3
$\begingroup$

I am aware this is about the same question as this question. But I do not believe this is a duplicate post. I am looking to understand some properties about the center and am using this question is a good example. I want to know:

(1) Under what conditions is do we have for $\mathfrak{h}\subset \mathfrak{g}$ to imply $Z(\mathfrak{h})=Z(\mathfrak{g})\cap \mathfrak{h}$

(2) How does the argument I link to conclude that $Z(\mathfrak{sl}(n,F))=Z(\mathfrak{gl}(n,F))\cap \mathfrak{sl}(n,F)$

Since (1) is true in the case of $\mathfrak{sl}(n,F)\subset\mathfrak{gl}(n,F)$ I feel trying to understand an argument which shoes this will help tease out what conditions are needed for the general case. There is a question in Humphreys that asks us:

To show that $\mathfrak{sl}(n,F)$ (matrices with trace zero) has center $0$, unless $\operatorname{char}F$ divides $n$, in which case the center is $\mathfrak{s}(n,F)$ (scalar multiples of the identity).

Some facts that will be useful are that the $Z(\mathfrak{gl}(n,F))$ is $\mathfrak{s}(n,F)$. Also $\mathfrak{gl}(n,F)=\mathfrak{sl}(n,F)+\mathfrak{s}(n,F)$ as vector spaces.

Here is an argument taken from this document of solutions which claims that $Z(\mathfrak{sl}(n,F))=Z(\mathfrak{gl}(n,F))\cap \mathfrak{sl}(n,F)$.:

enter image description here

I will rewrite the argument to show my confusion. If $c\in Z(\mathfrak{sl}(n,F)$ then $[x,c]=0$ for all $x\in \mathfrak{sl}(n,F)$. Obviously $c\in \mathfrak{gl}(n,F)=\mathfrak{sl}(n,F)+\mathfrak{s}(n,F)$, but I do not see why this means that $c\in Z(\mathfrak{gl}(n,F)$. I do not see then why it follows that $Z(\mathfrak{sl}(n,F))=Z(\mathfrak{gl}(n,F))\cap \mathfrak{sl}(n,F)$.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Let's first look at the question in your last paragraph. I claim you can easily generalise the argument to:

(*) If $\mathfrak g = \mathfrak h + \mathfrak a$ such that $\mathfrak a$ commutes with $\mathfrak h$, then $Z(\mathfrak h) \subseteq Z(\mathfrak g)$ (and the opposite inclusion is always true anyway).

Namely, let $c \in Z(\mathfrak h)$ and $x \in \mathfrak g$; by assumption, we can write $x=h+a$ for $h \in \mathfrak h, a \in \mathfrak a$ and we have $$[c, x]=\underbrace{[c,h]}_{0 \text{ bc. } c\in Z(\mathfrak h)}+\underbrace{[c,a]}_{0 \text{ bc. } \mathfrak a \text{ comm. w. } \mathfrak h}=0.$$

This (*) is a sufficient but not necessary criterion which settles question (2).

As for the general question (1), first note that $Z(\mathfrak h) \supseteq Z(\mathfrak g) \cap \mathfrak h$ is always true for $\mathfrak h \subseteq \mathfrak g$, and of course $Z(\mathfrak h) \subseteq \mathfrak h$, so the question boils down to when

$$Z(\mathfrak h) \stackrel{?}\subseteq Z(\mathfrak g).$$

(Examples where this is not the case abound. E.g. take any non-zero $\mathfrak g$ which has centre $0$, and $\mathfrak h =$ the one-dimensional (hence abelian!) subalgebra spanned by a non-zero element.)

Inspecting our argument for (*) from the beginning shows that actually we do not need that $\mathfrak a$ commutes with all of $\mathfrak h$, but only with $Z(\mathfrak h)$; further, we don't need $\mathfrak a$ to be a subalgebra, we just need to write every element $x \in \mathfrak g$ as

(something in $\mathfrak h$ + something that commutes with $Z(\mathfrak h)$).

So a less restrictive sufficient criterion for what we want is:

There is a vector space complement $A$ of $\mathfrak h$ in $\mathfrak g$ such that every element of $A$ commutes with every element of $Z(\mathfrak h)$.

Note this is true for one vector space complement iff it is true for every vector space complement. Namely, as soon as there is $x \in \mathfrak g \setminus \mathfrak h$ and $z \in Z(\mathfrak h)$ such that $[x, z] \neq 0$, we have $z \notin Z(\mathfrak g)$. Another way to express it is to see that $\mathfrak h$ naturally acts on the (vector space) quotient $V:=\mathfrak g/\mathfrak h$ and to say

$Z(\mathfrak h)$ acts trivially on $\mathfrak g/\mathfrak h$.

So there's a criterion. If it's nicer/easier/more useful than just writing $Z(\mathfrak h) = Z(\mathfrak g)$ depends on taste/context.

Finally, as an example for my claim that what we used at the beginning for (2), criterion (*) which we can now phrase as

(*) $\mathfrak h$ acts trivially on $\mathfrak g/\mathfrak h$,

is a sufficient but not necessary criterion: Take $\mathfrak g = \mathfrak{sl}_{n\ge 2}(\mathbb C)$ and $\mathfrak h = $ upper triangular matrices in $\mathfrak g$. You'll find that actually $Z(\mathfrak h) =Z(\mathfrak g) = 0$, but every non-zero element of $\mathfrak h$ acts non-trivially on $\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak h$ (which can be identified with the strict lower triangular matrices).

$\endgroup$

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.