Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
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.

Rank-one Hecke specializations can be semisimple or nonsemisimple

Example

Let W=S2 with its one simple reflection, and use the local normalized Hecke parameter q in Universal parameters, the generic Coxeter Hecke algebra and generator conjugacy. The base-change statement of The standard basis of the generic Hecke algebra and base change identifies each specialization H2(q) with the quotient having one generator T and relation (T−q)(T+q−1)=0. Here an algebra is called semisimple when its left regular module is a direct sum of simple left ideals; a simple module is a nonzero module with no proper nonzero submodule.

For q=i, H2(i) is the dual-number algebra C[ϵ]/(ϵ2), so it is not semisimple. For q=1 or q=−1, H2(q) is C[T]/(T2−1), which is semisimple. Thus these small root-of-unity specializations already have different behavior; no generic quantum Schur–Weyl centralizer statement is being specialized here.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The rank-one Coxeter system W=S2, the universal Hecke algebra over its Laurent parameter ring, and the specializations q=i, q=1, and q=−1 over C.

[F1]

Universal parameters, the generic Coxeter Hecke algebra and generator conjugacy: the rank-one quadratic relation is (T−v)(T+v−1)=0 for a unit parameter v.

[F2]

The standard basis of the generic Hecke algebra and base change: arbitrary scalar extension presents the specialized Hecke algebra by the images of the same quadratic and braid relations, with no flatness assumption.

[A1]

i2=−1, so i−1=−i and i is a unit in C.

[A2]

The values 1 and −1 are units in C and each has square 1.

Verification

1.1givenF1F2A1algebraconstruct

For any unit q, expanding [F1] and putting S=qT gives S2=(q2−1)S+q2, equivalently (S−q2)(S+1)=0; thus the multiplicative source parameter is ξ=q2, while all calculations below keep the local T generator. Now set q=i. Then [F1] gives (T−i)(T+i−1)=(T−i)2=0, and [F2] identifies this as the complete specialized presentation. With ϵ=T−i, translation T=ϵ+i gives mutually inverse homomorphisms between H2(i) and C[ϵ]/(ϵ2). Every class has a unique form a+bϵ: terms of degree at least two vanish, and a polynomial of degree at most one lying in (ϵ2) has both coefficients zero. Hence the algebra has basis 1,ϵ and ϵ is nonzero.

1.2givenF1F2A2algebraconstruct

For q=1 and q=−1, [F1] gives the same relation T2−1=0, using [F2] for the specialization. The elements e+=(1+T)/2 and e−=(1−T)/2 are orthogonal idempotents with sum 1. The classes 1,T are linearly independent because no nonzero polynomial of degree at most one is divisible by T2−1, so e+ and e− are nonzero and form a basis. Thus H2(q)=Ce+⊕Ce−, and each one-dimensional left ideal is simple. The regular module is semisimple.

2.1givenstep 1.1algebra

The left ideal ϵH2(i) is one-dimensional, nonzero and proper by step 1.1, so the left regular module is not simple. If it were a direct sum of simple left ideals, its dimension two would force it to be a sum of two one-dimensional simple modules. On any one-dimensional module, left multiplication by ϵ is a scalar λ satisfying λ2=0, hence λ=0. It would then annihilate both summands and therefore all of H2(i), contradicting ϵ⋅1=ϵ≠0. Thus the regular module is not semisimple.

3.1step 2.1step 1.2given∎

Steps 2.1 and 1.2 establish the two different specialization outcomes under the stated normalized relation. They make no claim about higher ranks, centralizers, positive characteristic, or every root of unity. No choice principle is used: every basis, idempotent, and module complement calculation is explicit and finite.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

15 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