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.
PBW symmetrization in characteristic zero
Statement
Suppose and a basis of equipped with a total order is supplied. The linear map defined on homogeneous products by
is a filtered vector-space isomorphism . In general it is not an algebra homomorphism.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A characteristic-zero field , a Lie algebra over , and a specified totally ordered basis of .
In a characteristic-zero field, every positive integer and hence every is nonzero and invertible (The characteristic of a ring: the least with when one exists, and otherwise, Every field is a commutative ring with ; it is an integral domain, and it is a commutative division ring, The factorial and the falling factorial , defined by recursion in ).
Finite sums may be reindexed bijectively (Finite commutative-monoid sums are invariant under bijective reindexing, split over disjoint unions, and satisfy the finite Fubini rule).
PBW identifies the symbol map as a graded-algebra isomorphism (Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem).
Proof
By [L1] the coefficient exists. Reindexing the finite sum by for any shows by [L2] that the displayed multilinear expression is invariant under permuting the inputs, so it descends to a linear map on ; for it sends to . Taking the graded direct sum defines , and degree maps into .
In degree zero, has associated-graded map , hence is bijective by [L3].
Assume that every element of has a unique preimage in .
In all reordered products of have the same symbol, because interchanging adjacent factors changes a word by a bracket term of degree . Thus the leading symbol of is the average of identical symbols, namely . Hence .
Given , use the surjectivity of and step 2.1 to choose whose symmetrization has the same class as in . Then and step 1.3 supplies a preimage, proving surjectivity through degree .
If and , its top filtration class is by step 2.1, so by injectivity of [L3]. Descending in degree, or using the uniqueness clause in step 1.3, gives every . Thus symmetrization is injective through degree .
Steps 1.2–3.2 complete the filtration induction. Every element of either algebra has finite degree, so is a filtered vector-space isomorphism on the full direct sums. The proof asserts no multiplicativity.
Depends on
- Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem
- Every field is a commutative ring with $1 \ne 0$; it is an integral domain, and it is a commutative division ring
- The characteristic of a ring: the least $n \ge 1$ with $n \cdot 1_R = 0$ when one exists, and $0$ otherwise
- The factorial $n!$ and the falling factorial $n^{\underline{k}}$, defined by recursion in $\mathbb{N}$
- Finite commutative-monoid sums are invariant under bijective reindexing, split over disjoint unions, and satisfy the finite Fubini rule
Used by
- Symmetrization does not preserve products in sl₂ Counterexample
- PBW symmetrization is generally not multiplicative False statement
Dependency tree · two levels
44 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
- Etingof, MIT 18.745 notes, Corollary 13.7, printed p. 75 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Kirillov, An Introduction to Lie Groups and Lie Algebras, Corollary 5.15, printed p. 75 (standard reference, not scraped)