Theorem 3.3. of Humphreys goes something like this: given a subalgebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of $\mathfrak{gl}(V)$ where $V$ is nonzero, finite-dimensional and $\mathfrak g$ consists of nilpotent endomorphisms, then there is a nonzero vector $v \in V$ such that ${\frak g}.v = 0$. Assuming I understand the first part of the proof I understand the rest, however I am not confident that is the case. I paraphrase the first part of the proof:

By induction on $\dim \frak g.$Suppose $\frak h \subset \frak g$ a proper subalgebra. $\frak h$ acts via ad as a Lie algebra of nilpotent linear transformations on the vector space $\frak g$, hence on $\frak g / \frak h$. As the dimension of $\frak h$ is strictly smaller than that of $\frak g$, the induction hypothesis ensures a nonzero $x + \frak h$ killed by the image of $\frak h$ in ${\frak gl}(\frak g /\frak h)$.

Breaking this down, I want to confirm that this is the situation: we have a composite $$\frak h \to {\frak gl}(\frak g) \to {\frak gl}(\frak g / \frak h)$$ the first map being $y \mapsto \text{ad}_y(-)$, the latter being the canonical projection. For dimensional reasons the theorem is in this particular situation assumed true (by the inductive hypothesis), and nilpotency of $\text{ad}_y(-)$ follows from nilpotency of $y$, so we are in the situation of the theorem. Here I am starting to lose confidence; where is the subspace of $\frak gl(\frak g / \frak h)$? Why is the theorem valid for this composite?


The induction hypothesis is applied for the vector space $V=\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}$, which is of lower dimension, since $\mathfrak{h}$ is a proper subalgebra. So you find a vector $x+\mathfrak{h}\neq \mathfrak{h}$ in $V$ killed by the image of $\mathfrak{h}$ in $\mathfrak{gl}(V)$. It follows that $\mathfrak{h}$ is properly contained in its normalizer $N_{\mathfrak{g}}(\mathfrak{h})$, and the proof can go on. I do not see why you need composite maps.

  • $\begingroup$ To be clear, would you be so kind as to explicitly write the map you are talking about then saying "... you find a vector x+h≠h in V killed by the image of h in gl(V)"? I am unable to make this a perfect match for the statement of the theorem. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Thompson Jun 30 '15 at 9:33
  • $\begingroup$ The induction hypothesis explicitly says: there exists $\overline{x}\neq \overline{0}$ in $V=\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}$ with $(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}). \overline{x}=\overline{0}$. Now remember how the residue classes of $\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}$ look like. $\endgroup$ – Dietrich Burde Jun 30 '15 at 9:40
  • $\begingroup$ Assuming here $({\frak g / \frak h})\cdot \bar{x} = 0$ means $\text{ad}_{\frak g / h}(\bar{x}) = 0$, otherwise the statement does not make sense. So, $V = \frak g / h$, the subalgebra consisting of nilpotent endomorphisms is $\text{ad}_{\frak g / h}$. Then the induction hypothesis guarantees $x + \frak h$ such that $\text{ad}_{\frak g / h}(x + {\frak h}) = 0$, or said differently, $[{\frak g / h}, x + {\frak h}] = 0$ in the quotient $\frak g / h$, hence necessarily in $\frak h$. As $x + \frak h$ is nonzero, this implies that the bracket $[y, x] \in \frak h$, where $x \not\in \frak h$. Correct? $\endgroup$ – Andrew Thompson Jun 30 '15 at 9:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry for being silly about this. Will leave comments for future reference. If the reader should have a brain similar to mine; write $\bar{ad}$ for the composition $\pi \circ \text{ad} \colon \frak h \to \frak gl(g / h)$. Then $\bar{ad}_{\frak h}$ is a subalgebra of $\frak gl(g / h)$ consisting of nilpotent endomorphisms, and the induction hypothesis gives a nonzero $x + \frak h$ such that $\bar{ad}_{\frak h}(x + {\frak h}) = 0$, so $[{\frak h}, x] \in \frak h$ and as Dietrich pointed out, the proof may go on. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Thompson Jun 30 '15 at 10:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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