2
$\begingroup$

I'm reading Humphreys' Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory and I have a question about Corollary 14.1, which reads:

Humphreys Corollary 14.1. Let $L$ be a semisimple Lie algebra, with maximal toral subalgebra $H$ and root system $\Phi$. If $L = L_1\oplus\cdots\oplus L_t$ is the decomposition of $L$ into simple ideals, then $H_i = H\cap L_i$ is a maximal toral subalgebra of $L_i$, and the corresponding (irreducible) root system $\Phi_i$ may be regarded canonically as a subsystem of $\Phi$ in such a way that $\Phi=\Phi_1\cup\cdots\cup\Phi_t$ is the decomposition of $\Phi$ into its irreducible components.

I understand most of this. What I'm struggling to understand is why the $\Phi_i$ must be pairwise orthogonal. That is, if $\alpha\in\Phi_i$, $\beta\in\Phi_j$, $i\neq j$, why is $(\alpha, \beta)=0$?

By definition, $(\alpha, \beta)=\kappa(t_{\alpha}, t_{\beta})$, where $\kappa$ denotes the Killing form and, for $\gamma\in H^*$, $t_{\gamma}$ is the unique element of $H$ such that $\gamma(h)=\kappa(t_{\gamma}, h)$ for all $h\in H$. So, we need to show that $\alpha(t_{\beta})=0$. Since $\alpha(H_k)=0$ for $k\neq i$, we really only need to show that $\alpha$ annihilates $h_i$, where $t_{\beta}=h_1+\cdots +h_t$, $h_k\in H_k$. From here, I'm not sure how to proceed.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ $t_\alpha\in L_i$, $t_\beta\in L_j$. Doesn't that already imply that the composition of $\operatorname{ad}(t_\alpha)$ and $\operatorname{ad}(t_\beta)$ is the zero map? $\endgroup$ Jan 3 '19 at 7:50
  • $\begingroup$ @JyrkiLahtonen I'm probably missing something obvious, but why must we have $t_{\alpha}\in L_i$ and $t_{\beta}\in L_j$? $\endgroup$
    – Zilliput
    Jan 3 '19 at 7:59
  • $\begingroup$ Is your original question, or the one in the comment, answered by one of these: math.stackexchange.com/q/1357074/96384 and math.stackexchange.com/q/2982139/96384 ? $\endgroup$ Jan 3 '19 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ @TorstenSchoeneberg As far as I can tell, no. $\endgroup$
    – Zilliput
    Jan 3 '19 at 18:58
0
$\begingroup$

As @JyrkiLahtonen commented, it suffices to show that $t_{\alpha}\in L_i$ and $t_{\beta}\in L_j$, since this implies that $\operatorname{ad}t_{\alpha}\operatorname{ad}t_{\beta}(x)=[t_{\alpha}[t_{\beta}x]]\in L_i\cap L_j=0$ for all $x\in L$, i.e., $\operatorname{ad}t_{\alpha}\operatorname{ad}t_{\beta}=0$, so $$(\alpha, \beta)=\kappa(t_{\alpha}, t_{\beta})=\operatorname{tr}(\operatorname{ad}t_{\alpha}\operatorname{ad}t_{\beta})=\operatorname{tr}(0)=0.$$

To see that $t_{\alpha}\in L_i$, let $\kappa_i$ denote the Killing form of $L_i$. By Humphreys Lemma 5.1, $\kappa_i=\kappa\vert_{L_i\times L_i}$. By Humphreys Corollary 8.2, $\kappa\vert_{H\times H}$ and $\kappa_i\vert_{H_i\times H_i}$ are nondegenerate. This allows us to identify $H$ with $H^*$, by associating to $\gamma\in H^*$ the unique element $t_{\gamma}\in H$ such that $\gamma(h)=\kappa(t_{\gamma}, h)$ for all $h\in H$. Similarly, we can identify $H_i$ with $H_i^*$, by associating to $\delta\in H_i^*$ the unique element $u_{\delta}\in H_i$ such that $\delta(h_i)=\kappa_i(u_{\delta}, h_i)$ for all $h_i\in H_i$. With this in mind, $u_{\alpha}\in H_i$ and $\alpha(h_i)=\kappa_i(u_{\alpha}, h_i)$ for all $h_i\in H_i$. However, by an argument similar to that in the previous paragraph, $\kappa(L_i, L_k)=0$ for $i\neq k$, so given $h=h_1+\cdots+h_t\in H$, $h_k\in H_k$, we have $$\alpha(h)=\alpha(h_i)=\kappa_i(u_{\alpha}, h_i)=\kappa\vert_{L_i\times L_i}(u_{\alpha}, h_i)=\kappa(u_{\alpha}, h_i)=\kappa(u_{\alpha}, h).$$ Then, by uniqueness, $t_{\alpha}=u_{\alpha}\in H_i\subseteq L_i$. Similarly, $t_{\beta}\in L_j$.

$\endgroup$

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.