Suppose that $\mathfrak{g}$ is a semisimple Lie algebra. By Weyl's theorem on complete reducibility, $\mathfrak{g}$ is completely reducible. Now my book says that the following is equivalent: For every submodule $\mathfrak{a}$ with complementary submodule $\mathfrak{b}$, the short exact sequence $$ 0\to \mathfrak{a}\to\mathfrak{b}\underbrace{\to}_{p}\mathfrak{c}\to0 $$ splits, so there exists a $\mathfrak{g}$-module homomorphism $\varphi:\mathfrak{c}\to\mathfrak{b}$ such that $p\circ\phi=I_{\mathfrak{c}}$. They do not state a reason why this holds. How can we see it?
2026-03-27 00:05:21.1774569921
Complete reducibility of a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ and splitting of short exact sequence of $\mathfrak{g}$-modules.
159 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LINEAR-ALGEBRA
- An underdetermined system derived for rotated coordinate system
- How to prove the following equality with matrix norm?
- Alternate basis for a subspace of $\mathcal P_3(\mathbb R)$?
- Why the derivative of $T(\gamma(s))$ is $T$ if this composition is not a linear transformation?
- Why is necessary ask $F$ to be infinite in order to obtain: $ f(v)=0$ for all $ f\in V^* \implies v=0 $
- I don't understand this $\left(\left[T\right]^B_C\right)^{-1}=\left[T^{-1}\right]^C_B$
- Summation in subsets
- $C=AB-BA$. If $CA=AC$, then $C$ is not invertible.
- Basis of span in $R^4$
- Prove if A is regular skew symmetric, I+A is regular (with obstacles)
Related Questions in LIE-ALGEBRAS
- Holonomy bundle is a covering space
- Computing the logarithm of an exponentiated matrix?
- Need help with notation. Is this lower dot an operation?
- On uniparametric subgroups of a Lie group
- Are there special advantages in this representation of sl2?
- $SU(2)$ adjoint and fundamental transformations
- Radical of Der(L) where L is a Lie Algebra
- $SU(3)$ irreps decomposition in subgroup irreps
- Given a representation $\phi: L \rightarrow \mathfrak {gl}(V)$ $\phi(L)$ in End $V$ leaves invariant precisely the same subspaces as $L$.
- Tensors transformations under $so(4)$
Related Questions in EXACT-SEQUENCE
- Does every sequence of digits occur in one of the primes
- Linear transformation and Exact sequences
- Snake lemma and regular epi mono factorization
- Replacing terms of an exact sequence by quotients
- Module over integral domain, "Rank-nullity theorem", Exact Sequence
- Inclusion and quotient mappings in exact sequences
- Parsing the Bockstein morphism
- Short exact sequence on modules
- G-groups homomorphism regarding the subgroup fixed by G
- A problem about split exact sequences.
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
As mentioned in the comments (and as you can see below), this is a general fact about all kinds of modules not just modules for Lie algebras. :)
Complete reducibility says that any module is a direct sum of irreducible submodules. This is equivalent to that statement that any submodule has a complement. [Why? Let $M$ be a module. Suppose every submodule has a complement, take any proper submodule $N$. It has a complement $N'$. Inductively decompose $N$ and $N'$ into irreducibles. Now put these decompositions together and you've decomposed $M$ into irreducibles. Conversely, suppose reducibility of your module. Take a submodule $N$. Every irreducible submodule of the whole module is either completely contained in $N$ or not. The irreducibles contained in $N$ form its decomposition. The irreducibles not contained in $N$ form a complement for $N$.]
Now to connect with the split sequence statement.
Suppose that every short exact sequence is split. Say $0\rightarrow\mathfrak{a}\stackrel{f}{\rightarrow}\mathfrak{b}\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow}\mathfrak{c}\rightarrow 0$ is split by $\mathfrak{c}\stackrel{\varphi}{\rightarrow}\mathfrak{b}$. Then $f$ is injective and $p$ is surjective. $f(\mathfrak{a}) \oplus \varphi(\mathfrak{c}) = \mathfrak{b}$. Why? Suppose $x \in \mathfrak{b}$ and consider $y=b-\varphi(p(b))$. Notice that $p(y)=p(b)-p(\varphi(p(b)))=p(b)-p(b)=0$ since $p\circ\varphi$ is the identity. Thus $y$ is in the kernel of $p$ hence in the image of $f$. Thus $y=f(a)$ for some $a \in \mathfrak{a}$. This means that $b=y+\varphi(p(b))=f(a)+\varphi(p(b)) \in f(\mathfrak{a})+\varphi(\mathfrak{c})$. Suppose $b\in f(\mathfrak{a}) \cap \varphi(\mathfrak{c})$. Then $b=f(a)$ for some $a \in\mathfrak{a}$ and $b=\varphi(c)$ for some $c \in \mathfrak{c}$. But then $c = p(\varphi(c))=p(b)=p(f(a))=0$ (because $p\circ\varphi$ is the identity and our sequence is exact at $\mathfrak{b}$). Thus $b=\varphi(c)=\varphi(0)=0$. So the sum is direct.
Conversely suppose every submodule has a complement. Consider an exact sequence $0\rightarrow\mathfrak{a}\stackrel{f}{\rightarrow}\mathfrak{b}\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow}\mathfrak{c}\rightarrow 0$. Let $\mathfrak{n}=f(\mathfrak{a})=\mathrm{ker}(p)$. This submodule of $\mathfrak{b}$ has a complement, call it $\mathfrak{m}$. Notice that $p$ restricted to $\mathfrak{m}$ is an isomorphism. Why? If $p(m)=0$, then $m \in \mathrm{ker}(p)=\mathfrak{n}$ so $m=0$ (because $\mathfrak{n}$ and $\mathfrak{m}$ are complementary). Thus $p$ is injective (when restricted to $\mathfrak{m}$). Next, $p$ is surjective because our sequence is exact at $\mathfrak{c}$. Take any $y \in \mathfrak{c}$ there is some $x \in \mathfrak{b}$ such that $p(x)=y$. But $x=x'+x''$ for some $x'\in\mathfrak{n}$ and $x''\in\mathfrak{m}$. However, $p(x'')=0+p(x'')=p(x')+p(x'')=p(x)=y$ since $x' \in \mathfrak{n}=\mathrm{ker}(p)$. Thus $p$'s restriction to $\mathfrak{m}$ is onto. This restriction to $\mathfrak{m}$'s inverse is the splitting $\varphi$ that we want. Thus our sequence splits.