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 find it intuitive enough that the radical of $\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F$ is the scalar matrices, but I have trouble finding an easy, but complete proof:

Proof. Let $\mathfrak s$ denote the scalar matrices. Clearly $\mathfrak s\subset\mathrm{rad}(\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F)$. Suppose that $\mathrm{rad}(\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F)$ is generated by more than one element, so that $X\in\mathrm{rad}(\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F)$, but $X\notin\mathfrak s$. We can change basis such that $\mathrm{rad}(\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F)$ is upper-triangular. (The change of basis leaves the scalar matrices invariant.) Then $X$ is upper-triangular.

I want to conclude that there exists a $Y\in\mathfrak{gl}_n\mathbb F$ s.t. $[X,Y]$ is not upper-triangular. How can I see that $Y$ always exists, except by waving hands?

share|improve this question
    
Try looking at proofs of the fact that $\mathfrak{sl}_n$ is simple. –  Alistair Savage May 5 '13 at 20:53

1 Answer 1

If $I$ is a solvable ideal of $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb{F})$ then $I\cap \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbb{F})$ is a solvable ideal of $\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbb{F})$ which is semisimple (in fact simple) as long as the characteristic of $\mathbb{F}$ does not divide $n$, so the radical of $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb{F})$ intersects trivially with $\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbb{F})$, and this forces it to have dimension $1$.

On the other hand, if we take the example $\mathfrak{gl}_2(\mathbb{F}_2)$ then one can check that this is actually solvable, so in this case the radical does not just consist of the scalar matrices (the derived subalgebra is contained in $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\mathbb{F}_2)$ which contains the scalar matrices. The quotient of $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\mathbb{F}_2)$ by the scalar matrices has dimension $2$ and is thus solvable).

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for your answer. This is exactly the reasoning I had in mind. My professor, however, argued that I should not assume the fact that $\mathfrak{sl}_n$ is (semi)simple. In particular, completing the proof in my question would give a proof that $\mathfrak{sl}_n$ is semisimple. The argument you outline does it "the wrong way around"... –  Earthliŋ May 21 '13 at 19:35
1  
That $\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbb{F})$ is simple when $n$ is not divisible by the characteristic of $\mathbb{F}$ (this condition is important!) can be done directly with some work (and I guess that work will also usually essentially include a proof that the radical of the general linear Lie algebra consists of the scalar matrices). Alternatively, one could use a sledgehammer and provide a basis that satisfies the Serre relations for type $A_n$ which then guarantees that it is simple at least in characteristic $0$. –  Tobias Kildetoft May 21 '13 at 19:41

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.