Alphabeta Math
PropositionStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-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.

Orthogonality of root spaces and nondegeneracy on the Cartan subalgebra

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let h be a Cartan subalgebra of a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra g with Killing form B, and let Φ=Φ(g,h) be the root set (Root and root space).

(i) If α,βΦ{0} and α+β0, then B(gα,gβ)=0. (ii) The restriction Bh is nondegenerate.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice, such g,h and roots α,β.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice is The Axiom of Choice; it licenses the root-space decomposition in [L2].

[L1]

The Killing form is the trace form of the adjoint representation, and trace forms of finite-dimensional representations are symmetric and invariant: B([z,x],y)+B(x,[z,y])=0 (Killing form, Trace forms are symmetric and invariant).

[L2]

The root spaces are the simultaneous weight spaces of adh, g=hγΦgγ is a direct sum, and [gα,gβ]gα+β (Root and root space, Root-space decomposition, Brackets of root spaces).

[L3]

A Cartan subalgebra of a complex semisimple Lie algebra is maximal toral, and a toral subalgebra is abelian (Cartan subalgebras are exactly maximal toral subalgebras, Toral and maximal toral subalgebras).

[L4]

B is nondegenerate because g is semisimple (Cartan's semisimplicity criterion).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

We first justify the zero-weight convention in (i). By [L3], h is abelian, so hg0. Conversely, if xg0, write x=H0+γΦxγ by [L2]. For every Hh, the equality 0=[H,x]=γγ(H)xγ and directness of the decomposition give γ(H)xγ=0 for every γ and every H. Since each root γ is a nonzero functional, this forces every xγ=0, so x=H0h and g0=h. Now let xgα and ygβ. Invariance [L1] gives 0=B([H,x],y)+B(x,[H,y])=(α(H)+β(H))B(x,y). If α+β0, some Hh has (α+β)(H)0, whence B(x,y)=0. This proves (i).

A1L1L2L3algebra
2.1

For (ii) let xh satisfy B(x,h)=0. By (i) every gγ with γ0 is orthogonal to h=g0, so B(x,gγ)=0 for all γ0 as well, and by [L2] B(x,g)=0. Nondegeneracy [L4] gives x=0.

A1L2L4step 1.1algebra

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

30 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