How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Finite Verma flags and their multiplicities
Definition
Assume the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice). Work in category with the conventions of The classical BGG category O, and write for the standard objects of Standard and costandard objects, i.e. the Verma modules of Verma modules.
A finite Verma flag of an object of — also called a standard flag or a -flag — is a finite increasing sequence of subobjects such that each quotient is isomorphic to a Verma module , for . An object admitting such a flag is called Verma-filtered. Since the flag is exhausted by its factors, its class in the Grothendieck group of The Grothendieck group and character of O is
For a Verma-filtered object and a weight , the multiplicity is the number of indices with in a Verma flag of . This number is independent of the chosen flag by Verma-flag multiplicities are independent of the flag ↗, so the notation is well-defined for Verma-filtered .
The zero object has the empty flag, and every multiplicity of the zero object is zero; a nonzero Verma-filtered object has at least one factor. A one-step flag of is exactly an isomorphism for a single weight , so the objects with a one-step flag are the Verma modules themselves. The flag is a chain of subobjects of in the module category; it is not required to split, and later examples show that it need not.
Depends on
Used by
- Injectives have costandard filtrations Corollary
- The triangular restriction on projective Verma flags Corollary
- A projective Verma flag need not split Counterexample
- Verma filtrations are not closed under quotients Counterexample
- The sl2 reciprocity matrices Example
- The two projectives in the principal sl2 block Example
- Translation through the sl2 wall Example
- Direct summands of Verma-filtered objects are Verma-filtered Lemma
- Finite-dimensional tensoring preserves Verma flags Lemma
- Hom to costandards counts Verma-flag factors Lemma
- Peeling a maximal-weight Verma from a standard filtration Lemma
- Verma-flag multiplicities are independent of the flag Lemma
- Projectives in category O have finite Verma flags Theorem
- Translation to and from a single wall on standard modules Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
16 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Lin Chen, lecture notes (Spring 2024), Lecture 9, Theorem-Definition 1.1 and Proposition-Definition 2.1 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Pavel Etingof, Representations of Lie Groups (18.757, Fall 2023), Sec. 20.2 (standard reference, not scraped)