3
$\begingroup$

Motivation: Consider $\mathfrak{sl}_2$. Given an integral weight $\lambda\in\mathbf Z$, then the only indecomposable modules contained in $\mathcal O_\lambda$ are the Verma modules and the simple modules with highest weight linked to $\lambda$ as well es their projective covers and injective hulls, cf. for example prop. 3.12 in Humphreys’ category 𝓞.

Question: Do similar statements hold more generally? At least for $\mathfrak{sl}_3$ or $\mathfrak{sl}_n$? I doubt, but cannot find any clear statements.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Does the paper below answer your question? $\endgroup$ – Hanno Apr 18 '17 at 5:54
1
$\begingroup$

The representation types of the blocks of ${\mathscr O}$ have been completely determined here.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure how to correctly understand the paper. According to table 2, $\mathcal O_\lambda$ for 𝔰𝔩₃ has finite representation type (does this mean there are finitely many indecomposable modules?) iff 𝛷₀ = A₁, which is the case if 𝜆 lies on a reflection plane. For regular 𝜆, no such list exists. Is this the correct meaning of that paper? $\endgroup$ – Bubaya Apr 19 '17 at 17:55

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.