MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Over a base field $k$, linear $k$-groups stand for affine algebraic $k$-groups. For simplicity take $k$ to be a field of characteristic zero, as in this case one has the correspondence between connected linear $k$-groups and finite dimensional Lie $k$-algebras.

Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be the Lie algebra of a connected semi-simple linear $k$-group $G$. It is known that a (non-trivial) parabolic $k$-algebra $\mathfrak{p}$ of $\mathfrak{g}$ can be obtained as follows: there exists a (non-trivial) grading $$\mathfrak{g}=\oplus_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{g}(n)$$ respecting the Lie bracket $$[\mathfrak{g}(m),\mathfrak{g}(n)]\subset\mathfrak{g}(m+n)$$ and that $\mathfrak{p}=\oplus_{n\geq 0}\mathfrak{g}(n)$. The grading on $\mathfrak{g}$ amounts to an action of $\mathbb{G}_m$ on $G$, which is given by conjugation through a co-character $\mu:\mathbb{G}_m\rightarrow G$, justified by the condition on Lie bracket. For convenience denote also by $\mu$ the grading on $\mathfrak{g}$, and $\mathfrak{p}=\mathfrak{p}^+(\mu)$ the parabolic Lie $k$-subalgebra associated as above, and $P^+(\mu)$ the corresponding parabolic $k$-subgroup. $\mu$ is only unique up to conjugation by the Levi $k$-subgroup $L(\mu)$ of $P^+(\mu)$, whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}(0)$.

My question is to extend these arguments to $k$-subgroups and Lie $k$-subalgebras. Keep the previous notations, and take $H\subset G$ a connected $k$-subgroup, with Lie $k$-subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$. Then by restriction one gets a grading $$\mu_H:\mathfrak{h}=\oplus_n\mathfrak{h}(n)$$ with $\mathfrak{h}(n)=\mathfrak{h}\cap\mathfrak{g}(n)$. This grading satisfies $[\mathfrak{h}(m),\mathfrak{h}(n)]\subset\mathfrak{h}(m+n)$, hence is also given by some co-character $\mu_H:\mathbb{G}_m\rightarrow H$.

Assume that $\mu_H$ is non-trivial, and $H$ is reductive itself, how should one compare the two co-characters $\mu_H$ and $\mu$? From the arguments above one sees that $\mathfrak{p}^+(\mu_H)=\mathfrak{h}\cap\mathfrak{p}^+(\mu)$ and $P^+(\mu_H)=H\cap P^+(\mu)$, but if one extends $\mu_H$ to the cocharacter $\mathbb{G}_m\rightarrow H\rightarrow G$, what kind of difference might one find between $\mu_H$ and $\mu$?

share|cite|improve this question
in short terms, let $H\subset G$ be a connected $k$-subgroup, with $Q\subsetneq H$ a parabolic $k$-subgroup, how to characterize the different parabolic $k$-subgroups $P$ of $G$ such that $P\cap H=Q$? – genshin Dec 27 '10 at 13:32
Many parts of the formulation are too vague and unlikely to be correct as stated: e.g., "the correspondence"; conditions on the given field such as being algebraically closed; source of your Lie algebra gradings and characterization of parabolic subalgebras; the restriction of a grading to a Lie subalgebra. It's essential to start with a known reference for the basics and then focus your question much more precisely. – Jim Humphreys Dec 27 '10 at 14:34
up vote 1 down vote accepted


In the given generality, I'm not sure the question has much hope for a tidy answer.

Consider $G=GL(V)$ and write $V = W \oplus W'$ where $W$ has dimension 2. So you get an embedding $H=GL(W) \to G$ in a natural way ($H$ acts trivially on $W'$).

The stabilizer $Q$ in $H$ of a line $L \subset W$ is a parabolic subgroup of $H$. And the parabolic subgroups of $G$ are the stabilizers of flags $F$ in $V$.

Consider a flag $$F = (0 \subset F_1 \subset F_2 \subset \cdots \subset F_r = V)$$ for which (i) $F_1 = L$, (ii) $F_2 = W$, and (iii) $F_i \cap W'$ is a complement in $F_i$ to $F_2=W$ for $i \ge 2$.

If $P$ is the stabilizer of $F$ in $G= GL(V)$, then $P \cap H = Q$. (Note that $H$ is contained in the stabilizer of the flag $F'=(0\subset F_2 \subset \cdots \subset F_r = V)$).

In general there are many such $P$.

share|cite|improve this answer
thanks! I was wondering if the intersection $P\cap H$ can really produce a parabolic subgroup for $H$ when $P$ is parabolic in $G$. But as is pointed out by Jim Humphreys in other pages, this is in general not true. So I think there's something wrong with my arguments characterizing parabolic subgroups via gradings and co-characters. – genshin Dec 27 '10 at 18:19
(My original statement wasn't quite right -- see edit for condition on $F_2$). Parabolics can indeed be characterized by co-characters as you wrote; see e.g. [Springer, Lin Alg Groups 2nd ed., 8.4.5]. If you start with a cocharacter of $H$ determining $Q$, of course you get a cocharacter of $G$, and hence a parabolic with $P \cap H = Q$. But there is no reason for all such $P$ to come about from cocharacters of $H$. – George McNinch Dec 27 '10 at 18:31
thanks a great deal for providing a nice reference. as i said, one of the motivation for this MO item is to understand (the flaw behind) the argument that intersection of a parabolic subalgebra with a Lie subalgebra $h$ becomes a parabolic of $h$, which goes in the inverse sense contrary to the one you mention above. – genshin Dec 27 '10 at 19:59
As for intersection of parabolic subgroups $P$ of $G$ with a subgroup $H$ of $G$, one is lead to consider the $H$-orbit of the class of $P$ in $G/P$. I'm wondering what happens if i trace the behavior of a maximal split torus $S$ of $H$. $S$ might be regular or singular in the larger group $G$. The orbit under $S$ or its normalizer might be more concretely described via root data, but it seems more difficult when one passes to a $H$-orbit. – genshin Dec 27 '10 at 20:06

Your Answer


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.