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.
Splitting finite-length modules across separated simple classes
Statement
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and .
Partition the isomorphism classes of simple objects of into parts . Suppose every extension of two simples from different parts splits, in either order. Then each has a unique decomposition into submodules whose composition factors lie in , with finitely many nonzero terms. This decomposition is functorial, and maps between modules supported on disjoint collections of parts are zero.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The setting above and the hypotheses in the statement.
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . Every object of has a finite composition series and is both Noetherian and Artinian. The length of zero is zero. (Every object of O has finite length)
If an object in an abelian category has two composition series, then the two series have the same length and the same composition factors up to permutation and isomorphism. (Jordan-Holder theorem in an abelian category)
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . The category is closed under submodules, quotients and finite direct sums and is an abelian category. If is exact, , and is -semisimple, then . The middle-term weight hypothesis is essential. (Category O is abelian and extension closed among weight modules)
Proof
Finite length and Jordan–Hölder make the set of composition factors of every object intrinsic. In any exact sequence the multiset of factors of the middle object is the union of those of the ends: concatenate a series in the subobject with the inverse images of a series in the quotient and use Jordan–Hölder. Thus a nonzero image of a map between objects with disjoint collections of parts would have a simple factor in both collections. Such maps are zero.
First fix a simple in one collection of parts and an object supported in disjoint parts. We prove every extension splits by induction on the length of . For this is immediate, and for simple it is the hypothesis. Otherwise choose a maximal proper submodule so is simple. The quotient is the pushout along , explicitly . The extension of by splits by hypothesis. The inverse image in of a chosen section image is an extension of by ; induction splits it, supplying a section into .
For general in parts disjoint from those of , induct on its length in . The case is immediate and a simple was just handled. Choose a maximal submodule , with simple quotient . The pullback is , equivalently . Induction splits it, giving a copy disjoint from . Now splits by the preceding step. Its retraction onto , composed with , is a retraction of onto . Its kernel is a complementary copy of , proving the required splitting for all lengths.
Construct the decomposition by induction on the length of , with the empty decomposition for zero. Choose a maximal proper submodule and write its already constructed decomposition as , where the simple quotient belongs to part . The extension splits by the preceding argument. Compose its retraction onto with . The resulting retraction gives , where . All factors of lie in part . This constructs finitely many summands.
For two such decompositions, the composite of the inclusion of a part- summand with projection onto any part- summand for vanishes by the first step. Therefore that part- submodule is contained in the other part- submodule, and reversing the decompositions gives equality. The same argument for any map proves preservation of parts and functoriality.
Notes
The source leaves the formal finite-length decomposition to the reader. The local proof supplies the pushout, pullback, retraction and uniqueness arguments explicitly; its proof provenance is therefore ai-generated rather than literature-derived or a claimed transcription.
Depends on
Used by
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
- §1.13 p.31, formal decomposition paragraph (standard reference, not scraped)