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.
abstract-algebra lie-algebras root-systems
add a comment |
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.
abstract-algebra lie-algebras root-systems
add a comment |
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.
abstract-algebra lie-algebras root-systems
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
abstract-algebra lie-algebras root-systems
edited Nov 15 at 17:59
asked Nov 15 at 17:36
Croos
787516
787516
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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 $Phi_1perpPhi_2$.
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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 $Phi_1perpPhi_2$.
add a comment |
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 $Phi_1perpPhi_2$.
add a comment |
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 $Phi_1perpPhi_2$.
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 $Phi_1perpPhi_2$.
answered Nov 15 at 18:32
David Hill
8,4871618
8,4871618
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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