|
2 | deleted 212 characters in body | ||
|
If I understand 2.1 in Kac-Elashvili correctly, 2) is equivalent to $e$ being Richardson. Certainly, it implies $e$ is Richardson This was wrong. If I recall correctly, there are principal Levi but non-Richardson nilpotentsyou really want to read a wrong answer, so those would all be counter exampleslook in the edit history. |
||||
|
|
1 |
|
||
|
If I understand 2.1 in Kac-Elashvili correctly, 2) is equivalent to $e$ being Richardson. Certainly, it implies $e$ is Richardson. If I recall correctly, there are principal Levi but non-Richardson nilpotents, so those would all be counter examples. |
||||
