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.
Central-character summands refine into linkage blocks
Statement
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and .
For a linkage class , let be the full subcategory of objects all of whose simple composition factors have labels in . Then , and each nonzero is indecomposable as a categorical direct summand. These are precisely the blocks. Each lies in ; a central-character summand can contain several blocks. Independently, grouping weights by cosets of the root lattice gives a canonical coarser decomposition by weight cosets.
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 . For a weight , define Reflections and coroots are those of def-root-reflections-and-the-weyl-group-action, with the shift from def-weyl-vector-rho-for-a-chosen-positive-system. The integral-reflection linkage class through is . The word integral includes zero and negative integral pairings. If is empty the generated group is . This definition uses generating reflections; no identification with a root-lattice-coset stabilizer is assumed. (The integral Weyl group of a weight)
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . The set is preserved by its root reflections. If , then and . The equivalence classes generated by moves with are exactly . Every strong-linkage chain stays in one such class. (Integral reflection linkage is an equivalence relation)
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . A short exact sequence in splits whenever and belong to distinct integral-reflection linkage classes. (Simple extensions cannot cross linkage classes)
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. (Splitting finite-length modules across separated simple classes)
For , if , then . (Verma embedding for an arbitrary positive root)
The proper submodule which is the sum of all proper submodules is the unique maximal submodule of . The quotient is simple and is its unique simple quotient. (A Verma module has a unique simple quotient)
Let and be the central characters obtained from highest weights and . Then where . (Central characters are dot-Weyl orbits)
Proof
Integral-reflection orbits partition the simple labels, and extensions between simples in distinct parts split. The finite-length splitting lemma therefore gives the stated functorial decomposition with no cross-part morphisms. Each part contains its simple and is nonzero.
A Verma module is indecomposable: if it were a sum of two nonzero submodules, neither could be the whole module, and their sum would lie in the unique maximal proper submodule, a contradiction. Thus the decomposition just constructed places entirely in the part containing its simple quotient .
Let and replace it by its positive choice of sign, which leaves the reflection unchanged. Set . If , F5 embeds in . If , the pairing at is , so F5 gives the reverse embedding. If , the labels agree. In any categorical refinement the containing indecomposable Verma stays in one summand, so its two simple subquotients and stay together.
Every pair of labels in is joined by a finite word of these moves. Hence all its simples stay together under any categorical refinement. A nonzero object of a putative second summand has a simple composition factor, which is impossible. Therefore is indecomposable, and the displayed direct sum lists all blocks.
Every label in lies in the full dot orbit, so its simple module has character . If a module has such composition factors, each element of lowers its composition filtration by at least one step. Therefore annihilates the module; for zero use exponent 1. This proves .
For each coset the sum is a submodule, because root operators shift weights by roots and Cartan operators preserve weights. Their sum is direct and exhausts ; only finitely many occur, since finitely many weight generators occupy finitely many cosets. An integral-reflection move changes a label by an integral multiple of a root. Thus each linkage part occupies a single coset, but no converse identification with a coset stabilizer was used.
Depends on
- The integral Weyl group of a weight
- Integral reflection linkage is an equivalence relation
- Simple extensions cannot cross linkage classes
- Splitting finite-length modules across separated simple classes
- Verma embedding for an arbitrary positive root
- A Verma module has a unique simple quotient
- Central characters are dot-Weyl orbits
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
21 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 pp.30–32 and §4.9 pp.83–84 (standard reference, not scraped)