1
$\begingroup$

I posted the following question on MSE but I was advised to ask the question here.

Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a lie algebra. Consider the anti-automomorphism

$$\phi: \mathfrak{g} \rightarrow \mathfrak{g} $$ such that $$\phi(X) = X^T, \quad \forall \quad X \in \mathfrak{g}$$ where $X^T$ is the usual transpose of $X$.

Observe that $$\phi([X,Y]) = \phi(XY-YX) = (XY-YX)^T = (XY)^T-(YX)^T.$$ Thus, we have that $$\phi([X,Y)] = Y^TX^T- X^TY^T = [\phi(Y), \phi(X)].$$

Note that we can extend this anti-automorphism to the universal enveloping algebra $\mathfrak{Ug}$ such that $\phi : \mathfrak{Ug} \rightarrow \mathfrak{Ug}$ still denoted by $\phi.$

My question: Show that $$\phi(a)= a \quad$$ for all $a \in Z\mathcal{g} $ where $Z\mathcal{g}$ denotes the centre of $\mathfrak{Ug}.$

I thought about using the Harish-Chandra isomorphim but I dont seem to see how this helps.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ What's the "usual transpose" on an arbitrary Lie algebra? $\endgroup$ – Francois Ziegler Apr 27 '17 at 5:41
  • $\begingroup$ A lie algebra anti-homomorphism is a linear map such that $$\phi([X,Y]) = [\phi(Y), \phi(X)].$$In this specific case it just follows from the fact that $(AB)^T = (BA)^T$ for two matrices $A,B$ $\endgroup$ – Jaynot Apr 27 '17 at 5:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is the field? is there any assumption that your Lie algebra is semisimple? And indeed as Francois says, "transpose" is not defined. $\endgroup$ – YCor Apr 27 '17 at 6:14
5
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\g}{\mathfrak g}$ François is right that it doesn't quite make sense to talk about transpose for a general Lie algebra. Since you mention the Harish-Chandra isomorphism I assume you want $\g$ to be a simple Lie algebra. In that case there is an anti-involution $\omega$ given by $e_i\mapsto f_i$, $f_i \mapsto e_i$, $h_i \mapsto h_i$ for a choice of Chevalley generators $e_i,f_i,h_i$. If $\g$ is $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ this recovers the transpose, so I'll assume your question is about that.

I feel there should be a much simpler argument but here's an idea involving the Harish-Chandra map as you suggest. Let $\g=\mathfrak{n}^+ \oplus \mathfrak{h}\oplus \mathfrak{n}^-$ be the decomposition induced by your choice of generators. By PBW this induces a decomposition $$U(\g)= U(\mathfrak{h})\oplus (\mathfrak{n}^-U(\g)+ U(\g)\mathfrak{n}^+).$$ Let $p$ be the projection on $U(\mathfrak{h})$ relative to this decomposition.

I claim that $p\circ \omega=p$. Now, the restriction of $p$ to the center of $U(\g)$ is actually injective: this is essentially a reformulation of Harish-Chandra. The result you want follows.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.