# Cartan Matrix from commutation relations

Let a set of elements, $$T^i_j$$, with $$i,j=1,\cdots,n$$ satisfying the $$\mathcal{su}(n)$$ algebra $$[T^i_j, T^k_l] = \delta^k_j T^i_l - \delta^i_l T^k_j\,,\qquad (T^i_j)^\dagger = T^j_i.$$ There are $$n^2$$ elements, but It's easy to see that the "trace" commutes with everything, so we can remove an abelian factor by shifting $$T^i_j\to T^i_j-\frac{1}{n}\delta^i_j \sum_k T^k_k$$, without changing the commutation relations.

I'm asked to find the Cartan matrix for $$n=4$$ starting from the commutation relation above. Adapting this question I found that the Cartan subalgebra is given by $$\mathcal{H}=\{T^1_1- T^2_2, T^2_2-T^3_3, T^3_3-T^4_4\}$$. I can then find the weights from

$$[H_a, E_\alpha] = \alpha^a E_\alpha\,,\qquad H_a\in\mathcal{H}$$ Going through all the non-Cartan generators to find their roots $$\alpha=(\alpha^1,\alpha^2,\alpha^3)$$, I managed to find those which have the same values as the Cartan matrix of $$\mathfrak{su}(4)$$, and are also simple roots (all the other roots can be obtain from these): $$E_{\alpha_1}=T^1_2:\qquad~ \alpha_1 =(2,-1,0)\\ E_{\alpha_2}=T^2_3:\qquad~~~ \alpha_2 =(-1,2,-1)\\ E_{\alpha_3}=T^3_4:\qquad \alpha_3 =(0,-1,2)$$ How can I actually compute the Cartan Matrix from there? I would like to use the usual formula $$A_{ij} = 2 \frac{(\alpha_i,\alpha_j)}{(\alpha_i,\alpha_i)}\stackrel{\mathfrak{su}(4)}{=} \begin{pmatrix} 2&-1&0\\ -1&2&-1\\ 0&-1&2 \end{pmatrix}$$ But I don't know how to define the pairing $$(\cdot,\cdot)$$ on the root lattice in this case. I cannot use the Cartesian product, because that would give the wrong result.

Usually positive roots are defined as having the first non-vanishing entry positive, which is not the case for the third one. Contrary to the question mentioned above, I am given only the commutation relation and not the form of the generators, i.e. I don't have $$(T^i_j)_{ab}= ...$$ so I cannot define the usually Killing form $$\left\propto\delta_{ab}$$ to map the algebra to the root lattice. Moreover in the usual construction we have $$[E_\alpha, E^\dagger_\alpha] = \sum_i \alpha_i H_i$$ which is not the case here. Is there a canonical way to find the Cartan matrix in this case?

• There are many different notations for these things, but I do not know what $\alpha = (2,-1,0)$ etc. is supposed to mean. Please explain, how is that a root of $su(3)$? Oct 16, 2020 at 16:26
• I meant $\mathfrak{su}(4)$, and instead wrote its rank. I edited the question and added some additional definitions for clarity. Oct 16, 2020 at 21:29

The relation (I switch $$a$$ to $$i$$ to make it look more distinguishable from $$\alpha$$) $$[H_i, E_\alpha] = \alpha^i E_\alpha\,,\qquad H_a\in\mathcal{H}$$

would more commonly be written

$$\alpha^i=\alpha(H_i).$$

But now if $$H_i$$ is the coroot to the root $$\beta_i$$ (i.e. $$H_i$$ is the unique element of $$[E_{\beta_i}, E_{-\beta_i}]$$ for which $$\beta_i(H_i)=2$$) then

$$\alpha(H_i)= \check{\beta_i}(\alpha)$$

and it's one of the first things shown in any serious introduction to root systems that, if $$( \cdot, \cdot)$$ is a bilinear form on the (vector space ambient to the) root system which is invariant under root system automorphisms, then

$$\check{\beta}(x) = \dfrac{2 (\beta, x)}{(\beta, \beta)}.$$

Putting everything together, you have

$$\alpha^i = \dfrac{2 (\beta_i, \alpha)}{(\beta_i, \beta_i)}$$

or, if I understand your notation correctly,

$$\alpha_j^i = \dfrac{2 (\alpha_i, \alpha_j)}{(\alpha_i, \alpha_i)}.$$

So there you have the Cartan matrix as the transpose of what you get when you write your $$\alpha_i$$ underneath each other (in this case, the transpose doesn't do anything anyway).

The upshot being that if you already know the numbers you call $$\alpha^a$$, you do not need to define the form $$(\cdot, \cdot)$$ -- everything you need to know about the Cartan matrix is in those numbers. (And they actually, "the other way around", define such a form $$(\cdot, \cdot)$$ uniquely up to scaling.)

If you insist on having a form $$(\cdot, \cdot)$$ which comes from the Lie algebra you have and not through the technicalities of the root system: Try the Killing form, but be careful, because a priori that one is defined on (e.g.) elements of the Cartan subalgebra, which are coroots, so some dualising might be necessary which in a given example might or might not change some numbers.

Finally, I'd like to point out that it seems everything we're doing here is not happening inside $$\mathfrak{su}(n)$$ literally, but rather its complexification which is $$\simeq \mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbb C)$$ (otherwise, there are no roots and root spaces $$E_\alpha$$). Also, there is not "the" Cartan subalgebra: Every non-zero semisimple Lie algebra has infinitely many Cartan subalgebras, it's just that usually the diagonal matrices or some variant thereof are the most convenient one.