Hodge Representations of Calabi-Yau 3-fold Type
Abstract
In this thesis, I apply the Green-Griffiths-Kerr classification of Hodge representations to enumerate the Lie algebra Hodge representations of CY 3-fold type.
Dedicated to family, friends and mentors for generous support, and Andre for good company.
1 Introduction
In this thesis, we will complete the classification of real Hodge representations of Calabi-Yau 3-fold type that was begun in [FL13]. In the following subsections, we will introduce Hodge representation of Lie groups and Lie algebras, and the Hodge representation of Calabi-Yau 3-fold type. The introductory materials are mostly taken from [GGK12], [Rob14] and [HR20].
1.1 Hodge Representation on Lie group and Lie algebra Level
Definition 1.1.
An algebraic group is a group that is an algebraic variety, such that the multiplication and inversion operations are given by maps on the variety that are locally given by polynomials.
Definition 1.2.
A Hodge structure of weight on a rational vector space is a non-constant homomorphism of -algebraic groups such that . The associated Hodge decomposition with is given by
The Hodge numbers are .
Definition 1.3.
Let be a non-degenerate bilinear form satisfying for all . A Hodge structure of weight is polarized by if the Hodge-Riemann bilinear relations hold:
Throughout we assume the Hodge structure is polarized.
Finally, to introduce the motivation of this thesis, we need to define Mumford-Tate groups and Mumford-Tate domains. To do this, we follow the construction in [GGK10].
Definition 1.4.
Let be a rational vector space and with be a Hodge decomposition. Use to denote the matrix group and use to denote . Then we can define an algebraic group representation by letting act on as multiplication by . Then the Mumford-Tate group of the Hodge decomposition is the smallest algebraic subgroup of defined over , whose set of real points contains , where we identify with . The Mumford-Tate domain is the orbit of .
In order to classify Mumford-Tate groups and Mumford-Tate domains, Griffiths, Green, and Kerr introduced the following notion:
Definition 1.5.
A Lie group Hodge representation consists of a reductive -algebraic group , a faithful representation , defined over and a non-constant homomorphism of -algebraic groups such that is a polarized Hodge structure. Note that denotes the set of real points of .
Some results on the classification of Lie group Hodge representations can be seen in [GGK12] and [Zar83]. To avoid the complexities of working with -algebraic groups, we "forget" the rational structure and work with the following notion:
Definition 1.6.
A real Lie group Hodge representation is as in Definition 1.4, but a reductive -algebraic group and a real vector space. Such is called a real Hodge group.
Now we proceed to define real Lie algebra Hodge representations. To do this, we first cite the following fundamental result from Section IV of [GGK12]:
Theorem 1.7.
Assume is a semisimple -algebraic group. If has a Hodge representation, then contains a compact maximal torus with and . Moreover, the maximal subgroup such that fixes the polarized Hodge structure is compact and is the centralizer of the circle in .
Let be a Hodge group. Then is a Lie group and we denote its Lie algebra by . Fixing a Cartan subalgebra , we know that has corresponding weight lattice and root lattice . A grading element is an element of such that for all . Let be the simply connected simple Lie group with Lie algebra . Then its center . We also know that all connected simple Lie groups with Lie algebra are of the form with a subgroup of , so the simple Lie groups with Lie algebra are in one to one correspondence with subgroups of , each of which is isomorphic to some where is a sublattice of containing . Suppose that under this correspondence, is labeled by . Let Then the maximal torus of is compact by Theorem 1.7, and is given by
Suppose that is a homomorphism of real algebraic groups with image Let be the lattice point such that for . Fix a representation defined over . Suppose that defines a polarized Hodge structure on . Then the group element acts on by . Taking the derivative with respect to , we find that acts on by . Define by
(1.8) |
Then acts on by the scalar . Therefore, the -graded decomposition of is
where is the largest integer such that and . In this notation, and . By this construction, we get the Lie algebra Hodge representation:
Definition 1.9.
A real Lie algebra Hodge representation corresponding to a real Lie group representation consists of the Lie algebra of , grading element equal to in , and is the underlying real vector space of .
In practice, real Lie algebra Hodge representations are easier to compute than real Lie group Hodge representations and yield important insights into the latter. In this paper, we will classify all the real Hodge Representations of 3-fold type.
1.2 Hodge representations associated to CY 3-fold type
The goal of this thesis is to identify the real Lie algebra Hodge representations that can arise when is the period domain parameterizing polarized Hodge structure of CY 3-fold type. These consist of the data , where
-
1.
is a real space.
-
2.
is a non-degenerate skew form. Thus , where .
-
3.
is a real reductive Lie subalgebra of .
-
4.
is a semisimple element of acting on with eigenspace decomposition , and .
-
5.
The complex dimensions of respectively are 1, , , 1 for some positive integer and .
In particular, the constraint conditions that the representations are level 3 (see Subsection 1.3 for specific definition of level) and have first Hodge number ensure that we get Hodge representations associated to CY 3-fold type. For more background information, the reader might consult Section 1 and 2 of [HR20] as well as Appendix B of [Rob14]. In order to phrase our results, we assume a fixed torus and a fixed Weyl Chamber. To enumerate all such tuples of , we take the following steps:
1.3 Step 1: Reduce to the case that s irreducible
Suppose as representations. Then . Hence,
if and only if
Moreover, so condition 5 above translates to
Thus, without loss of generality, and , where . And we say that is a level 1 Hodge representation and is a level 3 Hodge representation. These two types of representations are classified respectively in Sections 2 and 3.
1.4 Step 2: Reduction to complexification
To simplify the computations, instead of directly computing and , we will first work with the complexifications and , which will be carried out in the following subsections. Then we can give explicit formulae of from in most cases, namely when , the unique Cartan element that is dual to simple root for some , although recovering is more complicated. In order to recover , one should first observe that the grading element corresponds to a noncompact root as explained in Chapter IV of [GGK12]. Then by consulting [Kna02], we enumerate all the underlying real forms in Sections 2 and 3.
1.5 Step 3: Reduction to semisimple
Given an irreducible faithful representation of with highest weight , we have . Under the adjoint representation, decomposes as , where denotes the semisimple part and denotes the center. By Schur’s lemma (see Appendix C), if the semisimple part of is simple, then is 0 or 1 dimensional. In general, the dimension of does not exceed the number of simple direct summands in . Given a semisimple element , for unique choices of and . By virtue of infinitesimal period relation(IPR) on the dual of the Mumford-Tate domain, we without loss of generality assume that for each simple root throughout this paper [Rob14]. On , acts via weights and acts as for some . Thus, on and on , where is the highest weight of on . In order to recover , we need the tuples , which we enumerate in the following Sections 2 and 3. More specifically, the grading element determines the maximal compact subalgebra of , which is just the direct sum of the even -eigenspaces in the adjoint representation. This is enough to determine the real form using Vogan diagram classification, and [Kna02] is a good source of information. Then if , we have and therefore
1.6 Step 4: Real, Complex, or Quaternionic representations
When is an irreducible representation of , there are three possible cases:
where is an irreducible representation of with highest weight .
To distinguish the three possible cases of , one could immediately observe that once we have (or equivalently ), is complex. When (or equivalently ), we determine whether is real or quaternionic using the following test: Define
Then is quaternionic if and only if is odd, and real if and only if is even.
In general, when is real or quaternionic, we necessarily have . When is complex, where is the level of a Hodge representation.
2 Example: Classification of Level 1 Hodge Representations
In this section, we will classify the Hodge representations with Hodge numbers for some positive integer . More specifically, we aim to classify the tuples , which according to Subsections 1.4-1.6 amounts to classifying tuples that corresponds to a level 1 Hodge representation as defined in Subsection 1.3. Namely acts on with eigenspace decomposition , and . Partial results have been obtained by others, such as [Rib83].
2.1 Reduction to Irreducible Representation
Choose a grading element . According to the discussion in Subsection 1.5, we can write , where is a zero or one dimensional center, and is the semisimple part. Then we can write grading element , where and . Assuming is irreducible, by Subsection 1.6, there are three possible cases: is a real, complex or quaternionic representation of . In case of level 1 Hodge representations, we want
By discussion in Subsections 1.4-1.6, it suffices to locate tuples
, where is a complex semisimple Lie algebra, is a grading element of , and is the highest weight on ’s complex irreducible representation . We first claim that must be simple. To see this, let where each is simple. Then each irreducible representation of decomposes as where is an irreducible representation of . Moreover, suppose that is a grading element of , then there exists a unique grading element from each such that , and . Note that for each , , and the tuples we search for must satisfy . Hence, must be simple as claimed.
Now decomposes into ’s eigenspaces and , and correspondingly to decompose into ’s eigenspaces and . Recall that acts on via and on via for some . Then as ’s eigenspaces, and respectively decompose as:
When is real, we must have as eigenspaces of , and . In this case, . When is complex or quaternionic, with , we get and as desired. Moreover, since and , we have as desired.
Theorem 2.1.
The real irreducible Lie algebra Hodge representations with Hodge numbers for some positive integer are given by the following tuples :
-
1.
() for some , , with
if , since in this case the representation is complex with respect to both and ;
if and is even, since in this case the representation is quaternionic with respect to both and ;
if and is odd, since in this case the representation is real with respect to both and .
In all these cases, is . -
2.
() for some , , with
if , since in this case the representation is complex with respect to both and ;
if and is odd, since in this case the representation is quaternionic with respect to both and ;
if and is even, since in this case the representation is real with respect to both and .
In all these cases, is . -
3.
() for some , , with
if , since in this case the representation is complex with respect to both and ;
if , since in this case the representation is real with respect to both and .
In both cases, is . -
4.
() for some , , with
if , since in this case the representation is complex with respect to both and ;
if , since in this case the representation is real with respect to both and .
In both cases, is . -
5.
() for some , with
if , since in this case the representation is quaternionic with respect to both and ;
if , since in this case the representation is real with respect to both and .
In both cases, is . -
6.
() with , since in this case the representation is real with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
7.
() for some , with , since in this case the representation is quaternionic with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
8.
( ) for some , with , since in this case the representation is quaternionic with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
9.
() with , since in this case the representation is quaternionic with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
10.
() with , since in this case the representation is quaternionic with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
11.
() with , since in this case the representation is quaternionic with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
12.
() with , since in this case the representation is quaternionic with respect to both and . In this case, is .
Proof.
Following from our discussion in Subsection 2.1, to classify the irreducible Hodge representations with , it suffices to locate tuples , such that decomposes into ’s eigenspaces and , and correspondingly decomposes into ’s eigenspaces and , i.e. . The results listed above can be easily verified by consulting Appendix A: Let’s illustrate the calculations with for some . Since we are considering Level 1 cases here, we need , so we need
where each is a nonnegative integer defined at the bottom of first page in Appendix A. Recall that we’ve also assumed each . Thus, we must have for all and , since otherwise the fact that implies that the right hand side is greater than or equal to 2. Moreover, we must have and for all , or again the right hand side is greater than or equal to 2. The judgments of whether the representations are real, quaternionic, or complex are also made by consulting Appendix A and employing the test given in Subsection 1.6. ∎
Remark 2.2.
With fixed , the representations given in 3&4 are dual to each other and give rise to the same ; the representations given in 1&2, 7&8, and 9, 10, 11&12 are equivalent up to an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram.
3 Example: Classification of Level 3 Hodge Representations
3.1 Representations of Simple Lie Algebras
In this section, we assume that is simple. We treat the situation when is semisimple in Section 3.2.
3.1.1 Reduction to Irreducible Representation
For the Hodge representations that correspond to subdomains of the CY 3-folds, we want
and
And by virtue of the IPR relation on the Mumford-Tate domain first mentioned in Subsection 1.5, we may assume for each simple root [Rob14]. Thus, to classify such Hodge representations, it suffices to find tuples , where denote the highest weight on such that
-
1.
;
-
2.
If , we need ; If or , we need ;
-
3.
To see this, first consider the case when . In this case, we only get a level 3 Hodge representation if is complex or quaternionic. If so, without loss of generality, we may assume that decomposes into eigenspaces and , whereas decomposes into eigenspaces and , with . Note that , , and . Since and , we must have and . Then the condition 5 listed in Section 1 forces
(3.1) |
Write where each and write where each . Then by a argument about parabolic subalgebra (see Appendix B), we get that the condition is equivalent to
(3.2) |
Therefore, when , to classify the desired tuples, it suffices to classify complex or quaternionic irreducible representation that satisfies and admits eigenspace decomposition
Proposition 3.3.
When , the irreducible Lie algebra Hodge representations with Hodge numbers arise with the following tuples of :
-
1.
() with with , which is complex with respect to both and . When , the representation is real with respect to but complex with respect to ; otherwise, it is complex with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
2.
() with with , which is complex with respect to . When , the representation is real with respect to ; otherwise, it is complex with respect to In this case, is .
Proof.
Again, by consulting Appendix A, one may enumerate all tuples that satisfy . We are not going to illustrate the computations again as they directly mirror the calculations done in the proof to Theorem 2.1. The reader only needs to bear in mind an extra point that now since we demand the Hodge numbers to be in form of , whenever , we must have . As elaborated in previous discussion, we must have that is complex or quaternionic, and that if contains , then must satisfy that , to get with desired Hodge numbers. One subtle point worth noticing is that when , by the test in Subsection 1.6, the representation is real with respect to . But with a nontrivial center that acts on all of with eigenvalue and acts on all of with eigenvalue , is complex with respect to , and therefore meet our eigenspace dimension requirements. The judgments of whether the representations are real, quaternionic, or complex are made by consulting appendix A and employing the test given in Subsection 1.6. ∎
Remark 3.4.
One might notice that for any fixed , the tuples in 1 and 2 are equivalent up to an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram.
Now suppose . In this case, we only get a level 3 Hodge representation if is complex or quaternionic. If so, decomposes into ’s eigenspaces , and , whereas decomposes into ’s eigenspaces , and with . Moreover, , , and . Hence, we must have and . Recall that for the Hodge representations that correspond to subdomains of the CY 3-folds, we must have , which is equivalent to condition . Therefore, when , to classify the desired tuples, it suffices to classify complex or quaternionic irreducible representation that satisfies and admits eigenspace decomposition
Proposition 3.5.
When , the irreducible Lie algebra Hodge representations with Hodge numbers arise with the following tuples of :
-
1.
() where with . When , the representation is real with respect to but complex with respect to ; When , the representation is complex with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
2.
() where with . When , the representation is real with respect to but complex with respect to ; When , the representation is complex with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
3.
(), with . When , the representation is real with respect to but complex with respect to ; When , the representation is complex with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
4.
(), with . When , the representation is real with respect to but complex with respect to ; When , the representation is complex with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
5.
() for some with . The representation is complex with respect to both and .
-
6.
() with . The representation is complex with respect to both and .
-
7.
() with . The representation is real with respect to but complex with respect to . In this case, is .
-
8.
() with . This representation is quaternionic with respect to but complex with respect to . In this case, is .
-
9.
() with . This representation is real with respect to but complex with respect to . In this case, is .
-
10.
() with . This representation is real with respect to but complex with respect to . In this case, is .
-
11.
() with . This representation is real with respect to but complex with respect to . In this case, is .
-
12.
() with . The representation is complex with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
13.
() with . The representation is complex with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
14.
() with . The representation is complex with respect to both and .
-
15.
() with . The representation is complex with respect to both and .
Proof.
By consulting Appendix A, one can enumerate all tuples that satisfy . As elaborated in the discussion preceding this proposition, to get with the desired Hodge numbers, we must have that is complex or quaternionic, and that if contains as a summand, then must satisfy . For 1 and 2, when the representation is real with respect to , but complex with respect to . For 3 and 4, when the representation is also real with respect to , but complex with respect to . Similarly, () and () are real with respect to but complex with respect to , and so are () and (). The reader might expect to see () with . This representation is quaternionic with respect to and complex with respect to , but it is equivalent to Item 7 with , so we exclude it from the list. ∎
Remark 3.6.
With fixed , the representations given in 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, 10&11, 12&13 and 14&15 are equivalent up to an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram.
Finally, assume . In this case, decomposes into eigenspaces , , , and . Since decomposes into 4 eigenspaces of with eigenvalues and , we must have . Then the requirement that implies that needs to be real and . Moreover, we need and equivalently . Since the dimension of the lowest weight space is necessarily equal to the dimension of the highest weight space, it suffices to require and again this is equivalent to condition 3.2. Therefore, when , to classify the desired tuples, it suffices to classify real irreducible representation that satisfies 3.2 and admits eigenspace decomposition
Proposition 3.7.
When , the irreducible Lie algebra Hodge representations with Hodge numbers arise with the following tuples of :
-
1.
() with . The representation is real with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
2.
() with . The representation is real with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
3.
() with . The representation is real with respect to both and .
-
4.
() with . The representation is real with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
5.
() with . The representation is real with respect to both and .
-
6.
() with . The representation is real with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
7.
() with . The representation is real with respect to both and . In this case, is .
-
8.
() with . The representation is real with respect to both and . In this case, is .
Proof.
By consulting Appendix A, one can enumerate all tuples that satisfy . As elaborated in discussion preceding this proposition, to get with desired Hodge numbers, we must have that is real, and that if contains as a summand, then must contain as a summand.
Thus , ,, ,,,, , (),(),(),(),(),(), (),
(), (), (),
and are not on the list because they are either quaternionic or complex with respect to .
∎
Remark 3.8.
With fixed , the representations given in 6&7 are equivalent up to an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram.
3.2 Representations of Semisimple Lie Algebras
Now assume is semisimple. In this section, we will use the same notations as before. We claim that there are three possible cases in which we could get desired irreducible representation and grading element such that as eigenspaces of , decomposes into
and the dimensions of are respectively for some positive integer . To see this, let where each is simple. Then each irreducible representation of decomposes as where is an irreducible representation of . Moreover, suppose that is a grading element of , then there exists unique grading element from each such that , and . Recall that for each , , and the tuples we search for must satisfy . Thus, we conclude there are only three possible cases when is a direct sum of simple Lie algebras:
-
1.
with irreducible representation and and ;
-
2.
with irreducible representation and and ;
-
3.
with irreducible representation and .
3.2.1 Case 1: s the direct sum of two simple Lie algebras, and ecomposes into three eigenspaces
Suppose where and are both simple. Then every grading element decomposes into
where , and . Even every irreducible representation of is isomorphic to the tensor product of some and , where is an irreducible representation of and is an irreducible representation of . In case 1, we assume that as eigenspaces of and as eigenspaces of . Then admits eigenspace decomposition
With and acting on as , we get that admits eigenspace decomposition
Moreover, we have since . Thus, we get a desired representation of if is complex or quaternionic with respect to . Since the tensor product of two quaternionic representations is a real representation with respect to by the test given in Subsection 1.6. There are only two possible cases:
-
1.
If one of and is complex with respect to , then is complex with respect to ;
-
2.
If one of and is real and the other is quaternionic with respect to , then is quaternionic with respect to .
Examining the tuples listed in Proposition 3.3, one should see that the second case is impossible, because there is no tuple where is simple such that the representation is quaternionic. We summarize all desired tuples in the following proposition:
Proposition 3.9.
In case 1, the irreducible Lie algebra Hodge representations with Hodge numbers arise with the following tuples of , where all :
-
1.
with
. The representation is complex with respect to both and . In this case, is . -
2.
with
. The representation is complex with respect to both and . In this case, is . -
3.
with
. The representation is complex with respect to both and . In this case, is .
Proof.
The proof is similar to previous ones. ∎
Remark 3.10.
One might note that with fixed and , 1, 2 and 3 are all equivalent to each other up to an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram.
3.2.2 Case 2: s the direct sum of 2 simple Lie algebras, and ecomposes into four eigenspaces
Suppose , where and are both simple Lie algebras. Similar to the previous case, grading element decomposes as , and irreducible representation of must be isomorphic to some , where and are respectively irreducible representations of and . In this case, we assume that and respectively as eigenspaces of and . Then as eigenspaces of ,
With , we get the decomposition of as eigenspaces of :
Hence, a desired tuple arises if and only if is real, if and only if either and are both real or both quaternionic. By examining the tuples examined in Proposition 3.3 and 3.5, one should see that the only the case in which both and are real is feasible. We summarize all desired tuples in the following proposition:
Proposition 3.11.
In case 2, the irreducible Lie algebra Hodge representations with Hodge numbers arise with the following tuples of :
-
1.
with
. The representation is real.
In this case, is . -
2.
with
. The representation is real.
In this case, is . -
3.
with
. The representation is real.
In this case, is . -
4.
with
. The representation is real.
In this case, is . -
5.
with
. The representation is real.
In this case, is . -
6.
with
. The representation is real.
In this case, is .
Proof.
Again, the proof is similar to the ones before. ∎
Remark 3.12.
The representations given in 4&5 are equivalent up to an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram.
3.2.3 Case 3: s the direct sum of 3 simple Lie algebras, and ecomposes into four eigenspaces
Suppose , where , and are all simple Lie algebras. Similar to the previous cases, grading element decomposes as , and irreducible representation of must be isomorphic to some , where and are respectively irreducible representations of and . In this case, we assume that ,, and respectively as eigenspaces of and . Then as eigenspaces of ,
With and acting on as , we get that admits eigenspace decomposition
Thus, we get desired in this case if and only if is real. Then there are two possible cases:
-
1.
All of , and are real;
-
2.
Exactly two of them are quaternionic and one is real.
However, one may observe that all tuples examined in Proposition 3.3 are either complex or real, so the second case is impossible. We summarize all desired tuples in the following proposition:
Proposition 3.13.
In case 3, the irreducible Lie algebra Hodge representations with Hodge numbers arise with the following tuples of
:
-
1.
with
. The representation is real.
In this case, is .
Proof.
Again, the proof is similar to the ones before. ∎
Appendix A Weight Difference in Terms of Simple Roots
Fix a complex simple Lie Algebra and an irreducible representation of . Denote as the highest weight on . Fix Cartan subalgebra of and choose . Suppose decomposes into weight spaces of with corresponding weights . Recall that we define the action of on the dual space via:
Thus, if we denote the highest weight on as , then the lowest weight on is just . Moreover, let be the longest element in the Weyl group of the root system of . Then we know that . On the other hand, denote the simple roots of as . Then , so defines an isometry on and thus gives an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram. Hence, by looking at all possible automorphisms of the Dynkin diagrams and find the automorphism that corresponds to the longest word in the Weyl group, we can get the formula of . The results are exhibited below:
Complex Simple Lie Algebra | Root System Type | |
id | ||
id | ||
with even | id | |
with odd | ||
id | ||
id | ||
id | ||
id |
Finally, by making use of the formulae that translate fundamental weights into simple roots, we may express the difference of the highest weight and the lowest weight on , with simple roots. Write , where denotes the -th fundamental weight. The results are exhibited below:
-
1.
When ,
where
-
2.
When ,
-
3.
When ,
-
4.
When with odd,
-
5.
When with even,
-
6.
When ,
-
7.
When ,
-
8.
When ,
-
9.
When ,
-
10.
When ,
Appendix B Parabolic Subalgebra Proof
In this section, we will define Borel subalgebra and parabolic subalgebra. Then we will prove the statement that given a complex semisimple Lie algebra , its irreducible representation with highest weight and grading element , if and only if for all .
Definition B.1.
Given a complex semisimple Lie algebra, a Cartan subalgebra, and a set of positive roots. The Borel subalgebra determined by is
Definition B.2.
A parabolic subalgebra is a subalgebra that contains a Borel subalgebra.
Remark B.3.
Given a complex semisimple Lie algebra of rank , a Cartan subalgebra, a set of positive roots, and , the parabolic subalgebra determined by is a subalgebra that admits decomposition:
where and In fact, given Borel subalgebra determined by , each parabolic subalgebra is determined by a unique maximal set .
Now fix a complex semisimple Lie algebra . Let be an irreducible representation of with highest weight and a highest weight vector.
Proposition B.4.
is a parabolic subalgebra.
Proof.
Since all elements of the Cartan subalgebra act on via weights, . Since is a highest weight vector, it is annihilated by all positive root vectors, so all positive root spaces are contained in . Thus, contains a Borel subalgebra and is therefore a parabolic subalgebra. ∎
Proposition B.5.
is the subalgebra determined by where is the set of all positive roots and .
Proof.
Let be the maximal set that determines . It is straightforward that . We will show that . Now suppose that there exists some such that in the sum , and contains some . We first claim that . Since , for some . Thus, for all ,
On the other hand,
Hence, we must have .
Choose . Since is a highest weight vector, . Define . Then and thus . However,
contradiction! Thus, we must have I’=I. ∎
Corollary B.6.
Suppose . Then if and only if .
Proof.
If , then . Thus, and thus . If , then . More specifically, . Thus, . ∎
Proposition B.7.
if and only if for all .
Proof.
Fix and choose . Again, since , we have that , so . Therefore, . From Corollary B.6, we also know that . Now note that
Thus, if and only if , if and only if . Hence, if and only if for all as claimed. ∎
Appendix C Center Dimension Proof
Given a complex Lie algebra , let be a complex connected Lie group with Lie algebra . We will prove that the center of has at most dimension one if is simple, so the adjoint representation of is irreducible. For sake of contradiction, suppose that . Recall that by definition
Then we can find basis of , where is the dimension of . Define a linear map that switches and and fixes all other vectors in . Define the representation on via
Note that by the connectedness of the above definition is well-defined. Now to show that commutes with , it suffices to observe that:
By Schurs’s lemma, on a -irreducible representation, the only -linear automorphism must be a multiple of identity, but is not; contradiction. Hence, the dimension of any complex Lie algebra’s center is at most one.
References
- [FL13] Robert Friedman and Radu Laza “Semialgebraic Horizontal Subvarieties of Calabi-Yau Type” In Duke Mathematical Journal 162.12 Duke University Press, 2013, pp. 2077–2148 DOI: 10.1215/00127094-2348107
- [GGK10] Mark Green, Phillip Griffiths and Matt Kerr “Mumford-Tate domains” In Bollettino dell’ UMI(9), 2010, pp. 281–307
- [GGK12] Mark Green, Phillip Griffiths and Matt Kerr “Mumford-Tate Groups and Domains: Their Geometry and Arithmetic (AM-183)” Princeton University Press, 2012 URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7s3h1
- [HR20] Xiayimei Han and Colleen Robles “Hodge Representations” In Experimental Results 1 Cambridge University Press, 2020, pp. e51 DOI: 10.1017/exp.2020.55
- [Kna02] Anthony W. Knapp “Lie Groups: Beyond an Introduction” Birkhäuser, 2002
- [Rib83] Kenneth A. Ribet “Hodge Classes on Certain Types of Abelian Varieties” In American Journal of Mathematics 105.2 Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983, pp. 523–538 URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2374267
- [Rob14] Colleen Robles “Schubert varieties as variations of Hodge structure” In Selecta Mathematica 20.3, 2014, pp. 719–768 DOI: 10.1007/s00029-014-0148-8
- [Zar83] Yu.G. Zarhin “Hodge groups of K3 surfaces.” In Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 341, 1983, pp. 193–220 URL: http://eudml.org/doc/152536