊕ X n − 1 ) ⊕ X n − 2 for n ∈ { 0 , 1 , 2 } . Y_n=X_n\oplus(\mathbf{1}_{n-1}\oplus X_{n-1})\oplus X_{n-2}
\qquad\text{for }n\in\{0,1,2\}. Y n = X n ⊕ ( 1 n − 1 ⊕ X n − 1 ) ⊕ X n − 2 for n ∈ { 0 , 1 , 2 } .
Note that, although β λ a , 1 \beta_{\lambda_a,1} β λ a , 1 is nondegenerate for a ≠ 0 a\ne0 a = 0 , the higher Shapovalov maps introduce the additional exceptional values 2 , 3 , 4 2,3,4 2 , 3 , 4 . For each Z Z Z , the complement of the exceptional set is the nonempty open set predicted by Theorem 6.26.
Projectives and blocks
We now determine which simple modules are projective. Let G = S L ( 1 ⊕ X ) G=SL(\mathbf{1}\oplus X) G = S L ( 1 ⊕ X ) . Then g = Lie ( G ) \mathfrak{g}=\operatorname{Lie}(G) g = Lie ( G ) , and in this example u ( g ) = Dist ( G 1 ) u(\mathfrak{g})=\operatorname{Dist}(G_1) u ( g ) = Dist ( G 1 ) . Consequently,
R ≃ Rep V e r 5 + ( G 1 ) . \mathcal{R}\simeq\operatorname{Rep}_{\mathrm{Ver}_5^+}(G_1). R ≃ Rep Ver 5 + ( G 1 ) .
To determine the projective objects, we compare with the Kac modules studied in [U, Section 9]. Since L 3 ≅ L 2 ⊗ L 4 L_3\cong L_2\otimes L_4 L 3 ≅ L 2 ⊗ L 4 , her supergroup convention identifies G L ( L 1 ⊕ L 3 ) GL(L_1\oplus L_3) G L ( L 1 ⊕ L 3 ) with G L ( L 1 ∣ L 2 ) GL(L_1\mid L_2) G L ( L 1 ∣ L 2 ) .1 Let K ( Z , m ) K(Z,m) K ( Z , m ) denote the Kac module with highest-weight object Z m Z_m Z m , where Z ∈ { 1 , X } Z\in\{\mathbf{1},X\} Z ∈ { 1 , X } and m ∈ Z m\in\mathbb{Z} m ∈ Z . Its PBW decomposition is
K ( Z , m ) ≅ S ( g ( − 1 ) ) ⊗ Z m . K(Z,m)\cong S(\mathfrak{g}(-1))\otimes Z_m. K ( Z , m ) ≅ S ( g ( − 1 )) ⊗ Z m .
This is the same PBW construction as for Δ ( Z , m ) \Delta(Z,m) Δ ( Z , m ) . Upon restriction to G 1 G_1 G 1 , the element h h h satisfies h 5 − h = 0 h^5-h=0 h 5 − h = 0 . Therefore it is enough to consider m ‾ ∈ F 5 \overline{m}\in\mathbb{F}_5 m ∈ F 5 , and we obtain
K ( Z , m ) ∣ G 1 ≅ Δ ( Z , m ‾ ) . K(Z,m)|_{G_1}\cong\Delta(Z,\overline{m}). K ( Z , m ) ∣ G 1 ≅ Δ ( Z , m ) .
Thus passing from Kac modules to our baby Verma modules is equivalent to reducing the h h h -weights modulo 5.
In Utiralova’s terminology, a highest weight is typical if it avoids the exceptional values at which an additional singular vector can occur. Her typicality criterion in [U, Corollary 9.17 and Theorem 9.35] specializes in this example to
K ( 1 , m ) is typical ⟺ m ‾ ∉ { 0 , 2 } , K(1,m)\text{ is typical}\Longleftrightarrow\overline{m}\notin\{0,2\}, K ( 1 , m ) is typical ⟺ m ∈ / { 0 , 2 } ,
K ( X , m ) is typical ⟺ m ‾ ∉ { 3 , 4 } . K(X,m)\text{ is typical}\Longleftrightarrow\overline{m}\notin\{3,4\}. K ( X , m ) is typical ⟺ m ∈ / { 3 , 4 } .
These are exactly the six classes for which our Shapovalov calculation showed that Δ ( Z , m ‾ ) \Delta(Z,\overline{m}) Δ ( Z , m ) is simple. Moreover, an irreducible Kac module is projective. Restriction from G G G to G 1 G_1 G 1 preserves projective objects: its right adjoint is coinduction, which is exact because G / G 1 G/G_1 G / G 1 is affine. It follows that
P ( I 1 ) = I 1 , P ( I 3 ) = I 3 , P ( I 4 ) = I 4 , P ( Y 0 ) = Y 0 , P ( Y 1 ) = Y 1 , P ( Y 2 ) = Y 2 . \begin{aligned}
P(I_1)&=I_1,\qquad P(I_3)=I_3,\qquad P(I_4)=I_4,\\
P(Y_0)&=Y_0,\qquad P(Y_1)=Y_1,\qquad P(Y_2)=Y_2.
\end{aligned} P ( I 1 ) P ( Y 0 ) = I 1 , P ( I 3 ) = I 3 , P ( I 4 ) = I 4 , = Y 0 , P ( Y 1 ) = Y 1 , P ( Y 2 ) = Y 2 .
Since R \mathcal{R} R is a finite tensor category, projective objects are also injective. Hence each of these six simple-projective modules forms a block by itself. In particular, the module Y 1 Y_1 Y 1 is the adjoint module g \mathfrak{g} g .
The only nonsemisimple block is the principal block, with simple objects I 0 , Y 4 , Y 3 , I 2 I_0,Y_4,Y_3,I_2 I 0 , Y 4 , Y 3 , I 2 . Write P I n : = P ( I n ) PI_n:=P(I_n) P I n := P ( I n ) and P Y n : = P ( Y n ) PY_n:=P(Y_n) P Y n := P ( Y n ) . The four exact sequences (21) , together with BGG reciprocity [U, Corollary 9.5] and [U, Theorem 9.46], determine the Loewy series of its indecomposable projective covers:
P I 0 P Y 4 P Y 3 P I 2 I 0 Y 4 Y 3 I 2 I 2 ⊕ Y 4 I 0 ⊕ Y 3 Y 4 ⊕ I 2 Y 3 ⊕ I 0 I 0 Y 4 Y 3 I 2 (22) \begin{array}{cccc}
PI_0 & PY_4 & PY_3 & PI_2\\
I_0 & Y_4 & Y_3 & I_2\\
I_2\oplus Y_4 & I_0\oplus Y_3 & Y_4\oplus I_2 & Y_3\oplus I_0\\
I_0 & Y_4 & Y_3 & I_2 \tag*{(22)}
\end{array} P I 0 I 0 I 2 ⊕ Y 4 I 0 P Y 4 Y 4 I 0 ⊕ Y 3 Y 4 P Y 3 Y 3 Y 4 ⊕ I 2 Y 3 P I 2 I 2 Y 3 ⊕ I 0 I 2 (22)
In the cyclic order I 0 , Y 4 , Y 3 , I 2 I_0,Y_4,Y_3,I_2 I 0 , Y 4 , Y 3 , I 2 , the Cartan matrix is
C = ( 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 ) . (23) C=\begin{pmatrix}
2&1&0&1\\
1&2&1&0\\
0&1&2&1\\
1&0&1&2
\end{pmatrix}. \tag*{(23)} C = 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 . (23)
Notice that det C = 0 \det C=0 det C = 0 . However, the Cartan matrix of a highest weight category with finitely many simple objects has determinant 1. Consequently, R \mathcal{R} R is not a highest weight category in the sense of [5 ] , despite its construction from highest-weight baby Verma modules.
Tensor products and the Grothendieck ring
The preceding calculations describe the simple objects, the block decomposition, and the Loewy series of the indecomposable projective covers of R \mathcal{R} R . We now record the tensor products of the simple modules.
The decompositions of the simple modules above give the dualities
I 2 ∗ = Y 4 , I 4 ∗ = I 3 , Y 0 ∗ = Y 2 , I_2^* = Y_4,\qquad I_4^* = I_3,\qquad Y_0^* = Y_2, I 2 ∗ = Y 4 , I 4 ∗ = I 3 , Y 0 ∗ = Y 2 ,
and the other simple modules are self-dual. In the Grothendieck ring,
[ P I 0 ] = 2 [ I 0 ] + [ I 2 ] + [ Y 4 ] , [ P I 2 ] = [ I 0 ] + 2 [ I 2 ] + [ Y 3 ] , [ P Y 4 ] = [ I 0 ] + 2 [ Y 4 ] + [ Y 3 ] , [ P Y 3 ] = [ I 2 ] + [ Y 4 ] + 2 [ Y 3 ] . (24) \begin{aligned}
[P I_0] &= 2[I_0] + [I_2] + [Y_4], & [P I_2] &= [I_0] + 2[I_2] + [Y_3],\\
[P Y_4] &= [I_0] + 2[Y_4] + [Y_3], & [P Y_3] &= [I_2] + [Y_4] + 2[Y_3]. \tag*{(24)}
\end{aligned} [ P I 0 ] [ P Y 4 ] = 2 [ I 0 ] + [ I 2 ] + [ Y 4 ] , = [ I 0 ] + 2 [ Y 4 ] + [ Y 3 ] , [ P I 2 ] [ P Y 3 ] = [ I 0 ] + 2 [ I 2 ] + [ Y 3 ] , = [ I 2 ] + [ Y 4 ] + 2 [ Y 3 ] . (24)
Using these characters, the projective covers above, and the fact that tensoring preserves projectives gives the following decompositions. Since the tensor product is symmetric, the lower-triangular table determines all products of simple modules. In the row labeled Z Z Z , the entries are Z ⊗ W Z \otimes W Z ⊗ W for the preceding column labels W W W .
Table 1 (PDF p. 29).
Contragredient Lie algebras
Throughout this section, C \mathcal{C} C is assumed quasi-semisimple. We study contragredient Lie algebras, as introduced in [3 ] . After recalling their construction and basic properties, we prove a criterion for simplicity for the derived algebra. Lastly, we develop a family of reflections which allow us to build Weyl groupoids and root systems.
Basic properties of contragredient Lie algebras
In this section we set our notation. Given a Lie algebra ( h , b h ) (\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{b}_{\mathfrak{h}}) ( h , b h ) in C \mathcal{C} C , a contragredient datum [3 ] over h \mathfrak{h} h is a pair ( ρ , d ) (\rho,d) ( ρ , d ) where:
(D1) ρ : h ⊗ V → V \rho:\mathfrak{h}\otimes V\to V ρ : h ⊗ V → V is an h \mathfrak{h} h -module in C \mathcal{C} C , and
(D2) d : V ⊗ V ∗ → h d:V\otimes V^*\to\mathfrak{h} d : V ⊗ V ∗ → h is a morphism in C \mathcal{C} C ,
satisfying the following compatibility:
b h ( id h ⊗ d ) = d ( ρ ⊗ id V ∗ ) + d ( id V ⊗ ρ ∨ ) ( c h , V ⊗ id V ∗ ) . (25) \mathfrak{b}_{\mathfrak{h}}(\operatorname{id}_{\mathfrak{h}}\otimes d)
=
d(\rho\otimes\operatorname{id}_{V^*})
+
d(\operatorname{id}_{V}\otimes\rho^\vee)(c_{\mathfrak{h},V}\otimes\operatorname{id}_{V^*}). \tag*{(25)} b h ( id h ⊗ d ) = d ( ρ ⊗ id V ∗ ) + d ( id V ⊗ ρ ∨ ) ( c h , V ⊗ id V ∗ ) . (25)
Here, ρ ∨ : h ⊗ V ∗ → V ∗ \rho^\vee:\mathfrak{h}\otimes V^*\to V^* ρ ∨ : h ⊗ V ∗ → V ∗ is the dual module structure.
We will always assume h \mathfrak{h} h has enough modules , i.e., for every simple subobject S ⊆ h S\subseteq\mathfrak{h} S ⊆ h there exists an h \mathfrak{h} h -module λ : h ⊗ W → W \lambda:\mathfrak{h}\otimes W\to W λ : h ⊗ W → W such that λ ∣ S ⊗ W ≠ 0 \lambda|_{S\otimes W}\ne0 λ ∣ S ⊗ W = 0 .
For X ∈ C X \in\mathcal{C} X ∈ C , let FLie ( X ) ⊆ T ( X ) \operatorname{FLie}(X) \subseteq T(X) FLie ( X ) ⊆ T ( X ) be the Lie subalgebra generated by X X X . This is the free Lie algebra and has the PBW property. An action of h \mathfrak{h} h on X X X induces an embedding
FLie ( X ) ⋊ h ↪ T ( X ) # U ( h ) , \operatorname{FLie}(X) \rtimes\mathfrak{h} \hookrightarrow T(X)\#U(\mathfrak{h}), FLie ( X ) ⋊ h ↪ T ( X ) # U ( h ) ,
where the right side is the associative smash product for the induced action on T ( X ) T(X) T ( X ) ; its underlying object is T ( X ) ⊗ U ( h ) T(X) \otimes U(\mathfrak{h}) T ( X ) ⊗ U ( h ) . Since C \mathcal{C} C is quasi-semisimple, [9 Proposition 7.7] gives the PBW property for this semidirect product. Its quotients have the PBW property by [9 Lemma 7.6(i)] . This applies to the constructions below with X = V ⊕ V ∗ X = V \oplus V^{*} X = V ⊕ V ∗ .
Mimicking the construction of Kac-Moody Lie algebras, we denote by g ~ ( ρ , d ) \widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}(\rho, d) g ( ρ , d ) the Lie algebra obtained as the quotient of FLie ( V ⊕ V ∗ ) ⋊ ρ h \operatorname{FLie}(V \oplus V^{*}) \rtimes_{\rho} \mathfrak{h} FLie ( V ⊕ V ∗ ) ⋊ ρ h by the ideal generated by the image of
( b V ⊗ V ∗ , − d ) : V ⊗ V ∗ ⟶ FLie ( V ⊕ V ∗ ) ⋊ ρ h , (b_{V\otimes V^{*}},-d): V \otimes V^{*} \longrightarrow\operatorname{FLie}(V \oplus V^{*}) \rtimes_{\rho} \mathfrak{h}, ( b V ⊗ V ∗ , − d ) : V ⊗ V ∗ ⟶ FLie ( V ⊕ V ∗ ) ⋊ ρ h ,
where b V ⊗ V ∗ b_{V\otimes V^{*}} b V ⊗ V ∗ denotes the restriction of the Lie bracket b b b of FLie ( V ⊕ V ∗ ) \operatorname{FLie}(V \oplus V^{*}) FLie ( V ⊕ V ∗ ) to V ⊗ V ∗ V \otimes V^{*} V ⊗ V ∗ .
Then [3 Theorem 4.18] states the following:
(a) We denote by n ~ + \widetilde{\mathfrak{n}}_{+} n + and n ~ − \widetilde{\mathfrak{n}}_{-} n − the subalgebras of g ~ ( ρ , d ) \widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}(\rho,d) g ( ρ , d ) generated by V V V and V ∗ V^{*} V ∗ , respectively. Then FLie ( V ) ≅ n ~ + \operatorname{FLie}(V) \cong\widetilde{\mathfrak{n}}_{+} FLie ( V ) ≅ n + and FLie ( V ∗ ) ≅ n ~ − \operatorname{FLie}(V^{*}) \cong\widetilde{\mathfrak{n}}_{-} FLie ( V ∗ ) ≅ n − as Lie algebras.
(b) We have a triangular decomposition g ~ = n ~ − ⊕ h ⊕ n ~ + \widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}=\widetilde{\mathfrak{n}}_{-}\oplus\mathfrak{h}\oplus\widetilde{\mathfrak{n}}_{+} g = n − ⊕ h ⊕ n + , and
n ~ − = ⨁ k < 0 g ~ k , h = g ~ 0 , n ~ + = ⨁ k > 0 g ~ k . (26) \widetilde{\mathfrak{n}}_{-}=\bigoplus_{k<0}\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}_{k}, \qquad\mathfrak{h}=\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}, \qquad\widetilde{\mathfrak{n}}_{+}=\bigoplus_{k>0}\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}_{k}. \tag*{(26)} n − = k < 0 ⨁ g k , h = g 0 , n + = k > 0 ⨁ g k . (26)
Moreover, there exists a unique maximal Z \mathbb{Z} Z -homogeneous ideal m \mathfrak{m} m among all ideals of g ~ \widetilde{\mathfrak{g}} g trivially intersecting h \mathfrak{h} h , and m = m + ⊕ m − \mathfrak{m}=\mathfrak{m}_{+}\oplus\mathfrak{m}_{-} m = m + ⊕ m − , where m ± = m ∩ n ~ ± \mathfrak{m}_{\pm}=\mathfrak{m}\cap\widetilde{\mathfrak{n}}_{\pm} m ± = m ∩ n ± .
The next step is to take the quotient by m \mathfrak{m} m . We expect for the quotient to keep V V V , respectively V ∗ V^{*} V ∗ , as the component of degree 1 1 1 , respectively − 1 -1 − 1 . One way to ensure this property is to require that the datum ( ρ , d ) (\rho,d) ( ρ , d ) is reduced , i.e. that for any simple subobjects S ⊆ V S\subseteq V S ⊆ V and T ⊆ V ∗ T\subseteq V^{*} T ⊆ V ∗ , we have that d ∣ S ⊗ V ∗ ≠ 0 d|_{S\otimes V^{*}}\ne0 d ∣ S ⊗ V ∗ = 0 and d ∣ V ⊗ T ≠ 0 d|_{V\otimes T}\ne0 d ∣ V ⊗ T = 0 .
Assume then that the datum is reduced. By [3 Lemma 4.28] , I ∩ V = 0 I\cap V=0 I ∩ V = 0 and I ∩ V ∗ = 0 I\cap V^{*}=0 I ∩ V ∗ = 0 for every ideal I I I of g ~ ( ρ , d ) \widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}(\rho,d) g ( ρ , d ) such that I ∩ h = 0 I\cap\mathfrak{h}=0 I ∩ h = 0 . In this context, the contragredient Lie algebra associated to the triple ( h , ρ , d ) (\mathfrak{h},\rho,d) ( h , ρ , d ) is the ind-Lie algebra g ( ρ , d ) : = g ~ ( ρ , d ) / m \mathfrak{g}(\rho,d):=\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}(\rho,d)/\mathfrak{m} g ( ρ , d ) := g ( ρ , d ) / m .
The defining ideal of g ( ρ , d ) \mathfrak{g}(\rho,d) g ( ρ , d ) is homogeneous, so g \mathfrak{g} g inherits a Z \mathbb{Z} Z -grading
g ( ρ , d ) = ⨁ k ∈ Z g k ( ρ , d ) , (27) \mathfrak{g}(\rho,d)=\bigoplus_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{g}_{k}(\rho,d), \tag*{(27)} g ( ρ , d ) = k ∈ Z ⨁ g k ( ρ , d ) , (27)
where g k ( ρ , d ) \mathfrak{g}_{k}(\rho,d) g k ( ρ , d ) is the image of g ~ k ( ρ , d ) \widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}_{k}(\rho,d) g k ( ρ , d ) . We denote by n + \mathfrak{n}_{+} n + and n − \mathfrak{n}_{-} n − the subalgebras of g ( ρ , d ) \mathfrak{g}(\rho,d) g ( ρ , d ) generated by V V V and V ∗ V^{*} V ∗ , respectively.
Theorem 7.1. [3 Theorem 4.33]
(a) We have g = n − ⊕ h ⊕ n + \mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{n}_{-}\oplus\mathfrak{h}\oplus\mathfrak{n}_{+} g = n − ⊕ h ⊕ n + as objects in C i n d \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{ind}} C ind . Moreover,
n − = ⨁ k < 0 g k , h = g 0 , n + = ⨁ k > 0 g k . (28) \mathfrak{n}_{-}=\bigoplus_{k<0}\mathfrak{g}_{k}, \qquad\mathfrak{h}=\mathfrak{g}_{0}, \qquad\mathfrak{n}_{+}=\bigoplus_{k>0}\mathfrak{g}_{k}. \tag*{(28)} n − = k < 0 ⨁ g k , h = g 0 , n + = k > 0 ⨁ g k . (28) (b) If Y Y Y is a Z \mathbb{Z} Z -homogeneous subobject of n + \mathfrak{n}_{+} n + (respectively, n − \mathfrak{n}_{-} n − ) such that [ Y , V ∗ ] = 0 [Y,V^{*}]=0 [ Y , V ∗ ] = 0 (respectively, [ Y , V ] = 0 [Y,V]=0 [ Y , V ] = 0 ), then Y = 0 Y=0 Y = 0 .
Next we record a recognition criterion for the contragredient quotient; it will be used repeatedly in what follows.
Proposition 7.2. [3 Proposition 4.39] Let q = ⨁ k ∈ Z q k \mathfrak q = \bigoplus_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} \mathfrak q_k q = ⨁ k ∈ Z q k be a quotient of g ~ ( ρ , d ) \widetilde{\mathfrak g}(\rho,d) g ( ρ , d ) by a Z \mathbb{Z} Z -homogeneous ideal I I I satisfying I ∩ h = 0 I\cap\mathfrak h=0 I ∩ h = 0 . Assume that q \mathfrak q q has a degree zero non-degenerate symmetric invariant form B q : q ⊗ q → 1 B_{\mathfrak q}:\mathfrak q\otimes\mathfrak q\to\mathbb{1} B q : q ⊗ q → 1 . Then I = m I=\mathfrak m I = m , that is q ≅ g ( ρ , d ) \mathfrak q\cong\mathfrak g(\rho,d) q ≅ g ( ρ , d ) .
Next we assume that h \mathfrak h h is equipped with a symmetric non-degenerate invariant form. A symmetrizable contragredient datum over h \mathfrak h h is a pair ( ρ , K ) (\rho,K) ( ρ , K ) where
(SD1) ρ : h ⊗ V → V \rho:\mathfrak h\otimes V\to V ρ : h ⊗ V → V is an h \mathfrak h h -module in C \mathcal{C} C such that ρ ( h ⊗ S ) ≠ 0 \rho(\mathfrak h\otimes S)\ne0 ρ ( h ⊗ S ) = 0 for every simple subobject S ⊆ V S\subseteq V S ⊆ V , and π ρ ≠ 0 \pi\rho\ne0 π ρ = 0 for every epimorphism π : V ↠ T \pi:V\twoheadrightarrow T π : V ↠ T onto a simple object T T T of C \mathcal{C} C .
(SD2) K : h ⊗ h → 1 K:\mathfrak h\otimes\mathfrak h\to\mathbb{1} K : h ⊗ h → 1 is a symmetric non-degenerate invariant form.
Equivalently, condition (SD1) says V h = 0 V^{\mathfrak h}=0 V h = 0 and im ( ρ : h ⊗ V → V ) = V \operatorname{im}(\rho:\mathfrak h\otimes V\to V)=V im ( ρ : h ⊗ V → V ) = V , or, by duality, ( V ∗ ) h = 0 (V^*)^{\mathfrak h}=0 ( V ∗ ) h = 0 .
Indeed, a nonzero invariant subobject has a simple subobject, while a nonzero cokernel of ρ \rho ρ has a simple quotient. The simple-quotient formulation agrees with the original direct-summand formulation when C \mathcal{C} C is semisimple.
Given a symmetrizable datum ( ρ , K ) (\rho,K) ( ρ , K ) , we define d ρ , K : V ⊗ V ∗ ⟶ h d_{\rho,K}:V\otimes V^*\longrightarrow\mathfrak h d ρ , K : V ⊗ V ∗ ⟶ h to be the unique morphism satisfying
K ( id h ⊗ d ρ , K ) = ev V ( ρ ⊗ id V ∗ ) in Hom C ( h ⊗ V ⊗ V ∗ , 1 ) . (29) K(\operatorname{id}_{\mathfrak h}\otimes d_{\rho,K})=\operatorname{ev}_{V}(\rho\otimes\operatorname{id}_{V^*})\quad\text{in }\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(\mathfrak h\otimes V\otimes V^*,\mathbb{1}). \tag*{(29)} K ( id h ⊗ d ρ , K ) = ev V ( ρ ⊗ id V ∗ ) in Hom C ( h ⊗ V ⊗ V ∗ , 1 ) . (29)
The existence and uniqueness of d ρ , K d_{\rho,K} d ρ , K follow from the non-degeneracy of K K K . As shown in [3 ] , the pair ( ρ , d ρ , K ) (\rho,d_{\rho,K}) ( ρ , d ρ , K ) is a reduced contragredient datum.
Remark 7.3. Assumption (SD1) holds whenever V V V is a finite direct sum of simple h \mathfrak h h -modules with nontrivial action. Such a module has no trivial simple h \mathfrak h h -submodule, which gives the first condition. For the second condition, let π : V ↠ T \pi:V\twoheadrightarrow T π : V ↠ T be any epimorphism onto a simple object of C \mathcal{C} C . If π ρ = 0 \pi\rho=0 π ρ = 0 , then π \pi π is a morphism of h \mathfrak h h -modules from V V V to T T T equipped with the trivial action. This is impossible because V V V is a direct sum of nontrivial simple h \mathfrak h h -modules.
We fix a decomposition of ρ : h ⊗ V → V \rho:\mathfrak h\otimes V\to V ρ : h ⊗ V → V as a sum of h \mathfrak h h -submodules, say V = ⨁ 1 ≤ i ≤ r V i V=\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq r}V_i V = ⨁ 1 ≤ i ≤ r V i . For the associated reduced datum ( ρ , d ) (\rho,d) ( ρ , d ) , we have that
d ( V i ⊗ V j ∗ ) = 0 for all i ≠ j , so d ( V i ⊗ V i ∗ ) ≠ 0 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ r . (30) d(V_i\otimes V_j^*)=0\quad\text{for all }i\ne j,\qquad\text{so }d(V_i\otimes V_i^*)\ne0\quad\text{for all }1\leq i\leq r. \tag*{(30)} d ( V i ⊗ V j ∗ ) = 0 for all i = j , so d ( V i ⊗ V i ∗ ) = 0 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ r . (30)
Let Q = ⨁ j = 1 r Z α j Q=\bigoplus_{j=1}^{r}\mathbb{Z}\alpha_j Q = ⨁ j = 1 r Z α j be the grading lattice, and Q ± : = ⨁ 1 ≤ i ≤ r ± N 0 α i Q^\pm:=\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq r}\pm\mathbb{N}_0\alpha_i Q ± := ⨁ 1 ≤ i ≤ r ± N 0 α i .
Theorem 7.4. [3 Theorems 4.50 and 4.54] The Lie algebra g : = g ( ρ , d ) \mathfrak g:=\mathfrak g(\rho,d) g := g ( ρ , d ) is Q Q Q -graded, with
g = ⨁ α ∈ Q g α , deg h = 0 , deg V i = α i , deg V i ∗ = − α i , 1 ≤ i ≤ r . (31) \mathfrak g=\bigoplus_{\alpha\in Q}\mathfrak g_\alpha,\qquad\deg\mathfrak h=0,\qquad\deg V_i=\alpha_i,\qquad\deg V_i^*=-\alpha_i,\qquad1\leq i\leq r. \tag*{(31)} g = α ∈ Q ⨁ g α , deg h = 0 , deg V i = α i , deg V i ∗ = − α i , 1 ≤ i ≤ r . (31) Moreover, g 0 = h \mathfrak g_0=\mathfrak h g 0 = h , n ± = ⨁ α ∈ Q ± , α ≠ 0 g α \mathfrak n^\pm=\bigoplus_{\alpha\in Q^\pm,\ \alpha\ne0}\mathfrak g_\alpha n ± = ⨁ α ∈ Q ± , α = 0 g α .
In addition, g \mathfrak g g has an invariant symmetric form B : g ⊗ g → 1 B:\mathfrak g\otimes\mathfrak g\to\mathbb{1} B : g ⊗ g → 1 such that B ∣ h ⊗ h = K B|_{\mathfrak h\otimes\mathfrak h}=K B ∣ h ⊗ h = K and B ∣ g α ⊗ g β = 0 B|_{\mathfrak g_\alpha\otimes\mathfrak g_\beta}=0 B ∣ g α ⊗ g β = 0 if α + β ≠ 0 \alpha+\beta\ne0 α + β = 0 ; thus, B ∣ g α ⊗ g − α B|_{\mathfrak g_\alpha\otimes\mathfrak g_{-\alpha}} B ∣ g α ⊗ g − α is non-degenerate for all α ∈ Q \alpha\in Q α ∈ Q .
Splitting
We now study how the contragredient construction behaves under a decomposition of its generating module. This is the categorical analogue of separating a subset of simple roots in the classical theory, and parallels the corresponding construction for Nichols algebras.
Assume that V = U ⊕ U ′ V=U\oplus U' V = U ⊕ U ′ as h \mathfrak{h} h -modules, and identify V ∗ = U ∗ ⊕ ( U ′ ) ∗ V^*=U^*\oplus(U')^* V ∗ = U ∗ ⊕ ( U ′ ) ∗ . Consider the induced Z 2 \mathbb{Z}^2 Z 2 -grading in g \mathfrak{g} g given by
deg U = ( 1 , 0 ) , deg U ′ = ( 0 , 1 ) , deg U ∗ = ( − 1 , 0 ) , deg ( U ′ ) ∗ = ( 0 , − 1 ) . \deg U=(1,0),\qquad\deg U'=(0,1),\qquad\deg U^*=(-1,0),\qquad\deg(U')^*=(0,-1). deg U = ( 1 , 0 ) , deg U ′ = ( 0 , 1 ) , deg U ∗ = ( − 1 , 0 ) , deg ( U ′ ) ∗ = ( 0 , − 1 ) .
We will also use the Z \mathbb{Z} Z -grading induced by fixing the second coordinate:
g n : = ⨁ m ∈ Z g m , n . (32) \mathfrak{g}_n:=\bigoplus_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{g}_{m,n}. \tag*{(32)} g n := m ∈ Z ⨁ g m , n . (32)
Let Y ⊆ g Y\subseteq\mathfrak{g} Y ⊆ g be the Lie subalgebra generated by U U U , h \mathfrak{h} h , and U ∗ U^* U ∗ . Let ρ U : h ⊗ U → U \rho_U:\mathfrak{h}\otimes U\to U ρ U : h ⊗ U → U be the restriction of the action and set
d U : = d ∣ U ⊗ U ∗ = d ρ U , K : U ⊗ U ∗ ⟶ h ⊆ Y , d_U:=d|_{U\otimes U^*}=d_{\rho_U,\mathsf{K}}:U\otimes U^*\longrightarrow\mathfrak{h}\subseteq Y, d U := d ∣ U ⊗ U ∗ = d ρ U , K : U ⊗ U ∗ ⟶ h ⊆ Y ,
where the equality follows from (29) .
Lemma 7.5. We have Y = g 0 Y=\mathfrak{g}_0 Y = g 0 , and the inclusion Y ↪ g Y\hookrightarrow\mathfrak{g} Y ↪ g induces an isomorphism
Y ≅ g ( ρ U , d U ) . Y\cong\mathfrak{g}(\rho_U,d_U). Y ≅ g ( ρ U , d U ) .
Proof. As U = g 1 , 0 U=\mathfrak{g}_{1,0} U = g 1 , 0 , h = g 0 , 0 \mathfrak{h}=\mathfrak{g}_{0,0} h = g 0 , 0 and U ∗ = g − 1 , 0 U^*=\mathfrak{g}_{-1,0} U ∗ = g − 1 , 0 , we have that Y ⊆ g 0 Y\subseteq\mathfrak{g}_0 Y ⊆ g 0 . On the other hand, g 1 , 0 = U \mathfrak{g}_{1,0}=U g 1 , 0 = U and for m > 1 m>1 m > 1 , the equality g m , 0 = ∑ k = 1 m − 1 [ g k , 0 , g m − k , 0 ] \mathfrak{g}_{m,0}=\sum_{k=1}^{m-1}[\mathfrak{g}_{k,0},\mathfrak{g}_{m-k,0}] g m , 0 = ∑ k = 1 m − 1 [ g k , 0 , g m − k , 0 ] and induction show that g m , 0 \mathfrak{g}_{m,0} g m , 0 belongs to the Lie subalgebra generated by U U U . The case m < 0 m<0 m < 0 is analogous with U ∗ U^* U ∗ in place of U U U , while g 0 , 0 = h \mathfrak{g}_{0,0}=\mathfrak{h} g 0 , 0 = h . Thus g 0 = ⨁ m ∈ Z g m , 0 ⊆ Y \mathfrak{g}_0=\bigoplus_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{g}_{m,0}\subseteq Y g 0 = ⨁ m ∈ Z g m , 0 ⊆ Y .
Next we show that the pair ( ρ U , K ) (\rho_U,\mathsf{K}) ( ρ U , K ) is symmetrizable: (SD1) follows since U U U is a direct summand of V V V while (SD2) holds by hypothesis.
Now, there is a canonical Lie algebra graded map Φ U : g ~ ( ρ U , d U ) → Y \Phi_U:\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}(\rho_U,d_U)\to Y Φ U : g ( ρ U , d U ) → Y , which is the identity on h \mathfrak{h} h . Notice that Φ U \Phi_U Φ U is surjective since U U U , h \mathfrak{h} h , and U ∗ U^* U ∗ belong to its image, and its kernel is homogeneous and intersects h \mathfrak{h} h trivially. The restriction of B B B to Y Y Y is invariant and symmetric, and B ∣ g m , 0 ⊗ g − m , 0 B|_{\mathfrak{g}_{m,0}\otimes\mathfrak{g}_{-m,0}} B ∣ g m , 0 ⊗ g − m , 0 is non-degenerate for every m m m . By Proposition 7.2, ker Φ U \ker\Phi_U ker Φ U is the maximal defining ideal, so Φ U \Phi_U Φ U induces an isomorphism g ( ρ U , d U ) ≅ Y \mathfrak{g}(\rho_U,d_U)\cong Y g ( ρ U , d U ) ≅ Y . □
Lemma 7.6. (a) The Y Y Y -submodule W W W of g \mathfrak{g} g generated by U ′ U' U ′ coincides with g 1 = ⨁ m ≥ 0 g m , 1 \mathfrak{g}_1=\bigoplus_{m\geq0}\mathfrak{g}_{m,1} g 1 = ⨁ m ≥ 0 g m , 1 .
(b) The Y Y Y -submodule of g \mathfrak{g} g generated by ( U ′ ) ∗ (U')^* ( U ′ ) ∗ coincides with g − 1 = ⨁ m ≥ 0 g − m , − 1 \mathfrak{g}_{-1}=\bigoplus_{m\geq0}\mathfrak{g}_{-m,-1} g − 1 = ⨁ m ≥ 0 g − m , − 1 . If W ∈ C W\in\mathcal{C} W ∈ C , the form B B B induces a Y Y Y -module isomorphism W ∗ ≅ g − 1 W^*\cong\mathfrak{g}_{-1} W ∗ ≅ g − 1 .
Proof. (a) By the triangular decomposition of g \mathfrak{g} g , we know that ⨁ m ≥ 0 g m , 1 = ⨁ m ∈ Z g m , 1 \bigoplus_{m\geq0}\mathfrak{g}_{m,1}=\bigoplus_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{g}_{m,1} ⨁ m ≥ 0 g m , 1 = ⨁ m ∈ Z g m , 1 . Thus ⨁ m ≥ 0 g m , 1 \bigoplus_{m\geq0}\mathfrak{g}_{m,1} ⨁ m ≥ 0 g m , 1 is a Y Y Y -submodule that contains U ′ U' U ′ , which proves the inclusion W ⊆ ⨁ m ≥ 0 g m , 1 W\subseteq\bigoplus_{m\geq0}\mathfrak{g}_{m,1} W ⊆ ⨁ m ≥ 0 g m , 1 .
Also, by antisymmetry and the Jacobi identity, one can prove recursively that
g m , 1 ⊆ [ g 1 , 0 , … [ g 1 , 0 , g 0 , 1 ] … ] ⊆ W , \mathfrak{g}_{m,1}\subseteq[\mathfrak{g}_{1,0},\ldots[\mathfrak{g}_{1,0},\mathfrak{g}_{0,1}]\ldots]\subseteq W, g m , 1 ⊆ [ g 1 , 0 , … [ g 1 , 0 , g 0 , 1 ] … ] ⊆ W ,
which proves the converse inclusion.
The first statement in (b) follows by the same argument, and the second one since g α \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha} g α and g β \mathfrak{g}_{\beta} g β are B B B -orthogonal unless α = − β \alpha=-\beta α = − β for α \alpha α and β \beta β in Z 2 \mathbb{Z}^2 Z 2 , and B B B is non-degenerate. □
Assume from now on in this subsection that Y , W ∈ C Y,W\in\mathcal{C} Y , W ∈ C and that Y Y Y has enough modules. Put
K Y : = B ∣ Y ⊗ Y ′ K_Y:=\left.B\right|_{Y\otimes Y'} K Y := B ∣ Y ⊗ Y ′
and let η : Y ⊗ W → W \eta:Y\otimes W\to W η : Y ⊗ W → W be the restricted adjoint action.
Lemma 7.7. The pair ( η , K Y ) (\eta,K_Y) ( η , K Y ) is a symmetrizable datum over Y Y Y . Under the identification W ∗ ≅ g − 1 W^*\cong\mathfrak{g}_{-1} W ∗ ≅ g − 1 from Lemma 7.6 , its associated morphism is the bracket:
d η , K Y = [ , ] ∣ W ⊗ W ∗ : W ⊗ W ∗ ⟶ Y . d_{\eta,K_Y}=\left.[\, ,\,]\right|_{W\otimes W^*}:W\otimes W^*\longrightarrow Y. d η , K Y = [ , ] ∣ W ⊗ W ∗ : W ⊗ W ∗ ⟶ Y .
Proof. The form K Y K_Y K Y is symmetric and invariant. It is non-degenerate because it is the direct sum of the non-degenerate pairings g m , 0 ⊗ g − m , 0 → 1 \mathfrak{g}_{m,0}\otimes\mathfrak{g}_{-m,0}\to\mathbf{1} g m , 0 ⊗ g − m , 0 → 1 .
Let S ⊆ W S\subseteq W S ⊆ W be simple and suppose that η ( Y ⊗ S ) = 0 \eta(Y\otimes S)=0 η ( Y ⊗ S ) = 0 . Since [ S , g − 1 ] ⊆ Y [S,\mathfrak{g}_{-1}]\subseteq Y [ S , g − 1 ] ⊆ Y and that B B B is symmetric and invariant, we have that
K Y ( [ S , g − 1 ] , Y ) = B ( η ( Y ⊗ S ) , g − 1 ) = 0. K_Y([S,\mathfrak{g}_{-1}],Y)=B(\eta(Y\otimes S),\mathfrak{g}_{-1})=0. K Y ([ S , g − 1 ] , Y ) = B ( η ( Y ⊗ S ) , g − 1 ) = 0.
Thus [ S , g − 1 ] = 0 [S,\mathfrak{g}_{-1}]=0 [ S , g − 1 ] = 0 since K Y K_Y K Y is non-degenerate. We choose m m m such that the composite of S ↪ W S\hookrightarrow W S ↪ W with the projection to g m , 1 \mathfrak{g}_{m,1} g m , 1 is non-zero, and we denote its image by S m S_m S m . Then S m S_m S m is simple. Since U ∗ ⊂ Y U^*\subset Y U ∗ ⊂ Y and ( U ′ ) ∗ = g 0 , − 1 ⊂ g − 1 (U')^*=\mathfrak{g}_{0,-1}\subset\mathfrak{g}_{-1} ( U ′ ) ∗ = g 0 , − 1 ⊂ g − 1 , we have that
[ S m , U ∗ ] = − η ( U ∗ ⊗ S m ) = 0 , [ S m , ( U ′ ) ∗ ] = 0. [S_m,U^*]=-\eta(U^*\otimes S_m)=0,\qquad[S_m,(U')^*]=0. [ S m , U ∗ ] = − η ( U ∗ ⊗ S m ) = 0 , [ S m , ( U ′ ) ∗ ] = 0.
Hence [ S m , V ∗ ] = 0 [S_m,V^*]=0 [ S m , V ∗ ] = 0 , which contradicts Theorem 7.1 (b). Therefore η ( Y ⊗ S ) ≠ 0 \eta(Y\otimes S)\ne0 η ( Y ⊗ S ) = 0 .
The same argument proves that π η ≠ 0 \pi\eta\ne0 π η = 0 , where π : W ↠ T \pi:W\twoheadrightarrow T π : W ↠ T is an epimorphism onto a simple object. Thus (SD1) holds, and ( η , K Y ) (\eta,K_Y) ( η , K Y ) is symmetrizable.
Finally, for y ∈ Y y\in Y y ∈ Y , w ∈ W w\in W w ∈ W , and φ ∈ W ∗ ≅ g − 1 \varphi\in W^*\cong\mathfrak{g}_{-1} φ ∈ W ∗ ≅ g − 1 , since B B B is invariant,
K Y ( y , [ w , φ ] ) = B ( [ y , w ] , φ ) = ev W ( η ( y , w ) , φ ) . K_Y(y,[w,\varphi])=B([y,w],\varphi)=\operatorname{ev}_W(\eta(y,w),\varphi). K Y ( y , [ w , φ ]) = B ([ y , w ] , φ ) = ev W ( η ( y , w ) , φ ) .
By (7.5), this identity uniquely characterizes d η , K Y d_{\eta,K_Y} d η , K Y , so d η , K Y = [ , ] ∣ W ⊗ W ∗ d_{\eta,K_Y}=\left.[\, ,\,]\right|_{W\otimes W^*} d η , K Y = [ , ] ∣ W ⊗ W ∗ . □
We now arrive at our main result in this subsection.
Theorem 7.8. There is a canonical isomorphism of Z \mathbb{Z} Z -graded Lie algebras
g ( ρ , d ) ≅ g ( η , d η , K Y ) . \mathfrak{g}(\rho,d)\cong\mathfrak{g}(\eta,d_{\eta,K_Y}). g ( ρ , d ) ≅ g ( η , d η , K Y ) .
Proof. The inclusions of Y = g 0 Y=\mathfrak{g}_0 Y = g 0 , W = g 1 W=\mathfrak{g}_1 W = g 1 , and W ∗ = g − 1 W^*=\mathfrak{g}_{-1} W ∗ = g − 1 into g \mathfrak{g} g , together with Lemma 7.7 , define a graded map
Φ ~ : g ~ ( η , d η , K Y ) ⟶ g . \widetilde{\Phi}:\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}(\eta,d_{\eta,K_Y})\longrightarrow\mathfrak{g}. Φ : g ( η , d η , K Y ) ⟶ g .
Its image contains Y Y Y , hence h \mathfrak{h} h , U U U , U ∗ U^* U ∗ . It also contains W W W and W ∗ W^* W ∗ , hence U ′ U' U ′ and ( U ′ ) ∗ (U')^* ( U ′ ) ∗ . Thus Φ ~ \widetilde{\Phi} Φ is surjective. Its kernel is homogeneous and intersects Y Y Y trivially. Notice that the restriction of B B B to g n ⊗ g − n \mathfrak{g}_n\otimes\mathfrak{g}_{-n} g n ⊗ g − n is the direct sum of the non-degenerate pairings
g m , n ⊗ g − m , − n ⟶ 1. \mathfrak{g}_{m,n}\otimes\mathfrak{g}_{-m,-n}\longrightarrow\mathbf{1}. g m , n ⊗ g − m , − n ⟶ 1 .
Applying Proposition 7.2 to Y Y Y , we get that ker Φ ~ \ker\widetilde{\Phi} ker Φ is the maximal defining ideal. Hence Φ ~ \widetilde{\Phi} Φ induces an isomorphism Φ : g ( η , d η , K Y ) → ∼ g \Phi:\mathfrak{g}(\eta,d_{\eta,K_Y})\xrightarrow{\sim}\mathfrak{g} Φ : g ( η , d η , K Y ) ∼ g . □
On the simplicity of contragredient Lie algebras
As before, ( ρ , K ) (\rho, K) ( ρ , K ) denotes a symmetrizable contragredient datum over h \mathfrak{h} h . Set g : = g ( ρ , d ) \mathfrak{g}:=\mathfrak{g}(\rho,\mathfrak{d}) g := g ( ρ , d ) . We now introduce a criterion for the simplicity of g \mathfrak{g} g .
Even when finite-dimensional, a contragredient Lie algebra may have a non-zero center and need not be perfect, as already occurs for contragredient Lie algebras and Lie superalgebras in positive characteristic. Since one of our objectives is to obtain simple Lie algebras, we are therefore led to consider the derived algebra and its quotient by its center.
Let h d ′ ⊆ h \mathfrak{h}_{\mathfrak{d}}'\subseteq\mathfrak{h} h d ′ ⊆ h be the Lie subalgebra generated by h ′ \mathfrak{h}' h ′ and im ( d ) \operatorname{im}(\mathfrak{d}) im ( d ) . As observed in [3 ] , if ρ \rho ρ is surjective, then g ′ \mathfrak{g}' g ′ is generated by V ∗ V^* V ∗ , h d ′ \mathfrak{h}_{\mathfrak{d}}' h d ′ , V V V , and g ′ = n − ⊕ h d ′ ⊕ n + \mathfrak{g}'=\mathfrak{n}_{-}\oplus\mathfrak{h}_{\mathfrak{d}}'\oplus\mathfrak{n}_{+} g ′ = n − ⊕ h d ′ ⊕ n + .
Lemma 7.9. Assume ρ \rho ρ is surjective. With the notation above, let c : = c ( g ) \mathfrak{c}:=\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{g}) c := c ( g ) and c ′ : = c ( g ′ ) \mathfrak{c}':=\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{g}') c ′ := c ( g ′ ) . Then
c = c ( h ) ∩ Ann V , c ′ = c ( h d ′ ) ∩ Ann V . \mathfrak{c}=\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{h})\cap\operatorname{Ann}V,\qquad
\mathfrak{c}'=\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{h}_{\mathfrak{d}}')\cap\operatorname{Ann}V. c = c ( h ) ∩ Ann V , c ′ = c ( h d ′ ) ∩ Ann V . In particular, if h \mathfrak{h} h is abelian, then
c = Ann V , c ′ = im ( d ) ∩ Ann V . \mathfrak{c}=\operatorname{Ann}V,\qquad
\mathfrak{c}'=\operatorname{im}(\mathfrak{d})\cap\operatorname{Ann}V. c = Ann V , c ′ = im ( d ) ∩ Ann V .
Proof. We first show that c \mathfrak{c} c is a graded subobject of g \mathfrak{g} g . Let p k : g → g k p_k:\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{g}_k p k : g → g k denote the homogeneous projection. Since the bracket is homogeneous, for every ℓ ∈ Z \ell\in\mathbb{Z} ℓ ∈ Z we have
[ p k ( c ) , g ℓ ] = p k + ℓ ( [ c , g ℓ ] ) = 0. [p_k(\mathfrak{c}),\mathfrak{g}_{\ell}]=p_{k+\ell}([\mathfrak{c},\mathfrak{g}_{\ell}])=0. [ p k ( c ) , g ℓ ] = p k + ℓ ([ c , g ℓ ]) = 0.
Hence p k ( c ) ⊆ c p_k(\mathfrak{c})\subseteq\mathfrak{c} p k ( c ) ⊆ c . Therefore c = ⨁ k ∈ Z c k \mathfrak{c}=\bigoplus_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{c}_k c = ⨁ k ∈ Z c k , where c k : = c ∩ g k \mathfrak{c}_k:=\mathfrak{c}\cap\mathfrak{g}_k c k := c ∩ g k .
Suppose that k > 0 k>0 k > 0 . Then c k \mathfrak{c}_k c k is a homogeneous subobject of ⨁ r > 0 g r \bigoplus_{r>0}\mathfrak{g}_r ⨁ r > 0 g r and [ c k , V ∗ ] = 0 [\mathfrak{c}_k,V^*]=0 [ c k , V ∗ ] = 0 . Thus c k = 0 \mathfrak{c}_k=0 c k = 0 by Theorem 7.1 (b). Similarly, if k < 0 k<0 k < 0 , the same result gives c k = 0 \mathfrak{c}_k=0 c k = 0 . Consequently,
c = c 0 ⊆ g 0 = h . \mathfrak{c}=\mathfrak{c}_0\subseteq\mathfrak{g}_0=\mathfrak{h}. c = c 0 ⊆ g 0 = h .
Since c \mathfrak{c} c is central in g \mathfrak{g} g , it is central in h \mathfrak{h} h and acts trivially on V V V and V ∗ V^* V ∗ . Therefore
c ⊆ c ( h ) ∩ Ann V ∩ Ann V ∗ = c ( h ) ∩ Ann V . \mathfrak{c}\subseteq\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{h})\cap\operatorname{Ann}V\cap\operatorname{Ann}V^*=\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{h})\cap\operatorname{Ann}V. c ⊆ c ( h ) ∩ Ann V ∩ Ann V ∗ = c ( h ) ∩ Ann V .
On the other hand, c ( h ) ∩ Ann V \mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{h})\cap\operatorname{Ann}V c ( h ) ∩ Ann V is central in h \mathfrak{h} h and acts trivially on both V V V and V ∗ V^* V ∗ . Since g − 1 ⊕ g 0 ⊕ g 1 = V ∗ ⊕ h ⊕ V \mathfrak{g}_{-1}\oplus\mathfrak{g}_0\oplus\mathfrak{g}_1=V^*\oplus\mathfrak{h}\oplus V g − 1 ⊕ g 0 ⊕ g 1 = V ∗ ⊕ h ⊕ V generate g \mathfrak{g} g as a Lie algebra, it follows that c ( g ) = c ( h ) ∩ Ann V \mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{g})=\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{h})\cap\operatorname{Ann}V c ( g ) = c ( h ) ∩ Ann V .
As g ′ \mathfrak{g}' g ′ is generated by V ∗ V^* V ∗ , h d ′ \mathfrak{h}_{\mathfrak{d}}' h d ′ , and V V V , the same argument shows that c ′ = c ( h d ′ ) ∩ Ann V \mathfrak{c}'=\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{h}_{\mathfrak{d}}')\cap\operatorname{Ann}V c ′ = c ( h d ′ ) ∩ Ann V .
Finally, if h \mathfrak{h} h is abelian, then c ( h ) = h \mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{h})=\mathfrak{h} c ( h ) = h and h d ′ = im d \mathfrak{h}_{\mathfrak{d}}'=\operatorname{im}\mathfrak{d} h d ′ = im d , so the last statement is immediate. □
From now on we assume that V V V is semisimple as h \mathfrak{h} h -module, so by Remark 7.3 condition (SD1) holds. To draw a parallel with the classical theory of contragredient Lie algebras, we fix a decomposition V = ⨁ i = 1 r e i V=\bigoplus_{i=1}^{r}e_i V = ⨁ i = 1 r e i as a sum of simple h \mathfrak{h} h -submodules, and set f i = e i ∗ f_i=e_i^* f i = e i ∗ , so V ∗ = ⨁ i = 1 r f i V^*=\bigoplus_{i=1}^{r}f_i V ∗ = ⨁ i = 1 r f i , and h i = [ e i , f i ] h_i=[e_i,f_i] h i = [ e i , f i ] , so im d = ∑ i = 1 r h i \operatorname{im}\mathfrak{d}=\sum_{i=1}^{r}h_i im d = ∑ i = 1 r h i .
We consider a quiver Q ρ , d Q_{\rho,\mathfrak{d}} Q ρ , d with vertices 1 , … , r 1,\ldots,r 1 , … , r and arrows i → j i\to j i → j for each pair of vertices i , j i,j i , j such that ρ ( h i ⊗ e j ) ≠ 0 \rho(h_i\otimes e_j)\ne0 ρ ( h i ⊗ e j ) = 0 . For each arrow i → j i\to j i → j we have that ρ ( h i ⊗ e j ) = e j \rho(h_i\otimes e_j)=e_j ρ ( h i ⊗ e j ) = e j since ρ ( h i ⊗ e j ) \rho(h_i\otimes e_j) ρ ( h i ⊗ e j ) is a non-zero h \mathfrak{h} h -submodule of e j e_j e j .
Definition 7.10. We say that ( ρ , d ) (\rho,\mathfrak{d}) ( ρ , d ) is indecomposable if Q ρ , d Q_{\rho,\mathfrak{d}} Q ρ , d is connected; that is, if for each pair i , j ∈ { 1 , … , r } i,j\in\{1,\ldots,r\} i , j ∈ { 1 , … , r } , there exist i 0 = i , i 1 , … , i k = j i_0=i,i_1,\ldots,i_k=j i 0 = i , i 1 , … , i k = j such that ρ ( h i t − 1 ⊗ e i t ) ≠ 0 \rho(h_{i_{t-1}}\otimes e_{i_t})\ne0 ρ ( h i t − 1 ⊗ e i t ) = 0 for all $t=1,\ldots,k.
Lemma 7.11. Let ( ρ , d ) (\rho,\mathbf{d}) ( ρ , d ) be indecomposable such that g ∈ C \mathfrak{g} \in\mathcal{C} g ∈ C , the quiver has at least one arrow and g 0 ′ \mathfrak{g}'_0 g 0 ′ is generated by the subobjects h i \mathfrak{h}_i h i , 1 ≤ i ≤ r 1 \le i \le r 1 ≤ i ≤ r , and each e i e_i e i is simple after restriction to g 0 ′ \mathfrak{g}'_0 g 0 ′ . Then every ideal I I I of g ′ \mathfrak{g}' g ′ satisfies either I ⊆ Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ I \subseteq\operatorname{Ann} V \cap\mathfrak{g}'_0 I ⊆ Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ or I = g ′ I = \mathfrak{g}' I = g ′ .
Proof. Set a 0 : = g 0 ′ \mathfrak{a}_0 := \mathfrak{g}'_0 a 0 := g 0 ′ and z = Ann V ∩ a 0 \mathfrak{z} = \operatorname{Ann} V \cap\mathfrak{a}_0 z = Ann V ∩ a 0 . As d \mathbf{d} d is equivariant, we have that im d = ∑ i h i \operatorname{im}\mathbf{d} = \sum_i \mathfrak{h}_i im d = ∑ i h i is an ideal of h \mathfrak{h} h . Since a 0 \mathfrak{a}_0 a 0 is generated by the h i \mathfrak{h}_i h i , it follows that a 0 = im d \mathfrak{a}_0 = \operatorname{im}\mathbf{d} a 0 = im d . The subobject z \mathfrak{z} z acts trivially on both V V V and V ∗ V^* V ∗ . It therefore commutes with [ V , V ∗ ] = im d = a 0 [V,V^*] = \operatorname{im}\mathbf{d} = \mathfrak{a}_0 [ V , V ∗ ] = im d = a 0 , and hence is central in g ′ \mathfrak{g}' g ′ . Set g ‾ = g ′ / z \overline{\mathfrak{g}} = \mathfrak{g}'/\mathfrak{z} g = g ′ / z . The nonzero-degree components are unchanged, while the action of g ‾ 0 = a 0 / z \overline{\mathfrak{g}}_0 = \mathfrak{a}_0/\mathfrak{z} g 0 = a 0 / z on V V V is faithful.
We first prove that every nonzero ideal J J J of g ‾ \overline{\mathfrak{g}} g is the whole of g ‾ \overline{\mathfrak{g}} g . Let p k : g ‾ → g ‾ k p_k:\overline{\mathfrak{g}}\to\overline{\mathfrak{g}}_k p k : g → g k be the homogeneous projections, and choose the least integer k k k such that p k ( J ) ≠ 0 p_k(J)\ne0 p k ( J ) = 0 . Since g ‾ \overline{\mathfrak{g}} g has finite graded support,
J ⊆ ⨁ n ≥ k g ‾ n J \subseteq\bigoplus_{n\geq k}\overline{\mathfrak{g}}_n J ⊆ n ≥ k ⨁ g n
Set X = J X = J X = J and X k = p k ( J ) X_k = p_k(J) X k = p k ( J ) . The projection is a 0 \mathfrak{a}_0 a 0 -linear, so X k X_k X k is automatically an a 0 \mathfrak{a}_0 a 0 -submodule. In schematic notation, we write x = x k + x > k x = x_k + x_{>k} x = x k + x > k . We consider three cases.
If k < 0 k < 0 k < 0 , repeated bracketing with suitable summands e i e_i e i , using Theorem 7.1 (b), gives a subobject
W ⊆ J ∩ ⨁ n ≥ − 1 g ‾ n W \subseteq J \cap\bigoplus_{n\geq-1}\overline{\mathfrak{g}}_n W ⊆ J ∩ n ≥ − 1 ⨁ g n
whose lowest homogeneous image W − 1 ⊆ V ∗ W_{-1} \subseteq V^* W − 1 ⊆ V ∗ is nonzero. Some projection W − 1 → f i W_{-1} \to f_i W − 1 → f i is nonzero and hence surjective, because f i f_i f i is simple as an a 0 \mathfrak{a}_0 a 0 -module. Choose an arrow i → ℓ i \to\ell i → ℓ . Since [ e j , f i ] = 0 [e_j,f_i] = 0 [ e j , f i ] = 0 for j ≠ i j \ne i j = i , the subobject
Y ( ℓ ) : = [ e ℓ , [ e i , W ] ] ⊆ J ∩ ⨁ n ≥ 1 g ‾ n Y^{(\ell)} := [e_\ell,[e_i,W]] \subseteq J \cap\bigoplus_{n\geq1}\overline{\mathfrak{g}}_n Y ( ℓ ) := [ e ℓ , [ e i , W ]] ⊆ J ∩ n ≥ 1 ⨁ g n
has lowest homogeneous image e ℓ e_\ell e ℓ in degree 1.
W ⊆ J ∩ ⨁ n ≥ 1 g ‾ n W \subseteq J \cap\bigoplus_{n\geq1}\overline{\mathfrak{g}}_n W ⊆ J ∩ n ≥ 1 ⨁ g n
with nonzero lowest homogeneous image W 1 ⊆ V W_1 \subseteq V W 1 ⊆ V . Some projection W 1 → e i W_1 \to e_i W 1 → e i is surjective. Choosing an arrow i → ℓ i \to\ell i → ℓ , the subobject
Y ( ℓ ) : = [ e ℓ , [ f i , W ] ] ⊆ J ∩ ⨁ n ≥ 1 g ‾ n Y^{(\ell)} := [e_\ell,[f_i,W]] \subseteq J \cap\bigoplus_{n\geq1}\overline{\mathfrak{g}}_n Y ( ℓ ) := [ e ℓ , [ f i , W ]] ⊆ J ∩ n ≥ 1 ⨁ g n
has lowest homogeneous image e ℓ e_\ell e ℓ .
If k = 0 k = 0 k = 0 , then X 0 X_0 X 0 acts nontrivially on V V V , since the action of g ‾ 0 \overline{\mathfrak{g}}_0 g 0 on V V V is faithful. Thus [ X 0 , e ℓ ] ≠ 0 [X_0,e_\ell] \ne0 [ X 0 , e ℓ ] = 0 for some ℓ \ell ℓ . This image is a nonzero a 0 \mathfrak{a}_0 a 0 -submodule of e ℓ e_\ell e ℓ , so the simplicity hypothesis gives [ X 0 , e ℓ ] = e ℓ [X_0,e_\ell] = e_\ell [ X 0 , e ℓ ] = e ℓ . Therefore
Y ( ℓ ) : = [ X , e ℓ ] ⊆ J ∩ ⨁ n ≥ 1 g ‾ n Y^{(\ell)} := [X,e_\ell] \subseteq J \cap\bigoplus_{n\geq1}\overline{\mathfrak{g}}_n Y ( ℓ ) := [ X , e ℓ ] ⊆ J ∩ n ≥ 1 ⨁ g n
has lowest homogeneous image e ℓ e_\ell e ℓ . Thus, in every case we have constructed some Y ( ℓ ) ⊆ J Y^{(\ell)} \subseteq J Y ( ℓ ) ⊆ J whose lowest term is e ℓ e_\ell e ℓ . If ℓ → ℓ ′ \ell\to\ell' ℓ → ℓ ′ is an arrow, then
Y ( ℓ ′ ) : = [ e ℓ ′ , [ f ℓ , Y ( ℓ ) ] ] ⊆ J ∩ ⨁ n ≥ 1 g ˉ n Y^{(\ell')} := [e_{\ell'},[f_\ell,Y^{(\ell)}]] \subseteq J \cap\bigoplus_{n\geq1}\bar{\mathfrak{g}}_n Y ( ℓ ′ ) := [ e ℓ ′ , [ f ℓ , Y ( ℓ ) ]] ⊆ J ∩ n ≥ 1 ⨁ g ˉ n
has lowest homogeneous image e ℓ ′ e_{\ell'} e ℓ ′ . Following directed paths gives such a subobject Y ( i ) Y^{(i)} Y ( i ) for every vertex i i i .
Since g ∈ C \mathfrak{g} \in\mathcal{C} g ∈ C , there is a largest N > 0 N>0 N > 0 for which g N = g ˉ N ≠ 0 \mathfrak{g}_N=\bar{\mathfrak{g}}_N\ne0 g N = g ˉ N = 0 . The algebra n + \mathfrak{n}_+ n + is generated by V V V , so for some i 1 , … , i N i_1,\ldots,i_N i 1 , … , i N the image [ e i 1 , … , [ e i N − 1 , e i N ] ] [e_{i_1},\ldots,[e_{i_{N-1}},e_{i_N}]] [ e i 1 , … , [ e i N − 1 , e i N ]] is nonzero. Replacing the last factor by Y ( i N ) Y^{(i_N)} Y ( i N ) gives
[ e i 1 , … , [ e i N − 1 , Y ( i N ) ] ] = [ e i 1 , … , [ e i N − 1 , e i N ] ] ⊆ J ∩ g ˉ N . [e_{i_1},\ldots,[e_{i_{N-1}},Y^{(i_N)}]]=[e_{i_1},\ldots,[e_{i_{N-1}},e_{i_N}]]\subseteq J\cap\bar{\mathfrak{g}}_N. [ e i 1 , … , [ e i N − 1 , Y ( i N ) ]] = [ e i 1 , … , [ e i N − 1 , e i N ]] ⊆ J ∩ g ˉ N .
Indeed, every term of Y ( i N ) Y^{(i_N)} Y ( i N ) above degree 1 1 1 would produce a term above degree N N N , and hence vanishes. We have therefore obtained an actual nonzero homogeneous subobject of J J J .
Repeated bracketing with suitable f j f_j f j , using Theorem 7.1 (b), now gives a nonzero subobject of J ∩ V J\cap V J ∩ V . This intersection is an a 0 \mathfrak{a}_0 a 0 -submodule. Some projection J ∩ V ⟶ e i J\cap V\longrightarrow e_i J ∩ V ⟶ e i is nonzero, hence surjective by the simplicity hypothesis. Since [ e j , f i ] = 0 [e_j,f_i]=0 [ e j , f i ] = 0 for j ≠ i j\ne i j = i , bracketing with f i f_i f i shows that h i ⊆ J \mathfrak{h}_i\subseteq J h i ⊆ J .
For an arrow i → j i\to j i → j , we have [ h ˉ i , e j ] = e j [\bar{\mathfrak{h}}_i,e_j]=e_j [ h ˉ i , e j ] = e j . Following directed paths, and bracketing each new e j e_j e j with f j f_j f j , gives all e j e_j e j and all h ˉ j \bar{\mathfrak{h}}_j h ˉ j in J J J . If i → j i\to j i → j , duality gives [ h ˉ i , f j ] = f j [\bar{\mathfrak{h}}_i,f_j]=f_j [ h ˉ i , f j ] = f j as an equality of images. Hence all f j f_j f j lie in J J J . These subobjects generate g ˉ \bar{\mathfrak{g}} g ˉ , and therefore J = g ˉ J=\bar{\mathfrak{g}} J = g ˉ .
Finally, let I I I be an ideal of g ′ \mathfrak{g}' g ′ not contained in z \mathfrak{z} z . Its image in g ˉ \bar{\mathfrak{g}} g ˉ is nonzero, so the result just proved gives I + z = g ′ I+\mathfrak{z}=\mathfrak{g}' I + z = g ′ . It remains to remove the possible central summand z \mathfrak{z} z . Every vertex has an incoming arrow. If i → j i\to j i → j , then the images of [ h i , e j ] [\mathfrak{h}_i,e_j] [ h i , e j ] and [ h i , f j ] [\mathfrak{h}_i,f_j] [ h i , f j ] are respectively e j e_j e j and f j f_j f j . Therefore every e j e_j e j and f j f_j f j belongs to [ g ′ , g ′ ] [\mathfrak{g}',\mathfrak{g}'] [ g ′ , g ′ ] , and their brackets generate a 0 = im d \mathfrak{a}_0=\operatorname{im}d a 0 = im d . Hence g ′ \mathfrak{g}' g ′ is perfect. Since z \mathfrak{z} z is central,
g ′ = [ g ′ , g ′ ] = [ I + z , I + z ] ⊆ I . \mathfrak{g}'=[\mathfrak{g}',\mathfrak{g}']=[I+\mathfrak{z},I+\mathfrak{z}]\subseteq I. g ′ = [ g ′ , g ′ ] = [ I + z , I + z ] ⊆ I .
Thus I = g ′ I=\mathfrak{g}' I = g ′ , as required.
Now we are ready to prove our simplicity criterion.
Theorem 7.12. Let ( ρ , d ) (\rho,\mathfrak{d}) ( ρ , d ) be indecomposable such that g ∈ C \mathfrak{g}\in\mathcal{C} g ∈ C and g 0 ′ \mathfrak{g}'_0 g 0 ′ is generated by h i \mathfrak{h}_i h i , 1 ≤ i ≤ r 1\leq i\leq r 1 ≤ i ≤ r , as Lie algebra, and its quiver has at least one arrow. Assume in addition that each e i e_i e i is simple after restriction to g 0 ′ \mathfrak{g}'_0 g 0 ′ . Then g ′ / ( Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ ) \mathfrak{g}'/(\operatorname{Ann}V\cap\mathfrak{g}'_0) g ′ / ( Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ ) is a simple Lie algebra.
Proof. Set z = Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ \mathfrak{z}=\operatorname{Ann}V\cap\mathfrak{g}'_0 z = Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ . As d \mathfrak{d} d is h \mathfrak{h} h -linear, im d = ∑ i h i \operatorname{im}\mathfrak{d}=\sum_i\mathfrak{h}_i im d = ∑ i h i is an ideal of h \mathfrak{h} h , and by our hypothesis, g 0 ′ = im d \mathfrak{g}'_0=\operatorname{im}\mathfrak{d} g 0 ′ = im d . The ideal Ann V \operatorname{Ann}V Ann V centralizes im d \operatorname{im}\mathfrak{d} im d , so Lemma 7.9 gives z = c ( g ′ ) \mathfrak{z}=\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{g}') z = c ( g ′ ) . The preimage in g ′ \mathfrak{g}' g ′ of any ideal of g ′ / z \mathfrak{g}'/\mathfrak{z} g ′ / z contains z \mathfrak{z} z ; by Lemma 7.11 , it is either z \mathfrak{z} z or g ′ \mathfrak{g}' g ′ . Hence the quotient has no nonzero proper ideals. Finally, an arrow i → j i\to j i → j gives [ h i , e j ] = e j ≠ 0 [\mathfrak{h}_i,e_j]=e_j\ne0 [ h i , e j ] = e j = 0 , and this bracket remains nonzero after quotienting by z ⊆ g 0 ′ \mathfrak{z}\subseteq\mathfrak{g}'_0 z ⊆ g 0 ′ . Thus the quotient is nonabelian and is simple.
Remark 7.13. The simple Lie algebra g ′ / ( Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ ) \mathfrak{g}'/(\operatorname{Ann}V\cap\mathfrak{g}'_0) g ′ / ( Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ ) is Z \mathbb{Z} Z -graded with g 0 ′ / Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ \mathfrak{g}'_0/\operatorname{Ann}V\cap\mathfrak{g}'_0 g 0 ′ / Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ as homogeneous component of degree 0 and the same components of degree n ≠ 0 n\ne0 n = 0 as g \mathfrak{g} g . This follows since Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ \operatorname{Ann}V\cap\mathfrak{g}'_0 Ann V ∩ g 0 ′ is an ideal contained in g 0 ′ \mathfrak{g}'_0 g 0 ′ .
Reflections
We now use our previous results to construct a family of reflections. As in the previous subsection, fix V = ⨁ j = 1 r e j V = \bigoplus_{j=1}^{r} e_j V = ⨁ j = 1 r e j and V ∗ = ⨁ j = 1 r f j V^* = \bigoplus_{j=1}^{r} f_j V ∗ = ⨁ j = 1 r f j , where f j = e j ∗ f_j = e_j^* f j = e j ∗ , h i = [ e i , f i ] h_i = [e_i, f_i] h i = [ e i , f i ] , and each e j e_j e j is a simple h \mathfrak{h} h -module. Let Q = ⨁ j = 1 r Z α j Q = \bigoplus_{j=1}^{r} \mathbb{Z}\alpha_j Q = ⨁ j = 1 r Z α j be the grading lattice, and ht : Q → Z \operatorname{ht}: Q \to\mathbb{Z} ht : Q → Z the usual height function, ht ( ∑ j n j α j ) : = ∑ j n j \operatorname{ht}\left(\sum_j n_j\alpha_j\right) := \sum_j n_j ht ( ∑ j n j α j ) := ∑ j n j .
Let Y i Y_i Y i be the Lie subalgebra generated by h , e i , f i \mathfrak{h}, e_i, f_i h , e i , f i . By Theorem 7.5, Y i ≃ g ( ρ e i , d e i ) Y_i \simeq\mathfrak{g}(\rho_{e_i}, d_{e_i}) Y i ≃ g ( ρ e i , d e i ) . Write n i ± : = Y i ∩ n ± \mathfrak{n}^{\pm}_i := Y_i \cap\mathfrak{n}_{\pm} n i ± := Y i ∩ n ± .
We want to define a Cartan matrix attached to V V V , for which we first need to check some finiteness obstructions. Fix i i i , and set c i i V : = 2 c^V_{ii} := 2 c ii V := 2 . For i ≠ j i \ne j i = j define
N i j V : = sup { n ∈ N 0 : g α j + n α i ≠ 0 } ∈ N 0 ∪ { ∞ } . (33) N^V_{ij} := \sup\{n \in\mathbb{N}_0 : \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_j+n\alpha_i} \ne0\} \in\mathbb{N}_0 \cup\{\infty\}. \tag*{(33)} N ij V := sup { n ∈ N 0 : g α j + n α i = 0 } ∈ N 0 ∪ { ∞ } . (33)
When N i j V < ∞ N^V_{ij} < \infty N ij V < ∞ , let
c i j V : = − N i j V . (34) c^V_{ij} := -N^V_{ij}. \tag*{(34)} c ij V := − N ij V . (34)
For n ≥ 0 n \ge0 n ≥ 0 , write
P i j , n : = g α j + n α i , P i j , n − : = g − α j − n α i . P_{ij,n} := \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_j+n\alpha_i}, \qquad P^-_{ij,n} := \mathfrak{g}_{-\alpha_j-n\alpha_i}. P ij , n := g α j + n α i , P ij , n − := g − α j − n α i .
Lemma 7.14. Assume N = N i j V < ∞ N = N^V_{ij} < \infty N = N ij V < ∞ .
(a) For every n ≥ 0 n \ge0 n ≥ 0 , P i j , n = ( ad e i ) n ( e j ) P_{ij,n} = (\operatorname{ad} e_i)^n(e_j) P ij , n = ( ad e i ) n ( e j ) , P i j , n − = ( ad f i ) n ( f j ) P^-_{ij,n} = (\operatorname{ad} f_i)^n(f_j) P ij , n − = ( ad f i ) n ( f j ) . Consequently,
{ n ∈ N 0 : P i j , n ≠ 0 } = { 0 , 1 , … , N } . \{n \in\mathbb{N}_0 : P_{ij,n} \ne0\} = \{0,1,\ldots,N\}. { n ∈ N 0 : P ij , n = 0 } = { 0 , 1 , … , N } . (b) The object M i j : = ⨁ n = 0 N P i j , n M_{ij} := \bigoplus_{n=0}^{N} P_{ij,n} M ij := ⨁ n = 0 N P ij , n is a simple Y i Y_i Y i -module. Its top component P i j , N P_{ij,N} P ij , N is a simple h \mathfrak{h} h -module .
Proof. (a) The fact that P i j , n = ( ad e i ) n ( e j ) P_{ij,n} = (\operatorname{ad} e_i)^n(e_j) P ij , n = ( ad e i ) n ( e j ) and P i j , n − = ( ad f i ) n ( f j ) P^-_{ij,n} = (\operatorname{ad} f_i)^n(f_j) P ij , n − = ( ad f i ) n ( f j ) follows arguing as in Lemma 7.6 (a). In particular, P i j , n = 0 P_{ij,n} = 0 P ij , n = 0 implies P i j , n + 1 = 0 P_{ij,n+1} = 0 P ij , n + 1 = 0 . Since P i j , 0 = e j ≠ 0 P_{ij,0} = e_j \ne0 P ij , 0 = e j = 0 and N N N is the largest non-zero index, the support is exactly { 0 , … , N } \{0,\ldots,N\} { 0 , … , N } .
(b) Note that the object M i j M_{ij} M ij is stable under h \mathfrak{h} h and e i e_i e i . It is also stable under f i f_i f i , since for n = 0 n = 0 n = 0 , [ P i j , 0 , f i ] = [ e j , f i ] = 0 [P_{ij,0},f_i] = [e_j,f_i] = 0 [ P ij , 0 , f i ] = [ e j , f i ] = 0 , while for n > 0 n > 0 n > 0 , [ P i j , n , f i ] ⊆ P i j , n − 1 [P_{ij,n},f_i] \subseteq P_{ij,n-1} [ P ij , n , f i ] ⊆ P ij , n − 1 . Hence M i j M_{ij} M ij is a Y i Y_i Y i -submodule.
Now we check that M i j M_{ij} M ij is simple. First let 0 ≠ M ⊆ M i j 0 \ne M \subseteq M_{ij} 0 = M ⊆ M ij be a graded Y i Y_i Y i -submodule, and choose the least n n n with M n : = M ∩ P i j , n ≠ 0 M_n := M \cap P_{ij,n} \ne0 M n := M ∩ P ij , n = 0 . If n > 0 n > 0 n > 0 , then [ f i , M n ] = 0 [f_i,M_n] = 0 [ f i , M n ] = 0 . Since P i j , n − = [ f i , P i j , n − 1 − ] P^-_{ij,n} = [f_i,P^-_{ij,n-1}] P ij , n − = [ f i , P ij , n − 1 − ] , invariance gives
B ( M n , P i j , n − ) = B ( [ M n , f i ] , P i j , n − 1 − ) = 0 , \mathrm{B}(M_n,P^-_{ij,n}) = \mathrm{B}([M_n,f_i],P^-_{ij,n-1}) = 0, B ( M n , P ij , n − ) = B ([ M n , f i ] , P ij , n − 1 − ) = 0 ,
which is a contradiction since the pairing P i j , n ⊗ P i j , n − → 1 P_{ij,n} \otimes P^-_{ij,n} \to\mathbf{1} P ij , n ⊗ P ij , n − → 1 is non degenerate. Thus n = 0 n = 0 n = 0 . The object M 0 M_0 M 0 is a non-zero h \mathfrak{h} h -submodule of e j e_j e j , so M 0 = e j M_0 = e_j M 0 = e j , and M = M i j M = M_{ij} M = M ij .
For an arbitrary non-zero Y i Y_i Y i -submodule M M M , use the filtration on M M M induced by
F n M = M ∩ ( ⨁ 0 ≤ r ≤ n P i j , r ) , F_nM = M \cap\left(\bigoplus_{0 \le r \le n} P_{ij,r}\right), F n M = M ∩ ( 0 ≤ r ≤ n ⨁ P ij , r ) ,
and the degree filtration on Y i Y_i Y i . The associated graded module gr M \operatorname{gr} M gr M is a non-zero graded Y i Y_i Y i -submodule and hence gr M = M i j \operatorname{gr} M = M_{ij} gr M = M ij . Since the passage to the associated graded module preserves length, M = M i j M = M_{ij} M = M ij .
Finally, let 0 ≠ S ⊆ P i j , N 0 \ne S \subseteq P_{ij,N} 0 = S ⊆ P ij , N be an h \mathfrak{h} h -submodule. As n i + \mathfrak{n}_i^+ n i + annihilates S S S , Lemma 6.1 shows that the Y i Y_i Y i -submodule generated by S S S is U ( n i − ) ⋅ S U(\mathfrak{n}_i^-)\cdot S U ( n i − ) ⋅ S , so U ( n i − ) ⋅ S = M i j U(\mathfrak{n}_i^-)\cdot S=M_{ij} U ( n i − ) ⋅ S = M ij . Its component of degree N N N is exactly S S S , hence S = P i j , N S=P_{ij,N} S = P ij , N . Thus S S S is simple. □
Following the terminology used for Nichols algebras [14 ] , we say that an ordered module V = ( e 1 , … , e r ) V=(e_1,\ldots,e_r) V = ( e 1 , … , e r ) is i i i -finite if N i j V < ∞ N_{ij}^V<\infty N ij V < ∞ for every j ≠ i j\ne i j = i . For an i i i -finite module V V V , set
R i ( V ) : = ( e 1 ( i ) , … , e r ( i ) ) , where e i ( i ) = f i , e j ( i ) = P i j , N i j V ( j ≠ i ) . R_i(V):=(e_1^{(i)},\ldots,e_r^{(i)}), \qquad\text{where}\qquad e_i^{(i)}=f_i,\qquad e_j^{(i)}=P_{ij,N_{ij}^V}\quad(j\ne i). R i ( V ) := ( e 1 ( i ) , … , e r ( i ) ) , where e i ( i ) = f i , e j ( i ) = P ij , N ij V ( j = i ) .
Let ρ ( i ) \rho^{(i)} ρ ( i ) denote the h \mathfrak{h} h -action on R i ( V ) R_i(V) R i ( V ) . Define also
s i V : Z r → Z r , s i V ( α j ) : = α j − c i j V α i , 1 ≤ j ≤ r . s_i^V:\mathbb{Z}^r\to\mathbb{Z}^r,\qquad s_i^V(\alpha_j):=\alpha_j-c_{ij}^V\alpha_i,\qquad1\le j\le r. s i V : Z r → Z r , s i V ( α j ) := α j − c ij V α i , 1 ≤ j ≤ r .
Since s i V ( α i ) = − α i s_i^V(\alpha_i)=-\alpha_i s i V ( α i ) = − α i , we have that ( s i V ) 2 = id Q (s_i^V)^2=\operatorname{id}_{Q} ( s i V ) 2 = id Q .
Lemma 7.15. If V V V is i i i -finite, then the pair ( ρ ( i ) , K ) (\rho^{(i)},K) ( ρ ( i ) , K ) is a symmetrizable datum.
Proof. We use schematic notation. The summand e i ( i ) = f i e_i^{(i)}=f_i e i ( i ) = f i is a simple h \mathfrak{h} h -module with non-zero action by duality and condition (SD1) for the original datum. Fix j ≠ i j\ne i j = i and set N = N i j V N=N_{ij}^V N = N ij V . By Lemma 7.14, e j ( i ) e_j^{(i)} e j ( i ) is a simple h \mathfrak{h} h -module. We claim that the h \mathfrak{h} h -action on e j ( i ) e_j^{(i)} e j ( i ) is non-zero. For N = 0 N=0 N = 0 , e j ( i ) = e j e_j^{(i)}=e_j e j ( i ) = e j and the action is nontrivial by the original hypotheses. Suppose that N > 0 N>0 N > 0 and the h \mathfrak{h} h -action on e j ( i ) e_j^{(i)} e j ( i ) is zero. Since e j ( i ) e_j^{(i)} e j ( i ) is the top of the i i i -string, [ e i , e j ( i ) ] = 0 [e_i,e_j^{(i)}]=0 [ e i , e j ( i ) ] = 0 . Set Q 0 : = [ f i , e j ( i ) ] ⊆ P i j , N − 1 Q_0:=[f_i,e_j^{(i)}]\subseteq P_{ij,N-1} Q 0 := [ f i , e j ( i ) ] ⊆ P ij , N − 1 , which is h \mathfrak{h} h -stable. Then [ e i , f i ] ∈ h [e_i,f_i]\in\mathfrak{h} [ e i , f i ] ∈ h , and the assumed trivial h \mathfrak{h} h -action on e j ( i ) e_j^{(i)} e j ( i ) gives
[ e i , Q 0 ] ⊆ [ [ e i , f i ] , e j ( i ) ] + [ f i , [ e i , e j ( i ) ] ] = 0. [e_i,Q_0]\subseteq[[e_i,f_i],e_j^{(i)}]+[f_i,[e_i,e_j^{(i)}]]=0. [ e i , Q 0 ] ⊆ [[ e i , f i ] , e j ( i ) ] + [ f i , [ e i , e j ( i ) ]] = 0.
Since n i + \mathfrak{n}_i^+ n i + is generated by e i e_i e i , it follows that n i + \mathfrak{n}_i^+ n i + annihilates Q 0 Q_0 Q 0 . If Q 0 ≠ 0 Q_0\ne0 Q 0 = 0 , then Lemma 6.1 shows that U ( n i − ) ⋅ Q 0 U(\mathfrak{n}_i^-)\cdot Q_0 U ( n i − ) ⋅ Q 0 is a non-zero Y i Y_i Y i -submodule of M i j M_{ij} M ij , which is contained in ⨁ 0 ≤ r < N P i j , r \bigoplus_{0\le r<N}P_{ij,r} ⨁ 0 ≤ r < N P ij , r , and is therefore proper. This contradicts Lemma 7.14. Hence Q 0 = 0 Q_0=0 Q 0 = 0 .
It follows that e j ( i ) e_j^{(i)} e j ( i ) is annihilated by h \mathfrak{h} h , e i e_i e i , and f i f_i f i , so e j ( i ) e_j^{(i)} e j ( i ) is a non-zero Y i Y_i Y i -submodule of M i j M_{ij} M ij . Again, as M i j M_{ij} M ij is simple, e j ( i ) = M i j e_j^{(i)}=M_{ij} e j ( i ) = M ij . Then, N = 0 N=0 N = 0 , which says that e j ( i ) = e j e_j^{(i)}=e_j e j ( i ) = e j has trivial h \mathfrak{h} h -action, contradicting (SD1). This proves the h \mathfrak{h} h -action on e j ( i ) e_j^{(i)} e j ( i ) is non-zero.
Consequently, R i ( V ) R_i(V) R i ( V ) is a finite direct sum of simple h \mathfrak{h} h -modules with nontrivial action. Then Remark 7.3 applies, so (SD1) holds. Condition (SD2) is satisfied by hypothesis. □
Assume that V = ( ρ , d ) V=(\rho,\mathbf{d}) V = ( ρ , d ) is i i i -finite. Set d ( i ) : = d ρ ( i ) κ \mathbf{d}^{(i)}:=\mathbf{d}_{\rho^{(i)}}\kappa d ( i ) := d ρ ( i ) κ , R i ( V ) : = ( ρ ( i ) , d ( i ) ) R_i(V):=(\rho^{(i)},\mathbf{d}^{(i)}) R i ( V ) := ( ρ ( i ) , d ( i ) ) . Using the bilinear form we identify the dual of e j ( i ) e_j^{(i)} e j ( i ) with the opposite homogeneous component,
( e i ( i ) ) ∗ ≅ e i , ( e j ( i ) ) ∗ ≅ P i j , N i j V − = ( ad f i ) N i j V ( f j ) , j ≠ i . (e_i^{(i)})^*\cong e_i,\qquad(e_j^{(i)})^*\cong P_{ij,N_{ij}^V}^-=(\operatorname{ad}f_i)^{N_{ij}^V}(f_j),\qquad j\ne i. ( e i ( i ) ) ∗ ≅ e i , ( e j ( i ) ) ∗ ≅ P ij , N ij V − = ( ad f i ) N ij V ( f j ) , j = i .
Thanks to the previous lemma we can consider the Lie algebras g ~ ( R i ( V ) ) \widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}(R_i(V)) g ( R i ( V )) and g ( R i ( V ) ) \mathfrak{g}(R_i(V)) g ( R i ( V )) . We have the following preliminary result.
Lemma 7.16. If V V V is i i i -finite, there is a Lie algebra map
T ~ i V : g ~ ( R i ( V ) ) ⟶ g ( V ) , (35) \widetilde{T}^{V}_{i}:\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}(R_i(V))\longrightarrow\mathfrak{g}(V), \tag*{(35)} T i V : g ( R i ( V )) ⟶ g ( V ) , (35) which is the identity on h \mathfrak{h} h , the canonical inclusion for each e j ( i ) e_j^{(i)} e j ( i ) , and sends the dual ( e j ( i ) ) ∗ (e_j^{(i)})^* ( e j ( i ) ) ∗ to the opposite component specified above. Moreover,
T ~ i V ( g ~ ( R i ( V ) ) β ) ⊆ g ( V ) s i V ( β ) for all β ∈ Q . \widetilde{T}^{V}_{i}\bigl(\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}(R_i(V))_\beta\bigr)\subseteq\mathfrak{g}(V)_{s_i^V(\beta)}
\qquad\text{for all }\beta\in Q. T i V ( g ( R i ( V ) ) β ) ⊆ g ( V ) s i V ( β ) for all β ∈ Q . Proof. The identifications R i ( V ) , R i ( V ) ∗ ↪ g ( V ) R_i(V),R_i(V)^*\hookrightarrow\mathfrak{g}(V) R i ( V ) , R i ( V ) ∗ ↪ g ( V ) are of h \mathfrak{h} h -modules, so they induce a map T ^ i V : FLie ( R i ( V ) ⊕ R i ( V ) ∗ ) ⋊ ρ h → g ( V ) \widehat{T}^{V}_{i}:\operatorname{FLie}(R_i(V)\oplus R_i(V)^*)\rtimes_\rho\mathfrak{h}\to\mathfrak{g}(V) T i V : FLie ( R i ( V ) ⊕ R i ( V ) ∗ ) ⋊ ρ h → g ( V ) . It remains to check that the defining relations of g ~ ( R i ( V ) ) \widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}(R_i(V)) g ( R i ( V )) in §7.1 belong to the kernel of this map.
(a) If j , k ≠ i j,k\ne i j , k = i and j ≠ k j\ne k j = k , then s i V ( α j ) − s i V ( α k ) = α j − α k + ( N i j V − N i k V ) α i s_i^V(\alpha_j)-s_i^V(\alpha_k)=\alpha_j-\alpha_k+(N_{ij}^V-N_{ik}^V)\alpha_i s i V ( α j ) − s i V ( α k ) = α j − α k + ( N ij V − N ik V ) α i , so the corresponding homogeneous component of g \mathfrak{g} g is zero. Then
T ^ i V ( [ e j , f k ] ) = [ ( ad e i ) N i j V ( e j ) , ( ad f i ) N i k V ( f k ) ] = 0. \widehat{T}^{V}_{i}([e_j,f_k])=
\left[(\operatorname{ad}e_i)^{N_{ij}^V}(e_j),(\operatorname{ad}f_i)^{N_{ik}^V}(f_k)\right]=0. T i V ([ e j , f k ]) = [ ( ad e i ) N ij V ( e j ) , ( ad f i ) N ik V ( f k ) ] = 0. (b) If j = i j=i j = i and k ≠ i k\ne i k = i , the degree of T ^ i V ( [ e i , f k ] ) \widehat{T}^{V}_{i}([e_i,f_k]) T i V ([ e i , f k ]) is − α k − ( N i k V + 1 ) α i -\alpha_k-(N_{ik}^V+1)\alpha_i − α k − ( N ik V + 1 ) α i , so the homogeneous component of this degree is zero by maximality of N i k V N_{ik}^V N ik V . Then T ^ i V ( [ e i , f k ] ) = 0 \widehat{T}^{V}_{i}([e_i,f_k])=0 T i V ([ e i , f k ]) = 0 . The case j ≠ i j\ne i j = i , k = i k=i k = i is analogous.
(c) For j = k j=k j = k , we take u ∈ e j ( i ) u\in e_j^{(i)} u ∈ e j ( i ) and v ∈ ( e j ( i ) ) ∗ v\in(e_j^{(i)})^* v ∈ ( e j ( i ) ) ∗ . We have that
K ( x , [ u , v ] ) = B ( x , [ u , v ] ) = B ( [ x , u ] , v ) = ev e j ( i ) ( ρ ( i ) ( x , u ) , v ) for all x ∈ h . K(x,[u,v])=B(x,[u,v])=B([x,u],v)=\operatorname{ev}_{e_j^{(i)}}\bigl(\rho^{(i)}(x,u),v\bigr)
\qquad\text{for all }x\in\mathfrak{h}. K ( x , [ u , v ]) = B ( x , [ u , v ]) = B ([ x , u ] , v ) = ev e j ( i ) ( ρ ( i ) ( x , u ) , v ) for all x ∈ h . By the identity (7.5), this says precisely that [ u , v ] = d ( i ) ( u , v ) [u,v]=\mathbf{d}^{(i)}(u,v) [ u , v ] = d ( i ) ( u , v ) .
Thus all defining relations hold, and then T ^ i V \widehat{T}^{V}_{i} T i V induces the desired map T ~ i V \widetilde{T}^{V}_{i} T i V . The statement about the grading follows from its values on the generators. □
We now arrive at the main result of this subsection, where we construct the desired reflections.
Theorem 7.17. If V V V is i i i -finite, the map (7.11) induces an isomorphism
T ~ i V : g ( R i ( V ) ) → ∼ g ( V ) \widetilde{T}^{V}_{i}:\mathfrak{g}(R_i(V))\xrightarrow{\sim}\mathfrak{g}(V) T i V : g ( R i ( V )) ∼ g ( V ) such that T ~ i V ( g ( R i ( V ) ) β ) = g ( V ) s i V ( β ) \widetilde{T}^{V}_{i}\bigl(\mathfrak{g}(R_i(V))_\beta\bigr)=\mathfrak{g}(V)_{s_i^V(\beta)} T i V ( g ( R i ( V ) ) β ) = g ( V ) s i V ( β ) for all β ∈ Q \beta\in Q β ∈ Q .
Proof. The image of T ~ i V \widetilde{T}^{V}_{i} T i V contains h \mathfrak{h} h , e i e_i e i , f i f_i f i , and hence Y i Y_i Y i . For j ≠ i j\ne i j = i , it also contains P i j , N i j V P_{ij,N_{ij}^V} P ij , N ij V . By Lemma 7.14, P i j , N i j V P_{ij,N_{ij}^V} P ij , N ij V generates the simple Y i Y_i Y i -module M i j M_{ij} M ij , so e j e_j e j is also contained in the image. A dual argument proves that f j ⊆ im T ~ i V f_j\subseteq\operatorname{im}\widetilde{T}^{V}_{i} f j ⊆ im T i V . Hence im T ~ i V \operatorname{im}\widetilde{T}^{V}_{i} im T i V contains h \mathfrak{h} h , V V V , V ∗ V^* V ∗ , and then T ~ i V \widetilde{T}^{V}_{i} T i V is surjective.
We consider a new grading on g = g ( V ) \mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}(V) g = g ( V ) by setting
g n ( i ) : = ⨁ ht ( β ) = n g s i V ( β ) , n ∈ Z . \mathfrak{g}^{(i)}_n:=\bigoplus_{\operatorname{ht}(\beta)=n}\mathfrak{g}_{s_i^V(\beta)},
\qquad n\in\mathbb{Z}. g n ( i ) := ht ( β ) = n ⨁ g s i V ( β ) , n ∈ Z . The map T ~ i V \widetilde{T}^{V}_{i} T i V is surjective and homogeneous for this grading; in particular, its kernel is homogeneous and intersects h \mathfrak{h} h trivially. The form B B B is non-degenerate when we restrict to
g n ( i ) ⊗ g − n ( i ) \mathfrak{g}^{(i)}_n \otimes\mathfrak{g}^{(i)}_{-n} g n ( i ) ⊗ g − n ( i ) , since it is the direct sum of the non-degenerate pairings g s i ( β ) ( i ) ⊗ g − s i ( β ) ( i ) ⟶ 1 \mathfrak{g}^{(i)}_{s_i(\beta)} \otimes\mathfrak{g}^{(i)}_{-s_i(\beta)} \longrightarrow\mathbb{1} g s i ( β ) ( i ) ⊗ g − s i ( β ) ( i ) ⟶ 1 . By Proposition 7.2, the kernel of T ~ i V \widetilde{T}^{V}_{i} T i V is the maximal ideal defining g ( R i ( V ) ) \mathfrak{g}(R_i(V)) g ( R i ( V )) , so it induces the isomorphism T i V T^{V}_{i} T i V . The statement about the grading follows from Lemma 7.16. □ \square □
Corollary 7.18. If V V V is i i i -finite, then R i ( V ) R_i(V) R i ( V ) is also i i i -finite and
c i j R i ( V ) = c i j V for each j ≠ i , R i 2 ( V ) ≅ V . c^{R_i(V)}_{ij}=c^{V}_{ij}\qquad\text{for each }j\ne i,\qquad R_i^2(V)\cong V. c ij R i ( V ) = c ij V for each j = i , R i 2 ( V ) ≅ V .
Proof. Put N = N i j V N=N^V_{ij} N = N ij V . By Theorem 7.17,
T i V ( g ( R i ( V ) ) α j + n α i ) = g ( V ) s i ( α j + n α i ) = g ( V ) α j + ( N − n ) α i . T_i^V\bigl(\mathfrak{g}(R_i(V))_{\alpha_j+n\alpha_i}\bigr)=\mathfrak{g}(V)_{s_i(\alpha_j+n\alpha_i)}=\mathfrak{g}(V)_{\alpha_j+(N-n)\alpha_i}. T i V ( g ( R i ( V ) ) α j + n α i ) = g ( V ) s i ( α j + n α i ) = g ( V ) α j + ( N − n ) α i .
For n ≥ 0 n\ge0 n ≥ 0 , the last component is non-zero exactly when 0 ≤ n ≤ N 0\le n\le N 0 ≤ n ≤ N . Thus the i i i -th string of R i ( V ) R_i(V) R i ( V ) has the same number of non-zero components as the i i i -th string of V V V , so c i j R i ( V ) = c i j V c^{R_i(V)}_{ij}=c^V_{ij} c ij R i ( V ) = c ij V and R i ( V ) R_i(V) R i ( V ) is i i i -finite by Lemma 7.14 (a). Its top component is sent to g α j = e j \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_j}=\mathfrak{e}_j g α j = e j , while ( f i ) ∗ ≅ e i (\mathfrak{f}_i)^*\cong\mathfrak{e}_i ( f i ) ∗ ≅ e i . Consequently, R i 2 ( V ) ≅ V R_i^2(V)\cong V R i 2 ( V ) ≅ V . □ \square □
Remark 7.19. After choosing the identification R i 2 ( V ) ≅ V R_i^2(V)\cong V R i 2 ( V ) ≅ V and normalizing the duality identifications, we can choose the second reflection map to be the inverse of T i V T_i^V T i V , so
T i V ∘ T i R i ( V ) = id g ( V ) , T i R i ( V ) ∘ T i V = id g ( R i ( V ) ) . T_i^V\circ T_i^{R_i(V)}=\operatorname{id}_{\mathfrak{g}(V)},\qquad T_i^{R_i(V)}\circ T_i^V=\operatorname{id}_{\mathfrak{g}(R_i(V))}. T i V ∘ T i R i ( V ) = id g ( V ) , T i R i ( V ) ∘ T i V = id g ( R i ( V )) .
The Weyl groupoid and the root system
Our next task is to define the Weyl groupoid of a semisimple h \mathfrak{h} h -module V V V . The reflections R i R_i R i constructed in the previous subsection depend on the fixed decomposition of V V V as sum of simple submodules (and the enumeration of the summands). Hence, we will deal with Weyl groupoids of ordered tuples of simple modules, as in [14 Chapter 12] .
Fix r ∈ N r\in\mathbb{N} r ∈ N , and set I = { 1 , … , r } I=\{1,\ldots,r\} I = { 1 , … , r } , Q = ⨁ i ∈ I Z α i Q=\bigoplus_{i\in I}\mathbb{Z}\alpha_i Q = ⨁ i ∈ I Z α i as in the previous subsection, h ∈ Lie ( C ) \mathfrak{h}\in\operatorname{Lie}(\mathbb{C}) h ∈ Lie ( C ) , K : h ⊗ h → 1 K:\mathfrak{h}\otimes\mathfrak{h}\to\mathbb{1} K : h ⊗ h → 1 a symmetric non-degenerate invariant form.
Definition 7.20. An ordered presentation over ( h , K ) (\mathfrak{h},K) ( h , K ) is a tuple ( e 1 , … , e r ) (\mathfrak{e}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{e}_r) ( e 1 , … , e r ) of simple h \mathfrak{h} h -modules with non-trivial action.
We identify two ordered presentations when their corresponding entries are isomorphic as h \mathfrak{h} h -modules. Depending on the context, we may use the tuple notation ( e 1 , … , e r ) (\mathfrak{e}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{e}_r) ( e 1 , … , e r ) or the direct sum V = e 1 ⊕ … ⊕ e r V=\mathfrak{e}_1\oplus\ldots\oplus\mathfrak{e}_r V = e 1 ⊕ … ⊕ e r .
Fix a class x = [ V ] x=[V] x = [ V ] and choose a representative V V V . Let ρ V \rho^V ρ V denote the action of h \mathfrak{h} h on V V V . Then ( ρ V , K ) (\rho^V,K) ( ρ V , K ) is a symmetrizable pair by Remark 7.3, so we can consider d x = d ρ V , K \mathsf{d}^x=\mathsf{d}_{\rho^V,K} d x = d ρ V , K , and the contragredient Lie algebra
g x : = g ( ρ V , d x ) , g x = ⨁ β ∈ Q g β x . \mathfrak{g}^x:=\mathfrak{g}(\rho^V,\mathsf{d}^x),\qquad\mathfrak{g}^x=\bigoplus_{\beta\in Q}\mathfrak{g}^x_\beta. g x := g ( ρ V , d x ) , g x = β ∈ Q ⨁ g β x .
which is well defined up to Q Q Q -graded isomorphism of contragredient Lie algebras. Consequently, the support, the integers N i j x N^x_{ij} N ij x , and all constructions below are independent of the chosen representative. Following the notation in [1 ] , let
Δ ± x : = { β ∈ Q ± ∖ { 0 } : g β x ≠ 0 } , Δ x : = Δ + x ∪ Δ − x . (36) \Delta^x_{\pm}:=\{\beta\in Q^{\pm}\setminus\{0\}:\mathfrak{g}^x_\beta\ne0\},\qquad\Delta^x:=\Delta^x_+\cup\Delta^x_-. \tag*{(36)} Δ ± x := { β ∈ Q ± ∖ { 0 } : g β x = 0 } , Δ x := Δ + x ∪ Δ − x . (36)
The non-degenerate pairings g β x ⊗ g − β x → 1 \mathfrak{g}^x_\beta\otimes\mathfrak{g}^x_{-\beta}\to\mathbb{1} g β x ⊗ g − β x → 1 imply Δ − x = − Δ + x \Delta^x_-=-\Delta^x_+ Δ − x = − Δ + x . Whenever x x x is i i i -finite, we define R i ( x ) : = [ R i ( V ) ] R_i(x):=[R_i(V)] R i ( x ) := [ R i ( V )] , again well-defined on isomorphism classes.
Definition 7.21. Let X ( V ) \mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) X ( V ) be the set of classes obtainable from [ V ] [\mathrm{V}] [ V ] by a finite sequence of reflections R i R_i R i . We say that V \mathrm{V} V is regular if every x ∈ X ( V ) x \in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) is i i i -finite for every i ∈ I i \in I i ∈ I , i.e. if N i j x N_{ij}^{x} N ij x is finite for all i ≠ j ∈ I i \ne j \in I i = j ∈ I and all x ∈ X ( V ) x \in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) .
Hence, for a regular V \mathrm{V} V , the maps R i : X ( V ) ⟶ X ( V ) R_i:\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) \longrightarrow\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) R i : X ( V ) ⟶ X ( V ) are well defined for all i ∈ I i \in I i ∈ I as well as the matrices C x = ( c i j x ) i , j ∈ I C^x=(c_{ij}^{x})_{i,j\in I} C x = ( c ij x ) i , j ∈ I as defined in (7.10), x ∈ X ( V ) x \in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) .
A particular case of a regular V \mathrm{V} V is when g [ V ] ∈ C \mathfrak{g}^{[\mathrm{V}]} \in\mathcal{C} g [ V ] ∈ C .
Definition 7.22. The Weyl groupoid of V \mathrm{V} V is the subgroupoid W ( V ) \mathcal{W}(\mathrm{V}) W ( V ) of X ( V ) × GL ( Q ) × X ( V ) \mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) \times\operatorname{GL}(\mathbb{Q}) \times\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) X ( V ) × GL ( Q ) × X ( V ) generated by
σ i x : = ( x , s i x , R i ( x ) ) , i ∈ I , x ∈ X ( V ) . \sigma_i^x := (x,s_i^x,R_i(x)), \qquad i \in I,x \in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}). σ i x := ( x , s i x , R i ( x )) , i ∈ I , x ∈ X ( V ) .
We regard ( x , w , y ) (x,w,y) ( x , w , y ) as a morphism y → x y \to x y → x , with composition
( x , w , y ) ∘ ( y , v , z ) = ( x , w v , z ) . (x,w,y) \circ(y,v,z)=(x,wv,z). ( x , w , y ) ∘ ( y , v , z ) = ( x , w v , z ) .
Note that the inverse of σ i x \sigma_i^x σ i x is σ i R i ( x ) = ( R i ( x ) , s i x , x ) \sigma_i^{R_i(x)}=(R_i(x),s_i^x,x) σ i R i ( x ) = ( R i ( x ) , s i x , x ) , see Corollary 7.18.
Next we introduce the set of real roots of x ∈ X ( V ) x \in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) , in analogy with the classical case:
Δ x , r e : = { ω ( α i ) ∣ i ∈ I , ( x , ω , y ) ∈ W ( V ) , y ∈ X ( V ) } . \Delta^{x,\mathrm{re}}:=\{\omega(\alpha_i)\mid i\in I,\ (x,\omega,y)\in\mathcal{W}(\mathrm{V}),\ y\in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V})\}. Δ x , re := { ω ( α i ) ∣ i ∈ I , ( x , ω , y ) ∈ W ( V ) , y ∈ X ( V )} .
That is, the set of real roots contains all the elements of Q Q Q obtained after applying compositions of σ i y \sigma_i^y σ i y , ending at x x x . The subsets of positive, respectively negative, real roots are
Δ ± x , r e = Δ x , r e ∩ ( ± N 0 I ) , \Delta_{\pm}^{x,\mathrm{re}}=\Delta^{x,\mathrm{re}}\cap(\pm\mathbb{N}_0^I), Δ ± x , re = Δ x , re ∩ ( ± N 0 I ) ,
and
m i j x : = ∣ Δ x , r e ∩ ( N 0 α i + N 0 α j ) ∣ . m_{ij}^{x}:=\lvert\Delta^{x,\mathrm{re}}\cap(\mathbb{N}_0\alpha_i+\mathbb{N}_0\alpha_j)\rvert. m ij x := ∣ Δ x , re ∩ ( N 0 α i + N 0 α j )∣ .
Now we are ready to check that all the previous data give rise to a root system in the sense of [14 ] .
Theorem 7.23. Let V \mathrm{V} V be regular.
(a) G ( V ) = ( I , X ( V ) , ( R i ) i ∈ I , ( C x ) x ∈ X ( V ) ) \mathcal{G}(\mathrm{V})=(I,\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}),(R_i)_{i\in I},(C^x)_{x\in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V})}) G ( V ) = ( I , X ( V ) , ( R i ) i ∈ I , ( C x ) x ∈ X ( V ) ) is a Cartan graph, cf. [14 Definition 9.1.14] . More precisely,
CG1) R i 2 = id X ( V ) R_i^2=\operatorname{id}_{\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V})} R i 2 = id X ( V ) for every i ∈ I i \in I i ∈ I ;
CG2) each C x C^x C x is a generalized Cartan matrix and c i j x = c i j R i ( x ) c_{ij}^{x}=c_{ij}^{R_i(x)} c ij x = c ij R i ( x ) for all x ∈ X ( V ) x \in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) and i , j ∈ I i,j \in I i , j ∈ I .
CG3) Δ x , r e = Δ + x , r e ∪ Δ − x , r e \Delta^{x,\mathrm{re}}=\Delta_{+}^{x,\mathrm{re}}\cup\Delta_{-}^{x,\mathrm{re}} Δ x , re = Δ + x , re ∪ Δ − x , re for all x ∈ X ( V ) x \in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) ;
CG4) for each x ∈ X ( V ) x \in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) and i ≠ j ∈ I i \ne j \in I i = j ∈ I such that m i j x < ∞ m_{ij}^{x}<\infty m ij x < ∞ , ( R i R j ) m i j x ( x ) = x (R_iR_j)^{m_{ij}^{x}}(x)=x ( R i R j ) m ij x ( x ) = x .
(b) R ( V ) = ( G ( V ) , ( Δ x ) x ∈ X ( V ) ) \mathcal{R}(\mathrm{V})=(\mathcal{G}(\mathrm{V}),(\Delta^x)_{x\in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V})}) R ( V ) = ( G ( V ) , ( Δ x ) x ∈ X ( V ) ) is a root system, cf. [14 Definition 10.4.1] . More precisely:
RS1) 0 ∉ Δ x 0\notin\Delta^x 0 ∈ / Δ x , α i ∈ Δ x \alpha_i\in\Delta^x α i ∈ Δ x for all i ∈ I i\in I i ∈ I , x ∈ X ( V ) x\in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) .
RS2) Δ x ⊂ N 0 I ∪ ( − N 0 I ) \Delta^x\subset\mathbb{N}_0^I\cup(-\mathbb{N}_0^I) Δ x ⊂ N 0 I ∪ ( − N 0 I ) for all x ∈ X ( V ) x\in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) .
RS3) s i x ( Δ x ) = Δ R i ( x ) s_i^x(\Delta^x)=\Delta^{R_i(x)} s i x ( Δ x ) = Δ R i ( x ) for all i ∈ I i\in I i ∈ I , x ∈ X ( V ) x\in\mathcal{X}(\mathrm{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) .
Consequently, W ( V ) \mathcal{W}(\mathrm{V}) W ( V ) is the Weyl groupoid of the contragredient datum V \mathrm{V} V .
Proof. We prove (b) first. Property RS1) is clear, and RS2) follows from the triangular decomposition of g x \mathfrak{g}^{x} g x . Lastly, RS3) is a consequence of the isomorphism T i x T_i^x T i x in Theorem 7.17 . Now we check (a). We first check that G ( V ) \mathcal{G}(\mathbb{V}) G ( V ) is a semi-Cartan graph, cf. [14 Definition 9.1.1] ; that is, it satisfies CG1) and CG2). The equality R i 2 = id R_i^2=\operatorname{id} R i 2 = id and the equality of the i i i -th rows of C x C^x C x and C R i ( x ) C^{R_i(x)} C R i ( x ) follow from Corollary 7.18. For i ≠ j i\ne j i = j , Lemma 7.14 gives
c i j x = 0 ⟺ g α i + α j x = 0 ⟺ c j i x = 0. c_{ij}^x=0\qquad\Longleftrightarrow\qquad\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_i+\alpha_j}^x=0\qquad\Longleftrightarrow\qquad c_{ji}^x=0. c ij x = 0 ⟺ g α i + α j x = 0 ⟺ c j i x = 0.
Thus C x C^x C x is a generalized Cartan matrix for all x ∈ X ( V ) x\in\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) .
Property CG3) is clear, as Δ x , r e ⊆ Δ x \Delta^{x,\mathrm{re}}\subseteq\Delta^x Δ x , re ⊆ Δ x and we already checked that RS2) holds. It remains to prove CG4). Fix i ≠ j i\ne j i = j , put m = m i j x < ∞ m=m_{ij}^x<\infty m = m ij x < ∞ , and define
x 0 = x , x n + 1 = R i R j ( x n ) , w 0 = id Q , w n + 1 = s i R j ( x n ) s j x n w n . x_0=x,\qquad x_{n+1}=R_iR_j(x_n),\qquad w_0=\operatorname{id}_{Q},\qquad w_{n+1}=s_i^{R_j(x_n)}s_j^{x_n}w_n. x 0 = x , x n + 1 = R i R j ( x n ) , w 0 = id Q , w n + 1 = s i R j ( x n ) s j x n w n .
Then the properties R1–R3 used in the proof of [13 Theorem 6.11] are satisfied, and notice that the rank-two argument in that proof, based on the proof of [15 Lemma 5] , uses only these properties. Hence, following their argument, w m ( α i ) = α i w_m(\alpha_i)=\alpha_i w m ( α i ) = α i and w m ( α j ) = α j w_m(\alpha_j)=\alpha_j w m ( α j ) = α j . For k ∉ { i , j } k\notin\{i,j\} k ∈ / { i , j } write w m ( α k ) = α k + a α i + b α j w_m(\alpha_k)=\alpha_k+a\alpha_i+b\alpha_j w m ( α k ) = α k + a α i + b α j . This belongs to Δ x m \Delta^{x_m} Δ x m , so RS2 gives a , b ≥ 0 a,b\geq0 a , b ≥ 0 . Since w m w_m w m fixes α i , α j \alpha_i,\alpha_j α i , α j and w m − 1 ( Δ x m ) = Δ x w_m^{-1}(\Delta^{x_m})=\Delta^x w m − 1 ( Δ x m ) = Δ x , we also have
w m − 1 ( α k ) = α k − a α i − b α j ∈ Δ x . w_m^{-1}(\alpha_k)=\alpha_k-a\alpha_i-b\alpha_j\in\Delta^x. w m − 1 ( α k ) = α k − a α i − b α j ∈ Δ x .
RS2 gives a = b = 0 a=b=0 a = b = 0 , hence w m = id Q w_m=\operatorname{id}_{Q} w m = id Q .
The inverse reflection isomorphisms compose to an isomorphism Ψ : g x → g x m \Psi:\mathfrak{g}^x\to\mathfrak{g}^{x_m} Ψ : g x → g x m which is the identity on h \mathfrak{h} h and sends g β x \mathfrak{g}_\beta^x g β x to g w m ( β ) x m \mathfrak{g}_{w_m(\beta)}^{x_m} g w m ( β ) x m . Therefore Ψ \Psi Ψ identifies the degree-α k \alpha_k α k components as h \mathfrak{h} h -modules for every k k k . The corresponding ordered presentations are isomorphic, so x m = x x_m=x x m = x , which is CG4). □
As in the classical setting, we say that the Cartan graph G ( V ) \mathcal{G}(\mathbb{V}) G ( V ) is finite if Δ x , r e \Delta^{x,\mathrm{re}} Δ x , re is finite for all x ∈ X ( V ) x\in\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) . Also, the root system R ( V ) \mathcal{R}(\mathbb{V}) R ( V ) is reduced if for all x ∈ X ( V ) x\in\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) and all α ∈ Δ x \alpha\in\Delta^x α ∈ Δ x , Q α ∩ Δ x = { ± α } \mathbb{Q}\alpha\cap\Delta^x=\{\pm\alpha\} Q α ∩ Δ x = { ± α } . We can construct a reduced root system R r e d ( V ) \mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{red}}(\mathbb{V}) R red ( V ) by considering
Δ x , r e d : = { α ∈ Δ x ∣ q α ∉ Δ x for all q ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) } , x ∈ X ( V ) . \Delta^{x,\mathrm{red}}:=\{\alpha\in\Delta^x\mid q\alpha\notin\Delta^x\text{ for all }q\in(0,1)\},\qquad x\in\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{V}). Δ x , red := { α ∈ Δ x ∣ q α ∈ / Δ x for all q ∈ ( 0 , 1 )} , x ∈ X ( V ) .
Corollary 7.24. If g ( V ) ∈ C \mathfrak{g}(\mathbb{V})\in\mathcal{C} g ( V ) ∈ C , then V \mathbb{V} V is regular. The root system R ( V ) \mathcal{R}(\mathbb{V}) R ( V ) and its Weyl groupoid W ( V ) \mathcal{W}(\mathbb{V}) W ( V ) are finite. In particular, Δ V , r e d = Δ V , r e \Delta^{\mathbb{V},\mathrm{red}}=\Delta^{\mathbb{V},\mathrm{re}} Δ V , red = Δ V , re .
Proof. As observed before, V \mathbb{V} V is regular. As Δ x \Delta^x Δ x is finite for all x ∈ X ( V ) x\in\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{V}) x ∈ X ( V ) , the corresponding reduced root system is univocally determined as the root systems of real roots by [14 Theorem 10.4.7] . □
Remark 7.25. The root system of a contragredient Lie algebra need not be reduced. For example, o s p ( 1 ∣ 2 ) \mathfrak{osp}(1|2) osp ( 1∣2 ) has root system { ± α , ± 2 α } \{\pm\alpha,\pm2\alpha\} { ± α , ± 2 α } . Furthermore, the Lie algebras in Ver p \operatorname{Ver}_p Ver p , p > 3 p>3 p > 3 , obtained by semisimplification of the simple ones of type B 2 B_2 B 2 and G 2 G_2 G 2 with respect to e 2 e_2 e 2 in [2 Examples 4.33, 4.34] are contragredient Lie algebras whose root system is { ± α 1 , ± 2 α 1 } \{\pm\alpha_1,\pm2\alpha_1\} { ± α 1 , ± 2 α 1 } , respectively { ± α 1 , ± 2 α 1 , ± 3 α 1 } \{\pm\alpha_1,\pm2\alpha_1,\pm3\alpha_1\} { ± α 1 , ± 2 α 1 , ± 3 α 1 } .
An example in Ver 5 \operatorname{Ver}_5 Ver 5
We conclude by illustrating the constructions of this section with an example. The point is to see explicitly how the homogeneous components determine the Cartan matrix, how reflections change the ordered presentation without changing the Lie algebra, and how the resulting presentations assemble into a Weyl groupoid.
Assume that char k = 5 \operatorname{char} k = 5 char k = 5 and let C = Ver 5 \mathcal{C} = \operatorname{Ver}_5 C = Ver 5 . Set
U 1 = 1 , U 2 = L 2 , U = U 1 ⊕ U 2 , W = U ⊕ U ∗ . U_1 = 1,\qquad U_2 = L_2,\qquad U = U_1 \oplus U_2,\qquad W = U \oplus U^*. U 1 = 1 , U 2 = L 2 , U = U 1 ⊕ U 2 , W = U ⊕ U ∗ .
Equip W W W with the canonical non-degenerate skew form for which U U U and U ∗ U^* U ∗ are isotropic, and let
g = s p ( W ) . \mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sp}(W). g = sp ( W ) .
The contragredient presentation. The block-diagonal subalgebra
h = g l ( U 1 ) ⊕ g l ( U 2 ) = s l ( L 2 ) ⊕ k t 1 ⊕ k t 2 \mathfrak{h} = \mathfrak{gl}(U_1) \oplus\mathfrak{gl}(U_2) = \mathfrak{sl}(L_2) \oplus k t_1 \oplus k t_2 h = gl ( U 1 ) ⊕ gl ( U 2 ) = sl ( L 2 ) ⊕ k t 1 ⊕ k t 2
acts on W W W by x ↦ x ⊕ ( − x ∗ ) x \mapsto x \oplus(-x^*) x ↦ x ⊕ ( − x ∗ ) . Here t a t_a t a acts as the identity on U a U_a U a and as minus the identity on U a ∗ U_a^* U a ∗ . Let ε a \varepsilon_a ε a record the eigenvalue of t a t_a t a , and put
α 1 : = ε 1 − ε 2 , α 2 : = 2 ε 2 , Q : = Z α 1 ⊕ Z α 2 . \alpha_1 := \varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_2,\qquad\alpha_2 := 2\varepsilon_2,\qquad Q := \mathbb{Z}\alpha_1 \oplus\mathbb{Z}\alpha_2. α 1 := ε 1 − ε 2 , α 2 := 2 ε 2 , Q := Z α 1 ⊕ Z α 2 .
Let T = ( G m ) 2 T = (\mathbb{G}_m)^2 T = ( G m ) 2 act on W W W by z a z_a z a on U a U_a U a and by z a − 1 z_a^{-1} z a − 1 on U a ∗ U_a^* U a ∗ . This action preserves the skew form and hence induces an action of T T T on g \mathfrak{g} g by conjugation. The differential of the a a a -th factor of T T T is the element t a ∈ h t_a \in\mathfrak{h} t a ∈ h ; thus t a t_a t a acts as the identity on U a U_a U a and as minus the identity on U a ∗ U_a^* U a ∗ . Let ε 1 , ε 2 ∈ X ∗ ( T ) \varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2 \in X^*(T) ε 1 , ε 2 ∈ X ∗ ( T ) be the standard integral characters, and put
α 1 : = ε 1 − ε 2 , α 2 : = 2 ε 2 , Q : = Z α 1 ⊕ Z α 2 . \alpha_1 := \varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_2,\qquad\alpha_2 := 2\varepsilon_2,\qquad Q := \mathbb{Z}\alpha_1 \oplus\mathbb{Z}\alpha_2. α 1 := ε 1 − ε 2 , α 2 := 2 ε 2 , Q := Z α 1 ⊕ Z α 2 .
Then the T T T -weight decomposition defines a Q Q Q -grading g = ⨁ β ∈ Q g β \mathfrak{g} = \bigoplus_{\beta\in Q} \mathfrak{g}_\beta g = ⨁ β ∈ Q g β . For y ∈ g β y \in\mathfrak{g}_\beta y ∈ g β , differentiating the T T T -action gives [ t a , y ] = β ( t a ) y [t_a,y] = \beta(t_a)y [ t a , y ] = β ( t a ) y for a = 1 , 2 a=1,2 a = 1 , 2 , where the integer β ( t a ) \beta(t_a) β ( t a ) is viewed as an element of k k k .
Since T T T centralizes h \mathfrak{h} h , every homogeneous component g β \mathfrak{g}_\beta g β is an h \mathfrak{h} h -submodule. We take α 1 , α 2 \alpha_1,\alpha_2 α 1 , α 2 to be the simple positive degrees. The positive homogeneous components of g \mathfrak{g} g are
Table 1 (PDF p. 43).
Moreover, g 0 = h \mathfrak{g}_0 = \mathfrak{h} g 0 = h and g − β ≅ g β ∗ \mathfrak{g}_{-\beta} \cong\mathfrak{g}_\beta^* g − β ≅ g β ∗ . Thus
V = e 1 ⊕ e 2 : = g α 1 ⊕ g α 2 ≅ L 2 ⊕ L 3 V = e_1 \oplus e_2 := \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_1} \oplus\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_2} \cong L_2 \oplus L_3 V = e 1 ⊕ e 2 := g α 1 ⊕ g α 2 ≅ L 2 ⊕ L 3
is a sum of two simple h \mathfrak{h} h -modules with nontrivial action.
Let K K K be the restriction to h \mathfrak{h} h of the trace form on g l ( W ) \mathfrak{gl}(W) gl ( W ) . Its restriction to each block g l ( U a ) \mathfrak{gl}(U_a) gl ( U a ) is twice the canonical trace pairing, and is therefore non-degenerate. Moreover, h \mathfrak{h} h acts faithfully on W W W , so it has enough modules. Hence ( ρ , K ) (\rho,K) ( ρ , K ) , where ρ \rho ρ is the adjoint action of h \mathfrak{h} h on V V V , is a symmetrizable datum. Under the identification of V ∗ V^* V ∗ with g − α 1 ⊕ g − α 2 \mathfrak{g}_{-\alpha_1} \oplus\mathfrak{g}_{-\alpha_2} g − α 1 ⊕ g − α 2 induced by the trace form, the map d ρ , K d_{\rho,K} d ρ , K is the bracket.
The remaining positive root spaces are generated successively:
[ g α 1 , g α 2 ] = g α 1 + α 2 , [ g α 1 , g α 1 + α 2 ] = g 2 α 1 + α 2 . [\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_1},\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_2}] = \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2},\qquad[\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_1},\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2}] = \mathfrak{g}_{2\alpha_1+\alpha_2}. [ g α 1 , g α 2 ] = g α 1 + α 2 , [ g α 1 , g α 1 + α 2 ] = g 2 α 1 + α 2 .
Indeed, these brackets are the usual contraction L 2 ∗ ⊗ S 2 L 2 → L 2 L_2^* \otimes S^2L_2 \to L_2 L 2 ∗ ⊗ S 2 L 2 → L 2 and evaluation L 2 ∗ ⊗ L 2 → 1 L_2^* \otimes L_2 \to1 L 2 ∗ ⊗ L 2 → 1 , and both are nonzero. The negative components are generated dually. The trace form restricts to a non-degenerate invariant form on g \mathfrak{g} g : indeed, g \mathfrak{g} g is the 1 1 1 -eigenspace of the trace-form-preserving involution x ↦ − x † x \mapsto-x^{\dagger} x ↦ − x † , where † \dagger † denotes the adjoint with respect to the skew form, and the two eigenspaces are orthogonal. Therefore Proposition 7.2 gives
g ≅ g ( ρ , d ρ , K ) . \mathfrak{g} \cong\mathfrak{g}(\rho,d_{\rho,K}). g ≅ g ( ρ , d ρ , K ) .
Notice that N 12 = 2 N_{12}=2 N 12 = 2 and N 21 = 1 N_{21}=1 N 21 = 1 , so the Cartan matrix is C ∨ = ( 2 − 2 − 1 2 ) C^{\vee}=\begin{pmatrix} 2 & -2 \\ -1 & 2 \end{pmatrix} C ∨ = ( 2 − 1 − 2 2 ) , of type C 2 C_2 C 2 .
Reflections. Let x 0 = [ ( e 1 , e 2 ) ] x_0=[(\mathbf{e}_1,\mathbf{e}_2)] x 0 = [( e 1 , e 2 )] be the class of the presentation above. The reflection at the first vertex replaces e 1 \mathbf{e}_1 e 1 by its dual and e 2 \mathbf{e}_2 e 2 by the top of its α 1 \alpha_1 α 1 -string:
R 1 ( x 0 ) = [ ( f 1 , ( ad e 1 ) 2 ( e 2 ) ) ] = [ ( g − α 1 , g 2 α 1 + α 2 ) ] . R_1(x_0)=\left[(\mathbf{f}_1,(\operatorname{ad}\mathbf{e}_1)^2(\mathbf{e}_2))\right]=\left[(\mathfrak{g}_{-\alpha_1},\mathfrak{g}_{2\alpha_1+\alpha_2})\right]. R 1 ( x 0 ) = [ ( f 1 , ( ad e 1 ) 2 ( e 2 )) ] = [ ( g − α 1 , g 2 α 1 + α 2 ) ] .
In terms of the ordered pair ( U 1 , U 2 ) (U_1,U_2) ( U 1 , U 2 ) , this reflection interchanges the two entries. Similarly,
R 2 ( x 0 ) = [ ( [ e 2 , e 1 ] , f 2 ) ] = [ ( g α 1 + α 2 , g − α 2 ) ] , R_2(x_0)=\left[([\mathbf{e}_2,\mathbf{e}_1],\mathbf{f}_2)\right]=\left[(\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2},\mathfrak{g}_{-\alpha_2})\right], R 2 ( x 0 ) = [ ([ e 2 , e 1 ] , f 2 ) ] = [ ( g α 1 + α 2 , g − α 2 ) ] ,
which replaces U 2 U_2 U 2 by U 2 ∗ U_2^* U 2 ∗ .
More generally, let
W ( C 2 ) ≅ ( Z / 2 Z ) 2 ⋊ S 2 W(C_2)\cong(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^2\rtimes S_2 W ( C 2 ) ≅ ( Z /2 Z ) 2 ⋊ S 2
be the Weyl group of type C 2 C_2 C 2 . It acts on ε 1 , ε 2 \varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2 ε 1 , ε 2 by signed permutations: its elements may permute the two weights and independently change their signs. Under the correspondence with ordered pairs, permutations interchange the objects U 1 , U 2 U_1,U_2 U 1 , U 2 , while changing the sign of ε a \varepsilon_a ε a replaces U a U_a U a by U a ∗ U_a^* U a ∗ . If w ( ε i ) = η i ε π ( i ) w(\varepsilon_i)=\eta_i\varepsilon_{\pi(i)} w ( ε i ) = η i ε π ( i ) , set
U i ′ = U π ( i ) η i , U a + = U a , U a − = U a ∗ , U_i'=U_{\pi(i)}^{\eta_i},\qquad U_a^+=U_a,\qquad U_a^-=U_a^*, U i ′ = U π ( i ) η i , U a + = U a , U a − = U a ∗ ,
and define
x w = [ ( U 1 ′ ⊗ U 2 ′ ∗ , S 2 U 2 ′ ) ] = [ ( g w ( α 1 ) , g w ( α 2 ) ) ] . x_w=\left[(U_1'\otimes U_2^{\prime*},S^2U_2')\right]=\left[(\mathfrak{g}_{w(\alpha_1)},\mathfrak{g}_{w(\alpha_2)})\right]. x w = [ ( U 1 ′ ⊗ U 2 ′ ∗ , S 2 U 2 ′ ) ] = [ ( g w ( α 1 ) , g w ( α 2 ) ) ] .
The preceding computations give
R i ( x w ) = x w s i , R_i(x_w)=x_{ws_i}, R i ( x w ) = x w s i ,
where s 1 s_1 s 1 interchanges ε 1 \varepsilon_1 ε 1 and ε 2 \varepsilon_2 ε 2 , while s 2 s_2 s 2 changes the sign of ε 2 \varepsilon_2 ε 2 . The elements t 1 , t 2 t_1,t_2 t 1 , t 2 distinguish the eight presentations x w x_w x w : their eigenvalues on the root spaces lie in { 0 , ± 1 , ± 2 } \{0,\pm1,\pm2\} { 0 , ± 1 , ± 2 } , which are distinct in characteristic 5. Thus
W ( C 2 ) ⟶ X ( V ) , w ⟼ x w , W(C_2)\longrightarrow\mathcal{X}(V),\qquad w\longmapsto x_w, W ( C 2 ) ⟶ X ( V ) , w ⟼ x w ,
is a bijection.
Although the eight presentations are distinct as h \mathfrak h h -modules, they have only two shapes as objects of C \mathcal C C :
Table 1 (PDF p. 44).
Here the signs retain the h \mathfrak h h -module structure even though 1 ∗ ≅ 1 1^*\cong1 1 ∗ ≅ 1 and L 2 ∗ ≅ L 2 L_2^*\cong L_2 L 2 ∗ ≅ L 2 as objects of C \mathcal C C .
The reflection R 1 R_1 R 1 exchanges the two shapes, whereas R 2 R_2 R 2 preserves each shape. The exchange graph is the following octagon: The root system and Weyl groupoid. For every w ∈ W ( C 2 ) w \in W(C_2) w ∈ W ( C 2 ) , Theorem 7.17 identifies g x w \mathfrak{g}^{x_w} g x w with the same Lie algebra g \mathfrak{g} g , but with the grading changed by w w w :
Figure 1.
( g x w ) β ≅ g w ( β ) . \left(\mathfrak{g}^{x_w}\right)_\beta\cong\mathfrak{g}_{w(\beta)}. ( g x w ) β ≅ g w ( β ) .
Therefore every object has the same reduced root system
Δ x w = Δ x w , r e = { ± α 1 , ± α 2 , ± ( α 1 + α 2 ) , ± ( 2 α 1 + α 2 ) } . \Delta^{x_w}=\Delta^{x_w,\mathrm{re}}=\{\pm\alpha_1,\pm\alpha_2,\pm(\alpha_1+\alpha_2),\pm(2\alpha_1+\alpha_2)\}. Δ x w = Δ x w , re = { ± α 1 , ± α 2 , ± ( α 1 + α 2 ) , ± ( 2 α 1 + α 2 )} .
In particular, m 12 x w = 4 m_{12}^{x_w}=4 m 12 x w = 4 and ( R 1 R 2 ) 4 ( x w ) = x w (R_1R_2)^4(x_w)=x_w ( R 1 R 2 ) 4 ( x w ) = x w , as predicted by Theorem 7.23 . The Weyl groupoid has eight objects, its exchange graph is the octagon above, and all isotropy groups are trivial. Its reflections act on Q Q Q as the usual generators of the dihedral group W ( C 2 ) W(C_2) W ( C 2 ) of order 8.
Simplicity. We finish by applying the criterion of Theorem 7.12 . Let h i = [ e i , f i ] = im d i h_i=[e_i,f_i]=\operatorname{im}d_i h i = [ e i , f i ] = im d i . From the defining property of d ρ , K d_{\rho,K} d ρ , K , h i = ( Ann h e i ) ⊥ h_i=(\operatorname{Ann}_{\mathfrak{h}}e_i)^\perp h i = ( Ann h e i ) ⊥ . In the present example,
Ann h e 1 = k ( t 1 + t 2 ) , Ann h e 2 = g l ( U 1 ) . \operatorname{Ann}_{\mathfrak{h}}e_1=k(t_1+t_2),\qquad\operatorname{Ann}_{\mathfrak{h}}e_2=\mathfrak{gl}(U_1). Ann h e 1 = k ( t 1 + t 2 ) , Ann h e 2 = gl ( U 1 ) .
Indeed, the two scalar blocks act on e 1 = U 1 ⊗ U 2 ∗ e_1=U_1\otimes U_2^* e 1 = U 1 ⊗ U 2 ∗ through their difference, while g l ( U 2 ) \mathfrak{gl}(U_2) gl ( U 2 ) acts faithfully on e 2 = S 2 L 2 ≅ L 3 e_2=S^2L_2\cong L_3 e 2 = S 2 L 2 ≅ L 3 . It follows that
h 1 + h 2 = h , Ann V = Ann h e 1 ∩ Ann h e 2 = 0. h_1+h_2=\mathfrak{h},\qquad\operatorname{Ann}V=\operatorname{Ann}_{\mathfrak{h}}e_1\cap\operatorname{Ann}_{\mathfrak{h}}e_2=0. h 1 + h 2 = h , Ann V = Ann h e 1 ∩ Ann h e 2 = 0.
Thus g ′ = g \mathfrak{g}'=\mathfrak{g} g ′ = g , and Lemma 7.9 gives c ( g ) = 0 c(\mathfrak{g})=0 c ( g ) = 0 . Moreover, h 2 h_2 h 2 acts nontrivially on e 1 e_1 e 1 , while h 1 h_1 h 1 acts nontrivially on e 2 e_2 e 2 , so the datum is indecomposable. Note that g 0 ′ = h \mathfrak{g}_0'=\mathfrak{h} g 0 ′ = h is generated by h 1 h_1 h 1 and h 2 h_2 h 2 , and the generating modules e 1 ≅ L 2 e_1\cong L_2 e 1 ≅ L 2 and e 2 ≅ L 3 e_2\cong L_3 e 2 ≅ L 3 are simple as objects of Ver 5 \operatorname{Ver}_5 Ver 5 , hence also as g 0 ′ \mathfrak{g}_0' g 0 ′ -modules. By Theorem 7.12 , since the connected quiver has arrows in both directions and Ann V = 0 \operatorname{Ann}V=0 Ann V = 0 , then g \mathfrak{g} g is simple.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the American Institute of Mathematics through its SQuaREs program. I. A. was partially supported by CONICET and Secyt (UNC). The work of P. E. was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS-2502467. A.C. was partially supported by Simons Collaboration Grant No. 999367. J.P. was partially supported by US NSF Grant DMS2146392 and by Simons Foundation Award SFI-MPS-GCS-00008528-08 as part of the Simons Collaboration on Global Categorical Symmetries.
The authors used OpenAI’s ChatGPT 5.6 Pro. It assisted with some of the theoretical development. It was also used to help develop illustrative examples, check computations and the logical consistency of arguments, and suggest possible revisions. All suggestions were critically evaluated by the authors, and all arguments, computations, and references in the final manuscript were independently verified. The authors take full responsibility for the content of the paper.
References
Angiono: FaMAF-CIEM (CONICET), Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Medina Allende s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, 5000 Córdoba, Argentina Email address: ivan.angiono@unc.edu.ar
Czenky: Department of Mathematics, University of Southern California, 3620 S. Vermont Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA Email address: czenky@usc.edu
Etingof: Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Email address: etingof@math.mit.edu
Ostrik: Department of Mathematics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA Email address: vostrik@uoregon.edu
Plavnik: Department of Mathematics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA, & Department of Mathematics and Data Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium Email address: jplavnik@iu.edu
Sanmarco: Iliad Email address: sanmarcoguille@gmail.com