2
$\begingroup$

Let $g$ be a Kac-Moody algebra with a symmetrizable Cartan matrix, and let $\{u_j\}$ and $\{u^j\}$ be bases of $g$ dual with respect to a nondegenerate invariant bilinear form $(\cdot|\cdot)$ on $g$, and consistent with the triangular decomposition of $g$. Let $L(\Lambda)$ be an integrable representation of $g$ with highest weight $\Lambda$, and let $v_\Lambda$ be its highest weight vector. Denote the Casimir $\Omega=\sum_j u_j\otimes u^j$.

Question. Why $\Omega(v_\Lambda\otimes v_\Lambda)=(\Lambda|\Lambda)v_\Lambda\otimes v_\Lambda$? Could someone give some explanation or some references?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can you perhaps tell us which article/book you got the equation from? And why is the explanation there not satisfactory? $\endgroup$ Feb 19 '21 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your response. The relation is correct. But I want to know the reason, since i am just a beginer in Lie algebra. The relation is just Lemma 3 in D. H. Peterson and V. G. Kac, Infinite flag varieties and conjugacy theorems, Proc, Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, Vol. 80,1983, pp. 1778-1782. $\endgroup$
    – tudong
    Feb 19 '21 at 13:58
  • $\begingroup$ Calling the form invariant means $g$-invariant, in the sense that $\operatorname{ad}$ is skew-symmetric with respect to it? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Feb 19 '21 at 14:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The paper @tudong referenced: Kac and Peterson - Infinite flag varieties and conjugacy theorems. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Feb 19 '21 at 14:36
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, the form invariant means $(ad x \cdot y|z)+(y,adx\cdot z)=0$. $\endgroup$
    – tudong
    Feb 20 '21 at 0:38
0
$\begingroup$

You should be a bit careful, as this isn't precisely the action of the Casimir on $v \otimes v$, but instead follows from it.

For each positive root $\alpha$, let $e_\alpha^{(1)}, \dots, e_\alpha^{(n_\alpha)}$ be a basis of the root space $\mathfrak{g}_\alpha$, and let $\{f_\alpha^{(i)}\}$ be the corresponding dual space for $\mathfrak{g}_{-\alpha}$. Define $\Omega_\alpha:= \sum_{i=1}^{n_\alpha} f_\alpha^i e_\alpha^i$. Also, let $\{h_i, h^i\}$ be a dual basis for $\mathfrak{h}$, and set $\Omega_0:= \sum_i h_ih^i$. Then the Casimir element is given by $$ \Omega= 2\nu^{-1}(\rho)+\Omega_0 +2\sum_{\alpha \in \Delta^+} \Omega_\alpha$$ where $\rho$ is a Weyl vector defined by $\rho(\alpha_i^\vee)=1$ for all simple coroots $\alpha_i^\vee$, and $\nu: \mathfrak{h} \to \mathfrak{h}^\ast$ is the isomorphism determined by the nondegenerate bilinear form.

A key fact about the Casimir operator is that, for any $v \in L(\mu)$ for any dominant weight $\mu$, we have that $\Omega(v)=(\mu | \mu+2\rho)v$. Now, by just expanding out over the tensor product using the above definition of $\Omega$, we get for any $v \in L(\Lambda)$ $$ \Omega(v \otimes v) = (\Omega(v)) \otimes v + v \otimes (\Omega(v)) +2 \sum_{\alpha \in \Delta \sqcup \{0\}} \sum_{i=1}^{n_\alpha} e_\alpha^i(v) \otimes f_\alpha^i(v). $$

Now, if $v \in G(v_\Lambda)$ is a vector in the $G$-orbit of $v_\Lambda$ (one such example is precisely $v_\Lambda$), we have $v \otimes v \in L(2\Lambda)$. Then the left-hand side is precisely $(2\Lambda | 2\Lambda +2\rho) (v\otimes v)$. The right-hand side is similarly $$ 2(\Lambda | \Lambda+2\rho)(v \otimes v) + 2 (\text{the term you are interested in}).$$

Solving for the term you want gives precisely $(\Lambda | \Lambda)(v\otimes v)$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your explanation. Could you say something more about the relation $\Omega(v\otimes v)=(\Omega(v))\otimes v+v\otimes (\Omega(v))+2\sum_{\alpha\in\Delta^+\cup\{0\}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_\alpha}e_\alpha^i(v)\otimes f_\alpha^i(v)$. I am confused in this relation. And why it is $\Delta^+$? It seems to me it will be $\Delta$. In this case, $e_\alpha^i$ and $f_\alpha^i$ are the dual basis of $g$, just as $\{u_j\}$ and $\{u^j\}$. $\endgroup$
    – tudong
    Feb 24 '21 at 0:05
  • $\begingroup$ @tudong You are correct, the summation in the final term of $\Omega(v \otimes v)$ should have been over $\Delta$ and not $\Delta^+$; this has been edited. And yes, these are the dual basis, with the convention that $e_{-\alpha}=f_{\alpha}$. To see why the Casimir distributes the way that it does, you can work out for any $e,f$ in $\mathfrak{g}$ that $ef(v \otimes v) = e(fv \otimes v + v \otimes fv)=efv \otimes v +fv \otimes ev +ev \otimes fv +v \otimes efv$; doing this for each term and appropriately handling the scalar action coming from the basis of $\mathfrak{h}$ will give it to you. $\endgroup$
    – SamJeralds
    Feb 24 '21 at 0:46

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.