1
$\begingroup$

I have a question about the uniqueness, up to scale factor, of the Killing form on a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$. I know that it is defined as $$B(X,Y)=\operatorname{tr}(\operatorname{ad}_X\circ \operatorname{ad}_Y),$$ for every $X,Y\in\mathfrak{g}$. It is known that, if $\mathfrak{g}$ is a simple Lie algebra, any bilinear, symmetric non-degenerate quadratic form which is $\operatorname{ad}$-invariant equals $B$, up to multiplications for a constant. Now, we know that the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{o}(n)$ of the orthogonal group $O(n)$ is simple if $n\neq 4$ and $$\mathfrak{o}(4)\cong\mathfrak{o}(3)\oplus\mathfrak{o}(3),$$ i.e. $\mathfrak{o}(4)$ is semisimple.

In the case $n=4$, what can we say about the Killing form? Is it the unique quadratic form as above, up to multiplications for a constant, although $\mathfrak{o}(4)$ is not simple?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The Killing form is a unique multiple of the trace form for all orthogonal Lie algebras, yes. But there is no longer only a unique non degenerate ad-invariant quadratic form on $\mathfrak{so}(4)$. $\endgroup$ – Dietrich Burde Aug 11 at 15:12
2
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathfrak g$ be a semisimple Lie algebra with $\mathfrak g \simeq \bigoplus_{i=1}^n \mathfrak g_i$ and the $\mathfrak g_i$ simple.

Check that for any ad-invariant bilinear form on this, the $\mathfrak g_i$ are pairwise orthogonal (I used that simple Lie algebras are perfect for this, maybe there's an easier proof). So for such a form to be non-degenerate, it has to restrict to something non-degenerate on each $\mathfrak g_i$. Hence the restriction to each $\mathfrak g_i$ is a scaled version of the respective Killing form.

However, you can scale with different constants $c_i \neq 0$ on each summand!

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Perfect, thank you! So, in particular, this implies that there is no unique $\operatorname{Ad}(O(4))$-invariant inner product on $\mathfrak{o(4)}$, doesn't it? $\endgroup$ – Lukath Aug 11 at 21:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well yes, and it's not even unique up to scaling. It is unique up to (possibly different) scaling on each of those two summands though. $\endgroup$ – Torsten Schoeneberg Aug 11 at 22:55

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.