Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $L\ne \{0\}$ be a non-abelian simple Lie algebra, then the only ideals are $L$ and $\{0\}$. We know that $L'$ is the smallest ideal of $L$ such that $L/L'$ is abelian. If $L'=\{0\}$, then $L/L'=L$, but $L$ is non-abelian. So $L'=L$ and hence $L^{(k)}=L\ne \{0\}$ for all $k$, i.e. $L$ is not solvable. So simplicity implies non-solvability.

My question is, can we extend this idea to semi-simple Lie algebras? In other words, is it true that semi-simplicity implies non-solvability?

My definition for semi-simple: $L$ has no non-zero solvable ideals.

share|cite|improve this question
It should probably be Lie algebras, I edited accordingly. – Julian Kuelshammer May 14 '13 at 17:44
The definition of semisimplicity I know asks for a Lie algebra with no solvable ideals (besides $0$ of course), that includes the Lie algebra itself... You better tell us your definition of semisimplicity. – Olivier Bégassat May 14 '13 at 17:49
This is a weird question! :-) – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez May 14 '13 at 17:53
My definition for semi-simple: $L$ has non non-zero solvable ideals. – Tom May 14 '13 at 18:04
@Thomas Aha, but with this definition the statement has a much simpler proof (as Olivier Bégassat already said), namely $L$ is an ideal of $L$ and it is non-zero by assumption. Thus it is non-solvable as $L$ is semi-simple. – Julian Kuelshammer May 14 '13 at 18:21
up vote 2 down vote accepted

As noted in the comments, the answer I give may not coincide with the definitions/assumptions of the book/lecture course you are following.

Suppose $L$ is a non-abelian semi-simple Lie algebra. Then by definition of semi-simplicity (or it is a theorem depending on the approach you take) $L=\bigoplus_{i=1}^n L_i$ for some simple Lie algebras. And because $L$ is non-abelian at least one of the $L_i$ has to be non-abelian.

Because the argument is not really different for bigger $n$, let me for simplicity of notation assume that $L=L_1\oplus L_2$ with $L_1$ non-abelian (and we don't know whether $L_2$ is abelian or not). This means that $L=L_1\oplus L_2$ as vector spaces and additionally $[l_1,l_2]=[l_2,l_1]=0$ for all $l_1\in L_1$ and $l_2\in L_2$.

Now, by definition $L'=[L,L]=[L_1\oplus L_2,L_1\oplus L_2]=[L_1,L_1]+[L_1,L_2]+[L_2,L_1]+[L_2,L_2]$. The last equality follows as the Lie bracket is bilinear. But since we have a direct sum decomposition of Lie algebras, we have $[L_1,L_2]=[L_2,L_1]=0$. Hence $L'=L_1'\oplus L_2'$. Now since $L_1'$ is non-abelian simple, we have that $L_1'=L_1$. Thus $L^{(k)}=L_1\oplus L_2^{(k)}$. In particular, $L$ is not solvable.

share|cite|improve this answer
This looks good. I just don't quite understand the part about $[L_1,L_2]=[L_2,L_1]=0$ and $L'=L_1'\oplus L_2'$. – Tom May 14 '13 at 18:11
I mean, does $L'=L_1'\oplus L_2'$ not follow from the definition itself? If $(l_1,l_2),(l_1',l_2')\in L_1\oplus L_2$ then $[(l_1,l_2),(l_1',l_2')]=([l_1,l_1'],[l_2,l_2'])$. – Tom May 14 '13 at 18:16
Yes, I was overly complicated. I included another approach. Yours also works (and is more easy). – Julian Kuelshammer May 14 '13 at 18:18

Your Answer


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.