This paper investigates symmetric invariants of semi-direct product Lie algebras formed from a semisimple Lie algebra and a module, focusing on cases with reductive and commutative generic isotropy groups, and introduces covariants for their construction.
Contribution
It provides a description of symmetric invariants for a class of non-reductive Lie algebras constructed as semi-direct products, utilizing covariants derived from equivariant maps.
Findings
01
Symmetric invariants can be explicitly constructed using covariants.
02
The coadjoint representation exhibits favorable invariant-theoretic properties.
03
Applicable to semi-direct products with reductive and commutative generic isotropy groups.
Abstract
The coadjoint representation of a connected algebraic group Q with Lie algebra q is a thrilling and fascinating object. Symmetric invariants of q (= q-invariants in the symmetric algebra S(q)) can be considered as a first approximation to the understanding of the coadjoint action (Q:q∗) and coadjoint orbits. In this article, we study a class of non-reductive Lie algebras, where the description of the symmetric invariants is possible and the coadjoint representation has a number of nice invariant-theoretic properties. If G is a semisimple group with Lie algebra g and V is G-module, then we define q to be the semi-direct product of g and V. Then we are interested in the case, where the generic isotropy group for the G-action on V is reductive and commutative. It turns out that in…
Tables4
Table 1. Table 1. Representations ( G : V ) : 𝐺 𝑉 (G:V) with 𝗀 . 𝗌 . ( 𝔤 : V ) = 𝔱 1 \mathsf{g.s.}({\mathfrak{g}}:V)={\mathfrak{t}}_{1}
N0
(FA)
(Eq)
1a
yes
yes
1b
yes
yes,
if
2
yes
no
3a
yes
yes
3b
no
no
3c
yes
no
4a
no
no
4b
yes
yes
5
no
no
Table 2. Table 2. ϑ italic-ϑ \vartheta -groups with toral generic stabiliser and their “restrictions”
dimG⋅u<v∈VmaxdimG1⋅v+dimG2=v∈VmaxdimG⋅v for all u∈D.
dimG⋅u<v∈VmaxdimG1⋅v+dimG2=v∈VmaxdimG⋅v for all u∈D.
det(A+λB)=i=0∑nfi(A,B)λi, where f0(A,B)=detA and fn(A,B)=detB,
det(A+λB)=i=0∑nfi(A,B)λi, where f0(A,B)=detA and fn(A,B)=detB,
q(V//G)=n⋅q(Rn//SL2)=n(n+1)=q(V//G~) if n⩾3.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Full text
May 6, 2017
Semi-direct products of Lie algebras and covariants
Dmitri I. Panyushev
Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the R.A.S, Bolshoi Karetnyi per. 19,
Moscow 127051, Russia
The coadjoint representation of a connected algebraic group Q with Lie algebra q is a thrilling and fascinating object. Symmetric invariants of q (= q-invariants in the symmetric algebra S(q)) can be considered as a first approximation to the understanding of the coadjoint action (Q:q∗) and coadjoint orbits. In this article, we study a class of non-reductive Lie algebras, where the description of the symmetric invariants is possible and the coadjoint representation has a number of nice invariant-theoretic properties. If G is a semisimple group with Lie algebra g and V is G-module, then we define q to be the semi-direct product of g and V. Then we are interested in the case, where the generic isotropy group for the G-action on V is reductive and commutative. It turns out that in this case symmetric invariants of q can be constructed via certain G-equivariant maps from g to V (”covariants”).
Key words and phrases:
index of Lie algebra, coadjoint representation, symmetric invariants
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
14L30, 17B08, 17B20, 22E46
The research of the first author was carried out at the IITP RAS at the expense of the Russian Foundation for Sciences (project N0 14-50-00150). The second author is partially supported by the DFG priority programme SPP 1388
“Darstellungstheorie” and by Graduiertenkolleg GRK 1523 “Quanten- und Gravitationsfelder”.
Introduction
The coadjoint representation of an algebraic group Q is a thrilling and fascinating object. It encodes
information about many other representations of Q and q=LieQ. Yet, it is a very difficult object to
study. Symmetric invariants of q can be considered as a first approximation to the understanding of
the coadjoint action (Q:q∗)
and coadjoint orbits. The goal of this article is to describe and study a class of non-reductive Lie algebras,
where the description of the symmetric invariants is possible and the
coadjoint representation has a number of nice invariant-theoretic properties. The ground field k is algebraically closed and of characteristic [math].
Let G→GL(V) be a (finite-dimensional rational) representation of a connected algebraic group G with
LieG=g. We form a new Lie algebra q as the semi-direct product q=g⋉V∗, where
V∗ is an abelian ideal. Then Q=G×V∗ can be regarded as a connected algebraic group with
LieQ=q, where 1⋉V∗ is a commutative unipotent normal subgroup. Here q∗=g∗⊕V
and the algebra of symmetric invariants S(q)Q=k[q∗]Q contains k[V]G as a
subalgebra. But finding the other invariants is a difficult and non-trivial problem. Nevertheless,
one can use certain G-equivariant morphisms F:V→g for constructing Q-invariants in
k[q∗]. Our observation is that if a generic stabiliser for (G:V) is toral, then this is usually sufficient for obtaining a generating set for k[q∗]Q.
For G-modules V and N, let Mor(V,N) denote the graded k[V]-module of polynomial
morphisms F:V→N. There is the natural map ϕ:Mor(V,g)→Mor(V,V) such that
(ϕ(F))(v):=F(v)⋅v for v∈V. If F∈Ker(ϕ), then one obtains
a (1⋉V∗)-invariant polynomial F^∈k[q∗] by letting
F^(ξ,v)=⟨F(v),ξ⟩ (Lemma 3.1). Furthermore, if F is also G-equivariant, then
F^∈k[q∗]Q. Likewise, if MorG(V,N) denotes the k[V]G-module of
G-equivariant morphisms (covariants), then there is the map
MorG(V,g)⟶ϕGMorG(V,V), which is the
restriction of ϕ. Suppose that G is reductive and H⊂G is a generic isotropy group for
(G:V), with h=LieH. It is known that rkk[V]Ker(ϕ)=dimh [9], and we prove that
rkk[V]GKer(ϕG)=dimhH whenever the action (G:V) is stable (Theorem 2.1).
Hence rkk[V]Ker(ϕ)=rkk[V]GKer(ϕG) if
and only if the adjoint representation of H is trivial; in particular, h must be toral. The main
hope behind our considerations is that if Ker(ϕ) is generated by G-equivariant morphisms,
then k[V]G and the polynomials F^ with F∈Ker(ϕG) together generate the whole
ring k[q∗]Q. Actually, we prove this under certain additional constraints, see below.
For our general theorems, we also
need the codimension-2 condition (= C⋅2⋅C) on the set Vreg of G-regular elements in V. This
means that V∖Vreg:={v∈V∣dimG⋅v is not maximal}
does not contain divisors.
Our results concern the case in which G is semisimple and C⋅2⋅C holds for (G:V).
Suppose that there are linearly independent homogeneous morphisms
F1,…,Fl∈Ker(ϕ) such that l=dimh and ∑idegFi=dimV−q(V//G), where
q(V//G) is the minus degree of the Poincaré series of k[V]G.
Then we prove that Ker(ϕ) is a free k[V]-module with basis F1,…,Fl and
k[q∗]1⋉V∗≃k[V][F^1,…,F^l] is a polynomial ring
(Theorem 3.3). Under certain additional assumptions (namely, h=hH and H is
not contained in a proper normal subgroup of G), we then prove that such F1,…,Fl are
necessarily G-equivariant and hence Ker(ϕG) is a free k[V]G-module and
k[q∗]Q≃k[V]G[F^1,…,F^l]. Furthermore, if k[V]G is a polynomial ring, then the Kostant (regularity) criterion holds for q (Theorem 3.6). In case dimh=1, our results are stronger and more precise, see Theorem 3.11.
Using Elashvili’s classification [2, 3], one can write down the arbitrary representations
of simple groups and irreducible representations of arbitrary semisimple groups with toral generic
stabilisers. We then demonstrate that for most of these representations, the assumptions of our
general theorems are satisfied. In each example, an emphasise is made on an explicit construction
of morphisms F1,…,Fl and verification that they belong to Ker(ϕ). In some cases, the
construction is rather intricate and involved, cf. Examples 5.1 and 6.2.
The structure of the paper is as follows.
In Section 1, we gather some standard well-known facts on semi-direct products,
regular elements, and generic stabilisers. In Section 2, we consider the k[V]-module
of polynomial morphisms Mor(V,g) and the associated exact sequence
0→Ker(ϕ)→Mor(V,g)→ϕMor(V,V).
We also compute the rank of the k[V]G-module Ker(ϕG).
Section 3 is the heart of the article. Here we present our main results on semi-direct
products related to the case in which the C⋅2⋅C holds for (G:V), a generic stabiliser h for (G:V)
is toral, and there are linearly independent morphisms F1,…,Fl∈Ker(ϕ) such that
l=dimh and ∑i=1ldegFi=dimV−q(V//G).
In Section 4, we explain how to verify that the C⋅2⋅C holds for a G-module V.
Examples of representations with toral generic stabilisers are presented in
Sections 5 and 6. For each example, we explicitly construct
the morphisms F1,…,Fl such that the assumptions of our theorems from Section 3
are satisfied. Our results are summarised in Appendix A, where we provide tables of the representations with toral generic stabilisers.
This is a part of a general project initiated by the second author [27]: to classify all semi-direct products q=g⋉V∗ with semisimple g such that the ring k[q∗]Q is polynomial.
Notation.
If an algebraic group G acts on an irreducible affine variety X, then k[X]G
is the algebra of G-invariant regular functions on X and k(X)G
is the field of G-invariant rational functions. If k[X]G
is finitely generated, then X//G:=Speck[X]G, and
the quotient morphismπX,G:X→X//G is induced by
the inclusion k[X]G↪k[X]. If X=V is a G-module, then NG(V):=πV,G−1(πV,G(0)) is the null-cone in V.
Whenever the ring k[X]G is graded polynomial,
the elements of any set of algebraically independent homogeneous generators
will be referred to as basic invariants.
For a G-module V and v∈V, gv={s∈g∣s⋅v=0} is the stabiliser of
v in g and Gv={g∈G∣g⋅v=v} is the isotropy group of v in G.
• See also an explanation of the multiplicative (highest weight) notation for representations of semisimple groups in 4.5.
1. Preliminaries
Let G be a connected affine algebraic group with Lie algebra g. The symmetric algebra
S(g) is identified with the algebra of polynomial functions on g∗ and we also write
k[g∗] for it.
The algebra S(g) has the natural Poisson structure {,} such that
{x,y}=[x,y] for x,y∈g. A subalgebra A⊂S(g) is said to be Poisson-commutative, if it
is a subalgebra in the usual (associative-commutative) sense and also {f,g}=0 for all f,g∈A. The algebra of invariants S(g)G=k[g∗]G is the centraliser of g w.r.t {,}, therefore it is the Poisson-centre of S(g).
Definition 1**.**
The index of g, denoted indg, is minξ∈g∗dimgξ, where gξ is the stabiliser of ξ with respect to the coadjoint representation of g.
Set b(g)=(dimg+indg)/2. If g is reductive, then
indg=rkg and b(g) equals the dimension of a Borel subalgebra.
If A⊂S(g) is Poisson-commutative, then
[TABLE]
It is also known that this upper bound is always attained.
Let V be a (finite-dimensional rational) G-module.
The set of G-regular elements of V is defined to be
[TABLE]
As is well-known, Vreg is a dense open subset of V [24]. In particular, greg∗ is the set of G-regular elements w.r.t. the coadjoint representation of G.
Definition 2**.**
We say that the codimension-n condition (= C⋅n⋅C ) holds for the action (G:V), if
codimV(V∖Vreg)⩾n.
Suppose that tr.degS(g)G=indg(=:l). Then
maxξ∈g∗dimGξ=dimg−l.
For any f∈S(g), let (\textsldf)ξ∈g denote the differential of f at ξ.
We say that g satisfies the Kostant (regularity) criterion if the following properties hold for S(g)G and
ξ∈g∗:
•
S(g)G=k[f1,…,fl] is a graded polynomial ring (with basic invariants f1,…,fl);
•
ξ∈greg∗ if and only if (\textsldf1)ξ,…,(\textsldfl)ξ are linearly
independent.
A very useful fact is that if C⋅2⋅C holds for (G:g∗), tr.degS(g)G=indg=l, and
there are algebraically independent f1,…,fl∈S(g)G such that
∑i=1ldegfi=b(g), then f1,…,fl freely generate S(g)G and the Kostant criterion holds for
g, see [12, Theorem 1.2].
Example. If g is reductive and nonabelian, then codim(g∖greg)=3. Hence the (co)adjoint representation of a
reductive Lie algebra satisfies the C⋅3⋅C .
For a G-module V,
the vector space g⊕V∗ has a natural structure of Lie algebra, the semi-direct product
of g and V∗.
Explicitly, if x,x′∈g and ζ,ζ′∈V∗, then
[TABLE]
This Lie algebra is denoted by q=g⋉V∗, and V∗≃{(0,ζ)∣ζ∈V∗}
is an abelian ideal of q. The corresponding connected algebraic group Q is the semi-direct
product of G and the commutative unipotent group exp(V∗)≃V∗.
The group Q can be identified with G×V∗, the product being given by
[TABLE]
In particular, (s,ζ)−1=(s−1,−s⋅ζ). Then exp(V∗) can be identified with
1⋉V∗:={(1,ζ)∣ζ∈V∗}⊂G⋉V∗.
If G is reductive, then the subgroup 1⋉V∗ is the unipotent radical of Q, also denoted
by Ru(Q).
Let μ:V×V∗→g∗ be the moment map, i.e.,
μ(v,ζ)(g):=⟨ζ,g⋅v⟩, where g∈g and ⟨,⟩ is the pairing of V and V∗. The restriction of the coadjoint representation of Q to 1⋉V∗ is explicitly described as follows. If ζ∈V∗ and η=(ξ,v)∈q∗=g∗×V, then
[TABLE]
Since μ(v,ζ)=0 if and only if ζ∈(g⋅v)⊥, the maximal dimension of the
(1⋉V∗)-orbits in q∗ equals maxv∈Vdim(g⋅v)=dimg−minv∈Vdimgv.
Lemma 1.1**.**
For q=g⋉V∗. There is a dense open subset Ω~∈Vreg such that for
any x∈Ω~
(i)
b(q)=dimV+b(gx);
(ii)
tr.deg(k[q∗]1⋉V∗)=dimV+dimgx.
Proof.
(i) By [17], there is a dense open subset Ω~∈Vreg such that
indq=dimV−maxv∈Vdimg⋅v+indgx=dimV−dimg+dimgx+indgx for any x∈Ω~. This yields the desired formula for b(q).
It follows from this lemma that tr.deg(k[q∗]1⋉V∗)⩾b(q) and the equality holds
if and only if indgx=dimgx, i.e., gx is abelian for generic elements of V.
By [26], if there is a dense open subset Ω~ of V such that gx is abelian for
all x∈Ω~, then P:=k[q∗]1⋉V∗ is Poisson-commutative.
Having in mind the general upper bound (1⋅1), we conclude that in such a case P is
a Poisson-commutative subalgebra of k[q∗] of maximal dimension. Moreover, since P is the centraliser of V∗ in (S(q),{,}), it is also a maximal Poisson-commutative subalgebra, cf. [15, Theorem 3.3].
We say that the action (G:V) has a generic stabiliser, if there exists
a dense open subset Ω⊂V such that all stabilisers gv, v∈Ω, are
G-conjugate. Then any subalgebra gv, v∈Ω, is called a generic stabiliser
(= g.s.).
Likewise, one defines a generic isotropy group (= g.i.g.),
which is a subgroup of G. By [18, § 4], the linear action (G:V) has a generic stabiliser if and only if it has a generic isotropy group. It is also known that g.i.g. always exists if G is reductive.
A systematic treatment of generic stabilisers in the context of reductive group
actions can be found in [24, §7].
2. On the rank of certain modules of covariants
For finite-dimensional k-vector spaces V and N, let Mor(V,N) denote the set of
polynomial morphisms F:V→N. Clearly, Mor(V,N)≃k[V]⊗N and it is a free graded
k[V]-module of rank dimN. Here degF=d, if F(tv)=tdF(v) for any t∈k× and
v∈V.
If both V and N are G-modules, then G acts on Mor(V,g) by (g∗F)(v)=g(F(g−1v)).
Therefore, g∗F=F for all g∈G if and only
if F is G-equivariant. Write MorG(V,N) for the set
of G-equivariant polynomial morphisms V→N. It is also called the
module of covariants of typeN. We have
MorG(V,N)≃(k[V]⊗N)G. In the rest of the section, we assume that G is reductive.
Then MorG(V,N) is a finitely generated k[V]G-module, see e.g. [24, 3.12].
Given a G-module V, consider the exact sequence of k[V]-modules
[TABLE]
where ϕ(F)(v):=F(v)⋅v for F∈Mor(V,g) and v∈V.
Therefore,
[TABLE]
Here rkϕ=maxv∈Vdimg⋅v [9, Prop. 1.7] and hence
rkKer(ϕ)=minv∈Vdimgv. Recall that if R is a domain and M is a finitely generated
R-module, then the rank of M is rkM=rkR(M)=dimQuot(R)M⊗Quot(R).
We also consider the “equivariant sequence” that comprises k[V]G-modules:
[TABLE]
Here ϕG is the restriction of ϕ to MorG(V,g). We are interested in conditions under which the k[V]-module Ker(ϕ) is generated by G-equivariant morphisms. In other words, when is it true that Ker(ϕ)≃k[V]⊗k[V]GKer(ϕG) ?
If H is a generic isotropy group for (G:V) and h=LieH, then
we write h=g.s.(g:V) and H=g.i.g.(G:V) for this. Then minv∈Vdimgv=dimh and hence
[TABLE]
Recall that the G-action on V is said to be stable, if
the union of closed G-orbits is dense in V, see [24, § 7]. Then
H is a reductive (not necessarily connected) group.
By a general result of Vust [25, Chap. III], if the action (G:V) is stable, then
[TABLE]
For the reader’s convenience, we outline a proof:
• If F is G-equivariant, then F(v)∈NGv for any v∈V. Applying this to the open set of G-generic elements in V, we obtain that rkMorG(V,N)⩽dimNH.
• On the other hand, the ”evaluation” map
ϵv:MorG(V,N)→NGv, F↦F(v), is onto whenever G⋅v=G⋅v, see [10, Theorem 1]. Hence if generic G-orbits in V are closed (and isomorphic to G/H), then the upper bound dimNH is attained.
Our goal is to compute the rank of the k[V]G-module Ker(ϕG).
Theorem 2.1**.**
If the action (G:V) is stable and H=g.i.g.(G:V), then rkKer(ϕG)=dimhH.
Proof.
The reductive group W=NG(H)/H acts on VH.
By the Luna-Richardson theorem [8], the restriction homomorphism
k[V]→k[VH] induces an isomorphism of rings of invariants
k[V]G≃k[VH]W. This common ring will be denoted by J.
Consider the commutative diagram of J-modules
[TABLE]
where the vertical arrows denote the restriction
of G-equivariant morphisms to VH⊂V.
Note that the W-module gH is not the Lie algebra of W.
However, the J-module homomorphism ψW is being defined
similarly to ϕG.
By construction, the action (W:VH) is again stable and
has trivial generic isotropy groups. Therefore, using Eq. (2⋅2),
we conclude that
[TABLE]
Since H is a generic isotropy group, G⋅VH=V.
It follows that both vertical arrows are injective homomorphisms of J-modules
of equal ranks. Therefore, they give rise to isomorphisms over the field of fractions of J and hence
rkKer(ψW)=rkKer(ϕG). Here
[TABLE]
The second equality follows from the fact that gv=h for a generic
v∈VH and hence F(v)∈h for any v∈VH.
Since g.i.g.(W:VH)={1}, Eq. (2⋅2) implies that
rkKer(ψW)=dimhH.
∎
Comparing Eq. (2⋅1) and Theorem 2.1 provides the following
necessary condition:
Corollary 2.2**.**
If the action (G:V) is stable and the k[V]-module Ker(ϕ) is generated by
G-equivariant morphisms, then h=hH (i.e., the adjoint representation of H is trivial).
In particular, h is a toral subalgebra of g.
There are several cases in which this condition on h is also sufficient.
∙ If (G:V) is the isotropy representation of a symmetric variety, then the condition that
h is toral does imply that Ker(ϕ) is a free k[V]-module generated
by G-equivariant morphisms, see [12, Theorem 5.8].
∙ If H is finite, then Ker(ϕ) is a trivial k[V]-module.
Next, we provide one more good case. For F∈Mor(V,N), let V(F) denote the
set of zeros of F. If dimN=1, then F is a polynomial function on V and
V(F) is a divisor.
Proposition 2.3**.**
Suppose that G is semisimple and g.i.g.(G:V) is a one-dimensional torus.
Then Ker(ϕ) is a free k[V]-module of rank 1 generated by
a G-equivariant morphism.
Proof.
Since G is semisimple and g.i.g. is reductive, the action (G:V) is stable [24, Theorem 7.15]. Hence
rkKer(ϕG)=1 in view of Theorem 2.1. Then we can pick a nonzero homogeneous primitive element
F∈Ker(ϕG), i.e., F cannot
be written as fFˇ, where Fˇ∈Ker(ϕG) and f∈k[V]G with degf>0.
Then F is also primitive as element of Mor(V,g).
Indeed, assume that F=fFˇ, where Fˇ∈Mor(V,g), f∈k[V] and
degf>0.
Because F is a G-equivariant morphism,
V(F) is G-stable. Since V(f)⊂V(F) and V(f) is a divisor,
V(f) is necessarily a G-stable divisor
in V. Because G is semisimple, f∈k[V]G.
It follows that Fˇ∈MorG(V,g). The relation F=fFˇ shows that
Fˇ(v)∈gv for any v∈V∖V(f).
Hence Fˇ(v)∈gv for any v∈V, and this contradicts the primitivity of F in Ker(ϕG).
Let F~∈Ker(ϕ) be an arbitrary homogeneous element.
Since rkKer(ϕ)=1, there are coprime homogenous
f,f~∈k[V] such that
fF=f~F~. If degf~>0, then V(f~)⊂V(F) and, as
in the previous paragraph, this leads to a contradiction.
Thus, f~ is invertible, and we are done.
∎
Using the theory to be developed in Section 3, we provide a number of non-trivial examples
of representations with toral generic stabilisers such that Ker(ϕ) is generated by G-equivariant morphisms, see Sections 5 and 6.
3. Semi-direct products with good invariant-theoretic properties
In this section, we describe a class of representations (G:V) such that Ker(ϕ) is generated by
G-equivariant morphisms, q=g⋉V∗ satisfies the
Kostant criterion, and (Q:q∗) has nice invariant-theoretic properties.
For F∈Mor(V,g) and η=(ξ,v)∈q∗=g∗×V, we define F^∈k[q∗] by
F^(η):=⟨F(v),ξ⟩, where ⟨,⟩ denote the pairing of dual
spaces.
Lemma 3.1**.**
We have F^∈k[q∗]1⋉V∗ if and only if F(v)⋅v=0 for all v∈V, i.e.,
F∈Ker(ϕ).
Proof.
By (1⋅2), the invariance with respect to 1⋉V∗ means that
[TABLE]
for any ζ∈V∗. Hence 0=⟨F(v),μ(v,ζ)⟩=⟨F(v)⋅v,ζ⟩,
and we are done.
∎
Thus, any F∈Ker(ϕ) gives rise to F^∈k[q∗]1⋉V∗. Moreover, it is clear that
if F is G-equivariant, then F^∈k[q∗]Q. It follows from Eq. (1⋅2) that
if ζ∈V∗ is regarded as a linear function on q∗=g∗×V, then
ζ is 1⋉V∗-invariant. Hence
• both S(V∗)=k[V] and {F^∣F∈Ker(ϕ)} belong to
k[q∗]1⋉V∗;
• both k[V]G and {F^∣F∈Ker(ϕG)} belong to
k[q∗]Q;
We provide below certain conditions that guarantee us that k[q∗]1⋉V∗ and
k[q∗]Q are generated by the respective subsets.
Recall some properties to the symmetric invariants of semi-direct products:
(i)
The decomposition q∗=g∗⊕V yields a bi-grading of
k[q∗]Q [12, Theorem 2.3(i)]. The same argument proves that the algebra
k[q∗]1⋉V∗ is also bi-graded.
(ii)
The algebra k[V]G is contained in k[q∗]Q. Moreover, a minimal generating
system for k[V]G is a part of a minimal generating system of
k[q∗]S [12, Sect. 2 (A)]. In particular, if k[q∗]Q is a polynomial ring, then so is
k[V]G.
Remark 3.2*.*
Note that F^ associated with F∈Ker(ϕ) has degree 1 w.r.t. g. Conversely, it can be
shown that if f∈k[q∗]1⋉V∗ has degree 1 w.r.t. g, then f=F^ for some
F∈Ker(ϕ), see [26, Lemma 2.1].
In other words, there is a natural bijection Ker(ϕ)⟷1:1(g⊗k[V])1⋉V∗.
It is also true that Ker(ϕG)⟷1:1(g⊗k[V])G⋉V∗.
If G⊂GL(V) is reductive, then k[V]G is finitely generated and q(V//G)
stands for the minus degree of the Poincaré series of the graded algebra k[V]G. More precisely, k[V]G=⨁j∈Nk[V]jG and its Poincaré series
is
[TABLE]
Here F(k[V]G;t)=P(t)/P~(t) is a rational function and, by definition,
q(V//G)=degP~−degP. In particular, if k[V]G is a polynomial ring, then q(V//G) equals the sum of degrees of the basic invariants. By [5, Korollar 5], if G is semisimple, then
q(V//G)⩽q(V)=dimV. The arbitrary representations of simple algebraic groups and the irreducible representations of semisimple groups such that q(V//G)<dimV are classified in [6].
Recall some properties of the linear actions of semisimple groups. If G⊂GL(V) is semisimple, then
•
k(V)G is the quotient field of k[V]G, hence
maxv∈VdimG⋅v=dimV−dimV//G [24];
•
(G:V) is stable if and only if g.i.g.(G:V) is reductive [24, Theorem 7.15].
Theorem 3.3**.**
Let G⊂GL(V) be semisimple and l=minv∈Vdimgv=dimg.i.g.(G:V)>0.
Suppose that codim(V∖Vreg)⩾2 and there are linearly independent
(over k[V]) homogeneous morphisms F1,…,Fl∈Ker(ϕ) such that
[TABLE]
Then
(i)
F1(v),…,Fl(v)∈g* are linearly independent for all v∈Vreg
and ⋀i=1lFi:V→∧mg is G-equivariant;*
(ii)
Ker(ϕ)* is a free k[V]-module of rank l, with basis F1,…,Fl;*
(iii)
k[q∗]Ru(Q)=k[V][F^1,…,F^l], that is,
q∗//Ru(Q)≃V×Al;
(iv)
The k-linear span of F1,…,Fl (resp. F^1,…,F^l) is a G-stable subspace of Mor(V,g) (resp. k[q∗]).
Proof.
(i) Since a generic isotropy group is l-dimensional,
maxv∈VdimG⋅v=dimg−l=:m. By [5, Satz 1 & Korollar 4], there is a
G-equivariant map c:V→∧mg∗≃∧lg such that degc=dimV−q(V//G)
and if v∈Vreg, then 0=c(v)∈∧l(gv)⊂∧lg. On the other hand,
the map c~=⋀i=1lFi:V→∧lg has the same degree and also
c~(v)∈∧l(gv)⊂∧lg for almost all v∈Vreg. In other words,
c(v) and c~(v) are proportional for almost all v∈V. Consequently, there are coprime
homogeneous f,f~∈k[V] such that fc=f~c~. Since degc=degc~,
we have
degf=degf~ as well. If degf~>0, then there is v∈Vreg such that f~(v)=0 and f(v)=0. Then c(v)=0, a contradiction! Hence f,f~∈k×,
⋀i=1lFi:V→∧mg is G-equivariant, and
F1(v),…,Fl(v)∈g are linearly independent for all v∈Vreg.
(ii) As codim(V∖Vreg)⩾2, the last property also implies that (F1,…,Fl) is
a basis for the k[V]-module Ker(ϕ).
Indeed, recall that rkKer(ϕ)=minv∈Vdimgv=l.
If F∈Ker(ϕ), then there are f,fi∈k[V] such that
fF=∑i=1lfiFi. Again, if degf>0, then there is v∈Vreg such that f(v)=0 and
fi(v)=0 for all (some) i. This contradicts the linear independence of {Fi(v)} for all
v∈Vreg. Hence f∈k×, and we are done.
(iii) Recall that now Ru(Q)=1⋉V∗, μ:V×V∗→g∗ is the moment mapping, and
the Ru(Q)-orbits in q∗ are
[TABLE]
Hence dimRu(Q)⋅(ξ,v)=dim(gv)⊥ and
maxη∈q∗dimRu(Q)⋅η=dimg−l. Therefore
tr.degk[q∗]Ru(Q)=dimV+l. Let (ζ1,…,ζn), n=dimV, be a basis of
V∗ (We regard the ζi’s as linear functions on q∗.)
Then ζ1,…,ζn,F^1,…,F^l are algebraically independent and belong to
k[q∗]Ru(Q). Consider the map
π:q∗=g∗⊕V→V×Al given by
[TABLE]
By the Igusa Lemma [24, Theorem 4.12], in order to prove that π is the quotient morphism by
Ru(Q),
it suffices to verify the following two conditions:
(◊1) The closure of (V×Al)∖Im(π) does not contain divisors;
(◊2) There is a dense open subset Ψ⊂V×Al such that π−1(b) contains a dense Ru(Q)-orbit for all b∈Ψ.
For(◊1): If v∈Vreg, then {Fi(v)} are linearly independent in view of (i). Therefore, the system of linear equations ⟨Fi(v),ξ⟩=ai, 1⩽i⩽l, has a solution ξ for any
(a1,…,al)∈Al. Therefore, Im(π)⊃Vreg×Al.
For(◊2): Suppose that v∈Vreg, aˉ=(a1,…,al)∈Al, and
ξ0 is a solution to the system ⟨Fi(v),ξ⟩=ai. Then π−1(v,aˉ)=(ξ0+(gv)⊥,v), which is a sole Ru(Q)-orbit.
Thus, k[q∗]Ru(Q)=k[ζ1,…,ζn,F^1,…,F^l]
and the morphism πq∗,Ru(Q) is given by (3⋅2).
(iv) Since q∗//Ru(Q)≃V×Al, G=Q/Ru(Q) acts on q∗//Ru(Q), and V is a G-module, the explicit form of the free generators of
k[q∗]Ru(Q) shows that the k-linear span ⟨F^1,…,F^l⟩ is a G-stable subspace of k[q∗]. Using the definition of F^i, one readily verifies that
g⋅F^i=g∗Fi. This means that
[TABLE]
Note that part (ii) of this theorem is a direct consequence of (i), and our proof of (ii), i.e., essentially the proof of the implication (i)⇒(ii), appears already in the proof of Theorem 1.9 in [9].
The condition (3⋅1) is rather strong, and all known to us instances of such a
phenomenon occur only if g.s.(g:V) is abelian, see examples in Sections 5 and
6. As a by-product of our proof of part (i) in Theorem 3.3, we also obtain the
following assertion:
Lemma 3.4**.**
Suppose that G⊂GL(V) is semisimple, codim(V∖Vreg)⩾2, dimg.i.g.(G:V)=l, and
F1,…,Fl∈Ker(ϕ) are homogeneous and linearly independent. Then
∑i=1ldegFi⩾degc=dimV−q(V//G).
Remark 3.5*.*
The interest of Theorem 3.3 is in the case, where l=dimg.s.(g:V)>0, i.e., there are certain morphisms {Fi}. If l=0, then the codimension-2 condition for (G:V) implies that q(V//G)=q(V) [5, Korollar 4]. i.e., formally, Eq. (3⋅1) holds. Then parts (i), (ii), (iv) become vacuous, but part (iii) still makes sense and remains true.
For, in this case k[q∗]Ru(Q)≃k[V], see [11, Theorem 6.4].
Theorem 3.6**.**
Let G,V,F1,…,Fl be as in Theorem 3.3. Suppose also that the identity
component of H=g.i.g.(G:V) is a torus, H is not contained in a proper normal
subgroup of G, and hH=h. Then
(i)
If the C⋅n⋅C holds for (G:V) with n⩾2, then it also holds for (Q:q∗);
(ii)
The morphisms F1,…,Fl are G-equivariant,
the corresponding polynomials F^1,…,F^l are G-invariant,
and hence k[q∗]Q=k[V]G[F^1,…,F^l], i.e.,
q∗//Q≃V//G×Al;
(iii)
k[q∗]Ru(Q)* is a maximal Poisson-commutative subalgebra of k[q∗];*
(iv)
If k[V]G is a polynomial algebra, then the Kostant criterion holds for q.
Proof.
(i) Since a generic stabiliser is abelian, the standard deformation argument shows that gv is
abelian for any v∈Vreg. It then follows from [11, Prop. 5.5] that (ξ,v)
is Q-regular for any ξ∈g∗. Hence qreg∗⊃g∗×Vreg.
(ii) By Theorem 3.3(iv), the space ⟨F1,…,Fl⟩ is G-stable
and therefore
[TABLE]
Recall that g(Fi(g−1v))=(g∗Fi)(v). If g∈Gv, then Fi(g−1v)=Fi(v)∈gv. Moreover, if Gv∼H, then
g(Fi(g−1v))=Fi(v) in view of the assumption hH=h. Therefore
Fi(v)=∑j=1laij(g)Fj for all v such that Gv∼H and g∈Gv.
By Theorem 3.3(i), {Fi(v)} are linearly independent. Hence
aij(g)=δij for any g∈Gv and Gv∼H. Hence the kernel of the representation
ρ:G→GL(⟨F1,…,Fl⟩) contains the normal subgroup generated by all
generic isotropy subgroups. Under our assumption, this implies Ker(ρ)=G. Therefore, each
Fi is G-equivariant and thereby each F^i is G-invariant and also Q-invariant.
Hence G acts trivially on Al and
[TABLE]
(iii) This is a particular case of more general results of [26]. However, using the G-equivariance of {Fi} one can verify directly that the basic invariants in k[q∗]Ru(Q) pairwise commute w.r.t. the Poisson bracket {,}
(cf. the proof of Theorem 3.3 in [15]).
(iv) If k[V]G is a polynomial algebra, then so is k[q∗]Q (in view of (ii)), and the sum of degrees of
the basic invariants in k[q∗]Q equals
q(V//G)+∑i=1ldegF^i=q(V//G)+(∑i=1ldegFi)+l=dimV+l=b(q).
Together with the C⋅2⋅C for (Q:q∗), this implies that the Kostant criterion holds for q,
see [12, Theorem 1.2].
∎
Corollary 3.7**.**
Under the assumptions of Theorems 3.3 and 3.6,
the k[V]-module Ker(ϕ) is free and is generated by G-equivariant morphisms.
Therefore, the k[V]G-module Ker(ϕG) is also free, with the ”same basis” F1,…,Fl.
That is, Ker(ϕ)≃Ker(ϕG)⊗k[V]Gk[V].
Example 3.8**.**
Let g be a semisimple Lie algebra of rank l. Then g≃g∗ as G-module,
indg=l, and k[g]G=k[f1,…,fl] is a graded polynomial algebra. Set di=degfi.
Then q(g//G)=∑i=1ldi=b(g) is the dimension of a Borel subalgebra. Here
g.i.g.(G:g)=Tl is a maximal torus. It is known that MorG(g,g) is a free
k[g]G-module generated by the differentials \textsldfi=:Fi, i=1,…,l. (This is a special case of a general result of Vust [25, Ch. III, § 2], see also [11, Theorem 4.5].) Here
degFi=di−1 and hence Eq. (3⋅1) holds. Thus,
Theorems 3.3 and 3.6 apply to g and q=g⋉g. A specific feature of
this case is that here ϕG≡0 and Ker(ϕG)=MorG(g,g).
Remark 3.9*.*
The semisimplicity of G is assumed in Theorems 3.3 and 3.6, because Knop’s
results in [5] heavily rely on this assumption. Using those results and Eq. (3⋅1), we
then prove that ⋀i=1lFi(v)=0 for all v∈Vreg and so on… But, if one can directly verify that
Z={v∈V∣⋀i=1lFi(v)=0} does not contain divisors,
then the proof of Theorem 3.3(iii),(iv) goes through with V∖Z in place of
Vreg and without the semisimplicity condition.
(See Example 5.3 below.)
Furthermore, if we know somehow that {Fi} are G-equivariant (i.e., Fi∈Ker(ϕG)), then
Fi(v)∈(gv)Gv for all v∈V. For v∈(V∖Z)∩Vreg, this implies that dimgv=dim(gv)Gv. Hence a generic stabiliser is abelian and the C⋅2⋅C for (G:V) implies that for (Q:q∗), cf. Theorem 3.6(i). In this situation, we also have
q∗//Q≃V//G×Al, and {F1,…,Fl} is a basis for both Ker(ϕ)
and Ker(ϕG).
Remark 3.10*.*
The assumptions of Theorem 3.6 that the adjoint representation of H=g.i.g.(G:V) is
trivial and that H is not contained in a proper normal subgroup of G are essential. We will see in Example 5.1 that if this is not the case, then the
morphisms F1,…,Fl satisfying (3⋅1) can be not G-equivariant and
⟨F1,…,Fl⟩ affords a nontrivial representation of (a simple factor of) G.
On the other hand, if l=dimg.i.g.(G:V)=1, then the assumptions of both theorems can be simplified,
and one also obtains stronger results.
Theorem 3.11**.**
Suppose that G⊂GL(V) is semisimple, codim(V∖Vreg)⩾2, and
g.s.(g:V)=t1. As usual, q=g⋉V∗. Then
(i)
The C⋅2⋅C holds for (Q:q∗);
(ii)
k[q∗]Ru(Q)* is freely generated by a basis of V∗ and one more polynomial
F^ such that degF^=dimV−q(V//G)+1. In particular, q∗//Ru(Q)≃V×A1;*
(iii)
q∗//Q≃V//G×A1;
(iv)
If k[V]G is a polynomial ring, then q satisfies the Kostant criterion;
(v)
Furthermore, if πV,G:V→V//G is equidimensional and
** (∗)* each irreducible
component of NG(V):=πV,G−1(πV,G(0)) contains a G-regular point,
then πq∗,Q:q∗→q∗//Q is also equidimensional and the enveloping algebra U(q) is
a free module over its centre Z(q).*
Proof.
Since l=1, we have b(q)=dimV+1. Here we need only one morphism
F:V→∧dimg−1g∗≃g of degree dimV−q(V//G) such that
0=F(v)∈gv for all v∈Vreg. The existence of such a G-equivariant morphism follows
from Knop’s theory [5]. As the morphism F is G-equivariant and F∈Ker(ϕ),
the corresponding polynomial F^ lies in k[q∗]Q. Then the proofs of
Theorems 3.3 and 3.6 apply and yield parts (i)-(iv).
(v) The equidimensionality of πV,G is equivalent to that dimNG(V)=dimV−dimV//G, see [24, Eq. (8.1)].
And for the equidimensionality of πq∗,Q, it suffices to prove that
[TABLE]
where NQ(q∗)=πq∗,Q−1(πq∗,Q(0)).
It follows from (iii) that
[TABLE]
In other words, {\mathcal{N}}_{Q}({\mathfrak{q}}^{*})=\bigl{(}{\mathfrak{g}}^{*}\times{\mathcal{N}}_{G}(V)\bigr{)}\cap\{\hat{F}=0\}.
Under assumption (∗), we have
dimNQ(q∗)=dimNG(V)+dimg−1, as required. Then
S(q)=k[q∗] is a free S(q)Q-module; and, by a standard deformation argument, this implies that U(q) is a free module over Z(q)≃S(q)Q.
∎
Note that if NG(V) contains finitely many G-orbits, then πV,G is
equidimensional [24, § 5.2] and hence condition (∗) is satisfied.
Remark**.**
If l⩾1 and NG(V) contains finitely many G-orbits, then there is a general criterion for the equidimensionality of πq∗,Q in terms of the stratification of NG(V) determined by the covariants F1,…,Fl. Namely,
NQ(q∗)={(ξ,v)∣v∈NG(V)&⟨Fi(v),ξ⟩=0i=1,…,l}
and using the projection NQ(q∗)→NG(V), (ξ,v)↦v, one proves that
πq∗,Q is equidimensional ⟺dimgv+dim⟨F1(v),…,Fl(v)⟩⩾2l
for any v∈NG(V). However, this condition is not easily verified in specific examples, if l>1.
If (G:V) is the isotropy representation of a symmetric variety such that g.i.g. is a torus, then a version of this condition is verified in [12, Sect. 5].
4. The codimension-2 condition for representations
In this section, we provide some sufficient conditions for the C⋅2⋅C to hold for (G:V).
A G-stable divisor D⊂V is said to be bad, if
maxv∈DdimG⋅v<maxv∈VdimG⋅v. That is, if
[TABLE]
Hence the C⋅2⋅C holds for (G:V) if and only if V contains no bad divisors.
Proposition 4.1**.**
Suppose that G is reductive, the action (G:V) is stable, and NG(V) contains finitely many
G-orbits. Then the C⋅2⋅C holds for (G:V).
Proof.
Since NG(V) has finitely many orbits, πV,G:V→V//G is equidimensional and each fibre of
πV,G also has finitely many orbits [24, § 5.2, Cor. 3]. Assume that
D is a (G-stable) bad divisor in V.
Then πV,G(D) is a proper (closed) subvariety of V//G, see e.g. [23, Theorem 1], and
since πV,G is equidimensional, πV,G(D) is actually a divisor
in V//G. Hence dimD∩πV,G−1(ξ)=dimπV,G−1(ξ) for any ξ∈πV,G(D)
and therefore D∩πV,G−1(ξ) contains G-regular elements. Hence D cannot be bad.
∎
Let ϑ be an automorphism of g of finite order k. If ς=k1 is primitive, then
g=⨁i∈Z/kZgi, where gi is the eigenspace of ϑ corresponding
to ςi. The above decomposition is also called a periodic grading of g.
Here g0 is reductive and each gi is a g0-module. If G0 is the connected subgroup of G
with LieG0=g0, then the linear group G0→GL(g1) is called a ϑ-group. A
fundamental invariant-theoretic property of ϑ-groups is that NG0(g1) contains finitely
many G0-orbits and k[g1]G0 is a polynomial ring. If k=2, then (G0:g1) is always
stable. There are also many interesting examples of stable ϑ-groups, if k⩾3,
see e.g. [22, § 9].
Example 4.3** (reduced θ-groups).**
Let g=⨁i∈Zg(i) be a Z-grading. Then g(i)={x∈g∣[h,x]=ix} for a unique
semisimple element h∈g(0). Let g(0)′ be the orthocomplement to kh in g(0) w.r.t. the Killing
form on g and G(0)′⊂G(0) the corresponding connected subgroups of G.
Here the reductive group G(0) has finitely many orbits in each g(i) with i=0 [22], while there is a
dichotomy for G(0)′-orbits. Either the G(0)′-orbits in g(1) coincide with the G(0)-orbits, or
dimg(1)//G(0)′=1 and the G(0)′-orbits in NG(0)′g(1) coincide with the G(0)-orbits [4, Theorem 2.9]. In the latter case, the action (G(0)′:g(1)) is also stable. The linear groups of the form
G(0)′→GL(g(1)) are called reduced ϑ-groups.
In the following assertion G is not necessarily reductive.
Theorem 4.4**.**
Let G:V1⊕V2=V be a reducible representation. Suppose that generic isotropy groups
Si=g.i.g.(G:Vi), i=1,2, exist and the C⋅2⋅C holds for both (S1:V2) and (S2:V1).
Then the C⋅2⋅C holds also for (G:V).
Proof.
Assume that D⊂V is a bad divisor. Consider the projections pi:D→Vi, i=1,2.
• If p1 is dominant and p2 is not, then D=V1×D2, where D2⊂V2 is a G-stable divisor. Take a generic point x1o∈V1 such that Gx1o=S1. The fact that
D is bad means that
[TABLE]
That is, D2 appears to be a bad divisor for (S1:V2). Thus, this case is impossible.
• If p2 is dominant and p1 is not, then D=D1×V2 and the argument is
”symmetric”.
• If both p1,p2 are dominant, then we again can take a point xˉ=(x1,x2)∈D
such that Gx1=S1. Here p1−1(x1)={x1}×D2 and the similar argument shows that
D2 is a bad divisor for (S1:V2).
∎
Notation 4.5**.**
In specific examples and the tables in Appendix A,
we identify the representations V of semisimple groups with their highest weights, using the multiplicative notation and the
Vinberg–Onishchik numbering of the fundamental weights. For instance, if φ1,…,φn are the fundamental weights of a simple algebraic group G, then V=φ12+φn−1 stands for the direct sum of two simple G-modules with highest weights 2φ1 and φn−1. If G=G1×G2×… is semisimple, then the fundamental weights of the first (resp. second) factor are denoted by {φi} (resp. {φi′}) and so on… The dual G-module for ψ is denoted by ψ∗.
We omit the index for the unique fundamental weight of SL2.
Example 4.6**.**
We provide several cases, where the last theorem allows us to check the
codimension-2 condition.
1o. G=SLn, V1=φ12, and V2=φ2. Here S1=SOn and
(S1:V2) is equivalent to the adjoint representation of SOn modulo a trivial summand.
If n is even, then S2=Spn and (S2:V1) is equivalent to the adjoint representation of
Spn modulo a trivial summand. This already shows that C⋅2⋅C holds if n is even.
For n odd, S2 is not reductive and the only a priori possible bad divisor is D1×V2, where D1 consists of the symmetric matrices with det=0. Here a direct calculation of stabilisers shows that this divisor is not bad. Thus, the
C⋅2⋅C holds for all n.
2o. G=SLn, V1=φ12, and V2=φ2∗=φn−2. This is similar to 1o.
3o. G=SLn×SLn and V1=V2=φ1φ1′. Here S1=S2=ΔSLn≃SLn
and (S1:V2) is equivalent to the adjoint representation of SLn modulo a trivial summand.
4o. G=Sp6 and V1=V2=φ2. Here S1=S2=(SL2)3 and
and (S1:V2) is equivalent to (SL2×SL2×SL2:φφ′+φφ′′+φ′φ′′)
modulo a 2-dimensional trivial summand. Applying Theorem 4.4 to the last representation, one readily obtains the C⋅2⋅C .
Below is a variation of Theorem 4.4 that concerns the case in which V1≃V2.
Theorem 4.7**.**
For any representation G→GL(V), one naturally defines the representation of G^=G×SL2 in
V^=V⊗k2. Let G∗ be a generic isotropy group for (G:V). If C⋅2⋅C holds for
(G∗:V) and g.s.(g:V)=g.s.(g^:V^), then
C⋅2⋅C also holds for (G^:V^).
Proof.
Since V^∣G=V⊕V, Theorem 4.4 shows that the C⋅2⋅C holds for
(G:V⊕V). Let D^⊂V^ be a G^-stable divisor. As above,
consider the G-equivariant projections pi:D^→V(i), where V(i) is the i-th copy of V and i=1,2. Since D^
is SL2-stable, both projections must be dominant. Take (x1,x2)∈D^ such that
Gx1=G∗. Since x1 is G-generic and C⋅2⋅C holds for (G∗:V), there is x2∈p2(p1−1(x1)) such that
[TABLE]
This means that D^ cannot be bad.
∎
Example 4.8**.**
Theorem 4.7 applies, if we add the factor SL2 to G in Example 4.6,
3o & 4o.
Theorem 4.9**.**
Suppose that the C⋅2⋅C holds for (G1×G2:V1⊗V2=V) and
g.s.(g1×g2:V1⊗V2)=g.s.(g1:V1⊕d), where
d=dimV2. Then C⋅2⋅C also holds for (G1:V1⊕d).
Proof.
Assume that D∈V is a bad divisor for (G1:V1⊕d).
Then dimG1⋅u<maxv∈VdimG1⋅v for all u∈D.
The coincidence of generic stabilisers implies that D is also G1×G2-stable and then
[TABLE]
Hence D is bad for (G:V), too. A contradiction!
∎
Example 4.10**.**
The representation (SL6×SL3:φ2φ1′) is the ϑ-group associated with an
automorphism of order 3 of E7, see item 5 in the table in [22, § 9]. A generic isotropy
group H here is reductive (namely, LieH=t1). Therefore, this action is stable and hence C⋅2⋅C holds
here (use Prop. 4.1). All assumptions of Theorem 3.11 are satisfied here, and therefore q=(sl6×sl3)⋉(φ2φ1′)∗ satisfies the Kostant criterion and U(q) is a free module over Z(q).
Forgetting about SL3, we obtain the representation (SL6:3φ2). Since both have the same
generic stabilisers (namely t1), the C⋅2⋅C also holds for the latter in view of Theorem 4.9.
Here the algebra k[3φ2]SL6 is still polynomial [1, 19], but the equidimensionality
of the quotient morphism fails [20]. Hence q′=sl6⋉3φ2∗ satisfies the
Kostant criterion, but U(q′) is not a free Z(q′)-module.
5. Constructing covariants for semi-direct products, I
If an action (G:V) is associated with a periodic or Z-grading of a simple Lie algebra,
then usually most of the assumptions of Theorems 3.3 and 3.6 are automatically
satisfied for it. The most appealing and non-trivial task is to produce linearly independent morphisms
{Fi} in Ker(ϕ) such that (3⋅1) holds.
Example 5.1**.**
G=SL(V1)×SL(V2)×SL(V3) and
V=V1⊗V2⊗V3, where dimV1=dimV2=n and dimV3=2. In other words,
G=SLn×SLn×SL2 and V=φ1φ1′φ′′≃kn⊗kn⊗k2.
Upon the
restriction to G~:=SL(V1)×SL(V2), the space V splits in two copies of V1⊗V2. We regard the G~-module V1⊗V2 as the space n by n matrices,
equipped with the action (g1,g2)⋅A=g1Ag2−1, where gi∈SL(Vi). The
corresponding action of (s1,s2)∈g~ is given by (s1,s2)⋅A=s1A−As2. We think of elements
of V as pairs (A,B) of n by n matrices, where the action of
\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}\alpha&\beta\\
\gamma&\delta\end{array}\right)\in SL_{2}=SL(V_{3}) is given by
(A,B)↦(αA+βB,γA+δB). By Examples 4.6(3o) and 4.8,
the C⋅2⋅C holds for both (G:V) and (G~:V).
The algebra k[V]G~ is polynomial and its
basic invariants are the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial
[TABLE]
see e.g. [16, Theorem 4].
Since degfi(A,B)=n for all i, q(V//G~)=n(n+1). Looking at the weights of the
polynomials {fi(A,B)}i=0n w.r.t. a maximal torus in SL2, one realises that
V//G~ is isomorphic to (φ′′)n (the space of binary forms of degree n) as an SL2-module.
(We also write Rn for this SL2-module.) It is known that
q(Rn//SL2)=dimRn=n+1 for n⩾3. In our case, the coordinates in Rn=V//G~
are of degree n w.r.t. the initial grading of k[V]. Therefore,
[TABLE]
It is easily verified that H~:=g.i.g.(G~:V)≃Tn−1 for any n⩾2, where the torus
Tn−1 is diagonally embedded in G~≃SLn×SLn. Furthermore, the identity
component of H=g.i.g.(G:V) is the same torus for n⩾3. In other words,
h=g.s.(g:V)=g.s.(g~:V)=h~ for n⩾3. (See Example 5.2 for (G:V) with n=2.)
However, H can be disconnected. Using the isomorphism V//G~≃Rn, one verifies that H/H0 is isomorphic to g.i.g.(SL2:Rn), and the latter is isomorphic to
• Z3, if n=3; • Z2⋉Z4, if n=4;
• {1}, if n⩾5 is odd; • Z2, if n⩾6 is even.
We will compare below the coadjoint representations of the Lie algebras q=g⋉V∗ and
q~=g~⋉V∗ for n⩾3.
Accordingly, we consider the corresponding connected groups Q and Q~,
two morphisms of k[V]-modules
[TABLE]
and the corresponding morphisms ϕG and ϕ~G~ of modules of covariants (see
Section 2). Clearly, Mor(V,g~)⊂Mor(V,g) and
ϕ~=ϕ∣Mor(V,g~). Note also that Ru(Q)=Ru(Q~).
For A∈gln, let A∗ denote the adjugate of A, i.e., the transpose of its cofactor matrix. (Hence
AA∗=A∗A=(detA)I.) Note that A↦A∗ is a polynomial mapping of degree
n−1. Let A↦Aˉ=A−ntr(A)I denote the projection from gln to sln.
Consider the morphism F∈Mor(V,g~), where
F(A,B)=(BA∗,A∗B)∈g~⊂g. Here BA∗ (resp. A∗B) is regarded as
an element of sl(V1) (resp. sl(V2)).
One readily verifies that F(A,B)⋅(A,B)=0, cf. the proof of
Theorem 5.1.1(i). Hence F∈Ker(ϕ~)⊂Ker(ϕ).
Since the map A↦A∗ has degree n−1, we obtain
degF=n. We will see below that the morphism F is G~-equivariant.
However, it is not SL2-equivariant, hence not G-equivariant. Still, F is a lowest weight vector in
a simple SL2-module Rn−2. Indeed, for any γ we have
[TABLE]
i.e., the subgroup {(1γ01)∣γ∈k}⊂SL2 stabilises F. By a direct calculation, we also have
g∗F=t2−nF for g=(t00t−1).
Having at hand one suitable covariant, we perform a “polarisation”. Consider
[TABLE]
Note that F0=F and Fn−1(A,B)=(BB∗,B∗B)=0. That is, we obtain only the
morphisms F0,F1,…,Fn−2 in Mor(V,g~). It follows from the previous observation
that the k-linear span ⟨F0,F1,…,Fn−2⟩ is an SL2-module
isomorphic to Rn−2.
Theorem 5.1.1**.**
We have
(i)
Fλ* is a G~-equivariant morphism for any λ∈k. Therefore,
all {Fi} are G~-equivariant;*
(ii)
Fi∈Ker(ϕ~)* for all i.*
Proof.
(i) By definition,
[TABLE]
If A+λB is invertible, then the first component is being transformed as follows:
[TABLE]
Likewise, for the second component, we obtain g_{2}\bigl{(}\overline{(A+\lambda B)^{*}B}\bigr{)}g_{2}^{-1}.
Thus,
whenever A+λB is invertible.
Since Fλ is a polynomial mapping that is G~-equivariant on the open subset of triples
(A,B,λ) such that A+λB is invertible, it is always equivariant.
(ii) It suffices to verify that Fλ(A,B)⋅(A,B)=0 for any λ. The first component in the
LHS equals
[TABLE]
Now, if both A and A+λB are invertible, then
[TABLE]
A similar transform yields the very same formula for A(A+λB)∗B. Since the difference in
(5⋅1) vanishes on the open subset of triples (A,B,λ), where A and A+λB are invertible, it is identically zero. And likewise for the second component in Fλ(A,B)⋅(A,B).
∎
Remark**.**
Permuting A and B in the definition of F=F0, one defines the companion morphism
F^∈Mor(V,g~) by F^(A,B)=(AB∗,B∗A). Then we can prove that
F^=−Fn−2.
Note that ∑i=0n−2degFi=n(n−1)=dimV−q(V//G~)=dimV−q(V//G).
Hence G~,V,q~, and the covariants F0,…,Fn−2 satisfy all the assumptions of Theorems 3.3 and 3.6. Hence
•
q~∗//Ru(Q~)≃V×An−1 and
q~∗//Q~≃V//G~×An−1≃A2n;
•
Ker(ϕ~) (resp. Ker(ϕ~G~)) is a free k[V]
(resp. k[V]G~) -module with basis F0,…,Fn−2;
•
the Kostant criterion holds for
q~=(sln×sln)⋉(kn⊗kn⊗k2)∗.
However, G,V, and q=(sln×sln×sl2)⋉(kn⊗kn⊗k2)∗ do
not satisfy all the assumptions of Theorem 3.6. For, either
h=hH (n=3,4) or H is contained in a proper normal subgroup of G (n⩾5).
But Theorem 3.3 still applies, and we have
q∗//Ru(Q)≃V×An−1. Then q∗//Q~≃V//G~×An−1, and the last variety is isomorphic to
Rn⊕Rn−2 as Q/Q~-module, i.e., SL2-module. Therefore,
q∗//Q≃(Rn⊕Rn−2)//SL2, which is not an affine space for n⩾3. In other
words, k[q∗]Q is not a polynomial ring for n⩾3. For instance, it is a
hypersurface for n=3,4, see e.g. [21, 3.4.3].
Remark 5.1.2**.**
Since g.s.(g:V)=g.s.(g~:V)=tn−1, we have
rkKer(ϕ)=rkKer(ϕ~)=n−1 by Eq. (2⋅1).
Moreover, because H~=g.i.g.(G~:V) is abelian and connected, we also get
rkKer(ϕ~)=rkKer(ϕ~G~).
But the situation for ϕ and ϕG is different.
If n=3,4, then the component group
H/H~ acts nontrivially on h and, actually, hH={0}. Therefore, rkKer(ϕG)=0.
On the other hand, if n⩾5, then hH=h, hence rkKer(ϕ)=rkKer(ϕG).
However, even if Ker(ϕ) and Ker(ϕG) have the same rank, the free generators of the former are not G-equivariant (they are only G~-equivariant). In fact, we do not know the generators of the k[V]G-module
Ker(ϕG) if n⩾5.
Example 5.2**.**
The case of n=2 in Example 5.1 does not fit into the general picture with n⩾3, so we
consider it separately. Now G=(SL2)3 and V=φφ′φ′′. This is a reduced ϑ-group
(see Example 4.3) related to a Z-grading of D4. Therefore C⋅2⋅C holds here.
We have V//G=A1, q(V//G)=4, and g.i.g.(G:V)≃T2. More precisely,
if the elements of a maximal torus
[TABLE]
are represented as triples (t1,t2,t3) , then g.i.g.(G:V)={(t1,t2,t3)∣t1t2t3=1}.
The elements of V can be regarded as cubic 2-matrices with entries aijk, see Fig. 1, where the i-th factor of G acts along the i-th coordinate, i=1,2,3.
We provide below three morphisms from V to sl2 that are thought of as morphisms to the consecutive
factors of g, where the column [mnp] represents
the matrix \bigl{(}\begin{smallmatrix}n&m\\
p&-n\end{smallmatrix}\bigr{)}:
[TABLE]
Letting Fλ,μ,ν(M)=(λF~1(M),μF~2(M),νF~3(M)) with
λ,μ,ν∈k, we
obtain a 3-dimensional subspace of Mor(V,g), and one verifies directly that
Fλ,μ,ν∈Ker(ϕ) if and only if λ+μ+ν=0.
Then F1=Fλ,−λ,0 and F2=F0,μ,−μ satisfy (3⋅1) and
Theorems 3.3 and 3.6 apply.
Hence Ker(ϕ) (resp. Ker(ϕG))
is a free k[φφ′φ′′]-module (resp. k[φφ′φ′′](SL2)3-module) and q=(sl2)3⋉φφ′φ′′ satisfies the Kostant
criterion. Furthermore, using the explicit classification of G-orbits in V, one can prove that C⋅3⋅C holds
for (G:V) and hence for (Q:q∗), and also that
U(q) is a free Z(q)-module.
Example 5.3**.**
G=∏i=1kGL(Ui) and V=⨁i=1kUi⊗Ui+1∗, where Uk+1=U1.
Assume that dimUi=n for all i. Then (G:V) is a ϑ-group related to an automorphism of order k of g~=gl(V)=glnk, where V=U1⊕⋯⊕Uk. Namely, if ς=k1 and
[TABLE]
then ϑ=Ad(t), G=G~0, and V=g~1. In the matrix form, we have
[TABLE]
is a typical element of V=g~1. We also write M≑(M1,…,Mk).
Here dimg=kn2=dimV, g.s.(g:V)=tn, and
V//G≃An. The centre of G~=GL(V) belongs to G and acts trivially on everything. Therefore, without any harm, we can replace g~=glnk with
slnk. But, it is notationally simpler to deal with glnk.
If gi∈GL(Ui), g=(g1,…,gk)∈G, and M≑(M1,…,Mk), then
the G-action on V is given by
[TABLE]
Accordingly, for s=(s1,…,sk)∈g, we have
[TABLE]
Vinberg’s theory (Example 4.2) implies that here k[V]G is a polynomial ring and
NG(V) contains finitely many G-orbits. But in this case, one can explicitly describe the basic invariants and thereby compute q(V//G). The representation (G:V) is a quiver representation related
to the extended Dynkin quiver A~nk−1, and the algebra k[V]G is well known. But we prefer an
”elementary” invariant-theoretic point of view in our exposition.
Theorem 5.3.1**.**
The algebra k[V]G is freely generated by the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial of the
matrix M1⋯Mk (or any cyclic permutation of this product). In particular, the degrees of the basic invariants are k,2k,…,nk and dimV−q(V//G)=k(2n).
Proof.
Using the First Fundamental Theorem of Invariant Theory or the
Igusa lemma [24, Theorem 4.12], one readily verifies that the quotient of V by G′=∏i=2kGL(Ui) is given by the mapping M↦M1⋯Mk∈Matn(k). Since
g1⋅(M1⋯Mk)=g1M1⋯Mkg1−1, the induced action of GL(U1)=G/G′ on
V//G′≃Matn(k) is equivalent to the adjoint representation.
∎
Define the morphism Fi∈Mor(V,g) by Fi(M)=Mki (the usual matrix power in
glnk).
Theorem 5.3.2**.**
We have
(i)
each Fi is G-equivariant, lies in Ker(ϕ), and ∑i=0n−1degFi=k(2n);
(ii)
For Z={M∈V∣⋀i=0n−1Fi(M)=0}, we have
codimVZ⩾2.
Proof.
(i) It is clear from the definition that all Fi are G-equivariant. Next, Mk is a block-diagonal
matrix, where the first block is M[1,k]:=M1⋯Mk and the subsequent blocks are cyclic permutations of this product. The equality F1(M)⋅M=0 readily
follows from this observation and (5⋅2). And likewise for Fi (i⩾2). The case of i=0 is obvious.
(ii) We have the commutative diagram
[TABLE]
If M[1,k] is a G/G′-regular (= non-derogatory) matrix, then {Fi(M)}i=0n−1 are
linearly independent. Let Y denote the variety of all derogatory matrices in Matn(k).
Then Z⊂πG′−1(Y), and it suffices to prove that codimπG′−1(Y)⩾2. Consider the matrices
M(1)≑(In,…,In,A) and M(2)≑(In,…,In,E,In), where
A=diag(a1,…,an) with ai=aj and E=0⋯010⋯⋱⋱⋯010 is a regular nilpotent element of gln. The plane
P={αM(1)+βM(2)∣α,β∈k} has the property that, for any nonzero M∈P, the corresponding matrix M[1,k] is non-derogatory. Hence
P∩πG′−1(Y)={0}, and we are done.
∎
Remark**.**
If we work with G~=SL(V) in place of GL(V), then a generic stabiliser
becomes tn−1. Here the constant morphism F0 should be omitted and the matrices
Mki, i⩾1, should be replaced with their projections to sl(V).
Thus, by Remark 3.9 and Theorem 5.3.2, the proof of
Theorems 3.3 and 3.6 can be adjusted to the present case.
Therefore, Ker(ϕ) (resp. Ker(ϕG)) is a free k[V]-module (resp. k[V]G-module) with basis F0,F1,…,Fn−1 and
{\mathfrak{q}}=(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\mathfrak{gl}({\mathbb{U}}_{i}))\ltimes\bigl{(}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{k}{\mathbb{U}}_{i}^{*}\otimes{\mathbb{U}}_{i+1}\bigr{)} satisfies the Kostant criterion.
It is worth noting that the special case of the involutive automorphism ϑ (i.e., if k=2) has already been settled in [12, Sect. 5].
6. Constructing covariants for semi-direct products, II
Example 6.1**.**
G=SLn=SL(U), V=φ12+φ2∗=S2(U)⊕∧2(U∗).
We regard V as the space of pairs of matrices: V={(A,B)∣At=A&Bt=−B}, where the action of g∈G is given by
[TABLE]
and the corresponding action of s∈g=sln is
[TABLE]
In what follows, one has to distinguish the cases of even or odd n.
The algebra k[V]G is (bi)graded polynomial and the (bi)degrees of the basic invariants
are [1, 19]:
{(2,2),(4,4),…,(n−2,n−2),(n,0),(0,n/2),(2,2),(4,4),…,(n−1,n−1),(n,0) if n=2k, if n=2k+1.
Here the invariant of degree (n,0) is detA, and the invariant of degree (0,n/2) is
PfB. While the invariants of degree (2i,2i) are just tr(AB)2i, 2i<n.
A generic isotropy group is H≃T[n/2] [2, Table 2].
For instance, one can take
H={diag(t1,…,tk,t1−1,…,tk−1)∣ti∈k×},diag(t1,…,tk,1,t1−1,…,tk−1)∣ti∈k×}, if n=2k if n=2k+1.
We have to construct [n/2] morphisms {Fi} in Ker(ϕ). To begin with, take
F1(A,B)=AB. Since (AB)t=−BA, we have tr(AB)=0, and it follows from (6⋅1) that g⋅AB=g(AB)g−1. Hence F1∈MorG(V,g). We continue by letting
Fi(A,B)=(AB)2i−1, i=1,2,…,[n/2]. To ensure that the resulting matrix is traceless, we must consider only the odd powers of AB. Using (6⋅2), one verifies that
Fi(A,B)⋅(A,B)=0, hence Fi∈Ker(ϕ). The corresponding Q-invariants in k[q∗] are
F^i(ξ,A,B)=tr(ξ(AB)2i−1). Let Ik(dˉ) denote the diagonal k by k matrix with diagonal entries dˉ=(d1,…,dk). Taking
A=(0kIk(dˉ)Ik(dˉ)0k) and
B=(0k−Ik(cˉ)Ik(cˉ)0k) shows that the matrices
(AB)2i−1, 1⩽i⩽k, are linearly independent whenever the elements {cjdj} are different.
Hence F1,…,Fk are linearly independent for n=2k. This construction can easily be adjusted to
n=2k+1.
Having the degrees of all basic invariants and covariants, one verifies that
∑i=1[n/2]degFi+q(V//G)=dimV if n is odd; while for n even
one obtains ∑i=1[n/2]degFi=dimV−q(V//G)+[n/2].
Since the C⋅2⋅C holds here (Example 4.6(20)), we have
if n is odd, then the assumptions of Theorems 3.3 and 3.6
are satisfied. Therefore, Ker(ϕ) (resp. Ker(ϕG)) is a free k[V]-module (resp. k[V]G-module) with basis F1,F2,…,F[n/2] and q:=sln⋉(φ12+φ2∗)∗ satisfies the Kostant criterion.
If n is even, then the same conclusion is still true, but one have to modify the constructed covariants
{Fi} in order to obtain a new family such that Equality (3⋅1) to be satisfied. This will appear in a forthcoming paper.
Example 6.2**.**
If we slightly change V of Example 6.2, i.e., take G=SLn and
V~=φ12+φ2=S2(U)⊕∧2(U),
then the action (G:V~) has similar properties. Namely, k[V~]G is polynomial [1, 19]
and g.i.g.(G:V~)=T[n/2] [2, Table 2]. However, the
construction of covariants in Ker(ϕ) becomes totally different and more involved.
We regard V~ as the space of pairs of matrices: V~={(A,B)∣At=A&Bt=−B}, where the action of g∈G is given by
[TABLE]
and the corresponding action of s∈g=sln is
[TABLE]
Consider the “characteristic polynomial”
[TABLE]
Since (A+λB)t=A−λB, we have F(λ)=F(−λ), i.e., F(λ)=P(λ2) and
fi(A,B)≡0 unless i is even. If n is odd, then k[V~]G is freely generated by the
f2i’s. For n even, the only correction is that fn(A,B)=detB should be replaced with PfB [1, 19]. Therefore,
dimV~−q(V~//G)={2k2−k,2k2+k, if n=2k if n=2k+1.
We provide below a construction of the required covariants in Ker(ϕ). As in Example 5.1, let A∗ be the adjugate of A. Consider the morphism F:V~→gln, F(A,B)=BA∗.
Lemma 6.2.1**.**
We have
(a)
tr(BA∗)=0, i.e., F(A,B)∈g=sln;
(b)
F* is G-equivariant;*
(c)
F∈Ker(ϕ).
Proof.
(a) Since At=A, we have (A∗)t=A∗. Hence (BA∗)t=−A∗B.
(b) By definition, F(g⋅(A,B))=gBgt(gAgt)∗. If detA=0, then the RHS equals
[TABLE]
Hence F is a G-equivariant mapping from V~ to g=sln on the dense open subset of
V~, where A is invertible. Since F is a polynomial morphism, this holds on the whole of V~.
(c) We have F(A,B)⋅(A,B)=(BA∗A+A(BA∗)t,BA∗B+B(BA∗)t)=
a (BA∗A−AA∗B,BA∗B−BA∗B)=0.
∎
Having constructed one suitable covariant, we perform a “polarisation”. Consider
[TABLE]
Clearly F0(A,B)=F(A,B) and if n is odd, then detB=0 and the coefficient of λn−1
equals BB∗=(detB)I=0.
Theorem 6.2.2**.**
We have
(a)
trF2i(A,B)=0* for all i;*
(b)
Hλ* is a G-equivariant mapping from V~ to gln. In particular,
F2i∈MorG(V~,g) for all i;*
(c)
F2i∈Ker(ϕ)* for all i.*
Proof.
(a) If both A and A+λB are invertible, then
[TABLE]
Since A is symmetric, so is A−1 and therefore (BA−1)2i+1 is a product of a symmetric and a
skew-symmetric matrices. Hence tr(BA−1)2i+1=0. As det(A+λB)=P(λ2), the total
coefficient of λ2i is a traceless matrix. Since this is true for a dense open subset of triples
(A,B,λ) such that A and A+λB are invertible, and Hλ is a polynomial mapping, this holds for all triples.
(c) We prove that Hλeven:=∑iF2iλ2i∈Ker(ϕ) for all λ. Equivalently,
only odd powers of λ survive in Hλ(A,B)⋅(A,B). By definition,
[TABLE]
Let us transform the first component in the RHS. Again, assuming first that A and A+λB are invertible, one obtains:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Because det(A+λB)=P(λ2), the sum (F1)+(F2) contains only odd powers of
λ. Again, using the polynomiality of Hλ, we conclude that this property holds for all
A,B,λ.
The argument for the second component is similar.
∎
Thus, we have constructed [n/2] covariants F2i (0⩽2i⩽n−2) in Ker(ϕ). These
covariants are linearly independent, because their bi-degrees are different. Since degF2i=n
for all i, we have
∑i=0[n/2]−1degF2i−dimV+q(V//G)=0 if n is odd (and =[n/2] if n is even).
Since the C⋅2⋅C holds here (Example 4.6(1o)), we conclude that
if n is odd, then the assumptions of Theorems 3.3 and 3.6 are satisfied. Therefore, Ker(ϕ) (resp. Ker(ϕG)) is a free k[V]-module (resp. k[V]G-module)
with basis F0,F2,…,F2[n/2]−2 and q:=sln⋉(φ12+φ2)∗ satisfies the Kostant
criterion.
If n is even, then the same conclusion is still true, but one have to modify the constructed covariants
{Fi} in order to obtain a new family such that Equality (3⋅1) to be satisfied. This will
appear in a forthcoming paper.
Example 6.3**.**
G=Sp(U)×SO(V), V=U⊗V.
This representation is a ϑ-group associated with an outer automorphism of
order 4 of sl(U⊕V). Therefore k[V]G is polynomial and
NG(V) contains finitely many G-orbits, cf. Example 4.2. Furthermore, a generic stabiliser is
reductive if and only if either dimU⩾dimV or dimV−dimU∈2N. In these cases, the
action is stable and hence C⋅2⋅C holds.
Set 2m=dimU and n=dimV.
Let I (resp. J) be a symmetric (resp. skew-symmetric) matrix of order n (resp. 2m) such
that I2=I (resp. J2=−I).
We regard SO(V) (resp. Sp(U)) as the group that preserves the bilinear form with matrix I (resp. J). Then
[TABLE]
We identify U⊗V with the space of 2m by n matrices, where the action of
sp(U)×so(V) is
given by (s1,s2)⋅M=s1M−Ms2. Here a generic isotropy group is a torus if and only if 0⩽dimV−dimU⩽2 (more precisely, if n⩾2m, then g.i.g.(G:V)≃SOn−2m×Tm).
The corresponding possibilities are considered below.
(Whenever it is convenient, we may assume that I=I; and then so(V) consists of the usual skew-symmetric matrices.)
(i)
Assume that dimU=dimV=2m. Here g.i.g.(G:V)=Tm and this torus is embedded diagonally in Sp(U)×SO(V).
The degrees of the basic invariants of k[V]G are
4,8,…,4m−4,2m [7]. Hence dimV−q(V//G)=4m2−2m−2m(m−1)=2m2.
Define the covariant F1:U⊗V→Matn×Matn
by F1(M)=(MIMtJ,IMtJM). Using Eq. (6⋅5), one verifies that
F1(M)∈g=sp(U)×so(V). Moreover,
F1 is G-equivariant, and
F1(M)⋅M=0, i.e., F1∈Ker(ϕ).
If a matrix R is either symplectic or orthogonal, then so is R2i−1 for any i. Therefore, the
covariants
[TABLE]
are well-defined. Moreover, F1,…,Fm are linearly
independent. (Assuming for simplicity that I=I, one easily verifies that F1(D),…,Fm(D) are
linearly independent for a generic diagonal matrix D.)
Here degFi=2(2i−1). Hence
∑i=1mdegFi=2m2, so that (3⋅1) holds.
Thus, Theorems 3.3 and 3.6 apply here.
(ii)
Assume that dimV=2m+1=dimU+1. Here again g.i.g.(G:V)=Tm
and this torus is embedded diagonally in Sp(U)×SO(V). The degrees of the basic
invariants of k[V]G are 4,8,…,4m [7]. Hence
dimV−q(V//G)=2m(2m+1)−2m(m+1)=2m2, as in (i). The formulae for
Fi, i=1,…,m, also remain the same. Note only that now I and J have different order
and therefore the matrices MIMtJ and IMtJM are of order 2m and 2m+1,
respectively.
(iii)
Assume that dimV=2m+2=dimU+2. Here g.i.g.(G:V)=Tm+1, but only an m-dimensional subtorus is embedded diagonally in G, whereas a complementary
1-dimensional torus belongs to SO(V). (This is not surprising, since rkSp(U)=m.)
The degrees of the basic invariants of k[V]G are
4,8,…,4m, as in (ii). Hence dimV−q(V//G)=2m(2m+2)−m(2m+2)=2m2+2m.
As in (i), we construct the linearly independent covariants F1,…,Fm with
∑i=1mdegFi=2m2, but this is not
sufficient now. These m covariants take a generic G-regular element M∈V to the diagonally
embedded m-dimensional torus in the stabiliser gM≃tm+1.
We need one more covariant (of degree 2m) that takes M to a 1-dimensional subtorus sitting
only in so(V). In other words, starting with a 2m by 2m+2 matrix M, we wish
to construct, in a natural way, a skew-symmetric matrix of order 2m+2. Here is the solution:
Let Mij be the square matrix of order 2m obtained by deleting the i-th and j-th columns
from M, 1⩽i<j⩽2m+2.
We then set
aij=⎩⎨⎧(−1)i+jdetMij,0,−aji, if i<j if i=j if i>j.. Clearly, AM=(aij) is a skew-symmetric matrix of order 2m+2, and we define
Fm+1(M)=(0,AM)∈sp(U)×so(V). It is easily seen that Fm+1 is equivariant, degFm+1=2m, and
Fm+1(M)⋅M=(0,−MAM)=0.
Thus,
if 0⩽dimV−dimU⩽2, then the assumptions of Theorems 3.3 and 3.6
are satisfied. Therefore, Ker(ϕ) (resp. Ker(ϕG)) is a free k[V]-module (resp. k[V]G-module) with basis {Fi} and
q=(sp(U)×so(V))⋉(U⊗V)∗
satisfies
the Kostant criterion.
Example 6.4**.**
G=SO(V)=SOn+2 and V=nV, the sum of n copies of the defining representation of
SOn+2.
Here g.i.g.(G:V)=SO2≃T1,
V//G≃A(n+1)n/2, and q(V//G)=(n+1)n.
The explicit construction of the unique covariant of degree dimV−q(V//G)=n in
Ker(ϕ) is similar to the construction of Fm+1 in Example 6.3(iii).
We regard an element of V as n+2 by n matrix M and consider its minors of order n,
detMij, where 1⩽i<j⩽n+2. Then F(M)=(aij), where aij=(−1)i+jdetMij for
i<j, etc.
Appendix A Tables of representations with toral generic stabilisers
Using classification results of Elashvili [2, 3], one can write down the arbitrary
representations of simple algebraic groups or the irreducible representations of semisimple groups
whose generic stabiliser is toral. The subsequent four tables include all such representations.
But their content is not disjoint. Recall that q=g⋉V∗ and we are interested in the symmetric invariants of q.
In Table 1, we gather all representations with 1-dimensional generic stabiliser.
The column (FA) (resp. (Eq)) refers to the presence of the property that k[V]G is a polynomial ring (resp.
πV,G:V→V//G is equidimensional). This information is inferred from tables in [1, 7, 19, 20].
Results of Section 4 imply that C⋅2⋅C holds for all these representations. By Theorem 3.11, k[q∗]Ru(Q) is a polynomial ring for all items of this table. Furthermore, if (FA)
holds, then k[q∗]Q is a polynomial ring. Finally, if (Eq) holds, then U(q) is a free module over Z(q).
Remarks. 1) In N0 1(a,b), we have V//SOn+2≃S2φ1′ as SOn-module.
In N0 3(a,b,c), we have V//SL6≃R6+R2+R0 as SL2-module.
In N0 4(a,b), we have V//Sp6≃R3+R2+R0 as SL2-module.
In N0 5, we have V//SL4≃∧2(R3)=R6+R2 as SL2-module.
This explains why k[V]G is not polynomial in 3b, 4a, 5.
In Table 2, we gather all representations with a toral generic stabiliser that are
ϑ-groups in the sense of Vinberg (Example 4.2) and related restrictions.
Namely, items 6a, 7a, and 8a (which are not ϑ-groups!) are obtained from the genuine
ϑ-groups (items 6,7,8) by omitting the second factor of G0 and we say that these are
”restrictions” of ϑ-groups. It appears that this passage does not change generic isotropy groups,
which are always contained in the first factor of G0. Moreover, the number q(g1//G0) is not
affected, too. Therefore the the covariants {Fi} produced for these ϑ-groups, as described in
the respective examples, are also
suitable for their “restrictions”.
The symbol (Xn(k),m) in column “ϑ” represents the following information on the
automorphism ϑ of g. Here Xn is the Cartan type of g, m is the order of
ϑ, and k is the minimal integer such that ϑk is inner (this number is omitted if it
equals 1).
The theory of ϑ-groups implies that, for all items of Tables 2 and 3,
k[V]G is a polynomial ring. Our description of the corresponding covariants shows that, for all items
except N05 in Table 2 and N02 in Table 3,
k[q∗]Q is a polynomial ring, the Kostant criterion is always satisfied for q, and Ker(ϕ) is
a free k[V]-module generated by G-equivariant morphisms. The explicit construction of covariants
Fi∈Ker(ϕ) is given in the examples mentioned in the column “Ref.”
The column (FA) in Table 4 refers to the presence of the property that k[V]G is a
polynomial ring. For items 1,2,3a, k[q∗]Q is a polynomial ring, while in case 3, only
k[q∗]Ru(Q) is a polynomial ring. (A more precise information can be found in the respective examples.)
We do not know whether it is possible to construct covariants F1,F2∈Ker(ϕ) for
items 4-6 of Table 4 such that degF1+degF2=dimV−q(V//G) and whether the k[V]-module Ker(ϕ) is free or k[q∗]Q is
a polynomial ring in these cases. Nevertheless, using Theorem 2.8 in [26], Remark 3.2,
and the fact that H=g.i.g.(G:V)≃T2 is connected, one can prove that there do exist certain linearly
independent G-equivariant morphisms F1,F2∈Ker(ϕ). However, this existence assertion says
nothing about their degrees.
Bibliography27
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] O.M. Adamovich, E.O. Golovina. Prostye lineinye gruppy Li, imeyuwie svobodnuyu algebru invariantov, v Sb.: “Voprosy teorii grupp i gomologicheskoi algebry”, Vyp. 2 , c. 3–41. Yaroslavl~ 1979 (Russian). Englich translation: O.M. Adamovich and E.O. Golovina. Simple linear Lie groups having a free algebra of invariants, Selecta Math. Sov. , 3 (1984), 183–220.
2[2] A.G. E 1lashvili. Kanonicheskii vid i stacionarnye podalgebry tochek obwego polozheniya dlya prostykh lineinykh grupp Li, Funkc. analiz i ego prilozh., t. 6 , N 0 1 (1972), 51–62 (Russian). English translation: A.G. Elashvili . Canonical form and stationary subalgebras of points of general position for simple linear Lie groups, Funct. Anal. Appl. , 6 (1972), 44–53.
3[3] A.G. E 1lashvili. Stacionarnye podalgebry tochek obwego polozheniya dlya neprivodimykh lineinykh grupp Li. Funkc. analiz i ego prilozh., t. 6 , N 0 2 (1972), 65–78 (Russian). English translation: A.G. Elashvili . Stationary subalgebras of points of general position for irreducible linear Lie groups, Funct. Anal. Appl. , 6 (1972), 139–148.
4[4] W. de Graaf, E.B. Vinberg and O. Yakimova . An effective method to compute closure ordering for nilpotent orbits of θ 𝜃 \theta -representations, J. Algebra , 371 (2012), 38–62.
5[5] F. Knop . Über die Glattheit von Quotientenabbildungen, Manuscripta Math. , 56 (1986), no. 4, 419–427.
6[6] F. Knop and P. Littelmann . Der Grad erzeugender Funktionen von Invariantenringen, Math. Z. 196 (1987), no. 2, 211–229.
7[7] P. Littelmann . Koreguläre und äquidimensionale Darstellungen, J. Algebra , 123 (1989), no. 1, 193–222.
8[8] D. Luna and R.W. Richardson . A generalization of the Chevalley restriction theorem, Duke Math. J. , 46 (1979), 487–496.