Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a complex simple Lie algebra and $x \in \mathfrak{g}$ be a regular element, i.e. its centralizer is of minimal dimension.

Consider the adjoint action of the adjoint group $G$ (with trivial center) on its Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$.

Is it true that the stabilizer of $x$ in $G$ is always connected?

If $x$ is semisimple, then it is known that the stabilizer of $x$ in the simply connected group is connected (see the book of Collingwood-McGovern, Theorem 2.3.3), and so by projection, also in the adjoint group.

If $x$ is regular and nilpotent (also called principal nilpotent), then one can check in the lists of all Lie algebras in the book of Collingwood-McGovern to check that the stabilizer is connected.

But what about a general regular element? And if it is true, is there a simple proof (without using the classification of simple Lie algebras)?

  • $\begingroup$ I don't know what is the adjoint group.. can I assume $G$ is a Lie group and $\mathfrak{g}$ be it's Lie algebra?? $\endgroup$ Oct 3 '19 at 13:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ At least this is true in $\mathrm{PGL}_n(\mathbf{C})$, without assuming regular. Indeed, for $x\in\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbf{C})$, the centralizer $C_x$ of $x$ in $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbf{C})$ is connected (centralizers in $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbf{C})$ are connected, and this applies to $x+t$ for suitable scalar $t$). Hence the centralizer $C_x/\mathbf{C}^*$ of $x$ in $\mathrm{PGL}_n(\mathbf{C})$ is connected. (On the other hand, in $\mathrm{PGL}_2(\mathbf{C})$ there are regular elements inside the group itself, with non-connected centralizer.) $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Oct 3 '19 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ The centraliser of an arbitrary element is the centraliser in the centraliser of the semisimple part, of the (regular there) nilpotent part. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Oct 3 '19 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ @PraphullaKoushik: the adjoint group $G$ is the unique Lie group with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ which is centerless. If the centralizer is connected in a covering space, of course it is also connected in the adjoint group, but the converse is of course not true. $\endgroup$
    – AThomas
    Oct 3 '19 at 15:55
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, your argument in the semisimple case doesn't work: it is true that the image in the adjoint group of the centraliser in the semisimple group is connected, but the centraliser in the adjoint group can, a priori, be strictly larger. (This happens with @YCor's example of $g = \begin{pmatrix} i & 0 \\ 0 & -i \end{pmatrix}$, whose centraliser in $\operatorname{PGL}_2(\mathbb C)$ is bigger than the image of its centraliser in $\operatorname{SL}_2(\mathbb C)$; but that's on the group side.) The conclusion is still true (in characteristic 0), just not the proof. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Oct 3 '19 at 16:05

$\def\semi{_{\text{semi}}}\def\nil{_{\text{nil}}}$This is just an elaboration of my comment. If $X \in \mathfrak g$ is regular, with semisimple part $X\semi$ and nilpotent part $X\nil$, then $X\nil$ is regular nilpotent in $\operatorname{Lie}(\operatorname C_G(X\semi))$, so you have said that you already know that $\operatorname C_{\operatorname C_G(X\semi)^\circ}(X\nil)$ is connected. On the other hand, $\operatorname C_G(X\semi)$ is connected. (Your argument for this by reduction to the simply connected case doesn't work, but it is true in general, in characteristic 0 or even just in not-too-small positive characteristic. The reference that I know is Section 7 of Yu - Construction of tame supercuspidal representations, although that's clearly the wrong place to look for general questions of this sort; better to look in Steinberg. (Probably there's a precise reference in Collingwood–McGovern; the "simple connectedness implies connectedness" result you cite, which is valid on the group as well as the Lie-algebra level, is due to Steinberg.) Thus, $\operatorname C_{\operatorname C_G(X\semi)^\circ}(X\nil)$, which we have seen is connected, equals $\operatorname C_{\operatorname C_G(X\semi)}(X\nil) = \operatorname C_G(X)$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! I felt that one should be able to reduce to the nilpotent case. But still, is there a direct argument without using the classification of Lie algebras? $\endgroup$
    – AThomas
    Oct 4 '19 at 6:47
  • $\begingroup$ @AThomas, I almost never think of centralisers of nilpotents, so I don't know off the top of my head; but I'll think about it. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Oct 4 '19 at 17:14

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.