This question is imported from MSE. It is linked to this one in the case of semi-direct products.

My question Let us consider a Lie $R$-algebra ($R$ is a commutative ring) written as a (module) direct sum of two of its subalgebras $$ \mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}_1\oplus\mathfrak{g}_2\ (\oplus=\oplus_{R-mod}) $$ and the natural mapping $$ \alpha : \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_1)\otimes_R\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_2)\to\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}) $$ ($\mathfrak{g}_i$ are not necessarily ideals).

On can check, using generators, that $\alpha$ is onto (and, in some usual cases - see below - one-to-one).

What is true/known in the general case ?

I put here the explicit construction in case one of the $\mathfrak{g}_i$ is an ideal. The proof goes as follows :

Take it that $\mathfrak{g}_1$ is such.

  1. Consider the action $\delta : \mathfrak{g}_2\to \mathfrak{Der} (\mathfrak{g}_1)$ by derivations (adjoint representation)
  2. Extend $\delta$ to $\mathfrak{Der}(\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_1))$ as in Bourbaki Lie ch 1 paragraph 2.8 prop 7.
  3. Extend $\delta$ as a morphism of $R$-algebras $\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_2)\to\mathrm{End}(\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_1))$ by universal property
  4. Set a law of $R$-unital associative algebra on $\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_1)\otimes_R\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_2)$ by $$ (u_1\otimes u_2).(v_1\otimes v_2)=(u_1\otimes 1)\Big((\delta\otimes\gamma_2)\circ\Delta(u_2)[v_1]\otimes v_2\Big) $$ where $\gamma_2(m)$ is the multiplication by $m$ on the left within $\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_2)$.
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Another fairly trivial case is when both Lie algebras are abelian: the universal enveloping algebra is the symmetric algebra and it follows from the functorial properties of the symmetric algebras that $\alpha$ is an isomorphism. $\endgroup$ May 23 '18 at 2:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ See mathoverflow.net/questions/88598/… for the case where $R $ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-algebra. $\endgroup$ May 23 '18 at 6:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, sorry, I thought $\alpha$ was supposed to be an isomorphism of algebras, which only makes sense if $\mathfrak g_1$ and $\mathfrak g_2$ commute. $\endgroup$ May 25 '18 at 12:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, that is what I meant (just on the other side of the Yoneda embedding). $\endgroup$ May 25 '18 at 18:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If one of them (say $\mathfrak g_1$) is an ideal, $\alpha$ must be one-to-one: in $\mathcal U(\mathfrak g)$ there is a monomial basis of the form $m_1m_2$ where $m_i$ are monomials from $\mathfrak g_i$, since $x_2x_1=x_1x_2+y_1$ with $x_i,y_i\in\mathfrak g_i$, so that any monomial not of the above form is a sum of a monomial "closer to" the above form and a shorter monomial. $\endgroup$ May 26 '18 at 9:23

I'm adding my comment as a partial answer, as discussed there; this is a reformulation of point 2 that has been added to the question.

Let $\mathcal L$ be the category of Lie $R$-algebras. Assume that $\mathfrak g = \mathfrak g_1 \oplus \mathfrak g_2$ in $\mathcal L$ (direct sum, i.e. I suppose that they commute). Let $\mathcal C$ be the category of unital $R$-algebras. Then $\alpha$ is an isomorphism in $\mathcal C$, since for every unital $R$-algebra $A$, the map $$\text{Hom}_{\mathcal L}(\mathfrak g,A) \cong \text{Hom}_{\mathcal C}(U(\mathfrak g),A) \stackrel{\alpha^*}{\to} \text{Hom}_{\mathcal C}(U(\mathfrak g_1) \otimes_R U(\mathfrak g_2),A)$$ is bijective (by the Yoneda lemma). This is because the right-hand side is given by all $$(f_1,f_2) \in \text{Hom}_{\mathcal C}(U(\mathfrak g_1),A) \times \text{Hom}_{\mathcal C}(U(\mathfrak g_2),A) \mbox{ with } [f_1(x_1),f_2(x_2)]=0 \mbox{ for } x_i \in \mathfrak g_i,$$ that is, all pairs of maps $(f_1,f_2)\!: \mathfrak g_1 \oplus \mathfrak g_2 \to A$ in $\mathcal L$ with $[f_1(x_1),f_2(x_2)]=0$ for all $x_i \in \mathfrak g_i$. Then the inverse of $\alpha^*$ is defined by $(f_1,f_2) \mapsto f_1+f_2$, which is well-defined, since $$(f_1+f_2)([x_1+x_2,y_1+y_2]) = f_1([x_1,y_1]) + f_2([x_2,y_2]) = [f_1(x_1) + f_2(x_2), f_1(y_1) + f_2(y_2)].$$

  • $\begingroup$ For the hasty reader, I added the assumption "(direct sum, i.e. I suppose that they commute)". $\endgroup$ May 25 '18 at 22:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I've specified the categories, and I hope this makes it clearer. $\endgroup$ May 26 '18 at 8:23
  • $\begingroup$ @ThomasPogunke Well, thank you (+1), let me check (and possibly clarify). $\endgroup$ May 26 '18 at 8:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is the Yoneda lemma: if $\alpha^*$ is a bijective for all $A \in \mathcal C$, then $\alpha$ is an isomorphism in $\mathcal C$. $\endgroup$ May 26 '18 at 9:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If by one-to-one you mean isomorphism, then yes; the Yoneda lemma holds for any category, including $\mathcal C$. $\endgroup$ May 26 '18 at 9:42

There are probably not many textbook references for these generalities, but I'd suggest looking at the first chapter of the Bourbaki treatise Groupes et algebres de Lie (whose chapters I-IX have been translated into English, possibly from later editions than the 1960 Hermann edition of Chapter I which is at hand).

Keep in mind that the first three sections of this chapter treat very general Lie algebras over a commutative ring (with 1) called $K$. The universal enveloping algebra of a "product" of two Lie algebras over $K$ is considered in $\S2.2$. I think this is essentially the same set-up you start with, in which the two Lie subalgebras commute with each other; otherwise I'm not sure what you mean by "direct sum". Anyway, in this framework it's fairly easy to prove that the universal enveloping algebra of such a product is isomorphic to the product of the two universal enveloping algebras: see their Proposition 2.

Are you asking a more subtle question here? Semi-direct products are of course more difficult to deal with.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, Gérard is asking a subtler question: His direct sum is only a direct sum in the category of $R$-modules. $\endgroup$ May 26 '18 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, Darij has rightly understood what I wrote (direct sum as a module). This is my concern and one of the dreams of Pr. Schützenberger : understand as much as possible left-right (non trivial) rewritings. Reference to Bourbaki added (point 2.5). $\endgroup$ May 27 '18 at 0:09
  • $\begingroup$ Added the case of semi-direct products as point 5. $\endgroup$ May 27 '18 at 6:14
  • $\begingroup$ Finally, the answer is yes $\alpha$ is one-to one in any case. I put a proof (relying on indexed rewriting) as answer (sorry :). Do not hesitate to interact and ask clarifications in here on in chat. $\endgroup$ Jun 10 '18 at 14:52

The answer is yes $\alpha$ is one-to one in any case.

We first build an arrow $$ \rho\ :\ T(\mathfrak{g})\to T(\mathfrak{g}_1)\otimes T(\mathfrak{g}_2) $$ by straightening the inversions. In order not to confuse strings with numbers, we reindex $\mathfrak{g}_1=\mathfrak{g}_a$ and $\mathfrak{g}_2=\mathfrak{g}_b$ where $a<b$ are two symbols. Using the decomposition in

Bourbaki, Algebra Chapter III § 5.5, one gets $$ T(\mathfrak{g})=\oplus_{w\in \{a,b\}^*}\,T_w $$ where $\{a,b\}^*$ is the set of words in the symbols $\{a,b\}$ (the free monoid generated by $\{a,b\}$) i.e. mappings $$ \{1,\cdots n\}\ni i\mapsto w[i]\in \{a,b\} $$ ($n$ is the length of the word and, if $n=0$, one gets the empty word i.e. the unit of the free monoid). For each word having an inversion at place "$i$" i.e. $w=p\,ba\,s$ where $|p|=i-1$, we have the rewrite rule $$ \begin{eqnarray} &&r_{w,i}(g_{w[1]}\otimes\ldots \otimes g_b\otimes g_a\otimes\ldots g_{w[n]})=\cr &&g_{w[1]}\otimes\ldots \otimes [g_b,g_a]_1\otimes\ldots g_{w[n]}+\cr &&g_{w[1]}\otimes\ldots \otimes [g_b,g_a]_2\otimes\ldots g_{w[n]}+\cr &&g_{w[1]}\otimes\ldots \otimes g_a\otimes g_b\otimes\ldots g_{w[n]}\cr && \in T_{p\,a\,s}\oplus T_{p\,b\,s}\oplus T_{p\,ab\,s} \end{eqnarray} $$ (where $[g,h]_i:=p_i([g,h])$, $p_i$ being the projector on the summands of the decomposition $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}_1\oplus\mathfrak{g}_2$) if the indexing word has no inversion at place ``$i$'', $r_{w,i}$ acts trivially (as identity). It is not difficult to check that this system (as usual $r_{w,i}$ is extended to $T(\mathfrak{g})$ by identity to other summands) is confluent (as, if there are two inversions, the indexing word must be of the form $w=p\,ba\,u\,ba\,s$) and noetherian (as the rules reduce either length or number of inversions). So, the linear map $\rho$ which sends any tensor to its normal form

  1. is a projector
  2. its image is $\oplus_{w\in \{a,b\}^*_{irr}}\,T_w=T(\mathfrak{g}_1)\otimes T(\mathfrak{g}_2)$ ($\{a,b\}^*_{irr}$ being the set of words without inversion i.e. $a^*b^*=\{a^pb^q\}_{p,q\geq 0}$)
  3. its kernel is the submodule generated by the differences $t-r_{w,i}(t)$
  4. due to the rewriting properties, one has $$ \rho(u\otimes \rho(v)\otimes w)=\rho(u\otimes v\otimes w) $$

From now on, we return to the original labeling $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}_1\oplus\mathfrak{g}_2$.

Restricting $\rho$ to its image, we get a surjection (still called $\rho$ here) $$ \rho\ :\ T(\mathfrak{g}) \rightarrow T(\mathfrak{g}_1)\otimes T(\mathfrak{g}_2) $$ and the factor embedding $$ j\ :\ T(\mathfrak{g}_1)\otimes T(\mathfrak{g}_2)\hookrightarrow T(\mathfrak{g}) $$ is a section of it. Together with point (4) above, this suffices to prove that there exists a (unique) law of algebra (associative with unit, AAU in the sequel) on $T(\mathfrak{g}_1)\otimes T(\mathfrak{g}_2)$ (call it $*$) such that $\rho$ is a morphism (of AAU), this law reads $t_1*t_2:=\rho(j(t_1)\otimes j(t_2))$ and (we identify $t$ and $j(t)$) $$ (t_1*t_2)*t_3=\rho(\rho(t_1\otimes t_2)\otimes t_3)= \rho(t_1\otimes t_2\otimes t_3)=t_1*(t_2*t_3) $$

then the kernel of $\rho$ is a two sided ideal which contains all the elements (with $(g_2,h_1)\in \mathfrak{g}_2\times \mathfrak{g}_1$) $$ B(g_2,h_1)=g_2\otimes h_1 - h_1\otimes g_2 - [g_2,h_1]\ . $$ By composition, we now have a linear morphism $\beta_0=(s_1\otimes s_2)\circ\rho$ $$ T(\mathfrak{g}) \stackrel{\rho}{\rightarrow} T(\mathfrak{g}_1)\otimes T(\mathfrak{g}_2) \stackrel{s_1\otimes s_2}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_1)\otimes\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_2) $$ where $s_i$ is the canonical surjection $T(\mathfrak{g}_i)\to \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_i)$. Let us show now that the kernel of $s:T(\mathfrak{g})\to \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})$ is included in $ker(\beta_0)$, so that we could factorize $\beta_0$ through $\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})$ as follows.
$$ \require{AMScd} \begin{CD} T(\mathfrak{g}) @>{\rho}>>T(\mathfrak{g}_1)\otimes T(\mathfrak{g}_2)\\ @V{s}VV @VV{s_1\otimes s_2}V \\ \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}) @>{\beta}>> \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_1)\otimes\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_2) \end{CD} $$ Let us prove that this last diagram is admissible.

We know that $\mathcal{J}=ker(s)$ is the two sided ideal generated by the elements $\{B(g,h)\}_{g,h\in \mathfrak{g}}$ where $$ B(g,h)=g\otimes h - h\otimes g - [g,h] $$ As $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}_1\oplus\mathfrak{g}_2$ and $B(-,-)$ is bilinear antisymmetric it amounts to the same to split the family in three relators $$ \{B(g_1,h_1)\}_{g_1,h_1\in \mathfrak{g}_1}\cup \{B(g_2,h_2)\}_{g_2,h_2\in \mathfrak{g}_2}\cup \{B(g_2,h_1)\}_{(g_2,h_1)\in \mathfrak{g}_2\times \mathfrak{g}_1} $$ Calling $\mathcal{J}_{ij}$ be the corresponding (two-sided) ideals, we have already shown that $$ \mathcal{J}_{21}\subset ker(\rho)\subset ker(\beta_0) $$ The fact that $\mathcal{J}_{11}\subset ker(\beta_0)$ is a consequence of the following identity (for $g_2\in \mathfrak{g}_2$ and $g_1,h_1\in \mathfrak{g}_1$) $$ g_2\otimes B(g_1,h_1)\equiv_\rho B([g_2,g_1]_1,h_1)+B(g_1,[g_2,h_1]_1)+ B(g_1,h_1)\otimes g_2\qquad (*) $$ where $\equiv_\rho$ means the equivalence modulo $ker(\rho)$.

One shows very similarly that $\mathcal{J}_{22}\subset ker(\beta_0)$, hence the square diagram above. Computing on generators shows that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are mutually inverse.

Remarks i) The same proof seems to show that, in case $$ \mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}_1\oplus \mathfrak{s} $$ where $\mathfrak{s}$ is some submodule, then the arrow $$ \alpha\ :\ \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g_1})\otimes \mathcal{A}(\mathfrak{s})\to \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}) $$ (where $\mathcal{A}(\mathfrak{s})$ is the subalgebra generated by $\mathfrak{s}$) is one-to-one.

ii) Generalizing the straightening process to $|I|<+\infty$, and taking into account the ambiguities (squares and hexagons), it seems true that, for any decomposition $$ \mathfrak{g}=\oplus_{i\in I}\, \mathfrak{g}_i $$ (equality is as $R$-modules but any individual $\mathfrak{g}_i$ is a Lie subalgebra), the ($I$ being linearly ordered) multiplication map (only linear) $$ \stackrel{\rightarrow}{\otimes}_{i\in I}\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_i) \stackrel{\alpha}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}) $$ is one-to-one. However the construction and proofs seem considerably more difficult.

iii) If $I$ is infinite, one first constructs $\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\otimes}_{i\in I}\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_i)$ as in Bourbaki Algebra Chapter III § 4.5 using the unities but not the algebra structure. We can, again, ask the same question.

Please do not hesitate to interact if something is wrong or unclear !

Late edit i) Proof of identity $(*)$.

Let us use two derivations within $T(\mathfrak{g})$ defined on the generators $g\in \mathfrak{g}$ by $$ ad_{g_2}^{\otimes}(g):=g_2\otimes g-g\otimes g_2=[g_2,g]_{\otimes} \ ;\ ad_{g_2}(g):=[g_2,g] $$ then, for $g_2\in \mathfrak{g}_2$ and because, for $u\in\mathfrak{g}_1$, $ad_{g_2}^{\otimes}(u)\equiv_\rho ad_{g_2}(u)$,
$$ \begin{eqnarray} && ad_{g_2}^{\otimes}(B(g_1,h_1))=ad_{g_2}^{\otimes}([g_1,h_1]_{\otimes}-[g_1,h_1])\cr &&=[[g_2,g_1]_{\otimes},h_1]_{\otimes}+[g_1,[g_2,h_1]_{\otimes}]_{\otimes}- ad_{g_2}^{\otimes}([g_1,h_1])\cr &&\equiv_\rho [[g_2,g_1]_{\otimes},h_1]_{\otimes}+[g_1,[g_2,h_1]_{\otimes}]_{\otimes}- ad_{g_2}([g_1,h_1])\cr &&\equiv_\rho [[g_2,g_1],h_1]_{\otimes}+[g_1,[g_2,h_1]]_{\otimes}- [[g_2,g_1],h_1]-[g_1,[g_2,h_1]]\cr &&\equiv_\rho B([g_2,g_1],h_1)+B(g_1,[g_2,h_1])\cr &&\equiv_\rho B([g_2,g_1]_1,h_1)+B(g_1,[g_2,h_1]_1)\cr \end{eqnarray} $$

ii) Proof of $\mathcal{J}_{11}\subset ker(\beta_0)$

The two-sided ideal $\mathcal{J}_{11}$ is linearly generated by the elements $$ s=u_1\otimes B(g_1,h_1)\otimes u_2 $$ with $g_1,h_1\in \mathfrak{g}_1$ and $u_i\in T_{w_i}$

We first rewrite each $u_i$ with $\rho$ and get that the two-sided ideal $\mathcal{J}_{11}$ is linearly generated by elements of the form $$ t\equiv_\rho t_1\otimes t_2 \otimes B(g_1,h_1)\otimes t_3\otimes t_4 $$ with $t_1\in T_{a^p},\ t_2\in T_{b^q},\ t_3\in T_{a^r},\ t_4\in T_{b^s}$.

If $q>0$, we have $t_2=t'_2\otimes g_2$, for some $g_2\in \mathfrak{g}_2$

then using identity $(*)$ , one has $$ t\equiv_\rho t_1\otimes t'_2 \otimes \Big( B([g_2,g_1]_1,h_1)+B(g_1,[g_2,h_1]_1)+B(g_1,h_1)\otimes g_2\Big)\otimes t_3\otimes t_4 $$ using a recurrence on $q$, one gets $$ t\equiv_\rho t_1\otimes \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{q} B(x_i,y_i)\otimes v_i\otimes t_3\otimes t_4\Big) $$ with $x_i,y_i\in \mathfrak{g}_1$ and $v_i$ in some $T_{w_i}$. Now $$ t\equiv_\rho \Big(\sum_{i=1}^n t_1\otimes B(x_i,y_i)\otimes \rho(v_i\otimes t_3\otimes t_4)\Big) $$ applying $\beta_0$ (which is compatible with $\equiv_\rho$) to both members, we have $$ \beta_0(t)=\beta_0\Big(\sum_{i=1}^n t_1\otimes B(x_i,y_i)\otimes \rho(v_i\otimes t_3\otimes t_4)\Big)=0 $$

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why is the multiplication $*$ associative? Also, some extraneous $\in$ signs in the definition of $r_{w,i}$. $\endgroup$ Jun 9 '18 at 17:18
  • $\begingroup$ @darijgrinberg [Why is the multiplication ∗ associative]---> Good question, let me think of it (maybe my argument is incomplete). [$\in$ signs in the definition of $r_{w,i}$]---> this is to show in which sectors the result goes. $\endgroup$ Jun 9 '18 at 17:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let me know when you've fixed the associativity argument (or maybe you don't need it?). BTW: If you can show the analogous fact for an arbitrary direct sum (not just of $2$ submodules), then you'll have gotten a new proof of Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt (even one of the more general versions: the one where $\mathfrak{g}$ is assumed to be a direct sum of cyclic modules). $\endgroup$ Jun 9 '18 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ @darijgrinberg I think it is fixed, this is due to the rewriting process (I added property 4), thanks for interaction (+1) $\endgroup$ Jun 9 '18 at 19:09
  • $\begingroup$ This is looking better and better! But I don't quite see how you get $\mathcal{J}_{11} \subseteq \ker\beta_0$. Also, minor typo: one of the $\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g})$s in the commutative diagram should be a $\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{g}_1)$. $\endgroup$ Jun 9 '18 at 20:39

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.