User angelo - MathOverflowmost recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-22T11:28:16Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/user/14019http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/60036/representation-theory-and-finite-order-automorphismsrepresentation theory and finite order automorphismsAngelo2011-03-30T05:09:57Z2011-03-31T08:46:05Z
<p>Let $\sigma$ a finite-order automorphism of a finite-dimensional complex simple Lie algebra $g$. Denote the order of sigma by $k$ and fix a $k^{th}$ root of unity $\omega$.
It is well know that $k=1,2 \text{ or } 3$ and that $$g=\oplus_{j\in \mathbb Z_k} g_j$$ where $g_j={ x \in g \mid \sigma(x)=\omega^jx}.$
Moreover, $g_0$ is a simple Lie algebra.</p>
<p>QUESTION: Let $\lambda$ a weight of $g$ and $V(\lambda)$ the irreducible representation of weight $\lambda$. Denote by $V(\lambda)_{g_0}$ the $g_0$-module obtained from $V(\lambda)$ by restricting the action of $g$ to $g_0$. Is $V(\lambda)_{g_0}$ reducible as a $g_0$-module for all $\lambda$?</p>
<p>THANKS,</p>
<p>Note: The results mentioned can be found in the Kac book.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/60036/representation-theory-and-finite-order-automorphisms/60038#60038Comment by AngeloAngelo2011-04-03T04:06:45Z2011-04-03T04:06:45Z@Jim: I wrote something wrong in my last comment, sorry you and Bruce!.
I was talking only about irreducible highest weight modules and I used the term UNIVERSAL.
The term universal is valid and important in another context that was on my mind, about representations of loop algebras.
On the other hand, I know these modules are infinite dimensional and rarely irreducible. But I disagree that the question is out of context.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/60036/representation-theory-and-finite-order-automorphismsComment by AngeloAngelo2011-03-30T13:59:03Z2011-03-30T13:59:03Z@Mariano I am sorry, I didn't understand your question. Can you redo it? Thanks,http://mathoverflow.net/questions/60036/representation-theory-and-finite-order-automorphisms/60038#60038Comment by AngeloAngelo2011-03-30T13:57:01Z2011-03-30T13:57:01Z@Bruce: Ok, I agree that it may be the answer. But are you saying the answer is negative for all $g$ of type $A_n$, $D_n$ and $E_6$? (all types that admit a non trivial automorphism)
Please, clarify me why! I guess that a bit of calculation is necessary, is not it? For instance, if $g=sl_3$ what we have ?