Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

Became Hot Network Question
Minor tidying
Source Link
LSpice
LSpice
  • 12.9k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

complexifictation Complexification of a Lie subalgebra of a compact real form

I'm currently reading the paper Lie algebra Cohomology and the Generalized Borel-WeilBorel–Weil theorem written by B. Kostant, and I have a question about Remark 3.9 he made.

In this paper, $\mathfrak{g}$ is a complex semisimple Lie algebra and $\mathfrak{t}$ is its compact real form. Using the decomposition $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{t}\oplus i\mathfrak{t}$ the author defines the complex conjugate $\ast$ on $\mathfrak{g}$ by defining $(a+ib)^{\ast}=-a+ib$ for $a,b\in\mathfrak{t}$. (He uses the subspace $i\mathfrak{t}$ as a real part.) In Remark 3.9 of the paper, the author mentions that

In case $\mathfrak{a}$ is a Lie subalgebra and $\mathfrak{a}=\mathfrak{a}^{\ast}$ it follows that $\mathfrak{a}$ is necessarily reductive in $\mathfrak{g}$ since it clearly arises as the complexification of a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{t}$.

First of all, it was not clear to me what does it mean by saying that $\mathfrak{a}$ is reductive `in'‘in’ $\mathfrak{g}$. Does it simply mean that $\mathfrak{a}$ is a reductive Lie algebra? Secondly, if it means that $\mathfrak{a}$ is a reductive Lie algebra, then I am curious why the fact that $\mathfrak{a}$ arises as a complexification of a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{t}$ implies that $\mathfrak{a}$ is reductive.

Thank you.

complexifictation of a Lie subalgebra of a compact real form

I'm currently reading the paper Lie algebra Cohomology and the Generalized Borel-Weil theorem written by B. Kostant, and I have a question about Remark 3.9 he made.

In this paper, $\mathfrak{g}$ is a complex semisimple Lie algebra and $\mathfrak{t}$ is its compact real form. Using the decomposition $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{t}\oplus i\mathfrak{t}$ the author defines the complex conjugate $\ast$ on $\mathfrak{g}$ by defining $(a+ib)^{\ast}=-a+ib$ for $a,b\in\mathfrak{t}$. (He uses the subspace $i\mathfrak{t}$ as a real part.) In Remark 3.9 of the paper, the author mentions that

In case $\mathfrak{a}$ is a Lie subalgebra and $\mathfrak{a}=\mathfrak{a}^{\ast}$ it follows that $\mathfrak{a}$ is necessarily reductive in $\mathfrak{g}$ since it clearly arises as the complexification of a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{t}$.

First of all, it was not clear to me what does it mean by saying that $\mathfrak{a}$ is reductive `in' $\mathfrak{g}$. Does it simply mean that $\mathfrak{a}$ is a reductive Lie algebra? Secondly, if it means that $\mathfrak{a}$ is a reductive Lie algebra, then I am curious why the fact that $\mathfrak{a}$ arises as a complexification of a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{t}$ implies that $\mathfrak{a}$ is reductive.

Thank you.

Complexification of a Lie subalgebra of a compact real form

I'm currently reading the paper Lie algebra Cohomology and the Generalized Borel–Weil theorem written by B. Kostant, and I have a question about Remark 3.9 he made.

In this paper, $\mathfrak{g}$ is a complex semisimple Lie algebra and $\mathfrak{t}$ is its compact real form. Using the decomposition $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{t}\oplus i\mathfrak{t}$ the author defines the complex conjugate $\ast$ on $\mathfrak{g}$ by defining $(a+ib)^{\ast}=-a+ib$ for $a,b\in\mathfrak{t}$. (He uses the subspace $i\mathfrak{t}$ as a real part.) In Remark 3.9 of the paper, the author mentions that

In case $\mathfrak{a}$ is a Lie subalgebra and $\mathfrak{a}=\mathfrak{a}^{\ast}$ it follows that $\mathfrak{a}$ is necessarily reductive in $\mathfrak{g}$ since it clearly arises as the complexification of a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{t}$.

First of all, it was not clear to me what does it mean by saying that $\mathfrak{a}$ is reductive ‘in’ $\mathfrak{g}$. Does it simply mean that $\mathfrak{a}$ is a reductive Lie algebra? Secondly, if it means that $\mathfrak{a}$ is a reductive Lie algebra, then I am curious why the fact that $\mathfrak{a}$ arises as a complexification of a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{t}$ implies that $\mathfrak{a}$ is reductive.

Source Link
Ji Woong Park
Ji Woong Park
  • 323
  • 1
  • 5

complexifictation of a Lie subalgebra of a compact real form

I'm currently reading the paper Lie algebra Cohomology and the Generalized Borel-Weil theorem written by B. Kostant, and I have a question about Remark 3.9 he made.

In this paper, $\mathfrak{g}$ is a complex semisimple Lie algebra and $\mathfrak{t}$ is its compact real form. Using the decomposition $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{t}\oplus i\mathfrak{t}$ the author defines the complex conjugate $\ast$ on $\mathfrak{g}$ by defining $(a+ib)^{\ast}=-a+ib$ for $a,b\in\mathfrak{t}$. (He uses the subspace $i\mathfrak{t}$ as a real part.) In Remark 3.9 of the paper, the author mentions that

In case $\mathfrak{a}$ is a Lie subalgebra and $\mathfrak{a}=\mathfrak{a}^{\ast}$ it follows that $\mathfrak{a}$ is necessarily reductive in $\mathfrak{g}$ since it clearly arises as the complexification of a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{t}$.

First of all, it was not clear to me what does it mean by saying that $\mathfrak{a}$ is reductive `in' $\mathfrak{g}$. Does it simply mean that $\mathfrak{a}$ is a reductive Lie algebra? Secondly, if it means that $\mathfrak{a}$ is a reductive Lie algebra, then I am curious why the fact that $\mathfrak{a}$ arises as a complexification of a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{t}$ implies that $\mathfrak{a}$ is reductive.

Thank you.