Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
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.

Equivalent characterizations of reductive Lie algebras

Statement

For a finite-dimensional Lie algebra g over a characteristic-zero field, the following are equivalent:

  1. rad⁡(g)=Z(g);
  2. g=Z(g)⊕[g,g] and the derived algebra is semisimple;
  3. the adjoint representation of g is completely reducible.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Such a Lie algebra g.

[L1]

The quotient by the radical is semisimple (The radical is characteristic and its quotient has zero radical).

[L2]

Weyl's theorem completely reduces finite-dimensional modules for a semisimple algebra (Weyl's complete reducibility theorem).

[L3]

Ideals and quotients of semisimple algebras are semisimple (Ideals and quotients of semisimple Lie algebras).

[L4]

Semisimple algebras are perfect and centerless (Semisimple Lie algebras are centerless and perfect).

[L5]

A completely reducible representation is a direct sum of irreducible subrepresentations (Irreducible, completely reducible, and faithful representations).

Proof

technique · prove 1 ⇒ 2 ⇒ 3 ⇒ 1
1.1L1L2L3L4

Assume condition 1 and write z=Z(g). By [L1], q=g/z is semisimple. It acts on g through adjoints, and z is a trivial submodule. By [L2] there is a q-submodule s with g=z⊕s. Invariance says [g,s]⊆s, so s is an ideal, and projection identifies it with q. Hence it is semisimple by [L3]. Since z is central and s is perfect by [L4], [g,g]=s. This is condition 2.

1.2L2given

Assume condition 2. The adjoint module is the direct sum of the trivial module Z(g) and the adjoint module of the semisimple ideal [g,g]. The latter is completely reducible by [L2], so the whole adjoint module is completely reducible. This proves condition 3.

1.3L5algebra

Assume condition 3. By [L5], the adjoint module is a finite direct sum of irreducible submodules. Every submodule W therefore has an invariant complement: starting with C=0, if W⊕C≠g, some irreducible summand in the displayed finite decomposition is not contained in W+C; its intersection with W+C is then zero by irreducibility, so adjoining it strictly enlarges C while preserving W∩C=0. Finite dimensionality makes this process terminate with g=W⊕C. Write r=rad⁡(g) and use this observation to choose an invariant complement s. Both are ideals, so [r,s]⊆r∩s=0. Apply the observation again to the characteristic ideal r′=[r,r], choosing an invariant complement c in g. If u=r∩c, then the decomposition g=r′⊕c restricts to r=r′⊕u. The summands r′ and u are ideals and commute.

2.1step 1.3algebra∎

From step 1.3, r=r′⊕u and [r′,u]=0. Hence r′=[r,r]=[r′,r′]+[u,u]. The second summand lies in both u and r′, so it is zero; therefore r′=[r′,r′]. But r′ is solvable, and a nonzero perfect algebra cannot be solvable, so r′=0. Thus r is abelian and, because it also commutes with s, is central in g. Conversely the center is an abelian ideal and lies in the radical. This proves condition 1 and closes the equivalence. For g=0, all three conditions hold.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

20 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