Alphabeta Math
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedaudited 2026-09-22
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.

A plain dynkin diagram classifies real forms

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice. False: the plain Dynkin diagram of the complexification classifies the real forms of a complex semisimple Lie algebra, so that no additional decoration is needed.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice; the complex simple Lie algebra sl2(C) with its real forms su(2)={X:X=X} and sl2(R), and the Dynkin diagram conventions of Dynkin diagram with edge multiplicity and arrow convention.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice is The Axiom of Choice; it is the hypothesis required by the Vogan-classification interface in [L4].

[L1]

su(2) and sl2(R) are real forms of sl2(C): the unitary algebra is the fixed locus of the conjugate-linear involution XX, and the real basis h,e,f of sl2(R) is a complex basis of sl2(C) (Real Cartan subalgebras need not be conjugate, The special linear Lie algebra sl_2, Classical complex matrix Lie algebras).

[L2]

The Killing form of sl2(C) restricts to a negative definite form on su(2) and takes the value B(h,h)=8>0 on the nonzero element h=diag(1,1)sl2(R), so the two real forms are not isomorphic: an isomorphism preserves the Killing form, since adφX=φadXφ1 (Killing form, Real Cartan subalgebras need not be conjugate).

[L3]

The complex simple Lie algebra sl2(C) has Dynkin diagram A1, the single-vertex diagram with no edges, and the Dynkin diagram is determined by the Cartan matrix of the root system of the complexification (Classical types correspond to sl, so and sp, Dynkin diagram with edge multiplicity and arrow convention).

[L4]

The extra data beyond the plain Dynkin diagram that classify real forms are recorded by the Vogan diagram of a maximally compact Cartan subalgebra — the induced involution of the simple roots together with the painting of the fixed vertices — and equivalently by the Satake diagram of a maximally split Cartan subalgebra with its colouring and arrow pairing (Vogan diagram, Satake diagram, Classification of real forms by Vogan diagrams).

Refutation

technique · counterexample
1.1

The two real Lie algebras su(2) and sl2(R) are real forms of the same complex Lie algebra sl2(C) by [L1], and they are not isomorphic by [L2], the numerical obstruction being the sign of the Killing form at a nonzero element together with its negative definiteness on the compact form.

L1L2
2.1

The complexification of each of them is sl2(C), which is complex simple with Dynkin diagram A1 by [L3]; consequently both real forms have the same plain Dynkin diagram of the complexification, namely one vertex and no edge.

L3step 1.1
3.1

If the plain Dynkin diagram of the complexification classified real forms, then the two real forms of step 1.1 — which share the diagram A1 — would be isomorphic; they are not, by [L2]. Hence the plain diagram does not classify real forms, and the passage from the diagram to a real form requires the additional data recalled in [L4]: for sl2(C) the single vertex is painted for one of the two forms and unpainted for the other, which is exactly the distinction between su(2) and sl2(R).

A1L2L4step 1.1step 2.1
4.1

Therefore two non-isomorphic real forms of a complex semisimple Lie algebra can have the same plain Dynkin diagram of the complexification, and the statement that a plain Dynkin diagram classifies real forms is false.

step 2.1step 3.1

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

60 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