Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Why is the dimension of the cartan subalgebra $2n-\text{rank}(A)$ in the defintion from Kumar's book. From a few examples I can see why the defintion is the way it is, but, I would like a better understanding of why the dimension of the Cartan subalgebra is $2n-\text{rank}(A)$ and not $n$ or something else. I

To be specific why does the Lie algebra associated to the universal extention $\tilde{L}SU(2)$ not have an associated Cartan matrix while the affine Lie algebra associated to $\mathbb{T}\ltimes\tilde{L}SU(2)$ does?

share|improve this question
1  
Probably part of the problem is that "the" definition doesn't really exist, just a range of closely related definitions. The ideas come from the independent thesis work of Kac and of Moody, but later developments tweaked the notions in various ways. It's a good idea to say more explicitly what version you are looking at. –  Jim Humphreys Sep 5 '13 at 21:21
1  
I find this dimension in every definition I have read. The Serre relations are all implemented slightly differently, but the dimension of the Cartan subalgebra is always $n+\text{corank}(A)$. –  Sven Cattell Sep 5 '13 at 21:44
1  
One reason why the extra dimensions are useful is that you end up with a nondegenerate inner product on the weight space. In your first example, your weight space becomes a singular plane embedded in $\mathbb{R}^{2,1}$, and it's harder to see the geometry attached to reflections. –  S. Carnahan Sep 5 '13 at 21:47
    
I think you have a good answer to my admittingly soft question. –  Sven Cattell Sep 6 '13 at 14:04

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I'll just elaborate on my comment from last year.

A Kac-Moody algebra is defined by generators-and-relations, with starting data given by an $n \times n$ matrix $A$. It can be written as $L \rtimes D$, where $D$ is a $n - rank(A)$-dimensional commutative Lie algebra that acts on $L$ by derivations. The standard examples are affine Lie algebras, where $D$ is one dimensional. It is common to throw away $D$ when studying these objects, because it doesn't really do much for the representation theory - the only information it adds is an "energy" grading. However, $D$ can help with some geometric intuition, because the Cartan subalgebra gets a non-singular inner product. This makes the geometry of reflections from the Weyl group more clear.

The standard example is with the loop algebra of $\mathfrak{sl}_2$: if you forget about $D$, you lose the energy grading on the roots, and it is hard to draw a picture of them where they don't land on top of each other. When you add $D$, the weight space grows from a 2-dimensional space with singular inner product to the Lorentz space $\mathbb{R}^{2,1}$, the new "energy" axis is a line in the light cone (i.e., all vectors have norm zero), and the roots lie in a plane tangent to the light cone containing this axis. The Weyl group now acts by visible reflections, and the parabolic shape that shows up in characters of highest-weight representations can be seen as the intersection of a hyperboloid of constant norm with a plane parallel to the root space.

share|improve this answer
    
Do you have a reference for this description for a general rank? Thanks! –  Peter Kravchuk May 16 at 4:36
    
Some basic properties are found in the early part of Kac's Infinite Dimensional Lie Algebras, but I am unaware of interesting results for the general theory. I seem to recall that Kyoji Saito and collaborators have some work in the case $D$ has dimension 2, relating the Lie algebras to elliptic singularities and mirror symmetry. –  S. Carnahan May 16 at 5:21
    
Thanks. I do not know much about Kac-Moody algebras, but I feel that the generator associated to the affine level can be understood as the "extra" dimension in the Cartan subalgebra, and a representation for a corank 2 algebra can acсommodate representations of two affine algebras at different level. Do you think this intuition might be correct? –  Peter Kravchuk May 16 at 5:29

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.