Is $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$ semisimple (as a module over itself)? (and related examples)
$begingroup$
Recall that an object in an abelian category is semisimple if it is a (finite) direct sum of simple objects. An abelian category is semisimple if every object is semisimple.
In studying representations of semisimple lie algebras, one often restricts to the subcategory called $mathcal{O}_{int}$ inside the category left modules for the universal enveloping algebra, $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$. The main theorem about $mathcal{O}_{int}$ says it is semisimple (or, at least, that all the objects in $mathcal{O}_{int}$ are semisimple. Perhaps one needs to check several other things to see that $mathcal{O}_{int}$ is abelian as a subcategory).
I am new to this area and would like to motivate this restriction.
A ring $R$ is semisimple in the category of left $R$ modules iff the category of left $R$ modules is semisimple. Thus,
Is $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$ semisimple as a left $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$-module (for $mathfrak{g}$ a semisimple Lie algebra)?
As a bonus, are there other nice examples of $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$-modules that aren't semisimple?
abstract-algebra representation-theory lie-algebras
asked Jan 25 at 16:36
AnonymousCowardAnonymousCoward
3,1122435
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Recall that an object in an abelian category is semisimple if it is a (finite) direct sum of simple objects. An abelian category is semisimple if every object is semisimple.
In studying representations of semisimple lie algebras, one often restricts to the subcategory called $mathcal{O}_{int}$ inside the category left modules for the universal enveloping algebra, $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$. The main theorem about $mathcal{O}_{int}$ says it is semisimple (or, at least, that all the objects in $mathcal{O}_{int}$ are semisimple. Perhaps one needs to check several other things to see that $mathcal{O}_{int}$ is abelian as a subcategory).
I am new to this area and would like to motivate this restriction.
A ring $R$ is semisimple in the category of left $R$ modules iff the category of left $R$ modules is semisimple. Thus,
Is $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$ semisimple as a left $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$-module (for $mathfrak{g}$ a semisimple Lie algebra)?
As a bonus, are there other nice examples of $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$-modules that aren't semisimple?
abstract-algebra representation-theory lie-algebras
asked Jan 25 at 16:36
AnonymousCowardAnonymousCoward
3,1122435
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
No, $U(mathfrak{g})$ is not a semisimple $U(mathfrak{g})$-module. For your bonus questions, just consider Verma modules.
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Jan 25 at 16:57
2
$begingroup$
In categories of modules, there is no requirement that the sum be finite... any infinite sum of simple modules is also called semisimple. Maybe the case is different for the nomenclature of abelian categories, or not. I just thought I'd point out it isn't quite consistent with the normal usage for modules.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 25 at 17:39
$begingroup$
@DavidHill How does one see they aren't semisimple?
$endgroup$
– AnonymousCoward
Jan 26 at 7:44
1
$begingroup$
A good example is to take the Verma module for sl2 with trivial head and show that the unique maximal submodule doesn't have a complement. That implies it isn't semisimple.
$endgroup$
– Matthew Towers
Jan 26 at 13:16
$begingroup$
Just to check: Is $mathcal{O}_{int}$ just the category of finite dimensional modules? (I can't think of any larger one which is semisimple and "natural" to define). I am mainly used to using such an $mathcal{O}$ for the BGG category $mathcal{O}$, with subscripts denoting various blocks (which are rarely semisimple).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Jan 27 at 6:43
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Recall that an object in an abelian category is semisimple if it is a (finite) direct sum of simple objects. An abelian category is semisimple if every object is semisimple.
In studying representations of semisimple lie algebras, one often restricts to the subcategory called $mathcal{O}_{int}$ inside the category left modules for the universal enveloping algebra, $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$. The main theorem about $mathcal{O}_{int}$ says it is semisimple (or, at least, that all the objects in $mathcal{O}_{int}$ are semisimple. Perhaps one needs to check several other things to see that $mathcal{O}_{int}$ is abelian as a subcategory).
I am new to this area and would like to motivate this restriction.
A ring $R$ is semisimple in the category of left $R$ modules iff the category of left $R$ modules is semisimple. Thus,
Is $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$ semisimple as a left $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$-module (for $mathfrak{g}$ a semisimple Lie algebra)?
As a bonus, are there other nice examples of $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$-modules that aren't semisimple?
abstract-algebra representation-theory lie-algebras
asked Jan 25 at 16:36
AnonymousCowardAnonymousCoward
3,1122435
$endgroup$
Recall that an object in an abelian category is semisimple if it is a (finite) direct sum of simple objects. An abelian category is semisimple if every object is semisimple.
In studying representations of semisimple lie algebras, one often restricts to the subcategory called $mathcal{O}_{int}$ inside the category left modules for the universal enveloping algebra, $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$. The main theorem about $mathcal{O}_{int}$ says it is semisimple (or, at least, that all the objects in $mathcal{O}_{int}$ are semisimple. Perhaps one needs to check several other things to see that $mathcal{O}_{int}$ is abelian as a subcategory).
I am new to this area and would like to motivate this restriction.
A ring $R$ is semisimple in the category of left $R$ modules iff the category of left $R$ modules is semisimple. Thus,
Is $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$ semisimple as a left $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$-module (for $mathfrak{g}$ a semisimple Lie algebra)?
As a bonus, are there other nice examples of $mathcal{U}(mathfrak{g})$-modules that aren't semisimple?
abstract-algebra representation-theory lie-algebras
abstract-algebra representation-theory lie-algebras
asked Jan 25 at 16:36
AnonymousCowardAnonymousCoward
3,1122435
asked Jan 25 at 16:36
AnonymousCowardAnonymousCoward
3,1122435
edited Jan 25 at 16:48
AnonymousCoward
asked Jan 25 at 16:36
AnonymousCowardAnonymousCoward
3,1122435
asked Jan 25 at 16:36
AnonymousCowardAnonymousCoward
3,1122435
asked Jan 25 at 16:36
AnonymousCowardAnonymousCoward
3,1122435
3,1122435
2
$begingroup$
No, $U(mathfrak{g})$ is not a semisimple $U(mathfrak{g})$-module. For your bonus questions, just consider Verma modules.
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Jan 25 at 16:57
2
$begingroup$
In categories of modules, there is no requirement that the sum be finite... any infinite sum of simple modules is also called semisimple. Maybe the case is different for the nomenclature of abelian categories, or not. I just thought I'd point out it isn't quite consistent with the normal usage for modules.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 25 at 17:39
$begingroup$
@DavidHill How does one see they aren't semisimple?
$endgroup$
– AnonymousCoward
Jan 26 at 7:44
1
$begingroup$
A good example is to take the Verma module for sl2 with trivial head and show that the unique maximal submodule doesn't have a complement. That implies it isn't semisimple.
$endgroup$
– Matthew Towers
Jan 26 at 13:16
$begingroup$
Just to check: Is $mathcal{O}_{int}$ just the category of finite dimensional modules? (I can't think of any larger one which is semisimple and "natural" to define). I am mainly used to using such an $mathcal{O}$ for the BGG category $mathcal{O}$, with subscripts denoting various blocks (which are rarely semisimple).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Jan 27 at 6:43
|
show 4 more comments
2
$begingroup$
No, $U(mathfrak{g})$ is not a semisimple $U(mathfrak{g})$-module. For your bonus questions, just consider Verma modules.
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Jan 25 at 16:57
2
$begingroup$
In categories of modules, there is no requirement that the sum be finite... any infinite sum of simple modules is also called semisimple. Maybe the case is different for the nomenclature of abelian categories, or not. I just thought I'd point out it isn't quite consistent with the normal usage for modules.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 25 at 17:39
$begingroup$
@DavidHill How does one see they aren't semisimple?
$endgroup$
– AnonymousCoward
Jan 26 at 7:44
1
$begingroup$
A good example is to take the Verma module for sl2 with trivial head and show that the unique maximal submodule doesn't have a complement. That implies it isn't semisimple.
$endgroup$
– Matthew Towers
Jan 26 at 13:16
$begingroup$
Just to check: Is $mathcal{O}_{int}$ just the category of finite dimensional modules? (I can't think of any larger one which is semisimple and "natural" to define). I am mainly used to using such an $mathcal{O}$ for the BGG category $mathcal{O}$, with subscripts denoting various blocks (which are rarely semisimple).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Jan 27 at 6:43
2
2
$begingroup$
No, $U(mathfrak{g})$ is not a semisimple $U(mathfrak{g})$-module. For your bonus questions, just consider Verma modules.
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Jan 25 at 16:57
$begingroup$
No, $U(mathfrak{g})$ is not a semisimple $U(mathfrak{g})$-module. For your bonus questions, just consider Verma modules.
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Jan 25 at 16:57
2
2
$begingroup$
In categories of modules, there is no requirement that the sum be finite... any infinite sum of simple modules is also called semisimple. Maybe the case is different for the nomenclature of abelian categories, or not. I just thought I'd point out it isn't quite consistent with the normal usage for modules.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 25 at 17:39
$begingroup$
In categories of modules, there is no requirement that the sum be finite... any infinite sum of simple modules is also called semisimple. Maybe the case is different for the nomenclature of abelian categories, or not. I just thought I'd point out it isn't quite consistent with the normal usage for modules.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 25 at 17:39
$begingroup$
@DavidHill How does one see they aren't semisimple?
$endgroup$
– AnonymousCoward
Jan 26 at 7:44
$begingroup$
@DavidHill How does one see they aren't semisimple?
$endgroup$
– AnonymousCoward
Jan 26 at 7:44
1
1
$begingroup$
A good example is to take the Verma module for sl2 with trivial head and show that the unique maximal submodule doesn't have a complement. That implies it isn't semisimple.
$endgroup$
– Matthew Towers
Jan 26 at 13:16
$begingroup$
A good example is to take the Verma module for sl2 with trivial head and show that the unique maximal submodule doesn't have a complement. That implies it isn't semisimple.
$endgroup$
– Matthew Towers
Jan 26 at 13:16
$begingroup$
Just to check: Is $mathcal{O}_{int}$ just the category of finite dimensional modules? (I can't think of any larger one which is semisimple and "natural" to define). I am mainly used to using such an $mathcal{O}$ for the BGG category $mathcal{O}$, with subscripts denoting various blocks (which are rarely semisimple).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Jan 27 at 6:43
$begingroup$
Just to check: Is $mathcal{O}_{int}$ just the category of finite dimensional modules? (I can't think of any larger one which is semisimple and "natural" to define). I am mainly used to using such an $mathcal{O}$ for the BGG category $mathcal{O}$, with subscripts denoting various blocks (which are rarely semisimple).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Jan 27 at 6:43
|
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If $U(mathfrak{g})$ were semi-simple as a $U(mathfrak{g})$-module, then the same would be true of any quotient. However, $U(mathfrak{g})/U(mathfrak{g})mathfrak{b}cong M(0)$, where $M(0)$ is the Verma module of highest weight $0$, $mathfrak{b}=mathfrak{h}oplusmathfrak{n}^+$ and $mathfrak{g}=mathfrak{n}^-oplusmathfrak{h}oplusmathfrak{n}^+$ is a triangular decomposition of $mathfrak{g}$.
It is well known, and easy to check that $M(0)$ is not semi-simple. Try it for $mathfrak{sl}_2$.
answered Jan 27 at 5:16
David HillDavid Hill
9,2261619
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3087301%2fis-mathcalu-mathfrakg-semisimple-as-a-module-over-itself-and-relate%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If $U(mathfrak{g})$ were semi-simple as a $U(mathfrak{g})$-module, then the same would be true of any quotient. However, $U(mathfrak{g})/U(mathfrak{g})mathfrak{b}cong M(0)$, where $M(0)$ is the Verma module of highest weight $0$, $mathfrak{b}=mathfrak{h}oplusmathfrak{n}^+$ and $mathfrak{g}=mathfrak{n}^-oplusmathfrak{h}oplusmathfrak{n}^+$ is a triangular decomposition of $mathfrak{g}$.
It is well known, and easy to check that $M(0)$ is not semi-simple. Try it for $mathfrak{sl}_2$.
answered Jan 27 at 5:16
David HillDavid Hill
9,2261619
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $U(mathfrak{g})$ were semi-simple as a $U(mathfrak{g})$-module, then the same would be true of any quotient. However, $U(mathfrak{g})/U(mathfrak{g})mathfrak{b}cong M(0)$, where $M(0)$ is the Verma module of highest weight $0$, $mathfrak{b}=mathfrak{h}oplusmathfrak{n}^+$ and $mathfrak{g}=mathfrak{n}^-oplusmathfrak{h}oplusmathfrak{n}^+$ is a triangular decomposition of $mathfrak{g}$.
It is well known, and easy to check that $M(0)$ is not semi-simple. Try it for $mathfrak{sl}_2$.
answered Jan 27 at 5:16
David HillDavid Hill
9,2261619
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $U(mathfrak{g})$ were semi-simple as a $U(mathfrak{g})$-module, then the same would be true of any quotient. However, $U(mathfrak{g})/U(mathfrak{g})mathfrak{b}cong M(0)$, where $M(0)$ is the Verma module of highest weight $0$, $mathfrak{b}=mathfrak{h}oplusmathfrak{n}^+$ and $mathfrak{g}=mathfrak{n}^-oplusmathfrak{h}oplusmathfrak{n}^+$ is a triangular decomposition of $mathfrak{g}$.
It is well known, and easy to check that $M(0)$ is not semi-simple. Try it for $mathfrak{sl}_2$.
answered Jan 27 at 5:16
David HillDavid Hill
9,2261619
$endgroup$
If $U(mathfrak{g})$ were semi-simple as a $U(mathfrak{g})$-module, then the same would be true of any quotient. However, $U(mathfrak{g})/U(mathfrak{g})mathfrak{b}cong M(0)$, where $M(0)$ is the Verma module of highest weight $0$, $mathfrak{b}=mathfrak{h}oplusmathfrak{n}^+$ and $mathfrak{g}=mathfrak{n}^-oplusmathfrak{h}oplusmathfrak{n}^+$ is a triangular decomposition of $mathfrak{g}$.
It is well known, and easy to check that $M(0)$ is not semi-simple. Try it for $mathfrak{sl}_2$.
answered Jan 27 at 5:16
David HillDavid Hill
9,2261619
answered Jan 27 at 5:16
David HillDavid Hill
9,2261619
answered Jan 27 at 5:16
David HillDavid Hill
9,2261619
answered Jan 27 at 5:16
David HillDavid Hill
9,2261619
9,2261619
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3087301%2fis-mathcalu-mathfrakg-semisimple-as-a-module-over-itself-and-relate%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
No, $U(mathfrak{g})$ is not a semisimple $U(mathfrak{g})$-module. For your bonus questions, just consider Verma modules.
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Jan 25 at 16:57
2
$begingroup$
In categories of modules, there is no requirement that the sum be finite... any infinite sum of simple modules is also called semisimple. Maybe the case is different for the nomenclature of abelian categories, or not. I just thought I'd point out it isn't quite consistent with the normal usage for modules.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 25 at 17:39
$begingroup$
@DavidHill How does one see they aren't semisimple?
$endgroup$
– AnonymousCoward
Jan 26 at 7:44
1
$begingroup$
A good example is to take the Verma module for sl2 with trivial head and show that the unique maximal submodule doesn't have a complement. That implies it isn't semisimple.
$endgroup$
– Matthew Towers
Jan 26 at 13:16
$begingroup$
Just to check: Is $mathcal{O}_{int}$ just the category of finite dimensional modules? (I can't think of any larger one which is semisimple and "natural" to define). I am mainly used to using such an $mathcal{O}$ for the BGG category $mathcal{O}$, with subscripts denoting various blocks (which are rarely semisimple).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Jan 27 at 6:43