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.
Weyl discriminant and reflecting hyperplane arrangement
Definition
Use the finite root system, and of Finite Weyl root system, lattice and chamber conventions, complexify to , and write with the action of Finite linear invariant and coinvariant polynomial algebras. For each root let , extending the Euclidean form complex bilinearly. The reflecting arrangement is the collection of distinct hyperplanes for . The Weyl discriminant is Reducedness makes these factors pairwise nonproportional, so its degree is the number of these hyperplanes. In rank zero the product is and the arrangement is empty. The following argument verifies that these are exactly the reflection hyperplanes of , and that .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The root-system and polynomial conventions in the Definition.
Simple reflections generate and permute all positive roots except their own, by Finite Weyl positive roots and simple reflections.
A regular point has trivial stabilizer by Finite Weyl closed chambers and stabilizers: move it into the open chamber and use its zero-label stabilizer assertion.
Proof
Two nonzero root forms have the same complex kernel only if they are proportional. Restricting to real vectors makes the proportionality scalar real; reducedness then makes their roots equal up to sign, and positivity selects the same root. Every root reflection fixes its corresponding real hyperplane and its complexification. Conversely let be a complex reflection, meaning and its fixed complex subspace has codimension one. Since its matrix is real, its real fixed subspace has real codimension one too. Orthogonality forces to be the unique orthogonal reflection in that hyperplane . If were different from every real root hyperplane, their intersections with would be finitely many proper subspaces of . They cannot cover : in a finite basis of , substitute in each of the nonzero restricted forms, and choose a real value outside the finite set of roots of those polynomials. In dimension zero, the assertion that differs from every root hyperplane can occur only if there are no roots in a positive-dimensional spanning root system, which is excluded. Thus would contain a regular point fixed by , contrary to F2. Hence is a root hyperplane.
Orthogonality gives . By F1, applying to the product defining permutes every factor except , which changes sign. Thus . Multiplication of these identities along any simple-reflection word yields for all . No choice of a word for each group element is needed; the identity holds for every word. The polynomial is nonzero since its factors are nonzero in a polynomial ring over a field, as also follows by multiplying leading monomials in any fixed monomial order. Rank zero gives the same identity for the unit.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
6 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
- Pavel Etingof, Lie Groups and Lie Algebras, §§21–22; local sign-change proofs fill the chamber argument (standard reference, not scraped)