show/hide this revision's text 5 expanded

This statement is false in general for algebraic groups. It's true in characteristic 0, but it is not in general true in positive characteristic. Instead, one has a weaker statement in positive characteristic (cf Proposition 4.20 on page 213 in Jantzen's "Algebraic Groups"):

Let $G$ be a reductive linear algebraic group over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic $k$. Then $k[G]$ has an increasing filtration whose subquotients are of the form $H(\lambda) \otimes H(-w_0 \lambda)$, where $\lambda$ runs over the dominant weights for $G$ and the $H(\lambda)$ are the modules arising as global sections of line bundles on the flag variety of $G$ (the so-called costandard modules for $G$).

Moreover, this is true when $k[G]$ is considered as a $G\times G$-module.

Note that unlike in characteristic 0, these modules $V$ are not in general irreducible. (It's worth noting that the category of modules over a reductive algebraic group is not in general a semisimple category — this is only true in characteristic 0).

show/hide this revision's text 4 links

This statement is false in general for algebraic groups. It's true in characteristic 0, but it is not in general true in positive characteristic. Instead, one has a weaker statement in positive characteristic (cf Proposition 4.20 on page 213 in Jantzen's "Algebraic Groups")Groups"):

Let G $G$ be a reductive linear algebraic group over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic . $k$. Then k[G] $k[G]$ has an increasing filtration whose subquotients are of the form H(\lambda) $H(\lambda) \otimes H(-w_0 \lambda), lambda)$, where \lambda $\lambda$ runs over the dominant weights for G $G$ and the H(\lambda) $H(\lambda)$ are the modules arising as global sections of line bundles on the flag variety of G $G$ (the so-called costandard modules for G). $G$).

Note that unlike in characteristic 0, these modules V $V$ are not in general irreducible. (It's worth noting that the category of modules over a reductive algebraic group is not in general a semisimple category -- this is only true in characteristic 0).

show/hide this revision's text 3 added 62 characters in body

This statement is false in general for algebraic groups. It's true in characteristic 0, but it is not in general true in positive characteristic. Instead, one has a weaker statement in positive characteristic (cf Jantzen's "Algebraic Groups"): Let G be a reductive linear algebraic group over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic. Then k[G] has an increasing filtration whose subquotients are of the form V H(\lambda) \otimes V^*, H(-w_0 \lambda), where V \lambda runs over the set of representations dominant weights for G and the H(\lambda) are the modules arising as global sections of line bundles on the flag variety of G (the so-called costandard modules for G). Note that unlike in characteristic 0, these modules V are not in general irreducible. (It's worth noting that the category of modules over a reductive algebraic group is not in general a semisimple category -- this is only true in characteristic 0).

show/hide this revision's text 2 added 9 characters in body
show/hide this revision's text 1