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.
Sl2 kostant harmonic decomposition
Example
For , choose complex coordinates in which the normalized Killing quadratic is , and put . Multiplication gives an isomorphism of graded vector spaces The invariant ring is , so is precisely the common kernel of the positive-degree invariant constant-coefficient operators. Its homogeneous degree- component has dimension for every .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Use matrices , , , with commutator bracket. Polynomial adjoint invariance means that the derivations with vector fields kill the polynomial for ; the opposite pullback sign gives the same kernels.
The Killing form here is defined by on this three-dimensional matrix algebra.
Verification
Matrix multiplication gives , , and . The matrices of these adjoint maps on give , , and all other basis pairings zero. For example has diagonal ; maps , , , so its trace is four. The squares of and mixed products with have zero trace. Thus for , . Put , , ; then . These are orthonormal coordinates for , and is nondegenerate by this explicit diagonal matrix.
The -derivation on is . Its kernel consists of sums of monomials with equal exponents, hence polynomials with . The -derivation is , which on such a polynomial is . Since the polynomial ring is a domain, its vanishing is equivalent to . In the invertible polynomial change , write . The equation is , so characteristic zero gives . Hence every invariant is a polynomial in . Conversely the displayed derivations kill , and the -derivation also kills . Therefore the invariant ring is exactly .
In the orthonormal coordinates for , replacement of a linear coordinate by its corresponding directional derivative sends to and to . Replacing by scales the identification on each degree by a nonzero scalar, so the kernels do not change. Positive-degree elements of are finite linear combinations of with . Thus their common differential kernel is exactly : necessity uses , and sufficiency uses every power of .
For a homogeneous harmonic polynomial of degree , the product rule and the monomial Euler identity give for . Indeed and in three variables; the cross term contributes and . Every displayed coefficient is nonzero when . For the Laplacian vanishes by harmonicity.
Write for homogeneous polynomials of degree , and . We prove by induction on . For , differentiation twice gives zero, so . For , the induction decomposition of shows that the map is an isomorphism: on each summand it is multiplication by the nonzero scalar in 4.1 onto , and multiplication by the nonzero polynomial is injective. For any , there is therefore a unique with ; then . The same injectivity shows . This proves the inductive direct decomposition.
Summing the finite decompositions of 5.1 over degrees proves that multiplication is surjective and injective: each tensor has finite support in the powers of , and the degreewise decomposition makes all its harmonic coefficients unique. Counting the monomials with gives . For , 5.1 gives ; for the dimensions are directly . Constants and all linear polynomials are harmonic, zero is allowed throughout, and the nonzero coefficients in 4.1 cover every higher step. The inverse decomposition is uniquely specified by finite calculations in each degree; no AC, general Chevalley restriction or general Kostant theorem is used.
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · 0 levels
Nothing. This result depends on no other item in the library.
Sources
- Pavel Etingof, Representations of Lie Groups, §§11–13; local proof and exact reading limits in the group report (standard reference, not scraped)