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.
Category O Finiteness Duality and Blocks — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Abelian Categories
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Algebraic Closure, Embeddings, and Separability
- Algebraic Extensions, Extension Degree, and Finite Fields
- Arc Length and Rectifiable Curves
- Artinian Rings and Length
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Bounded Variation and the Riemann–Stieltjes Integral
- Cardinal Arithmetic, Cofinality and the Alephs
- Cartan Subalgebras and Root Space Decompositions
- Categories, Functors and Natural Transformations
- Category O Finiteness Duality and Blocks
- Chain Conditions, Semisimple Modules and the Wedderburn–Artin Theorem
- Chains, Antichains, Sperner and Dilworth
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Complex Coordinate and Path Transport
- Complex Differentiability and the Cauchy–Riemann Equations
- Complex Power Series and Analytic Functions
- Congruences, the Integers Modulo n and the Chinese Remainder Theorem
- Connectedness
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Contour Integration
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Cyclic Groups and Direct Products
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Diagonalisation and the Minimal Polynomial
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Eigenvalues, Eigenvectors and the Characteristic Polynomial
- Filters and Ultrafilters
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Finite Weyl Invariants, Bruhat Order, and Kostant Harmonics
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Free Modules, Exact Sequences, Projective and Injective Modules
- Fundamental Trigonometric Identities
- Goursat's Theorem and Cauchy's Theorem in a Convex Domain
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Harish Chandra Isomorphism Casimir and Central Characters
- Holomorphic Functions of Several Complex Variables
- Homomorphisms Between Verma Modules and Linkage
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Lie Algebra Representations, Enveloping Algebras, and PBW
- Limits and Colimits
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Line Integrals and the Gradient Theorem
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Metric Spaces
- Mixed Partials, Taylor Formulae, and Extrema
- Modules, Submodules, Quotient Modules and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Noetherian Rings and Hilbert Basis
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Ordinal Arithmetic and the First Uncountable Ordinal
- Ordinals, Cardinals, and Transfinite Recursion
- Partitions of Unity and Paracompactness
- pi: the Equivalent Characterizations
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Preadditive and Additive Categories and Biproducts
- Primes, Euclid's Lemma and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Reflective Subcategories and the Adjoint Functor Theorems
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Rⁿ as a Normed Space; Vector-Valued Functions
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Semisimple Lie Algebras, Cohomology, and Levi Theory
- Separation Axioms: the Hierarchy
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Sine, Cosine, and the Definition of Pi
- Solvable and Nilpotent Lie Algebras
- Splitting Fields
- Subobject Lattices Generators and the Grothendieck Axioms
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- Tensor Products of Modules
- The Cantor Set, Baire Category, and Measure Zero in ℝ
- The Complex Exponential and Euler's Formula
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Determinant of a Linear Operator, Cofactors and Cramer's Rule
- The Exponential Function
- The Fundamental Theorem of Finite Abelian Groups
- The Fundamental Theorems of Calculus
- The Galois Correspondence
- The Holomorphic Inverse Function Theorem and Weierstrass Preparation
- The Identity Theorem, the Maximum Principle and the Open Mapping Theorem
- The Inverse and Implicit Function Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Spectral Theorem, Positive Operators and Singular Value Decomposition
- The Topology of Euclidean Space
- The Total Derivative in ℝᵐ → ℝⁿ
- The Winding Number and the Global Cauchy Theorem
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
- Verma Modules and Shapovalov Forms
2 · Summary
Assuming AC for the block classifications, the rank-one examples separate a regular integral block from a nonintegral central-character summand with two blocks; the type calculation tests a singular weight. The counterexamples isolate finite generation, bounded upward support, Cartan semisimplicity, restricted duality and the finite-dimensional tensor-factor hypothesis. Throughout, and the Chevalley dual preserves weights.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
The regular integral sl2 block
Example
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and .
For identify a highest weight with its value on , so and . For every integer , the regular integral block has simple labels and . Its standards are and , and
is nonsplit. Its costandards are and , with the nonsplit sequence . The linkage order is .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice), the setting above and the hypotheses in the example.
The category is the categorical direct sum of its generalized central-character subcategories, and each object has only finitely many nonzero character components (Generalized central-character decomposition of O).
Under the Axiom of Choice, if and only if (Central characters are dot-Weyl orbits).
Under the Axiom of Choice, every object of has finite length (Every object of O has finite length), and its simple objects are exactly the distinct (The simple objects of O).
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . Restricted Chevalley duality is an exact contravariant equivalence , with a natural isomorphism . It preserves each weight-space dimension, the formal character, and every simple composition multiplicity. (Restricted duality is exact and involutive on O)
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . The costandard object has a unique simple submodule, isomorphic to . Its socle, the sum of all simple submodules, is that submodule. (The simple socle of a costandard object)
If , there is an embedding . (Simple-reflection embeddings of Verma modules)
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)
The standard generators satisfy and (The special linear Lie algebra sl_2). The induced Verma highest vector satisfies and (Verma modules), and PBW makes () a basis (The PBW model of a Verma module).
The weights of are exactly for ; every weight space is finite dimensional, and . (Weights of a Verma module lie below lambda)
For every highest weight , as -modules. (Restricted self-duality of simple highest-weight modules)
The standard and costandard objects are and . (Standard and costandard objects)
Verification
For any highest weight , the PBW basis in [F6] and give . Also , and gives the induction step . If , this step yields . Therefore for all .
The integral pairing is , and the two distinct dot-orbit labels are and . Under Choice, [F10] says that and are exactly the simple labels in the central-character summand : by [F11] every simple is a highest-weight and hence has the scalar character . For , every coefficient from step 1.1 is nonzero when . A nonzero submodule of contains a nonzero weight vector, hence some basis vector ; repeated application of reaches , which generates the entire Verma module. Thus directly.
Write in . The action derived in step 1.1 gives and for , with . The weight spaces are one dimensional. The singular vector generates the embedded , which is also the embedding supplied by F4.
The quotient has basis . A nonzero submodule contains a weight vector, and applying repeatedly reaches , since for by step 1.1. Applying then generates the whole quotient. It is simple, hence is . A split sequence would make a sum of two proper submodules, contrary to its unique maximal submodule. For the quotient consists just of and the same argument holds.
By F8, exact duality fixes both simples; it reverses the sequence, and F9 identifies the middle term as , giving the displayed costandard sequence. If it split, its dual would split the original. The costandard socle is by F3. Since , F8 and F9 also give .
By [F1], is a categorical direct summand. It has exactly the two simple labels from step 2.1. If this summand decomposed into two nonzero categorical summands, finite length [F11] would place a simple in each; the two labels would therefore lie in different summands. Then , which has both as factors by steps 3.1 and 4.1, would split as a direct sum of two nonzero submodules, contradicting the unique-maximal-submodule property [F5]. Hence is indecomposable and is the asserted regular integral block. The integral Weyl group is the full order-two Weyl group, giving the stated linkage order .
Nonintegral sl2 central characters split into two simple blocks
Example
Assume the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice).
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and .
For and , has exactly two distinct singleton linkage blocks, with labels and . Each block is equivalent to finite-dimensional complex vector spaces. In particular the central-character summand is semisimple but is not one indecomposable block.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice, the setting above, and the hypotheses in the example.
Every object of is a direct sum of weight spaces, is finitely generated, and is stable under root operators, which shift weights by elements of the root lattice (The classical BGG category O).
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . Every short exact sequence in splits. (Verma self-extensions in O split)
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . For , is finite dimensional. For every weight , . (Finite-dimensional Hom spaces in O)
The Verma PBW model gives the basis () of (The PBW model of a Verma module).
Let , let be a unital complex-algebra character, and put . For , the generalized central-character submodule is , and consists of the objects with . (Generalized central-character subcategories)
The simple objects of are exactly the modules , , and if and only if . (The simple objects of O)
If a cyclic highest-weight module has highest weight , then every acts on it by the scalar . (The Harish-Chandra projection computes the highest-weight scalar)
Under the given Choice premise, the highest-weight central characters satisfy if and only if . (Central characters are dot-Weyl orbits)
Under the given Choice premise, every object of has a finite composition series and is both Noetherian and Artinian. The length of zero is zero. (Every object of O has finite length)
The central-character subcategories are categorical direct summands of , with exact projections (Generalized central-character decomposition of O).
Verification
For , the dot orbit of is exactly . Its two labels are nonintegral and distinct: equality would imply . By F8 they have the same central character. Conversely, if a simple object belongs to , F6 writes it as . Its highest vector is killed by a power of every by F5, while F7 says that acts on it as . Hence , and F8 forces . To see that both Vermas are simple, fix either nonintegral label . The relations and give and, by induction using , the coefficient formula for . Every nonzero submodule of contains a nonzero weight vector: project a finite sum of distinct weight components using a polynomial in . Choose its least occurring PBW index . If , the derived formula makes , contradicting minimality; hence and the submodule contains , so it equals . The shifted simple-root pairings of the two labels are and , both nonintegral. Hence their integral-reflection linkage classes are singletons by The integral Weyl group of a weight.
The two labels lie in distinct root-lattice cosets: their difference is in -weight coordinates, whereas the root lattice has even integral coordinates; . For each , group its weight spaces by every coset of . Root operators preserve each group, so F1 makes these groups submodules whose direct sum is . Any nonzero group has a simple composition factor by F9. Step 1.1 allows only the two labels, whose simple modules have weights in their respective cosets, so all other groups vanish. Hence functorially, and every nonzero summand has factors only of its corresponding label. Both summands are nonzero because they contain their simple Verma modules.
Fix one label and put . Every object in its coset summand has a finite composition series by F9, and all its factors are by step 2.1. Every extension of by itself splits by F2. More generally an extension splits: push out along each coordinate projection , obtaining . Each has a retraction to its kernel . Composing these retractions with and collecting coordinates gives a retraction , hence a splitting. The case is immediate.
Induction on a composition series now expresses every object in either coset summand as a finite direct sum of its sole simple . Since , maps between and are exactly complex matrices. Thus (with trivial action on the finite-dimensional multiplicity space) and are inverse equivalences for each summand. Zero corresponds to the zero-dimensional vector space. Each summand is indecomposable as a category because every nonzero object contains its sole simple and all objects are sums of . By F10, itself is a direct summand of , so these are precisely its two blocks in .
A singular integral A2 central-character summand
Example
Assume the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice).
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and .
In type , take , with fundamental-weight coordinates . Then has Weyl stabilizer . The dot orbit consists of
These three simple labels form a single singular integral central-character block. Only labels and stabilizer are computed here.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice, the setting above, and the hypotheses in the example.
The category is the categorical direct sum of its generalized central-character subcategories , with exact component projections (Generalized central-character decomposition of O).
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)
Under the given Choice premise, let and be the central characters obtained from highest weights and . Then where . (Central characters are dot-Weyl orbits)
Let be the root system from thm-the-root-set-is-a-reduced-crystallographic-root-system. For a root , define the corresponding coroot by where is the vector from def-killing-dual-vector-attached-to-a-root. The associated root reflection is the linear map The subgroup of generated by these reflections is the Weyl group , acting on in the usual way. (Root reflections and the Weyl group action)
Every simple object of is for a unique highest weight (The simple objects of O). Its generalized-character membership means each acts locally nilpotently (Generalized central-character subcategories), while acts on any cyclic highest-weight module by the scalar (The Harish-Chandra projection computes the highest-weight scalar).
Under the given Choice premise, every object of has a finite composition series (Every object of O has finite length). Every Verma module has a unique simple quotient (A Verma module has a unique simple quotient).
A positive integral simple-root pairing gives a nonzero Verma embedding in the reflected direction (Simple-reflection embeddings of Verma modules).
Verification
With and , the reflection formula gives and . Acting on produces exactly : both reflection formulas permute this set and the three displayed points are reachable. Subtracting gives , the claimed labels.
Type has six Weyl elements, as is also seen by the six distinct matrices : multiplication by either generator permutes these six matrices. Exactly and fix , by evaluating them. Thus the stabilizer is , and the orbit is singular.
The pairings of with the positive coroots are . All are integers, so and by F2; the zero pairing does not remove its reflection from the integral group. By F3 the three computed labels have one central character . Conversely, a simple object of is by F5. On it every acts both by and locally with generalized eigenvalue , so ; F3 restricts to the three labels in step 1.1. Thus these are exactly the simple objects of .
Write the labels as , , and . Their shifted simple-root pairings are and , so F7 gives . By F3 and the highest-weight scalar action in F5, all three Vermas lie in . The unique-simple-quotient property in F6 makes indecomposable: in a decomposition into two nonzero submodules both would be proper, and their sum would lie in its unique maximal proper submodule. In any categorical direct-sum refinement of , must lie in one component; its subquotients therefore lie there too. These are all the simple objects by step 3.1, and F6 makes every nonzero object have a simple factor. Hence no other nonzero component exists: is indecomposable. F1 makes it a direct summand of , so it is one singular integral block with exactly the three stated simple labels.
Notes
The source gives a typical three-element singular A2 class with an antidominant representative. This item chooses the explicit representative -omega1 of such a class and computes its coordinates; statement provenance is ai-altered to record that specialization.
The full algebraic Verma dual is too large
Statement refuted
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and .
False claim: replacing the restricted sum in Chevalley duality by the full algebraic dual always gives an object of .
For and any , the full Chevalley-twisted dual is not -semisimple and hence is not in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The setting above and the hypotheses in the statement refuted.
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . For an -semisimple module with finite-dimensional weight spaces, its restricted Chevalley dual is Here each functional is extended by zero on the other weight spaces and is the fixed anti-involution of def-chevalley-contravariant-form. In particular and . A map induces by precomposition. The action law follows from ; a root vector of weight sends to , so the restricted sum is stable. This is a complex-linear algebraic dual, with no conjugation. Ordinary Lie-module duality has a minus sign and reverses weights; twisting that dual by the Lie automorphism gives the convention used here. (Restricted Chevalley dual)
For , the Verma module is the induced -module where is the quotient algebra of def-universal-enveloping-algebra-as-a-tensor-quotient and is def-one-dimensional-borel-module-of-weight-lambda. Write . Thus is the quotient of by the left ideal generated by for and for ; in particular, and . (Verma modules)
The weights of are exactly for ; every weight space is finite dimensional, and . (Weights of a Verma module lie below lambda)
Counterexample
The induced Verma model has basis for and . Define for all and extend linearly. This is an algebraic functional because vectors of are finite sums, although its nonzero weight coordinates are infinite. On the full twisted dual use the same formula as for restricted duality.
For every polynomial , . The values are pairwise distinct over , so a polynomial annihilating has infinitely many distinct zeros and must be the zero polynomial. Thus the -orbit of is infinite dimensional. A vector in a direct sum of eigenspaces has only finitely many eigencomponents and is annihilated by the product of their linear eigenvalue polynomials. Therefore this full dual cannot be a weight module.
Finite weight spaces and bounded support do not replace finite generation
Statement refuted
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and .
False claim: local -finiteness, finite-dimensional weight spaces and support in finitely many downward cones suffice for membership in without finite generation.
For , has these three local properties, with and for , but is not finitely generated.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The setting above and the hypotheses in the statement refuted.
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . The BGG category is the full subcategory of left -modules satisfying all three conditions: is finitely generated; where ; and is finite dimensional for each . Its morphisms are all -linear maps. The zero module is included, generated by the empty set. The enveloping and triangular conventions are those of thm-pbw-ordered-monomial-basis-for-the-enveloping-algebra and thm-triangular-decomposition-from-a-chosen-positive-root-system. (The classical BGG category O)
The weights of are exactly for ; every weight space is finite dimensional, and . (Weights of a Verma module lie below lambda)
Counterexample
Each Verma has one basis vector at each weight , : the negative root algebra has the single generator , so the induced Verma basis is . At weight the contributing summands are exactly , proving the count . The direct sum is a weight module supported in the single cone .
The operator raises the Verma weight, so it kills every vector after sufficiently many applications inside each summand. A vector of the direct sum has nonzero coordinates in finitely many summands; taking the maximum of their bounds proves local -finiteness.
Any finite list of vectors is supported in a finite set of summands. Those summands form a -submodule, so the submodule generated by the list remains there. There is always a further nonzero Verma summand outside that finite set. Hence the list cannot generate , which fails the finite-generation axiom of . The empty list generates zero, not .
Finite weight spaces alone do not give category O
Statement refuted
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and .
False claim: a finitely generated weight module with finite-dimensional weight spaces must belong to .
For , induce the weight-zero one-dimensional module from the negative Borel . The resulting lowest-weight Verma module is cyclic, has one-dimensional weight spaces at for , and is not in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The setting above and the hypotheses in the statement refuted.
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . The BGG category is the full subcategory of left -modules satisfying all three conditions: is finitely generated; where ; and is finite dimensional for each . Its morphisms are all -linear maps. The zero module is included, generated by the empty set. The enveloping and triangular conventions are those of thm-pbw-ordered-monomial-basis-for-the-enveloping-algebra and thm-triangular-decomposition-from-a-chosen-positive-root-system. (The classical BGG category O)
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . Let be a finitely generated -semisimple -module. Then if and only if for some finite list of weights. In either case every is finite dimensional. The list may be empty for ; finite generation is an independent hypothesis. (The support description of category O with finite generation)
Let be an ordered basis of a finite-dimensional complex Lie algebra . Then the monomials form a basis of . In particular, multiplication identifies with the symmetric algebra on the symbols of the . (PBW gives an ordered monomial basis for the enveloping algebra)
Counterexample
Let in , where and kill . Ordering before the negative Borel in PBW gives the basis , . The relation gives . This proves cyclicity and the one-dimensional weight-space assertion.
The vectors are linearly independent, so is infinite dimensional and violates the local-finiteness axiom. Moreover no finite union of sets can contain all : any cone meeting this real arithmetic progression has a fixed finite upper bound there, and finitely many bounds cannot contain its unbounded sequence. Thus the support criterion fails as well.
An ambient extension can leave category O
Statement refuted
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and .
False claim: is extension closed in the category of all -modules.
For and any , let be a positive-Borel module with , and . Then is an extension of by itself in ambient modules, but is not in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The setting above and the hypotheses in the statement refuted.
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . The BGG category is the full subcategory of left -modules satisfying all three conditions: is finitely generated; where ; and is finite dimensional for each . Its morphisms are all -linear maps. The zero module is included, generated by the empty set. The enveloping and triangular conventions are those of thm-pbw-ordered-monomial-basis-for-the-enveloping-algebra and thm-triangular-decomposition-from-a-chosen-positive-root-system. (The classical BGG category O)
Let be an ordered basis of a finite-dimensional complex Lie algebra . Then the monomials form a basis of . In particular, multiplication identifies with the symmetric algebra on the symbols of the . (PBW gives an ordered monomial basis for the enveloping algebra)
For , the Verma module is the induced -module where is the quotient algebra of def-universal-enveloping-algebra-as-a-tensor-quotient and is def-one-dimensional-borel-module-of-weight-lambda. Write . Thus is the quotient of by the left ideal generated by for and for ; in particular, and . (Verma modules)
Counterexample
The Borel relation holds on because acts by zero. There is a short exact sequence , with submodule and quotient generated by the image of . PBW makes right free over , so induction preserves this exact sequence. Its two ends are the Verma modules by definition.
PBW identifies with as a vector space. Thus , while and . In a weight module, , by evaluating on its eigenspace decomposition. This Jordan pair proves that is not a weight module. Its end terms do satisfy the category-O axioms: their PBW basis has weights and locally nilpotent action, and they are cyclic. Consequently the ambient extension leaves .
O is not closed under arbitrary tensor products
Statement refuted
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and .
False claim: the tensor product of two objects of always belongs to .
For , with diagonal action has support , weight multiplicities , and locally nilpotent action, but is not finitely generated over .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The setting above and the hypotheses in the statement refuted.
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . The BGG category is the full subcategory of left -modules satisfying all three conditions: is finitely generated; where ; and is finite dimensional for each . Its morphisms are all -linear maps. The zero module is included, generated by the empty set. The enveloping and triangular conventions are those of thm-pbw-ordered-monomial-basis-for-the-enveloping-algebra and thm-triangular-decomposition-from-a-chosen-positive-root-system. (The classical BGG category O)
Fix a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra , a Cartan subalgebra , and a positive Borel . Write , when , and . Every is a quotient of a module with a finite Verma flag. Consequently it has a finite filtration whose nonzero factors are quotients of Verma modules, and is finitely generated over . The empty filtration is allowed for zero. No truncation hypothesis is needed, and a Verma flag of itself is not asserted. (Finite filtrations by highest-weight quotients)
Let be an ordered basis of a finite-dimensional complex Lie algebra . Then the monomials form a basis of . In particular, multiplication identifies with the symmetric algebra on the symbols of the . (PBW gives an ordered monomial basis for the enveloping algebra)
Counterexample
The Verma PBW bases identify with , where corresponds to . Its -weight is , so its weight multiplicities are . The diagonal acts by multiplication by . Each tensor of two basis vectors is killed by a high enough power of the diagonal : expanding , every term vanishes once . Hence acts locally nilpotently on .
If were finitely generated over , its weight decomposition and local -finiteness would put it in . F2 then implies it is finitely generated over , hence over in the displayed model.
But is infinite dimensional over . A module generated by elements over has quotient by generated by their images over , so that quotient has dimension at most . This proves that is not finitely generated and therefore is not in , although each factor is cyclic with locally nilpotent and is a weight module.
Sources
- Chen, Lecture 8 §3 Example 3.17, p.6
- Chen, Lecture 2 §2 Example 2.16 and Exercise 2.17, p.4
- §15.1 Example 15.8, p.81
- §4.11 Exercise, pp.85–86, singular three-element class
- Lecture 8 §3 Lemma 3.2 and Construction 3.7, p.4
- Lecture 2 Definition 3.1; direct explicit hypothesis test
- Lecture 8 §3 paragraph after Corollary 3.3, p.4
- Chen, Lecture 2 §3 Warning 3.4, p.5
- Etingof, §15.1 Exercise 15.6(ii), p.80
- Lecture 2 §3 Exercise 3.9(2), pp.5–6