0
$\begingroup$

I'm studying Humphrey's book: Lie Algebras and R. Theory on my own, and I'm trying to understand a claim and a definition (both stated imprecisely in page 26) about $L$-modules given in the book. I've not taken any course on groups yet, so modules are very new to me. I'll quote what is written and my interpretation of it. I hope someone can clarify them.

"Of course, the terminology "irreducible" and "completely reducible" applies equally well to representations of $L$."

This is said right after defined what is an irreducible and complety reducible $L$-module. Trying to follow these definitions, given a representation $\phi: L \rightarrow \mathfrak{gl}(V)$ I would say that a irreducible representation is a vector space $V$ which has exactly two $\phi(L)$-submodules: $0$ and itself; and completly reducible if $V$ is a direct sum of irreducible $\phi(L)$-submodules.

"Given a representation $\phi:L \rightarrow \mathfrak{gl}(V),$ the associative algebra (with $1$) generated by $\phi(L)$ in End $V$ leaves invariant precisely the same subspaces as $L$."

Since the author mentioned invariant subspaces leaved by a Lie Algebra $L$, I suppose he is talking about $L$-submodules. So I guess the claim is that the algebra generated by $\phi(L)$ has the same $\phi(L)$-submodules as $L$. I've tried to prove this result, but I could not get far: let $W$ be a $L$-submodule. Then, given $x\in L,w\in W$, we have $x\cdot w\in W.$ Now, take any $\phi(x)\in \phi(L)$, I can't see why $\phi(x)\cdot w$ would lie in $W$.

Can someone clarify those quotes for me? Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The notion of an $L$-module is just the notion of a Lie algebra representation $\rho\colon L\rightarrow {\rm End}(V)$ via the convention that $x\cdot v=\rho(x)v$ for all $x\in L$ and $v\in V$. So you do not need "any course on groups". Irreducible for representations corresponds to "simple" for modules, i.e., no proper non-trivial submodules. You have just confused "reducible" with "irreducible" in what you wrote. And yes, an invariant space $U$ means $\rho(L)(U)\subseteq U$, or $L\cdot U\subseteq U$, i.e., an $L$-submodule.

$\endgroup$

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.