I'm not sure this question fully qualifies as a research-level math question, but from my (limited) past experience on stackexchanged I feared this question might not get an answer there.

Setting: the category $\cal{O}$ associated to a complex semisimple Lie algebra $\frak{g}=\frak{n}\oplus\frak{h}\oplus\frak{n}^-$. The Verma with highest weight $\lambda$ is denoted $M_\lambda$, and its irreducible quotients are $L_\lambda$. The projective cover of $L_\lambda$ is $P_\lambda$, which is self-dual precisely when $\lambda$ is $\varrho$-antidominant. Let the contragredient dual be denoted $M^\dagger$, and let $\mathbb C_\lambda$ denote the one-dimensional space with an $\mathfrak h$-action given by $\lambda$.

Question summary: for the tensor of a Verma with a finite-dimensional, take the spectral sequence associated to the filtered complex which is the Chevalley cochain complex filtered by the Verma filtration on the tensor we are interested in -- then we should get a spectral sequence $H^{p+q}(\mathfrak{n} : M_{\lambda+\lambda_p})\ {\Longrightarrow_p}\ H^{p+q}(\mathfrak{n}:M_\lambda\otimes V)$. However I am applying this to examples such as $M_{-1}\otimes L_1=P_{-2}$ and $M_0\otimes L_2=M_2\oplus P_{-2}$ in $\frak sl_2$ and getting the wrong answers. I reproduce my work below and would be very grateful if someone could point out where I went wrong.

Details: For a finite-dimensional object $V\in\cal O$, the tensor product $M_\lambda\otimes V$ admits a "standard filtration" or "Verma flag", $M_\lambda\otimes V=M(0)\supset M(1)\supset\cdots\supset 0$, whose quotients are $M(i)/M(i+1)=M_{\lambda_i}$, where $\{\lambda_i\}_i$ are the weights of $V$ labeled such that $\lambda_i\ge\lambda_j\implies i\le j$.

Let $C^\bullet$ be the Chevalley cochain complex $\operatorname{Hom}_\mathbb{C}(\mathfrak{n}^{\wedge\bullet},M_\lambda\otimes V)$, and consider the filtration $F^p C^{p+q}=\operatorname{Hom}_\mathbb{C}(\mathfrak{n}^{\wedge(p+q)},M(p))$. This is a bounded decreasing filtration of a bounded cohomologically graded complex. Then this guy has a spectral sequence $$E_1^{p,q}=H^{p+q}(\operatorname{Hom}_\mathbb{C}(\mathfrak{n}^{\wedge(p+q)},M(p))/\operatorname{Hom}_\mathbb{C}(\mathfrak{n}^{\wedge(p+q)},M(p+1)))=H^{p+q}(\mathfrak{n}:M_{\lambda+\lambda_p}) \ {\Longrightarrow_p}\ H^{p+q}(\mathfrak{n}:M_\lambda\otimes V),$$ where $\deg \text{d}_r=(r,1-r)$.

I tried to apply this to $M_{-1}\otimes L_1=P_{-2}$. In that case we would get the first page $E_1$ has (I will denote $H^k(\mathfrak{n}:M)$ as just $H^k(M)$) $H^0(M_0)$ in the $(0,0)$ position, $H^1(M_0)$ in the $(0,1)$ position, $H^1(M_{-2})$ in the $(1,0)$ position, and $H^0(M_{-2})$ in the $(1,-1)$ position, and nothing anywhere else. But $M_{-2}=L_{-2}$ is self-dual, and recall from category $\cal O$ that $M^\dagger$ has a standard filtration if and only if $H^{>0}(\mathfrak{n}:M)=0$ (the obstruction to the contragredient having a standard filtration is measured by higher Lie algebra cohomology out of $\mathfrak n$). Hence $H^1(M_{-2})=0$. Then $E_1$ just has three nonzero terms, each lying in its own row. The differential $\text d_1$ has degree $(1,0)$ and points to the right. So $E_2=E_1$. It's also easy to see that the later differentials, of degree $(r,1-r)$, will never connect two nonzero terms. So actually $E_1=E_\infty$.

Let us compute the actual terms of this page. $H^0(M_0)=\mathbb C_0\oplus\mathbb C_{-2}$ and $H^0(M_{-2})=\mathbb C_{-2}$ since $H^0(M)$ is just the $\mathfrak n$-invariants of $M$, and $H^1(M_{0})=\mathbb C_{-2}$ since in general there is a formula $\operatorname{ch}_M=\sum_\lambda \chi(\operatorname{Ext}^\bullet(M_\lambda,M))\operatorname{ch}_{M_\lambda}$. This would imply, by the convergence of the spectral sequence, that $$H^0(\mathfrak n:M_{-1}\otimes L_1)=\mathbb C_0\oplus\mathbb C_{-2}\oplus\mathbb C_{-2},\qquad H^1(\mathfrak n:M_{-1}\otimes L_1)=\mathbb C_{-2}.$$

HOWEVER this cannot be correct, since $M_{-1}\otimes L_1=P_{-2}$ is both injective and projective, so in particular the $-2$-weight space of $H^1(\mathfrak n:P_{-2})$, which is given by $\operatorname{Ext}^1(M_{-2},P_{-2})$, must vanish. The $H^0$ is also incorrect, since $\text{ch}_{P_{-2}}=\text{ch}_{M_0}+\text{ch}_{M_{-2}}$ then forces $\dim\operatorname{Ext}^0(M_{-2},P_{-2})=\dim\operatorname{Ext}^0(M_{0},P_{-2})=1$, i.e. $H^0(\mathfrak n:P_{-2})=\mathbb C_0\oplus\mathbb C_{-2}$. So the right answer should be $$H^0(\mathfrak n:P_{-2})=\mathbb C_0\oplus\mathbb C_{-2},\qquad H^1(\mathfrak n:P_{-2})=0.$$

I've tried a similar computation with $M_0\otimes L_2=M_2\oplus P_{-2}$ with similarly disastrously wrong answers.

What gives?


1 Answer 1


I think the issue here is that the subquotients in the standard filtration have weights (your $\lambda_i$'s) which are ordered the other way. To be clear, if the weights of $\nu_0$, ..., $\nu_n$ of $L$ are ordered so that $\nu_i \le \nu_j$ implies $i\le j$, then one obtains a standard filtration for $M_\lambda \otimes L$ with subquotients $M(i)/M(i+1) = M_{\lambda+\nu_i}$. Explicitly, the filtration comes from applying the exact functor $\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak g) \otimes_{\mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{b})}-$ to the filtration of $U(\mathfrak{b})$-modules $N(0)=\mathbb{C}_\lambda \otimes L \supset N(1) \supset ... \supset N(n)=0$, where $N(k)=U(\mathfrak{b})\cdot \{v_k,...,v_n\}$. (Had you ordered the weights the other way, the $N(i)$ would not be $\mathfrak b$-submodules!)

In your first example, $\nu_0=-1$ and $\nu_2=1$, so $M=M_{-1}\otimes L_1$ has a filtration with $M(0)=M$, $M(1)=M_{0}$ and $M(0)/M(1)=M_{-2}$ (so $\lambda_0=-2$, $\lambda_1=0$). Since it only has two steps, the spectral sequence amounts to a single long exact sequence computation: the one associated to the short exact sequence of complexes $0 \rightarrow C^\bullet(\mathfrak n : M(1)) \rightarrow C^\bullet(\mathfrak n : M) \rightarrow C^\bullet(\mathfrak n : M_{-2}) \rightarrow 0$. It is easy to see that this does agree with your character computations for $P_{-2}$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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