The definition of a coroot for non-split reductive groups?
Let $G$ be a connected, reductive group over a field $k$, and $A_0$ a maximal split torus of $G$. Let $Phi = Phi(G,A_0)$ be the set of roots of $A_0$ in $G$. Then the $mathbb R$-linear span $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ of $Phi$ in $mathfrak a_0^{ast} = X(A_0) otimes mathbb R$ is a root system. Then in the dual space $mathfrak a_0^G$ of $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ we have a set $Phi^{vee}$ of coroots. By definition, the coroot $alpha^{vee}$ associated to a given root $alpha$ is the unique linear functional on $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ such that
$$s_{alpha}(x) := x - langle x, alpha^{vee} rangle alpha$$
is a reflection on $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ which sends $alpha$ to $-alpha$ and permutes $Phi$.
If $A_G$ is the split component of $G$, there is a canonical injection of $mathfrak a_G^{ast} = X(A_G) otimes mathbb R$ into $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, such that $mathfrak a_0^{ast} = mathfrak a_G^{ast} oplus mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$. We then extend each element of $mathfrak a_0^G$ to a linear functional on all of $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, by setting it to be zero on $mathfrak a_G^{ast}$. Thus the coroots are elements of $$mathfrak a_0 = operatorname{Hom}_{mathbb R}(X(A_0) otimes mathbb R, mathbb R) = operatorname{Hom}(X(A_0),mathbb R) = X^{ast}(A_0)$$
When $G$ is split, there is a very nice way to describe coroots, without reference to reflections or root systems. Namely, if $alpha in Phi$, and $T_{alpha} = (operatorname{Ker} alpha)^0$, then $alpha^{vee}$ is the unique cocharacter of $A_0$ satisfying:
(i): $langle alpha, alpha^{vee} rangle = 2$
(ii): The group generated by $T_{alpha}$ and the image of $alpha^{vee}$ is all of $A_0$.
Suppose that $G$ is not split. Is there any nice way to characterize the coroot $alpha^{vee}$ as in the split case?
representation-theory lie-algebras root-systems reductive-groups
asked Dec 9 at 17:08
D_S
13.3k51551
add a comment |
Let $G$ be a connected, reductive group over a field $k$, and $A_0$ a maximal split torus of $G$. Let $Phi = Phi(G,A_0)$ be the set of roots of $A_0$ in $G$. Then the $mathbb R$-linear span $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ of $Phi$ in $mathfrak a_0^{ast} = X(A_0) otimes mathbb R$ is a root system. Then in the dual space $mathfrak a_0^G$ of $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ we have a set $Phi^{vee}$ of coroots. By definition, the coroot $alpha^{vee}$ associated to a given root $alpha$ is the unique linear functional on $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ such that
$$s_{alpha}(x) := x - langle x, alpha^{vee} rangle alpha$$
is a reflection on $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ which sends $alpha$ to $-alpha$ and permutes $Phi$.
If $A_G$ is the split component of $G$, there is a canonical injection of $mathfrak a_G^{ast} = X(A_G) otimes mathbb R$ into $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, such that $mathfrak a_0^{ast} = mathfrak a_G^{ast} oplus mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$. We then extend each element of $mathfrak a_0^G$ to a linear functional on all of $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, by setting it to be zero on $mathfrak a_G^{ast}$. Thus the coroots are elements of $$mathfrak a_0 = operatorname{Hom}_{mathbb R}(X(A_0) otimes mathbb R, mathbb R) = operatorname{Hom}(X(A_0),mathbb R) = X^{ast}(A_0)$$
When $G$ is split, there is a very nice way to describe coroots, without reference to reflections or root systems. Namely, if $alpha in Phi$, and $T_{alpha} = (operatorname{Ker} alpha)^0$, then $alpha^{vee}$ is the unique cocharacter of $A_0$ satisfying:
(i): $langle alpha, alpha^{vee} rangle = 2$
(ii): The group generated by $T_{alpha}$ and the image of $alpha^{vee}$ is all of $A_0$.
Suppose that $G$ is not split. Is there any nice way to characterize the coroot $alpha^{vee}$ as in the split case?
representation-theory lie-algebras root-systems reductive-groups
asked Dec 9 at 17:08
D_S
13.3k51551
1
In the second sentence, do you mean $A_0$ instead of $T$? Also I do not understand the sentence after that, where the notation $mathfrak{a}_0^{G_*}$ is unclear to me; I am quite sure that an $Bbb R$-linear span of whatever cannot be a root system though. Some thing seems to be in a wrong order there.
– Torsten Schoeneberg
Dec 10 at 0:43
(1) Yes I meant $A_0$ instead of $T$ (2) The notation $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}$ is standard for the linear span of the roots in $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, in Arthur-Selberg trace formula stuff they use the fact that there is a canonical direct sum decomposition $$mathfrak a_0^{ast} = mathfrak a_G^{ast} oplus (mathfrak a_0^{G})^{ast}$$where $mathfrak a_G^{ast}$ is the dual real Lie algebra of the split component of $G$. Yes, the pair $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}, Phi$ is definitely a root system.
– D_S
Dec 10 at 3:05
add a comment |
Let $G$ be a connected, reductive group over a field $k$, and $A_0$ a maximal split torus of $G$. Let $Phi = Phi(G,A_0)$ be the set of roots of $A_0$ in $G$. Then the $mathbb R$-linear span $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ of $Phi$ in $mathfrak a_0^{ast} = X(A_0) otimes mathbb R$ is a root system. Then in the dual space $mathfrak a_0^G$ of $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ we have a set $Phi^{vee}$ of coroots. By definition, the coroot $alpha^{vee}$ associated to a given root $alpha$ is the unique linear functional on $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ such that
$$s_{alpha}(x) := x - langle x, alpha^{vee} rangle alpha$$
is a reflection on $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ which sends $alpha$ to $-alpha$ and permutes $Phi$.
If $A_G$ is the split component of $G$, there is a canonical injection of $mathfrak a_G^{ast} = X(A_G) otimes mathbb R$ into $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, such that $mathfrak a_0^{ast} = mathfrak a_G^{ast} oplus mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$. We then extend each element of $mathfrak a_0^G$ to a linear functional on all of $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, by setting it to be zero on $mathfrak a_G^{ast}$. Thus the coroots are elements of $$mathfrak a_0 = operatorname{Hom}_{mathbb R}(X(A_0) otimes mathbb R, mathbb R) = operatorname{Hom}(X(A_0),mathbb R) = X^{ast}(A_0)$$
When $G$ is split, there is a very nice way to describe coroots, without reference to reflections or root systems. Namely, if $alpha in Phi$, and $T_{alpha} = (operatorname{Ker} alpha)^0$, then $alpha^{vee}$ is the unique cocharacter of $A_0$ satisfying:
(i): $langle alpha, alpha^{vee} rangle = 2$
(ii): The group generated by $T_{alpha}$ and the image of $alpha^{vee}$ is all of $A_0$.
Suppose that $G$ is not split. Is there any nice way to characterize the coroot $alpha^{vee}$ as in the split case?
representation-theory lie-algebras root-systems reductive-groups
asked Dec 9 at 17:08
D_S
13.3k51551
Let $G$ be a connected, reductive group over a field $k$, and $A_0$ a maximal split torus of $G$. Let $Phi = Phi(G,A_0)$ be the set of roots of $A_0$ in $G$. Then the $mathbb R$-linear span $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ of $Phi$ in $mathfrak a_0^{ast} = X(A_0) otimes mathbb R$ is a root system. Then in the dual space $mathfrak a_0^G$ of $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ we have a set $Phi^{vee}$ of coroots. By definition, the coroot $alpha^{vee}$ associated to a given root $alpha$ is the unique linear functional on $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ such that
$$s_{alpha}(x) := x - langle x, alpha^{vee} rangle alpha$$
is a reflection on $mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$ which sends $alpha$ to $-alpha$ and permutes $Phi$.
If $A_G$ is the split component of $G$, there is a canonical injection of $mathfrak a_G^{ast} = X(A_G) otimes mathbb R$ into $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, such that $mathfrak a_0^{ast} = mathfrak a_G^{ast} oplus mathfrak a_0^{G ast}$. We then extend each element of $mathfrak a_0^G$ to a linear functional on all of $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, by setting it to be zero on $mathfrak a_G^{ast}$. Thus the coroots are elements of $$mathfrak a_0 = operatorname{Hom}_{mathbb R}(X(A_0) otimes mathbb R, mathbb R) = operatorname{Hom}(X(A_0),mathbb R) = X^{ast}(A_0)$$
When $G$ is split, there is a very nice way to describe coroots, without reference to reflections or root systems. Namely, if $alpha in Phi$, and $T_{alpha} = (operatorname{Ker} alpha)^0$, then $alpha^{vee}$ is the unique cocharacter of $A_0$ satisfying:
(i): $langle alpha, alpha^{vee} rangle = 2$
(ii): The group generated by $T_{alpha}$ and the image of $alpha^{vee}$ is all of $A_0$.
Suppose that $G$ is not split. Is there any nice way to characterize the coroot $alpha^{vee}$ as in the split case?
representation-theory lie-algebras root-systems reductive-groups
representation-theory lie-algebras root-systems reductive-groups
asked Dec 9 at 17:08
D_S
13.3k51551
asked Dec 9 at 17:08
D_S
13.3k51551
edited Dec 10 at 3:02
asked Dec 9 at 17:08
D_S
13.3k51551
asked Dec 9 at 17:08
D_S
13.3k51551
asked Dec 9 at 17:08
D_S
13.3k51551
13.3k51551
1
In the second sentence, do you mean $A_0$ instead of $T$? Also I do not understand the sentence after that, where the notation $mathfrak{a}_0^{G_*}$ is unclear to me; I am quite sure that an $Bbb R$-linear span of whatever cannot be a root system though. Some thing seems to be in a wrong order there.
– Torsten Schoeneberg
Dec 10 at 0:43
(1) Yes I meant $A_0$ instead of $T$ (2) The notation $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}$ is standard for the linear span of the roots in $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, in Arthur-Selberg trace formula stuff they use the fact that there is a canonical direct sum decomposition $$mathfrak a_0^{ast} = mathfrak a_G^{ast} oplus (mathfrak a_0^{G})^{ast}$$where $mathfrak a_G^{ast}$ is the dual real Lie algebra of the split component of $G$. Yes, the pair $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}, Phi$ is definitely a root system.
– D_S
Dec 10 at 3:05
add a comment |
1
In the second sentence, do you mean $A_0$ instead of $T$? Also I do not understand the sentence after that, where the notation $mathfrak{a}_0^{G_*}$ is unclear to me; I am quite sure that an $Bbb R$-linear span of whatever cannot be a root system though. Some thing seems to be in a wrong order there.
– Torsten Schoeneberg
Dec 10 at 0:43
(1) Yes I meant $A_0$ instead of $T$ (2) The notation $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}$ is standard for the linear span of the roots in $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, in Arthur-Selberg trace formula stuff they use the fact that there is a canonical direct sum decomposition $$mathfrak a_0^{ast} = mathfrak a_G^{ast} oplus (mathfrak a_0^{G})^{ast}$$where $mathfrak a_G^{ast}$ is the dual real Lie algebra of the split component of $G$. Yes, the pair $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}, Phi$ is definitely a root system.
– D_S
Dec 10 at 3:05
1
1
In the second sentence, do you mean $A_0$ instead of $T$? Also I do not understand the sentence after that, where the notation $mathfrak{a}_0^{G_*}$ is unclear to me; I am quite sure that an $Bbb R$-linear span of whatever cannot be a root system though. Some thing seems to be in a wrong order there.
– Torsten Schoeneberg
Dec 10 at 0:43
In the second sentence, do you mean $A_0$ instead of $T$? Also I do not understand the sentence after that, where the notation $mathfrak{a}_0^{G_*}$ is unclear to me; I am quite sure that an $Bbb R$-linear span of whatever cannot be a root system though. Some thing seems to be in a wrong order there.
– Torsten Schoeneberg
Dec 10 at 0:43
(1) Yes I meant $A_0$ instead of $T$ (2) The notation $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}$ is standard for the linear span of the roots in $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, in Arthur-Selberg trace formula stuff they use the fact that there is a canonical direct sum decomposition $$mathfrak a_0^{ast} = mathfrak a_G^{ast} oplus (mathfrak a_0^{G})^{ast}$$where $mathfrak a_G^{ast}$ is the dual real Lie algebra of the split component of $G$. Yes, the pair $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}, Phi$ is definitely a root system.
– D_S
Dec 10 at 3:05
(1) Yes I meant $A_0$ instead of $T$ (2) The notation $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}$ is standard for the linear span of the roots in $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, in Arthur-Selberg trace formula stuff they use the fact that there is a canonical direct sum decomposition $$mathfrak a_0^{ast} = mathfrak a_G^{ast} oplus (mathfrak a_0^{G})^{ast}$$where $mathfrak a_G^{ast}$ is the dual real Lie algebra of the split component of $G$. Yes, the pair $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}, Phi$ is definitely a root system.
– D_S
Dec 10 at 3:05
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032618%2fthe-definition-of-a-coroot-for-non-split-reductive-groups%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032618%2fthe-definition-of-a-coroot-for-non-split-reductive-groups%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
In the second sentence, do you mean $A_0$ instead of $T$? Also I do not understand the sentence after that, where the notation $mathfrak{a}_0^{G_*}$ is unclear to me; I am quite sure that an $Bbb R$-linear span of whatever cannot be a root system though. Some thing seems to be in a wrong order there.
– Torsten Schoeneberg
Dec 10 at 0:43
(1) Yes I meant $A_0$ instead of $T$ (2) The notation $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}$ is standard for the linear span of the roots in $mathfrak a_0^{ast}$, in Arthur-Selberg trace formula stuff they use the fact that there is a canonical direct sum decomposition $$mathfrak a_0^{ast} = mathfrak a_G^{ast} oplus (mathfrak a_0^{G})^{ast}$$where $mathfrak a_G^{ast}$ is the dual real Lie algebra of the split component of $G$. Yes, the pair $(mathfrak a_0^G)^{ast}, Phi$ is definitely a root system.
– D_S
Dec 10 at 3:05