7
$\begingroup$

I was studying Chevalley-Serre relations, which can be summed up to these

$$\tag{S1}\left[h_{i},\,h_{j}\right]=0$$

$$\tag{S2}\left[e_{i},\,f_{i}\right]=h_{i}  \quad  \left[e_{i},\,f_{j}\right]=0 \quad\text{for } i\neq j$$

$$\tag{S3} \left[h_{i},\,e_{j}\right]=A_{ij}e_{j} \quad \left[h_{i},\,f_{j}\right]=-A_{ij}f_{j}$$

$$\tag{S4} \text{ad}\left(e_{i}\right)^{1-A_{ij}}\left(e_{j}\right)=0 \quad\;\; \text{ad}\left(f_{i}\right)^{1-A_{ij}}\left(f_{j}\right)=0 \quad\text{for } i\neq j$$

where $A_{ij}$ are the coefficients of the Cartan matrix. Now it seems to me that relations (S1),(S2), and (S3) are really quite natural, but I don't fully understand relations in (S4). Does anybody has an insight on what does those relations mean?

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

The relations prescribe how the Lie algebra is supposed to decompose when considered as a module over the copy ${\mathfrak s}{\mathfrak l}_2(i)$ of ${\mathfrak s}{\mathfrak l}_2({\mathbb k})$ spanned by $\{e_i,f_i,h_i\}$. Namely, if you know that $\text{ad}(e_i)^{a+1}(e_j)=0$ but $\text{ad}(e_i)^{a}(e_j)\neq 0$, then the ${\mathfrak s}{\mathfrak l}_2(i)$-submodule of ${\mathfrak g}$ spanned by $e_j$ has dimension $a+1$ (note that $\text{ad}(f_i)(e_j)=0$, so $e_j$ is a lowest weight vector for the generated ${\mathfrak s}{\mathfrak l}_2(i)$ submodule).

If you look at the A2 root system of ${\mathfrak s}{\mathfrak l}_3({\mathbb C})$ for example, you see that if $\{\alpha,\beta\}$ is a basis of the root system, then the root string $\alpha, \alpha + \beta, ...$ has only length $2$, in accordance with the fact that the Cartan matrix is $\tiny\begin{pmatrix} 2 & -1 \\ -1 & 2\end{pmatrix}$. If, in contrast, you look at the G2 root system, you'll see one chain of length $4$ and one of length $2$, in accordance with the Cartan matrix $\tiny\begin{pmatrix} 2 & -3 \\ -1 & 2\end{pmatrix}$. The last Serre-Chevallley relation reflects these chain lengths (even the $2$'s on the diagonal make sense, because the ${\mathfrak s}{\mathfrak l}_2(i)$ submodule spanned by $e_i$ is just ${\mathfrak s}{\mathfrak l}_2(i)$ itself, so has dimension $3$; the sign is different because $e_i$ is a highest weight vector, though).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Very interesting answer. What do you mean exactly fo ${\mathfrak s}{\mathfrak l}_2(i)$ $\endgroup$ – Dac0 Nov 7 '17 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ I mean the ${\mathbb C}$-span of $e_i,h_i,f_i$ - it's a copy of ordinary ${\mathfrak s}{\mathfrak l}_2$, but should be labeled in some way to distinguish the various copies coming from the simple roots. $\endgroup$ – Hanno Nov 7 '17 at 19:40
4
$\begingroup$

It might help if we label the generators by the corresponding roots instead (since this is where they come from). When we do this, we get that if $[e_{\alpha_i},e_{\alpha_j}]$ is in the root space corresponding to $\alpha_i + \alpha_j$, so since there are only finitely many roots, at some point, if we keep taking brackets with the same $e_{\alpha_i}$, we need to get $0$.

That was the reason coming from actually looking at the Lie algebra we know we should get. But there is another way to look at this: What would happen if we left these out?

As it happens, if we leave out the relation, we no longer get a finite dimensional Lie algebra, so what the relation really does is make sure the Lie algebra stays small.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ the last relations as finiteness relations was indeed the only thing I came up with. Anyway I upvoted the answer since it had to be said. $\endgroup$ – Dac0 Nov 7 '17 at 19:37

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.