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.
Finite affine indefinite trichotomy for indecomposable gcms
Statement
For an indecomposable GCM , exactly one of the following clauses holds and defines its type (inequalities are coordinatewise over ):
- Finite: , some has , and implies or .
- Affine: , some has , and implies . Equivalently ; its positive null ray is unique.
- Indefinite: some has , and , imply .
Each type is equivalently characterized by its displayed positive-vector condition alone. The matrices and have the same type. Finite and affine GCMs are symmetrizable. If is a symmetric positive-diagonal symmetrization, finite type is equivalent to being positive definite, affine type to being positive semidefinite of corank one, and indefinite type to taking both positive and negative quadratic values. For a decomposable matrix, “finite type” means every indecomposable block is finite type.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An indecomposable GCM of size n≥1.
Off-diagonal entries are nonpositive integers with a symmetric zero pattern, and indecomposability forbids a block partition. (Generalized cartan matrix).
The symmetrizer convention is DA symmetric. (Symmetrizable generalized cartan matrix).
If a real matrix satisfies and , then the strict matrix alternative provides with . (Strict linear alternative for GCM trichotomy).
Proof
The graph joining when is connected: its connected components give a forbidden block partition otherwise, and a block partition disconnects it. If and , then at a zero coordinate , . Equality forces every neighbor to have zero coordinate. Propagating along finite paths proves or .
Suppose contains a nonzero nonnegative vector , so by step 1.1. If is not contained in , take with some negative coordinate (a nonnegative exception is excluded by step 1.1). Along the segment from to there is a point with at least one zero coordinate and . Step 1.1 gives , whence is a negative multiple of and forces . For any , if has a negative coordinate repeat with ; if repeat with . In either case . Thus . Otherwise ; then a nonzero kernel vector would put both it and its negative in this cone, impossible. So is invertible, and is strictly positive with image . These are precisely the affine and finite clauses.
If has either clause of step 2.1, no can have : otherwise has negative coordinates and a nonzero image, contradicting either description of . Contraposition of F3 with gives a nonzero with . Apply step 2.1 to . Its rank equals that of by Gaussian elimination, so its clause is finite when is invertible and affine when has corank one. Repeating with the transpose proves both transpose implications. If , the transpose has the same property: otherwise step 2.1 and the just-proved transpose implication contradict it. F3 with now supplies , . This gives the indefinite clause and its transpose invariance.
The three clauses are disjoint by their cone and rank conditions and exhaustive by steps 2.1–3.1. A positive vector with strictly positive image excludes affine and indefinite by their cone conditions. A positive null vector excludes finite by invertibility and indefinite by its cone condition. A positive vector with negative image puts its negative in with strictly positive image, excluding both finite and affine. Thus the three positive-vector conditions are each sufficient as well as necessary. The affine null ray and corank follow from step 2.1.
For later use, every connected proper principal submatrix of an affine is finite type: restrict a positive null vector to a connected index subset . Then and is nonzero, since connectivity of the full graph gives an edge across the partition. Step 4.1 excludes indefinite type for , and its affine cone condition excludes a nonzero nonnegative image, so it is finite. For finite , restricting a positive vector with positive image gives , since the omitted off-diagonal contribution is nonpositive. Hence each connected principal submatrix is finite in that case too.
Assume is finite or affine. If its graph has a cycle, take a shortest simple cycle of length . It has no chord. Its principal matrix has diagonal 2 and paired edges around the cycle with positive integers . It is finite or affine by step 5.1, or by the assumption if it is the whole graph. Choose with by step 4.1. In each row sum is nonnegative. Its paired edge magnitudes have product . Since , their sum is at least 2. Summing all row sums gives . Equality forces every , hence . This cycle matrix has null vector , so is affine by step 4.1; step 5.1 forbids it being a proper principal submatrix. Thus is symmetric.
If the connected graph has no simple cycle, it is a tree: two different simple paths would produce a simple cycle. Fix its least vertex with and propagate along its unique paths. Every edge then satisfies ; nonedges have both sides zero, and diagonal equalities are automatic. Thus is symmetric by F2. Together with step 6.1 this proves finite/affine symmetrizability, including the singleton tree.
For any symmetric and any , expansion gives . Indeed the second sum has cross coefficient and diagonal coefficient ; adding the first sum leaves diagonal . In finite type choose , so the first sum is strictly positive for . In affine type choose ; the second sum is nonnegative and vanishes exactly when all ratios agree along edges, hence everywhere by connectivity. Its kernel is exactly . In indefinite type a positive with gives , whereas every coordinate vector has value . The mutually exclusive quadratic behaviors and the already-exhaustive trichotomy prove all reverse implications as well.
Sources
Source comparison: Kleshchev, Definition 4.1.1, Lemmas 4.1.6–4.1.7, Theorem 4.1.12, Lemma 4.1.13, Lemma 4.2.2 and Theorem 4.2.3, pp.50–60; direct quadratic expansion replaces spectral theory.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
4 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.