2
$\begingroup$

I'd like to ask if the following "analogue" of the fact $\mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{g}]^G$ for semisimple $G$ is a polynomial ring is known, or disproved, or anything.

Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a simple Lie algebra over $\mathbb{C}$. Let $\mathfrak{g}[[t]]=g\otimes \mathbb{C}[[t]]$, similarly for $\mathfrak{g}((t))$. Pick a nilpotent orbit $O$ of $\mathfrak{g}$, and consider a subset of $\mathfrak{g}((t))$ of the form

$X_O= \{n/t + x \ |\ n\in \overline{O}, \, x\in \mathfrak{g}[[t]]\} $.`

$\mathfrak{g}[[t]]$ acts naturally on $X_O$. I'd like to know if $R=\mathbb{C}[X_O]^{\mathfrak{g}[[t]]}$ is a polynomial ring. More precisely:

Functions on $X_O$ are generated by coordinate functions $a_i:X_O\to \mathbb{C}$ which is defined for $a\in \mathfrak{g}^*$ and $i\in\mathbb{Z}$ via $a_i(y)=$ ($a$ applied on the coefficient of $t^i$ of $y\in X_O$). We assign bidegree $(1,i)$ to $a_i$.

Then, I'm interested in the subring $R_-$ of $R$ whose second degree is negative. I think $R_-$ is a polynomial ring generated by $(\dim O)/2$ variables. I'd like to know the bidegree of the generators, too.

(One might need to require $\mathfrak{g}$ to be simply-laced, and/or $O$ to be special.)

For example, when $O$ is the orbit of zero, $R_-$ is just $\mathbb{C}$.

When $O$ is the regular nilpotent orbit, $R_-$ has $\dim O/2$ generators $c_{k,i}$ where $k=1,\ldots,\mathrm{rank}\, \mathfrak{g}$ and $i=1,\ldots, e_k$ where $e_k$ is the $k$-th exponent of $\mathfrak{g}$. Explicitly, $c_{k,i}$ is given as follows: denote by $c_k\in \mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{g}^*]^G$ a generator of degree $e_k+1$. Then we can consider $c_k(y)\in \mathbb{C}((t))$. for $y\in \mathfrak{g}((t))$. Finally we can define $c_{k,i}:X_O\to \mathbb{C}$ as the coefficient of $t^{-i}$ of $c_k(y)$ where $y\in X_O$.

$\endgroup$
19
  • $\begingroup$ are you sure you want to consider invariant of g[[t]] ? I mean, may be just taking Gaudin-Bethe commutative subalgebra is what you want ? Cause if starting with first sentence analogy C[g]^C - polynomial ring - it is center of U(g), but in loop algebra case U(g(t)) has center, not U(g[t]) (modula details like crit. level etc.) - the correct analog of "center" in positive loops U(g[t]) is very simple thing - called Gaudin-Bethe commutative subalgebra in U(g[t]) - it is just image of the projection of Center(U((g (t)) under projection g(t)->g[t]. It is free polynomial and as nice as possible:) $\endgroup$ Dec 20, 2011 at 6:53
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, maybe what I want is $\mathbb{C}[Ad \mathfrak{g}((t)) X_O ]^{\mathfrak{g}((t))}$. Does it make a difference? I'd like to know how the invariant rings depend on the nilpotent residue chosen. Anyway thank you for the suggestion... I'll study Gaudin-Bethe commutative subalgebras. $\endgroup$ Dec 20, 2011 at 7:46
  • $\begingroup$ If I am not making mistake, it makes big difference. I think that properly understood invariants in affine case should behave the same as in non-affine. $\endgroup$ Dec 20, 2011 at 7:51
  • $\begingroup$ Some remarks: on U(g(t)) has two products - standard one and "normal ordered". The center in standard product is commutative subalgebra in normal ordered (Guadin-Bethe). Normal ordering means that positive loops commute with negative loops - means that U(g(t))^{normal product} = U(g[t]) \otimes U(g[t^-1]) , so there is natural projections which are algebra homorphisms U(g(t))^{normal product} -> U(positve loops) or to negative loops. So the center becomes commutative subalgebras in positve (negative) loops. $\endgroup$ Dec 20, 2011 at 7:59
  • $\begingroup$ If one considers "classical limit" e.g. with Poisson brackets, but not commutators, then the explicit formula for the center(and GaudinBethe) is det(L(z) - l ) = C_{ij}z^il^j , C_{ij} will be free generators (it is very simple). The beautiful discovery by Dmitry Talalaev is that that in quantum case the correct formula looks like det(d/dz - L(z)) = C_{ij}z^i (d/dz)^j - so we get differential operator - it is what is called GL_n-oper in the Langlands correspondence theory, see e.g. section 8.2 page 30 in arxiv.org/abs/0711.2236 as well as arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0604128 $\endgroup$ Dec 20, 2011 at 8:10

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.