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.
Rank-two root-system classification
Statement
Let be a reduced crystallographic root system, and let be nonproportional roots. Write for the two Cartan integers, and let be the angle between and .
(i) . With the possibilities are exactly: and ; and either with or with ; and either with or with ; and and either with or with .
(ii) If then ; if then .
(iii) If are distinct simple roots of relative to some positive system, then and .
(iv) If has dimension two and is a base of , then , so the angle is nonacute: it is one of , , , . The irreducible reduced crystallographic rank-two root systems are exactly (three positive roots), (four positive roots) and (six positive roots), while the reducible case is .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A reduced crystallographic root system in the finite-dimensional real inner product space , nonproportional roots , and the notation , , of the statement.
is finite, spans , , , , and for all roots (Reduced crystallographic Euclidean root system).
is orthogonal, equals the identity on , and sends to (Weyl group, Coroot and dual root system).
Cauchy-Schwarz: for all with equality if and only if are linearly dependent (Cauchy–Schwarz: , with equality exactly for linearly dependent vectors).
A reducible rank-two system is the orthogonal disjoint union of root systems spanning pairwise orthogonal subspaces that span , uniquely up to order (Unique irreducible decomposition).
A finite-dimensional vector space over an infinite field is not a finite union of proper linear subspaces (A finite-dimensional vector space over an infinite field is not a finite union of proper subspaces).
Proof
For a linear subspace with , the set is a reduced crystallographic root system in : it is finite, contains no zero vector, inherits integrality and reducedness, and for because preserves and maps into . In particular the plane subsystem is a rank-two reduced crystallographic root system.
Both and are integers, and Since are nonproportional, Cauchy-Schwarz gives , so ; being a product of integers, is a nonnegative integer, hence lies in . If then and both absolute values cannot be at least , since then their product would be at least . Hence ; moreover if and only if , and then , with the same sign, and , because .
Fix a vector with for every , which exists because is finite and is not a finite union of the proper subspaces [L5]. Call positive when and negative otherwise, so that is the disjoint union of its positive and negative roots and the negative roots are the negatives of the positive ones; call a positive root simple when it is not a sum of two positive roots. If a positive root is not simple, write it as a sum of two positive roots; the value of on each summand is strictly smaller than on the sum, so iterating the decomposition and always decomposing a summand that is not simple terminates after finitely many steps (the values of on positive roots form a finite set and strictly decrease along the iteration). The terminal summands are simple, so every positive root is a sum of simple roots.
(Reducible case) If is a reducible rank-two root system then with root systems spanning pairwise orthogonal nonzero subspaces with [L4]; hence , and a rank-one reduced crystallographic root system is for its unique positive root , since every root lies on the line and reducedness excludes proper multiples. Thus the reducible rank-two system is .
With , the identity of step 1.2 enumerates the possibilities. If then and . If the product is then , so , , and if , if . If the product is then , with the same sign, , , and the angle is or according to the sign of . If the product is then , , , and the angle is or .
Assume . Then both Cartan integers are positive, so by step 1.2 the one attached to the longer of the two roots equals : if then and ; if then and , so that . Applying this to gives the companion statement: if then .
If are distinct simple roots and , then by step 2.2, and this root is positive or negative: if it is positive then exhibits as a sum of two positive roots, and if it is negative then exhibits as a sum of two positive roots, contradicting simplicity in either case. Hence . The same reasoning shows , since a root is positive, giving the first contradiction, or negative, giving the second.
(Root strings) Let and with . Then the set of integers with is a nonempty interval of consecutive integers with , , no gaps, and ; moreover . Indeed, the set is nonempty because occurs, and is invariant under because , so it is finite and symmetric about . If it had a gap, there would be with , and ; then , since otherwise step 2.2 applied to would give , and similarly ; subtracting gives , a contradiction. Hence there are no gaps, and the symmetry of an interval about gives . Finally, replacing by reduces to the case and , and by steps 1.2 and 2.1 applied to the nonproportional pair ; if that pair is proportional then reducedness gives at most three elements.
In a rank-two root system the simple roots are linearly independent, hence exactly two; explicitly, if with disjoint finite index sets and positive real coefficients (which is the shape of every nontrivial linear relation), then for one computes because the two index sets are disjoint and distinct simple roots have nonpositive inner product by step 3.1. Therefore the simple roots are independent; since they span by step 1.3, a rank-two system has exactly two simple roots , every root is with integers, and the Cartan matrix is one of because both off-diagonal entries are nonpositive integers whose product is one of .
(Descent and constraints for a base) Let be the simple roots of a rank-two system in the ordering of step 1.3, and let be a positive root, integers. Write and ; both are nonpositive integers with product in by steps 3.1 and 1.2. Then: (a) and , and the reflected roots and again have coefficients of one sign; hence if then , that is , and if then . (b) The string bounds of step 3.2 give and . (c) Reducedness gives: if then , and if then . (d) If and , then the -string through contains , so this vector lies in and ; and if and , then and .
(The three irreducible cases) Let be an irreducible rank-two root system with simple roots and Cartan matrix as in step 4.1; exclude the first matrix, which gives a reducible system by step 1.4 (no positive root has both coefficients nonzero by (a) of step 4.2). For the five remaining cases define Every element of is a root: are simple; , , are the images of under the reflections , and , , are the images of under ; for one has and , and the last case is its mirror image. In each case has , , , , elements and spans .
(Exhaustiveness) In each of the five cases of step 5.1, every positive root lies in . Suppose not, and choose a positive root of least height among the positive roots outside ; it is not simple, so by step 1.3 it is a sum of two positive roots of smaller heights, and by minimality of both summands lie in . Hence is a sum of two elements of , and each such sum is either an element of , or violates one of conditions (a)-(c) of step 4.2, or descends by (d) to such a sum, or is excluded by reducedness [L1]; the following complete lists of the coordinate pairs of the sums of two elements of verify this case by case. For the sums are : and violate (c), violates and violates in (a), and is excluded by reducedness because is a root. For the sums with are : and violate (c), violates and violates in (a), and are excluded by reducedness, and satisfies (a)-(c) but (d) applied to gives , already excluded. The case is the mirror image with the two coordinates and the two simple roots interchanged. For the sums of two elements of are : and violate (c), violates and violates in (a), and violate in (b), , , and are excluded by reducedness because and lie in and are roots, descends by (d) applied to to , and and descend by (d) applied to to and , all already excluded, while lie in . The mirror case is handled by the same interchange of coordinates and simple roots. Thus no positive root lies outside , so in each of the five cases, and the irreducible rank-two root systems are exactly the systems with , , , , positive roots.
The systems of 3, 4 and 6 positive roots are the root systems traditionally called , and : for the roots are with and angle ; for they are with and angle ; and for they are the six positive roots listed in with and angle . The two middle cases are isomorphic as root systems: the linear map that rotates the plane by and then rescales uniformly sends the four short root directions and the four long root directions of the system onto those of the system, and Cartan integers are unchanged by a uniform rescaling. Combining with steps 2.1, 3.1, 1.4 and 6.1 gives the full rank-two classification, and the angle statement of (iv) is step 3.1.
Depends on
- Reduced crystallographic Euclidean root system
- Unique irreducible decomposition
- Cauchy–Schwarz: $|\langle u,v\rangle|\leq\lVert u\rVert\lVert v\rVert$, with equality exactly for linearly dependent vectors
- A finite-dimensional vector space over an infinite field is not a finite union of proper subspaces
- Coroot and dual root system
- Weyl group
Used by
- Dynkin diagram with edge multiplicity and arrow convention Definition
- Rank-two systems A₂, B₂ and G₂ Example
- B and C are always isomorphic False statement
- Shape restrictions on Dynkin diagrams Lemma
- Distinct simple roots have nonpositive inner product Proposition
- Existence and uniqueness of the highest root Proposition
- Properties of finite-type Cartan matrices Proposition
- Restricted root systems may be nonreduced Proposition
- Classification of irreducible root systems Theorem
- Simple roots form a signed integral basis Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
15 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
- Anthony W. Knapp, Lie Groups Beyond an Introduction, 2nd ed., Chapter II (standard reference, not scraped)
- Pavel Etingof, MIT 18.745 Lie Groups and Lie Algebras I, Lectures 19-24 (standard reference, not scraped)