I am trying to prove that $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\Bbb C)$ is simple.

Since this takes the $[x,y]=xy-yx$ matrix commutator bracket, this is clearly non-abelian. So to prove it is simple, we need only show that it has no trivial ideals.

Now for it to have a non trivial ideal, this ideal would need to be spanned by one or two of the basis elements of $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$, i.e. we have the basis of $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$:

$e=\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\0&0\end{bmatrix},\quad h=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix},\quad f=\begin{bmatrix}0&0\\1&0\end{bmatrix}$

and this non-trivial ideal must have basis:

1) $\{e,h\}$ 2) $\{e,f\}$ 3) $\{h,f\}$ 4) $\{e\}$ 5) $\{h\}$ 6) $\{f\}$

But we know from the commutation relations that: $[h,e]=2e,\quad[h,f]=-2f,\quad[e,f]=h$

and this does indeed eliminate all of these basis choices, since we don't have $[\mathfrak{i},\mathfrak{sl}(2,\Bbb C)]\subseteq \mathfrak{i}$ in any case.

Am I missing anything, or making any incorrect assumptions?

Also I would be interested to know if this is the only simple complex Lie algebra of dimension $3$ up to isomorphism.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It is not true that those are the only possibilities for ideals. Any linear combination of $e, h, f$ could potentially also generate an ideal. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 26 '15 at 0:04
  • $\begingroup$ Good point @QiaochuYuan, are there any other cases if I also consider the linear combinations? Also is there a much smarter way to handle this? $\endgroup$ – So many hats Aug 26 '15 at 0:40

It's not very hard to just do this explicitly, along the lines you started but keeping my comment in mind. Rather than $h, e, f$ I'll write $H, X, Y$. Suppose $I$ is a nonempty ideal. Then it contains some nonzero element $aH + bX + cY$. Applying $[H, -]$ to this element gives

$$b [H, X] + c [H, Y] = 2b X - 2c Y$$

from which we conclude that either $a = 0$ or $I$ contains $H$. If $I$ contains $H$, then it contains $[H, X] = 2X$ and $[H, Y] = 2Y$, and hence must be all of $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sl}_2(\mathbb{C})$.

Otherwise, $a = 0$. Now, applying $[X, -]$ to $bX - cY$ gives

$$-c [X, Y] = -c H$$

from which we conclude that either $c = 0$ or $I$ contains $H$. If $I$ contains $H$ then as above we are done; otherwise, $I$ contains $bX$, so it contains $[X, Y] = H$, and again we're done.

A slicker way to organize this argument is as follows. Any ideal of $\mathfrak{g}$ must in particular be invariant under the adjoint action of $H$. The adjoint action of $H$ is diagonalizable with eigenvectors $H, X, Y$, so in fact any ideal of $\mathfrak{g}$ must be a direct sum of the corresponding eigenspaces; that is, it actually turns out to be true that any ideal must have as a basis some subset of $\{ H, X, Y \}$.

  • $\begingroup$ $b [H, X] + c [H, Y]$ is equal to $2b X - 2c Y$, not $2b X + 2c Y$. But you can apply $[H, -]$ twice, and you will get $4b X + 4c Y$. $\endgroup$ – Litho Aug 26 '15 at 5:44
  • $\begingroup$ Right, right. It doesn't really affect the structure of the argument. Note that the only fact used about $\mathbb{C}$ in this proof is that $2$ is invertible: in fact this proof shows that $\mathfrak{sl}_2(F)$ is simple for any field $F$ of characteristic not $2$. In characteristic $2$, though, $\mathfrak{sl}_2(F)$ is solvable. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 26 '15 at 6:05
  • $\begingroup$ @QiaochuYuan I'm trying to show this in general and the step "[...] any ideal must be a direct sum of corresponding eigenspaces;" has eluded me for hours. Could you elaborate about it? $\endgroup$ – hjhjhj57 Sep 21 '15 at 3:40
  • $\begingroup$ @hjhjhj: the general fact is that if $T : V \to V$ is a diagonalizable linear operator (so $V$ has a basis of eigenvectors of $T$), then any $T$-invariant subspace also has a basis of eigenvectors of $T$. This is just saying that $T$ remains diagonalizable when restricted to a $T$-invariant subspace. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Sep 21 '15 at 6:58
  • $\begingroup$ @QiaochuYuan Great. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – hjhjhj57 Sep 21 '15 at 16:15

Concerning the last question, whether $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$ is the only complex simple Lie algebra of dimension $3$, the answer is yes. There is just one connected Dynkin diagram for rank one. Over the real numbers, there are already $2$ different simple Lie algebras of dimension $3$, see here. And over $\mathbb{Q}$ the situation is much more complicated.


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.