Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Answer

deleted 212 characters in body
Source Link
Ben Webster ♦
Ben Webster ♦
  • 44.7k
  • 12
  • 126
  • 260

If I understand 2This was wrong.1 in Kac-Elashvili correctly, 2) is equivalent If you really want to $e$ being Richardson. Certainly, it implies $e$ is Richardson. If I recall correctly, there are principal Levi but non-Richardson nilpotentsread a wrong answer, so those would all be counter exampleslook in the edit history.

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.

This was wrong. If you really want to read a wrong answer, look in the edit history.

Source Link
Ben Webster ♦
Ben Webster ♦
  • 44.7k
  • 12
  • 126
  • 260

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.