5
$\begingroup$

Question:

Suppose that $V_1$ and $V_2$ are two finite dimensional representations of lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ generated by highest weight vectors $v_1^*$ and $v_2^*$ of weights $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ respectively.

Now, suppose that $V_3$ is an irreducible representation of $V_1 \otimes V_2$ such that the highest weight of $V_3$ has weight $\mu$. I want to show that $\mu = \mu_1 + \lambda $ for some weight $\lambda$ of $V_2$.

Approach: I know that the weight spaces of the tensor $V_1 \otimes V_2$ are spanned by tensor products of weight vectors of $V_1$ and $V_2$. Then $v_1 \otimes v_2$ is a highest weight vector of $V_1 \otimes V_2$ of highest weight $\mu_1+ \mu_2$. If $w$ is a highest weight vector of $V_3$, then it is a sum of the form $v_{1,k} \otimes v_{2,k}$ with $v_{1,k}$ of weight $\lambda_{1,k}$ and $v_{2,k}$ of weight $\lambda_{2,k}$ such that $\lambda_{1,k} + \lambda_{1,k} =\mu.$

The goal is to show that for one of these tensors $\lambda_{1,k} = \mu_1.$ Considering a simpler case when $w = v_1 \otimes v_2$ with $v_1$ of weight $\lambda_1$, $v_2$ of weight $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_1 +\lambda_2 = \mu$. Suppose that $\lambda_1 \neq \mu_1$, how can I get a contradiction here? I believe if this part is cleared, we can then next suppose that $w = \sum_{k}v_{1,k} \otimes v_{2,k}$ and also that $\lambda_{1,k} \neq \mu_1$ for all $k$ ( the sum being over some indexing set) and obtain a contradiction ( I believe this approach answers this question).

P.S: I apologize this is not a research question but I think its an interesting question. I have been struggling to come up with a proof and that is why I am seeking help. I will be glad if anyone interested in this question to please provide me a proof/explanation to this question. Thanks

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Working with weight vectors probably won't get you there, so look instead at the kind of argument given by Kumar. $\endgroup$ – Jim Humphreys Mar 31 '17 at 0:04
4
$\begingroup$

The question is definitely not trivial, but is not currently at research level because the answer has been known for a long time. A good modern source available online here is the 2010 ICM write-up by Shrawan Kumar. He attributes the result to the late Bert Kostant's seminal (though in retrospect overcomplicated) 1959 paper, with free access online here, deriving a closed formula for weight multiplicities in irreducible finite dimensional representations. See Proposition (3.2) in Kumar's recent survey, where there is also a natural further refinement giving an upper bound on the multiplicity of each irreducible summand of such a tensor product.

[By the way, I included a version of this result as Exercise 24.12 in my 1972 graduate text on Lie algebras, though for some reason I can't recall now the exercise stated that it should be deduced from Steinberg's tensor product formula. That seems misleading.]

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

It is probably complete overkill but for $G=GL(n)$ your assertion follows immediately from the Littlewood-Richardson rule while for general $G$ one can use Littelmann's path model.

Recall that Littelmann represents every weight vector of an irreducible representation by a piecewise linear path $p(t)$ starting in $0$ and ending in a weight. There is exactly one path staying in the dominant Weyl chamber and the endpoint of that path is the highest weight.

The weights of the tensor product $U:=V_1\otimes V_2$ of two representations are then represented by the concatentions of a path for $V_1$ with a path for $V_2$. Now Littelmann shows that the highest weights $\mu$ of $U$ correspond to those concatenations which stay entirely in the dominant Weyl chamber. But then the first part has to be the unique path connecting $0$ with $\mu_1$ while the second connects $0$ with some weight $\lambda$ of $V_2$. So the concatenated path connects $0$ with $\mu=\mu_1+\lambda$. qed

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Your question is about the vectors in $V_1\otimes V_2$ that provide $1$-dimensional $B_\Delta$-subrepresentations of weight $\mu$, where $B_\Delta$ is the diagonal in $B\times B \leq G\times G$. Let's call this subspace $J$.

Let $S \hookrightarrow T$ be a regular dominant coweight, and let $B_z := (S(z)\times 1)\ B_\Delta\ (S(z^{-1})\times 1)$. Then $B_1 = B_\Delta$, and $\lim_{z\to\infty} B_z = (B' \times 1) T_\Delta$, where $B'\leq B$ is the unipotent radical; call this limit subgroup $B_\infty$. We can also consider $J_z := (S(z)\times 1)\cdot J$, and its limit $J_\infty$ (computed inside the Grassmannian of $(\dim J)$-dimensional subspaces of $V_1\otimes V_2$).

Now I claim that $J_z$ is $B_z$-invariant for each $z$, and hence, $J_\infty$ is invariant under $(B'\times 1) T_\Delta$. Your assumption was that $J$ was not $0$; hence there are vectors of $(B'\times 1) T_\Delta$-weight $\mu$. Call that potentially larger space $J'$.

Unlike $B_\Delta$, the limit group $B_\infty$ is normalized by $T\times T$, which will act on $J'$ and break it into weight spaces, i.e. weight vectors of $V_1$ tensor weight vectors of $V_2$. The $(B'\times 1)$-invariance means that the only $V_1$ weight space met this way is the high weight space.

Summing up, the assumption that $\mu$ is a high weight in $V_1 \otimes V_2$ implies that $\mu$ can be written as the high weight of $V_1$ plus a weight of $V_2$.

One way to rephrase your question was that you were looking for asymmetry. I get it here with this $S(z)\times 1$, whereas Friedrich Knop's crystal-based answer implicitly derives it from the quantum group (for which $V_1\otimes V_2$ is not obviously isomorphic to $V_2\otimes V_1$, especially as $q\to 0$).

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.