Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am gathering material for an exposition on Lie theory and I am after proofs that a Lie group with finite centre is compact if and only if its Killing form is negative definite.

I know of one, sketched as follows: for the "if" direction, the group's adjoint representation image must be a subgroup of $O\left(\mathbf{g},\,-B\right)$ (where $\mathbf{g}$ is the group's Lie algebra and $B$ the Killing form), since the Killing form is Ad-invariant. Thus the original group must be a finite cover (owing to the finite centre) of this compact beast. In the "only if" direction, one uses the compactness to build an Ad-invariant average over the group $G$ of an arbitrary pair of elements $x$ and $y$ the Lie algebra $B\left(x,y\right)=\int_{\gamma\in G} \left<{\rm Ad}_\gamma x, {\rm Ad}_\gamma y\right> d\mu(G)$, with $\mu$ the Haar measure. Some simple gymnastics on this integral then shows it is negative definite.

I would like a citation for the above proof if you know one.

Does any one know of other proofs different from this one? With citations to a primary source, if you can, please.

Many thanks in advance.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

If $G$ is a compact Lie group with discrete centre then its Lie algebra $\mathcal{G}$ has a trivial centre $Z(\mathcal{G})=\{0\}$. Since $G$ is compact, it admits a bi-invariant metric (as you mention above) and $\mathrm{ad}_x$ is antisymmetric for all $x\in\mathcal{G}$. Moreover, $\mathrm{ad}_x$ is diagonalizable and has all his eigenvalues of the forme $i\lambda$, $(\lambda>0)$ then its Killing form is negative definite: $$K(x,x)=\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{ad}_x\mathrm{ad}_x)=-\sum_{k=1}^n\lambda_k^2<0$$ In the other direction, one may use the Myers theorem. But first, we must prove that the Ricci curvature of $\mathcal{G}$ is strictly positive, for some bi-invariant scalar product on $\mathcal{G}$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.