If $Phi$ is irreducible then $Delta$ is irreducible.











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $Phi$ a root system with basis $Delta$. Show that if $Phi$ is irreducible then $Delta$ is irreducible.



Comments: Suppose that $Delta = Delta_1 cup Delta_2$ is a partition of $Delta$ into two non-empty mutually orthogonal subsets. I already showed a result that every root is conjugate to a simple root by an element of the Weyl
group $W$ which is generated by the simple reflections. Let $Phi_1$ the set of
roots which are conjugate to an element of $Delta_1$ and $Phi_2$ the set those roots which are conjugate to an element of $Delta_2$. We have $Phi = Phi_1 cup Phi_2$.



I need to show that $(Phi_1,Phi_2) = 0$ to conclude that $Phi$ is irreducible and get a contradiction.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $Phi$ a root system with basis $Delta$. Show that if $Phi$ is irreducible then $Delta$ is irreducible.



    Comments: Suppose that $Delta = Delta_1 cup Delta_2$ is a partition of $Delta$ into two non-empty mutually orthogonal subsets. I already showed a result that every root is conjugate to a simple root by an element of the Weyl
    group $W$ which is generated by the simple reflections. Let $Phi_1$ the set of
    roots which are conjugate to an element of $Delta_1$ and $Phi_2$ the set those roots which are conjugate to an element of $Delta_2$. We have $Phi = Phi_1 cup Phi_2$.



    I need to show that $(Phi_1,Phi_2) = 0$ to conclude that $Phi$ is irreducible and get a contradiction.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $Phi$ a root system with basis $Delta$. Show that if $Phi$ is irreducible then $Delta$ is irreducible.



      Comments: Suppose that $Delta = Delta_1 cup Delta_2$ is a partition of $Delta$ into two non-empty mutually orthogonal subsets. I already showed a result that every root is conjugate to a simple root by an element of the Weyl
      group $W$ which is generated by the simple reflections. Let $Phi_1$ the set of
      roots which are conjugate to an element of $Delta_1$ and $Phi_2$ the set those roots which are conjugate to an element of $Delta_2$. We have $Phi = Phi_1 cup Phi_2$.



      I need to show that $(Phi_1,Phi_2) = 0$ to conclude that $Phi$ is irreducible and get a contradiction.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Let $Phi$ a root system with basis $Delta$. Show that if $Phi$ is irreducible then $Delta$ is irreducible.



      Comments: Suppose that $Delta = Delta_1 cup Delta_2$ is a partition of $Delta$ into two non-empty mutually orthogonal subsets. I already showed a result that every root is conjugate to a simple root by an element of the Weyl
      group $W$ which is generated by the simple reflections. Let $Phi_1$ the set of
      roots which are conjugate to an element of $Delta_1$ and $Phi_2$ the set those roots which are conjugate to an element of $Delta_2$. We have $Phi = Phi_1 cup Phi_2$.



      I need to show that $(Phi_1,Phi_2) = 0$ to conclude that $Phi$ is irreducible and get a contradiction.







      abstract-algebra lie-algebras root-systems






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 15 at 17:59

























      asked Nov 15 at 17:36









      Croos

      787516




      787516






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Suppose $betainPhi_1$, and $beta=w(alpha)$ for $alphainDelta_1$, $win W$. Now $w$ is a product of simple reflections, and the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponding to a simple root $alpha_i$ in $Delta_1$ adds a multiple of $alpha_i$ to $alpha$, (or whatever root it is after applying some other previous simple reflections in a decomposition of $w$), but the simple reflections for simple roots in $Delta_2$ leave it unchanged, since $Delta_1$ and $Delta_2$ are orthogonal. So $beta$ is in the span of $Delta_1$. Likewise, if $gammainPhi_2$, then $gamma$ is in the span of $Delta_2$. Thus $Phi_1$ and $Phi_2$ are orthogonal since $Delta_1$ and $Delta_2$ are orthogonal.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I could not understand why the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponds to a simple root $alpha_i in Delta_1$. Why belongs to $Delta_1$?
            – Croos
            Nov 15 at 20:19










          • What I have is the following: if $alpha in Phi_1$ then exists $w in W$ such that $walpha in Delta_1$, ie, $s_1s_2 ... s_t(alpha) in Delta_1$. How to conclude that $alpha in span{Delta_1}$?
            – Croos
            Nov 15 at 20:35












          • @Croos Then $alpha=w^{-1}(beta)$ for some $betainDelta_1$, and $w^{-1}=s_tcdots s_1$. Then writing $alpha_i$ for the simple root for $s_i$, $s_1(beta)=beta-frac{2(alpha_1,beta)}{(alpha_1,alpha_1)}alpha_1$. So if $alpha_1inDelta_1$, the resulting root $s_1(beta)$ is a linear combination of $beta$ and $alpha_1$, hence in the span of $Delta_1$. If $alpha_1inDelta_2$, $(beta,alpha_1)=0$, so $s_1(beta)=beta$, hence still in the span of $Delta_1$. Now repeat the argument inductively to see $alpha$ is in the span of $Delta_1$.
            – Ben West
            Nov 15 at 20:39








          • 1




            Thank you for your help.
            – Croos
            Nov 15 at 20:43


















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          The first thing you can do is observe that $Wcong W_1times W_2$ where $W_i=langle s_alphamid alphain Delta_irangle$ ($i=1,2$). In this case, $W_1$ is the stabilizer of $Phi_2$, $W_2$ is the stabilizer of $Phi_1$, and we have $Phi_1=W_1Delta_1$ and $Phi_2=W_2Delta_2$. It now follows that if $betainPhi_i$ ($i=1,2$), then
          $$beta=sum_{alphain Delta_i}c_alpha alpha$$
          for some $c_alphain mathbb{R}$. It is now straightforward to conclude that $Phi_1perpPhi_2$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3000007%2fif-phi-is-irreducible-then-delta-is-irreducible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted










            Suppose $betainPhi_1$, and $beta=w(alpha)$ for $alphainDelta_1$, $win W$. Now $w$ is a product of simple reflections, and the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponding to a simple root $alpha_i$ in $Delta_1$ adds a multiple of $alpha_i$ to $alpha$, (or whatever root it is after applying some other previous simple reflections in a decomposition of $w$), but the simple reflections for simple roots in $Delta_2$ leave it unchanged, since $Delta_1$ and $Delta_2$ are orthogonal. So $beta$ is in the span of $Delta_1$. Likewise, if $gammainPhi_2$, then $gamma$ is in the span of $Delta_2$. Thus $Phi_1$ and $Phi_2$ are orthogonal since $Delta_1$ and $Delta_2$ are orthogonal.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • I could not understand why the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponds to a simple root $alpha_i in Delta_1$. Why belongs to $Delta_1$?
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:19










            • What I have is the following: if $alpha in Phi_1$ then exists $w in W$ such that $walpha in Delta_1$, ie, $s_1s_2 ... s_t(alpha) in Delta_1$. How to conclude that $alpha in span{Delta_1}$?
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:35












            • @Croos Then $alpha=w^{-1}(beta)$ for some $betainDelta_1$, and $w^{-1}=s_tcdots s_1$. Then writing $alpha_i$ for the simple root for $s_i$, $s_1(beta)=beta-frac{2(alpha_1,beta)}{(alpha_1,alpha_1)}alpha_1$. So if $alpha_1inDelta_1$, the resulting root $s_1(beta)$ is a linear combination of $beta$ and $alpha_1$, hence in the span of $Delta_1$. If $alpha_1inDelta_2$, $(beta,alpha_1)=0$, so $s_1(beta)=beta$, hence still in the span of $Delta_1$. Now repeat the argument inductively to see $alpha$ is in the span of $Delta_1$.
              – Ben West
              Nov 15 at 20:39








            • 1




              Thank you for your help.
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:43















            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted










            Suppose $betainPhi_1$, and $beta=w(alpha)$ for $alphainDelta_1$, $win W$. Now $w$ is a product of simple reflections, and the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponding to a simple root $alpha_i$ in $Delta_1$ adds a multiple of $alpha_i$ to $alpha$, (or whatever root it is after applying some other previous simple reflections in a decomposition of $w$), but the simple reflections for simple roots in $Delta_2$ leave it unchanged, since $Delta_1$ and $Delta_2$ are orthogonal. So $beta$ is in the span of $Delta_1$. Likewise, if $gammainPhi_2$, then $gamma$ is in the span of $Delta_2$. Thus $Phi_1$ and $Phi_2$ are orthogonal since $Delta_1$ and $Delta_2$ are orthogonal.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • I could not understand why the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponds to a simple root $alpha_i in Delta_1$. Why belongs to $Delta_1$?
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:19










            • What I have is the following: if $alpha in Phi_1$ then exists $w in W$ such that $walpha in Delta_1$, ie, $s_1s_2 ... s_t(alpha) in Delta_1$. How to conclude that $alpha in span{Delta_1}$?
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:35












            • @Croos Then $alpha=w^{-1}(beta)$ for some $betainDelta_1$, and $w^{-1}=s_tcdots s_1$. Then writing $alpha_i$ for the simple root for $s_i$, $s_1(beta)=beta-frac{2(alpha_1,beta)}{(alpha_1,alpha_1)}alpha_1$. So if $alpha_1inDelta_1$, the resulting root $s_1(beta)$ is a linear combination of $beta$ and $alpha_1$, hence in the span of $Delta_1$. If $alpha_1inDelta_2$, $(beta,alpha_1)=0$, so $s_1(beta)=beta$, hence still in the span of $Delta_1$. Now repeat the argument inductively to see $alpha$ is in the span of $Delta_1$.
              – Ben West
              Nov 15 at 20:39








            • 1




              Thank you for your help.
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:43













            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted






            Suppose $betainPhi_1$, and $beta=w(alpha)$ for $alphainDelta_1$, $win W$. Now $w$ is a product of simple reflections, and the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponding to a simple root $alpha_i$ in $Delta_1$ adds a multiple of $alpha_i$ to $alpha$, (or whatever root it is after applying some other previous simple reflections in a decomposition of $w$), but the simple reflections for simple roots in $Delta_2$ leave it unchanged, since $Delta_1$ and $Delta_2$ are orthogonal. So $beta$ is in the span of $Delta_1$. Likewise, if $gammainPhi_2$, then $gamma$ is in the span of $Delta_2$. Thus $Phi_1$ and $Phi_2$ are orthogonal since $Delta_1$ and $Delta_2$ are orthogonal.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Suppose $betainPhi_1$, and $beta=w(alpha)$ for $alphainDelta_1$, $win W$. Now $w$ is a product of simple reflections, and the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponding to a simple root $alpha_i$ in $Delta_1$ adds a multiple of $alpha_i$ to $alpha$, (or whatever root it is after applying some other previous simple reflections in a decomposition of $w$), but the simple reflections for simple roots in $Delta_2$ leave it unchanged, since $Delta_1$ and $Delta_2$ are orthogonal. So $beta$ is in the span of $Delta_1$. Likewise, if $gammainPhi_2$, then $gamma$ is in the span of $Delta_2$. Thus $Phi_1$ and $Phi_2$ are orthogonal since $Delta_1$ and $Delta_2$ are orthogonal.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 15 at 18:32









            Ben West

            9,04622237




            9,04622237












            • I could not understand why the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponds to a simple root $alpha_i in Delta_1$. Why belongs to $Delta_1$?
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:19










            • What I have is the following: if $alpha in Phi_1$ then exists $w in W$ such that $walpha in Delta_1$, ie, $s_1s_2 ... s_t(alpha) in Delta_1$. How to conclude that $alpha in span{Delta_1}$?
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:35












            • @Croos Then $alpha=w^{-1}(beta)$ for some $betainDelta_1$, and $w^{-1}=s_tcdots s_1$. Then writing $alpha_i$ for the simple root for $s_i$, $s_1(beta)=beta-frac{2(alpha_1,beta)}{(alpha_1,alpha_1)}alpha_1$. So if $alpha_1inDelta_1$, the resulting root $s_1(beta)$ is a linear combination of $beta$ and $alpha_1$, hence in the span of $Delta_1$. If $alpha_1inDelta_2$, $(beta,alpha_1)=0$, so $s_1(beta)=beta$, hence still in the span of $Delta_1$. Now repeat the argument inductively to see $alpha$ is in the span of $Delta_1$.
              – Ben West
              Nov 15 at 20:39








            • 1




              Thank you for your help.
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:43


















            • I could not understand why the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponds to a simple root $alpha_i in Delta_1$. Why belongs to $Delta_1$?
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:19










            • What I have is the following: if $alpha in Phi_1$ then exists $w in W$ such that $walpha in Delta_1$, ie, $s_1s_2 ... s_t(alpha) in Delta_1$. How to conclude that $alpha in span{Delta_1}$?
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:35












            • @Croos Then $alpha=w^{-1}(beta)$ for some $betainDelta_1$, and $w^{-1}=s_tcdots s_1$. Then writing $alpha_i$ for the simple root for $s_i$, $s_1(beta)=beta-frac{2(alpha_1,beta)}{(alpha_1,alpha_1)}alpha_1$. So if $alpha_1inDelta_1$, the resulting root $s_1(beta)$ is a linear combination of $beta$ and $alpha_1$, hence in the span of $Delta_1$. If $alpha_1inDelta_2$, $(beta,alpha_1)=0$, so $s_1(beta)=beta$, hence still in the span of $Delta_1$. Now repeat the argument inductively to see $alpha$ is in the span of $Delta_1$.
              – Ben West
              Nov 15 at 20:39








            • 1




              Thank you for your help.
              – Croos
              Nov 15 at 20:43
















            I could not understand why the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponds to a simple root $alpha_i in Delta_1$. Why belongs to $Delta_1$?
            – Croos
            Nov 15 at 20:19




            I could not understand why the action of a simple reflection $s_i$ corresponds to a simple root $alpha_i in Delta_1$. Why belongs to $Delta_1$?
            – Croos
            Nov 15 at 20:19












            What I have is the following: if $alpha in Phi_1$ then exists $w in W$ such that $walpha in Delta_1$, ie, $s_1s_2 ... s_t(alpha) in Delta_1$. How to conclude that $alpha in span{Delta_1}$?
            – Croos
            Nov 15 at 20:35






            What I have is the following: if $alpha in Phi_1$ then exists $w in W$ such that $walpha in Delta_1$, ie, $s_1s_2 ... s_t(alpha) in Delta_1$. How to conclude that $alpha in span{Delta_1}$?
            – Croos
            Nov 15 at 20:35














            @Croos Then $alpha=w^{-1}(beta)$ for some $betainDelta_1$, and $w^{-1}=s_tcdots s_1$. Then writing $alpha_i$ for the simple root for $s_i$, $s_1(beta)=beta-frac{2(alpha_1,beta)}{(alpha_1,alpha_1)}alpha_1$. So if $alpha_1inDelta_1$, the resulting root $s_1(beta)$ is a linear combination of $beta$ and $alpha_1$, hence in the span of $Delta_1$. If $alpha_1inDelta_2$, $(beta,alpha_1)=0$, so $s_1(beta)=beta$, hence still in the span of $Delta_1$. Now repeat the argument inductively to see $alpha$ is in the span of $Delta_1$.
            – Ben West
            Nov 15 at 20:39






            @Croos Then $alpha=w^{-1}(beta)$ for some $betainDelta_1$, and $w^{-1}=s_tcdots s_1$. Then writing $alpha_i$ for the simple root for $s_i$, $s_1(beta)=beta-frac{2(alpha_1,beta)}{(alpha_1,alpha_1)}alpha_1$. So if $alpha_1inDelta_1$, the resulting root $s_1(beta)$ is a linear combination of $beta$ and $alpha_1$, hence in the span of $Delta_1$. If $alpha_1inDelta_2$, $(beta,alpha_1)=0$, so $s_1(beta)=beta$, hence still in the span of $Delta_1$. Now repeat the argument inductively to see $alpha$ is in the span of $Delta_1$.
            – Ben West
            Nov 15 at 20:39






            1




            1




            Thank you for your help.
            – Croos
            Nov 15 at 20:43




            Thank you for your help.
            – Croos
            Nov 15 at 20:43










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            The first thing you can do is observe that $Wcong W_1times W_2$ where $W_i=langle s_alphamid alphain Delta_irangle$ ($i=1,2$). In this case, $W_1$ is the stabilizer of $Phi_2$, $W_2$ is the stabilizer of $Phi_1$, and we have $Phi_1=W_1Delta_1$ and $Phi_2=W_2Delta_2$. It now follows that if $betainPhi_i$ ($i=1,2$), then
            $$beta=sum_{alphain Delta_i}c_alpha alpha$$
            for some $c_alphain mathbb{R}$. It is now straightforward to conclude that $Phi_1perpPhi_2$.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              The first thing you can do is observe that $Wcong W_1times W_2$ where $W_i=langle s_alphamid alphain Delta_irangle$ ($i=1,2$). In this case, $W_1$ is the stabilizer of $Phi_2$, $W_2$ is the stabilizer of $Phi_1$, and we have $Phi_1=W_1Delta_1$ and $Phi_2=W_2Delta_2$. It now follows that if $betainPhi_i$ ($i=1,2$), then
              $$beta=sum_{alphain Delta_i}c_alpha alpha$$
              for some $c_alphain mathbb{R}$. It is now straightforward to conclude that $Phi_1perpPhi_2$.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                The first thing you can do is observe that $Wcong W_1times W_2$ where $W_i=langle s_alphamid alphain Delta_irangle$ ($i=1,2$). In this case, $W_1$ is the stabilizer of $Phi_2$, $W_2$ is the stabilizer of $Phi_1$, and we have $Phi_1=W_1Delta_1$ and $Phi_2=W_2Delta_2$. It now follows that if $betainPhi_i$ ($i=1,2$), then
                $$beta=sum_{alphain Delta_i}c_alpha alpha$$
                for some $c_alphain mathbb{R}$. It is now straightforward to conclude that $Phi_1perpPhi_2$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                The first thing you can do is observe that $Wcong W_1times W_2$ where $W_i=langle s_alphamid alphain Delta_irangle$ ($i=1,2$). In this case, $W_1$ is the stabilizer of $Phi_2$, $W_2$ is the stabilizer of $Phi_1$, and we have $Phi_1=W_1Delta_1$ and $Phi_2=W_2Delta_2$. It now follows that if $betainPhi_i$ ($i=1,2$), then
                $$beta=sum_{alphain Delta_i}c_alpha alpha$$
                for some $c_alphain mathbb{R}$. It is now straightforward to conclude that $Phi_1perpPhi_2$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 15 at 18:32









                David Hill

                8,4871618




                8,4871618






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3000007%2fif-phi-is-irreducible-then-delta-is-irreducible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Mont Emei

                    Province de Neuquén

                    Journaliste