6
$\begingroup$

A representation of a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ on a vector space $V$ is a homomorphism of Lie algebras $\mathfrak{g} \to \mathfrak{gl}(V)$. We define morphisms between representations as intertwining linear maps as usual. Then we have a category $\mathsf{Rep}(\mathfrak{g})$ of representations of $\mathfrak{g}$.

I am wondering what are the essential properties of this category:

-is it semi-abelian or even abelian?

-Can we describe it as a functor category (as is the case for group representations)?

-Do any of the aforementioned properties depend in some way on either the Lie algebras or the vector spaces being finite-dimensional? Do they depend on the choice of field (or commutative ring)?

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

The category of representations of $\mathfrak{g}$ is not just abelian but is isomorphic to the category of modules over a certain (associative) $k$-algebra (where $k$ is the base field). Indeed, define $U(\mathfrak{g})$ to be the free associative $k$-algebra on the underlying $k$-vector space $\mathfrak{g}$, modulo relations that say that for each $x,y\in \mathfrak{g}$, $xy-yx=[x,y]$ (here the left-hand side is computed using the multiplication of our associative algebra, and the right-hand side is the bracket in $\mathfrak{g}$). That is, we "freely" construct an associative algebra from $\mathfrak{g}$ in which the bracket becomes the commutator operation on elements of $\mathfrak{g}$. Then it is straightforward to verify that a $U(\mathfrak{g})$-module is the same thing as a $\mathfrak{g}$-representation, giving an isomorphism of categories. The algebra $U(\mathfrak{g})$ is known as the universal enveloping algebra of $\mathfrak{g}$.

For any ring $R$, you can form an $Ab$-enriched category $BR$ with one object whose endomorphisms are $R$ (with addition in $R$ being the $Ab$-enrichment and multiplication in $R$ being composition of maps). An $R$-module is then the same thing as a functor $BR\to Ab$ which preserves the $Ab$-enrichment. In particular, taking $R=U(\mathfrak{g})$, this gives a description of the representation category of $\mathfrak{g}$ as a certain functor category.

None of this depends on finite-dimensionality, or even on $k$ being a field ($k$ could be any commutative ring).

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ (You do need some flatness assumption, no?) $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Mar 7 '16 at 2:58
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think so? Why would you need a flatness assumption? $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Mar 7 '16 at 3:01
  • $\begingroup$ One needs the map from $g$ to $Ug$ to be injective, and that depends on PBW which is usually done only for projective algebras. I've always imagined it breaks done in the general case. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Mar 7 '16 at 3:04
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The map from $\mathfrak{g}$ to $U(\mathfrak{g})$ doesn't need to be injective to have the universal property and thus give an equivalence between representations of $\mathfrak{g}$ and $U(\mathfrak{g})$-modules. The kernel of $\mathfrak{g}\to U(\mathfrak{g})$ will act trivially on any representation. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Mar 7 '16 at 3:05

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.