A note on étale representations from nilpotent orbits
aa r X i v : . [ m a t h . R T ] F e b A NOTE ON ÉTALE REPRESENTATIONS FROM NILPOTENT ORBITS
HEIKO DIETRICH, WOLFGANG GLOBKE, AND MARCOS ORIGLIA
Dedicated to the memory of Professor È. B. Vinberg A BSTRACT . A linear étale representation of a complex algebraic group G is given by a complex algebraic G -module V such that G has a Zariski-open orbit on V and dim G = dim V . A current line of researchinvestigates which étale representations can occur for reductive algebraic groups. Since a complete classifi-cation seems out of reach, it is of interest to find new examples of étale representations for such groups. Theaim of this note is to describe two classical constructions of Vinberg and of Bala & Carter for nilpotent orbitclassifications in semisimple Lie algebras, and to determine which reductive groups and étale representa-tions arise in these constructions. We also explain in detail the relation between these two constructions.
1. I
NTRODUCTION
Let G be a complex linear algebraic group. A prehomogeneous module ( G, ̺, V ) is a complex algebraicrepresentation ̺ : G → GL( V ) such that V is finite-dimensional and G has a Zariski-open orbit in V .The points of the open orbit are said to be in general position in V . In this case, V is a prehomogeneousvector space and dim G > dim V . If, in addition, dim G = dim V , then ( G, ̺, V ) is an étale module ,and, accordingly, ̺ is an étale representation of G . Clearly, for étale modules, the stabiliser in G is afinite subgroup for any point in the open orbit. In terms of Lie algebras g , an étale representation is onewhere the action of g on a point in general position yields a vector space isomorphism of g and V , inparticular dim g = dim V , and the stabiliser subalgebra at a generic point is trivial. The existence ofétale representations implies the existence of left-symmetric products on Lie algebras and thereby alsothat of left-invariant flat and torsion-free affine connections on the corresponding Lie groups, see Burde[4] for details and additional references. Due to this relationship, Lie groups or Lie algebras admittingétale representations are also called (locally) affinely flat .We are interested in studying étale representations for complex reductive algebraic groups. It is well-known that many reductive groups do not admit étale representations, for example, this is true for semi-simple groups. Burde [3] shows that if a reductive G with simple commutator subgroup S has an étalerepresentation, then S = SL( n, C ) with n > . If G is reductive with 1-dimensional centre and S isnot simple but has only pairwise isomorphic simple factors, then there are no étale modules for G , seeBurde & Globke [5]. A complete classification of étale modules for reductive algebraic groups seemsfar away, and so the current aim is to find further examples. Some can be directly obtained by inspectingSato & Kimura’s [10] classifications of prehomogeneous modules for reductive algebraic groups, cf. [5].Additional examples with interesting properties were constructed by Burde et al. [6]. Results.
In the present note, we take a look at the étale representations for reductive algebraic groupsarising in the classification of nilpotent orbits in semisimple Lie algebras, in particular, the classificationsof Vinberg [11] and Bala & Carter [1, 2]. We show in Proposition 2.1 that these groups are subject to cer-tain restrictions, notably that all their simple factors are either special linear or orthogonal groups. In lightof known examples for groups with symplectic groups as simple factors, e.g. [6], this shows that étalemodules of this type are a proper subclass of the étale modules for general reductive algebraic groups. (H. Dietrich, M. Origlia) M
ONASH U NIVERSITY , S
CHOOL OF M ATHEMATICS , C
LAYTON , VIC 3800, A
USTRALIA (W. Globke) F
ACULTY OF M ATHEMATICS , U
NIVERSITY OF V IENNA , 1090 V
IENNA , A
USTRIA
E-mail addresses : [email protected], [email protected],[email protected] .Dietrich and Origlia were supported by Australian Research Council grant DP190100317; Globke was supported by anAustrian Science Fund FWF grant I 3248. Vinberg’s and Bala & Carter’s classification methods are very similar, and the second aim of this noteis to provide concise descriptions of these methods and to explain how they are related. In Section 2,we first take a look at Vinberg’s construction of carrier algebras for nilpotent elements in a graded Liealgebra. From the classification of simple carrier algebras we determine the types of reductive groupsfor which étale modules arise by this method. In Section 3, we show how Bala & Carter find minimalLevi subalgebras for a given nilpotent element in a semisimple Lie algebra, and explain how it relates toVinberg’s carrier algebras, see Proposition 3.2 and its corollary. In fact, for Z -graded algebras, the twoapproaches coincide. Gyoja [9] described how to construct, given a prehomogeneous module ( G, ̺, V ) for a reductive algebraic group, an étale module ( G ′ , ̺ ′ , V ′ ) for a reductive subgroup G ′ G anda quotient module V ′ of V . In Proposition 4.1 we show how this generalises Vinberg’s and Bala &Carter’s constructions. Notation.
All Lie algebras g we consider here are defined over the field of complex numbers. Thecentraliser of a subset X ⊆ g in g is z g ( X ) = { y ∈ g : [ y, X ] = { }} , and the normaliser is n g ( X ) = { y ∈ g : [ y, X ] ⊆ span C ( X ) } . An element x ∈ g is nilpotent (or semisimple ) if its adjoint representation ad( x ) on g is nilpotent (or semisimple). An algebraic group G is reductive if its maximal unipotentnormal subgroup is trivial. A Lie algebra g is reductive if it is the Lie algebra of a reductive algebraicgroup. In this case g = z ⊕ s , where s is the semisimple commutator subalgebra of g and z = z ( g ) is thecentre of g . Let n > be an integer and Z n = { , . . . , n − } , or n = ∞ and Z ∞ = Z . A Lie algebra g is Z n -graded if g = L i ∈ Z n g i , where each g i g is a subspace and [ g i , g j ] ⊆ g i + j for all i, j ; here g k = g k mod n for all k ∈ Z . Note that g is a subalgebra of g .2. V INBERG ’ S CARRIER ALGEBRAS
Vinberg [11] studied complex semisimple Lie algebras graded by an arbitrary abelian group. However,the first step in his analysis is to restrict to a subalgebra graded by a cyclic group, so we will only considerthis case. Let g be a Z n -graded semisimple Lie algebra, where n > is an integer or n = ∞ . If n isfinite, then such a grading is the eigenspace decomposition of a Lie algebra automorphism of order n . If n = ∞ , then the Z -grading of g comes from a derivation ϕ that acts as multiplication by i on each g i .For semisimple g , this derivation is inner, that is, ϕ = ad( h ) for a unique defining element h ∈ g .Carrier algebras for g are constructed as follows. For a nonzero nilpotent e ∈ g choose an sl -triple ( h, e, f ) where h ∈ g and f ∈ g − ; this means [ h, e ] = 2 e , [ h, f ] = − f , and [ e, f ] = h . Let t be amaximal toral subalgebra of the centraliser of ( h, e, f ) in g and define t = C h ⊕ t . Equivalently, t is amaximal toral subalgebra of the normaliser of C e in g , cf. [7, Lemma 30]. Now let λ : t → C such that [ t, e ] = λ ( t ) e for all t ∈ t , and define the Z -graded algebra g ( t , e ) by(2.1) g ( t , e ) = M k ∈ Z g ( t , e ) k with g ( t , e ) k = { x ∈ g k : [ t, x ] = kλ ( t ) x for all t ∈ t } ; the derived subalgebra of g ( t , e ) is the carrier algebra of e , denoted(2.2) c ( e ) = [ g ( t , e ) , g ( t , e )] . It is Z -graded with the induced grading; note that e ∈ c ( e ) . This carrier algebra of e is unique up toconjugacy under the adjoint group G of g ; one therefore also speaks of the carrier algebra of e in g .Moreover, two nonzero nilpotent elements of g are G -conjugate if and only if their carrier algebras are G -conjugate, which makes carrier algebras a useful tool for classifying nilpotent orbits. We will notgo into the details of this classification, as they are not required for our purposes here, but an outline isfound in Vinberg [11, Section 4]. For details on the classification of nilpotent orbits in real semisimpleLie algebras using carrier algebras defined over the real field we refer to Dietrich et al. [7].Vinberg [11, Theorem 4] showed that every carrier algebra is semisimple Z -graded with c ( e ) k g k for each k ∈ Z , and that carrier algebras are characterized by the following three conditions: Vinberg called c ( e ) locally flat and complete if it satisfies (V1) and (V3), respectively. We avoid this terminology, as thesemisimple Lie algebra c ( e ) does not admit an affinely flat structure; only its reductive subalgebra c ( e ) is locally affinely flat. NOTE ON ÉTALE REPRESENTATIONS FROM NILPOTENT ORBITS 3 (V1) dim c ( e ) = dim c ( e ) ;(V2) c ( e ) is normalised by a maximal toral subalgebra of g ;(V3) c ( e ) is not a proper subalgebra of a reductive Z -graded subalgebra of g of the same rank.Moreover, [11, Theorem 2] shows that e is in generic (or general ) position in c ( e ) , that is, [ c ( e ) , e ] = c ( e ) , so (V1) states that the adjoint action of c ( e ) on c ( e ) yields an étale representation for c ( e ) .Only property (V1) is intrinsic to c ( e ) , whereas (V2) and (V3) are determined by its embedding inthe ambient Lie algebra g . Thus, to describe the Lie algebras that can appear as carrier algebras fornilpotent elements in semisimple Lie algebras, one must merely classify Z -graded Lie algebras with(V1); we call such an algebra an abstract carrier algebra . Every abstract carrier algebra is a direct sum ofsimple abstract carrier algebras, so to describe the possible étale modules ( c ( e ) , ad , c ( e ) ) coming fromsemisimple carrier algebras, it is sufficient to focus on simple abstract carrier algebras in Lie algebras. Inthe next section we follow Djokoviˇc’s description [8] (based on work of Vinberg [11]) of the classificationof all simple abstract carrier algebras. Using a different terminology, Bala & Carter [1] have also obtaineda classification for the classical case. With these classifications, we determine the following. Proposition 2.1.
A reductive Lie algebra g admitting an étale representation coming from the adjointaction of a nilpotent element is a direct sum of the degree -components of j > simple abstract carrieralgebras. As such, the semisimple part of g , if non-trivial, has simple factors of type A and at most j factors of type B or D . The centre of g has dimension > j , unless all the simple abstract carrieralgebras involved have weighted Dynkin diagrams of types in { A , E (11)8 , F (4)4 , G (2)2 } as defined in [8,Table II] , in which case the centre of g has dimension j . From Burde et al. [6] we know that there exist étale representations for reductive algebraic groupswith a simple factor of type C ; this shows the following: Corollary 2.2.
There are étale representations for reductive Lie algebras that do not come from theadjoint action of a nilpotent element.
Simple abstract carrier algebras Lie algebras.
Recall that the grading of a semisimple Z -gradedLie algebra g with defining element h ∈ g is determined as g k = { x ∈ g : [ h, x ] = kx } for k ∈ Z . Two Z -graded Lie algebras g and g ′ with defining elements h and h ′ are isomorphic if there is a Lie algebraisomorphism ϕ : g → g ′ with ϕ ( h ) = h ′ . Djokoviˇc [8] has classified, up to isomorphism, semisimple Z -graded Lie algebras in terms of weighted Dynkin diagrams: Let h g be a maximal toral subalgebracontaining h , with corresponding root system Φ . Let Π be a basis of simple roots such that α ( h ) > for every α ∈ Π . Let ∆( g ) be the Dynkin diagram of g with respect to h , with vertices labeled by Π ,and to each vertex α ∈ Π attach the integer α ( h ) . The resulting weighted Dynkin diagram is denoted ∆( g , h ) . It is proved in [8, Theorem 1] that there is a bijection between (isomorphism classes of) Z -graded semisimple Lie algebras ( g , h ) and (isomorphism classes of) weighted Dynkin diagrams ∆( g , h ) .In the following, let ( g , h ) be simple Z -graded, and define deg α ∈ Z for α ∈ Φ by x α ∈ g deg α ,where x α ∈ g is a root vector corresponding to α . If deg α = k , then α ( h ) x α = [ h, x α ] = kx α , hence α ( h ) = k ; this shows that deg α = α ( h ) . If r k is the number of roots with degree k , then g is anabstract carrier algebra if and only if dim h + r = r . It is shown in [8, p. 374] that if g is an abstractcarrier algebra, then deg α ∈ { , } for every simple root α ∈ Π . So for the classification it remains todetermine the weighted Dynkin diagrams with weights { , } such that dim h + r = r . The reductivesubalgebra g is then given by the subdiagram consisting of the vertices with weight . To illustrate themethod, we include the full proof for type A. To keep the exposition short, for the other types we onlydescribe the results and refer to [8, Section 4], [1, Section 3], and [11, p. 30] for more details.If g = h is a maximal toral subalgebra, then r = 0 and all labels in the weighted diagram are ; onesays that g is principal . In this case the -component of the carrier algebra is abelian. NOTE ON ÉTALE REPRESENTATIONS FROM NILPOTENT ORBITS 4
Type A.
Let g = sl ( n + 1 , C ) . Let the diagonal matrix h = diag( λ , . . . , λ n +1 ) be the definingelement with λ > . . . > λ n +1 . Consider the root system Φ = {± ( ε i − ε j ) : 1 i < j < n } andbasis Π = { α , . . . , α n } where each ε i maps h to λ i , and α i = ε i − ε i +1 . Let k = λ − λ n +1 and for i = 0 , . . . , k let d i be the number of λ r with λ r = λ − i . A root ± ( ε i − ε j ) has degree if and only if λ i = λ j = λ − r for some r , and for each r there are d r ( d r − possibilities for ε i and ε j . This impliesthat r = P kj =0 d j ( d j − . In a similar way, r = P k − j =0 d j d j +1 , and now a direct calculation showsthat n + r = r if and only if ( d − d ) + ( d − d ) + · · · + ( d k − − d k ) + ( d −
1) + ( d k −
1) = 0; to see the latter, note that d + . . . + d k = n + 1 . In conclusion, g is an abstract carrier algebra if andonly if d = . . . = d k = 1 and k = n , which is equivalent to g being principal. Type B and D.
Let g = so ( m, C ) be realised as g = { X ∈ gl ( m, C ) : X ⊺ J = − J X } where J isthe matrix that only has s on its anti-diagonal and s elsewhere, and either m = 2 n + 1 (with n > ) or m = 2 n (with n > ). Write the defining element as h = diag( λ , . . . , λ m ) with λ > . . . > λ m . Since hJ = − J h , each − λ i = λ m +1 − i . It has been shown that there are s > and integers k > . . . > k s > such that, as multisets, { λ , . . . , λ m } = { k i , k i − , . . . , − k i , − k i : 1 i s } , (2.3)and m = (2 k +1)+ . . . +(2 k s +1) ; note that occurs s times in { λ , . . . , λ m } , and occurs at least s − times, etc. Conversely, for any such integers k > . . . > k s > with m = (2 k + 1) + . . . + (2 k s + 1) there is a defining element h whose eigenvalues satisfy (2.3). To determine the labeled Dynkin diagrams,one chooses the diagonal matrices in g as maximal toral subalgebra, and then the following holds:If m = 2 n + 1 , then s is odd and λ n +1 = 0 . The corresponding simple abstract carrier algebra B ( k , . . . , k s ) of type B n has a weighted Dynkin diagram with labels λ − λ , . . . , λ n − − λ n , λ n ,where λ n is the label of the shorter root, see [8, Figure 5]. In that figure the last label is given as λ n ,which is a typo; cf. [1, pp. 410–412]. If s = 1 , then { λ , . . . , λ m } = { n, n − , . . . , − n, − n } and B ( n ) is principal. If s = 3 , then λ n +1 , λ n = 0 and < λ n − , implying that semisimple part of g is adirect sum of algebras of type A. If s > , then λ n +1 , λ n , λ n − = 0 and that semisimple part is a directsum of algebras of type A and one algebra of type B.If m = 2 n , then s is even and λ n = 0 . The corresponding abstract carrier algebra D ( k , . . . , k s ) of type D n has a weighted Dynkin diagram with labels λ − λ , . . . , λ n − − λ n − , λ n − , λ n − , where λ n − − λ n − is the label of the vertex of degree connected to the two vertices of degree 1 with label λ n − , see [8, Figure 6]. If s > , then λ n , λ n − , λ n − = 0 and the semisimple part of g is a direct sumof algebras of type A and one algebra of type D. If s = 2 and k > , or s = 4 , then that semisimplepart is a direct sum of algebras of type A; if s = 2 and k = 0 , then D ( n − , is principal. Type C.
Let g = sp (2 n, C ) be realised as g = { X ∈ gl (2 n + 1 , C ) : X ⊺ S = − SX } where S has theidentity matrix I n and the negative − I n on its anti-diagonal. The simple abstract carrier algebras havethe form C ( k , . . . , k s ) and the construction is similar to those for type B and D: here we can assume thedefining element is h = diag( λ , . . . , λ n , − λ n , . . . , − λ ) with λ > . . . > λ n > and, as multisets, {± λ , . . . , ± λ n } = { k i − , k i − , . . . , − k i , − k i : 1 i s } for some k > k > · · · > k s > with n = k + . . . + k n . If one chooses the diagonal matrices in g as maximal toral subalgebra, then theDynkin diagram of C ( k , . . . , k s ) has labels λ − λ , . . . , λ n − − λ n , λ n , where λ n is attached to thelonger root, see [8, Figure 7]. Since λ n = 0 , we have λ n = 1 , and so the semisimple part of g is adirect sum of algebras of type A. If s = 1 , then C ( n ) is principal; Exceptional types.
A direct calculation yields the abstract carrier algebras g of exceptional types G , F , E , E , E ; the semisimple part of g is always a sum of Lie algebras of type A, see [11, Table 1]. NOTE ON ÉTALE REPRESENTATIONS FROM NILPOTENT ORBITS 5
The centre of g . Let g be as before and write g = z ⊕ s where z is the centre and s is semisimple. Itfollows from [11, p. 19] that dim z = rk g − rk s = rk g − rk s . Since rk s equals the number of labels in the weighted Dynkin diagram of g , the dimension of z equals the number of labels . For example, if g = B (5 , , with rank , then λ , . . . , λ = 5 , , , , , , , , , yielding labels , , , , , , , , ;thus, dim z = 5 . From the above classification, it follows that dim z = 1 if and only if g has type A orif g is the Z -graded algebra E (11)8 , F (4)4 , or G (2)2 as defined in [8, Table II].3. B ALA AND C ARTER ’ S CONSTRUCTION
Bala & Carter [1, 2] classified the nilpotent orbits in a complex simple Lie algebra using a constructionvery similar to Vinberg’s, without the assumption that the Lie algebras are graded. Just like Vinberg’sconstruction, this yields an étale representation for a certain reductive subalgebra of g . In this section, wereview some of these results and show how the approaches by Vinberg and by Bala & Carter are related.First, we recall a few definitions. Let g = z ⊕ s be a reductive Lie algebra with s semisimple and z = z ( g ) the centre. A Borel subalgebra of g is a maximal solvable subalgebra of g , and a subalgebraof g is a parabolic subalgebra if it contains a Borel subalgebra of g . Every parabolic subalgebra p of g is a semidirect product p = m ⋉ n of a nilpotent ideal n of p , all of whose elements are nilpotent, and areductive subalgebra m . A parabolic subalgebra is distinguished if dim n / [ n , n ] = dim m . Any reductivesubalgebra m of g arising in the above way for some parabolic subalgebra of g is a Levi subalgebra in g .Its commutator c = [ m , m ] is semisimple of parabolic type . Bala & Carter defined the terms above forsemisimple g , but they carry over without change to reductive g .For semisimple g , it is shown in [2, Theorem 6.1] that the classification of nilpotent orbits is equivalentto the classification of conjugacy classes of pairs ( c , q c ) , where c is semisimple subalgebra of parabolictype in g , and q c is a distinguished parabolic subalgebra of c : For a nonzero nilpotent e ∈ g with sl -triple ( h, e, f ) define g k = { x ∈ g : [ h, x ] = kx } for k ∈ Z ; this furnishes g with a Z -grading. With thisgrading, e ∈ g . The element e is distinguished in g if ad( e ) : g → g is an isomorphism, that is, if e isin generic position. If e is not distinguished in g , then [2, Propositions 5.3 & 5.4] tell us how to constructa semisimple subalgebra c of g in which e is distinguished: if h is a maximal toral subalgebra of thecentraliser of ( h, e, f ) in g , then(3.1) m = z g ( h ) and c = [ m , m ] are a minimal Levi subalgebra of g containing e and a semisimple subalgebra of parabolic type, respec-tively, such that e is distinguished in c . The pair corresponding to e can be chosen to be ( c , q c ) , where q c is the Jacobson-Morovoz parabolic, see [1, Proposition 4.3] and [2, Theorem 6.1]. If G is a semisimplealgebraic group with Lie algebra g , then c is determined uniquely up to the action by Z G ( e ) , the cen-traliser of e in Ad g ( G ) . Since e is distinguished in c , the Z -grading of its sl -triple in c yields an étalerepresentation for the adjoint action of the reductive subalgebra c on the subspace c by evaluation at e .The adjoint action of g integrates to that of G , and thus we obtain an étale representation of the reductivegroup with Lie algebra c on the space c .The Borel and parabolic subalgebras of a reductive g = s ⊕ z as above are precisely z ⊕ b and z ⊕ p ,respectively, with b s a Borel subalgebra and p s parabolic. It follows that the Levi subalgebrasof g are precisely z ⊕ m , where m is a Levi subalgebra of s ; moreover, m is a minimal Levi subalgebracontaining e in s if and only if z ⊕ m is a minimal Levi subalgebra containing e in g .3.1. Relation to carrier algebras.
We compare the Bala & Carter construction with Vinberg’s carrieralgebras. Vinberg starts with a semisimple Z n -graded Lie algebra g = L i ∈ Z n g i ; recall that we allow Z ∞ = Z here. Let e ∈ g be nonzero nilpotent with sl -triple ( h, e, f ) such that h ∈ g and f ∈ g − ,and define g ( t , e ) as in (2.1); as mentioned before, t is a maximal toral subalgebra of the normaliser n g ( e ) and λ : t → C is defined by [ t, e ] = λ ( t ) e . Let h = h define the following Z -graded algebra(3.2) g ( h ) = M k ∈ Z g ( h ) k with g ( h ) k = { x ∈ g k : [ h , x ] = kx } ; NOTE ON ÉTALE REPRESENTATIONS FROM NILPOTENT ORBITS 6 note that t g ( h ) . It follows from [11, Lemmas 1 & 2] that g ( h ) and g ( t , e ) are both reductive.Recall that t = C h ⊕ t , where t is a maximal toral subalgebra of z g ( h, e, f ) . More precisely: Lemma 3.1.
We have t = ker λ = z ( g ( t , e )) and g ( t , e ) = z g ( h ) ( t ) .Proof. Write z = z ( g ( t , e )) . Recall that t = C h ⊕ t , so ker λ = t follows from [ h, e ] = 2 e . Clearly,if t ∈ ker λ , then [ t, y ] = 0 for each y ∈ g ( t , e ) k , so t ∈ z . Since z commutes with the defining elementof g ( t , e ) , we have z g ( t , e ) . Thus, z n g ( e ) , and therefore z t , This implies z ker λ , hence z = ker λ . Suppose x ∈ g ( h ) centralises t and write x = L k ∈ Z x k with each x k ∈ g ( h ) k . Since t g ( h ) , it follows from x, t ] = L k ∈ Z [ x k , t ] that each x k centralises t . By assumption, [ h, x k ] = 2 kx k , so x k ∈ g ( t , e ) k , and hence z g ( h ) ( t ) g ( t , e ) . Conversely, if x ∈ g ( t , e ) k , then [ h, x ] = 2 kx and, if t ∈ t , then [ t, x ] = kλ ( t ) x = 0 since t = ker λ . Thus, x ∈ z g ( h ) ( t ) k . (cid:3) The next proposition shows that Vinberg’s construction (2.1) of g ( t , e ) and its carrier algebra is thesame as applying Bala & Carter’s approach (3.1) to the Z -graded Lie algebra g ( h ) . Below, let G be thesemisimple algebraic group with Lie algebra g ( h ) . The conjugacy up to the centraliser Z G ( e ) reflectsthe freedom in choosing an sl -triple ( h, e, f ) for a given nonzero nilpotent element e . Proposition 3.2.
Let g be a Z n -graded complex semisimple Lie algebra, where n ∈ N ∪ {∞} , and let e , h , and t be as above. Then g ( t , e ) is a minimal Levi subalgebra of g ( h ) containing e and, up to Z G ( e ) -conjugacy, the carrier subalgebra c ( e ) = [ g ( t , e ) , g ( t , e )] is the unique semisimple subalgebra ofparabolic type in g ( h ) in which e is distinguished.Proof. Note that h stabilizes each g k , and g ( h ) k is the intersection of g k with the k -eigenspace of h .Lemma 3.1 shows that g ( t , e ) g ( h ) , and the Z -gradings of both algebras are determined by theeigenvalues of ad( h ) . The semisimple part s of g ( h ) is a semisimple ideal in g ( h ) containing ( h, e, f ) ;let a be the subalgebra generated by { h, e, f } . Note that for every subset X ⊆ g ( h ) we have( ∗ ) z g ( h ) ( X ) = z ( g ( h )) ⊕ z s ( X ) . We claim that t is a maximal toral subalgebra of z g ( h ) ( a ) : recall that t is defined as a maximal toralsubalgebra of z g ( a ) , which is reductive by [11, p. 21]. Since t g ( h ) g , we know that t isalso a maximal toral subalgebra in z g ( h ) ( a ) . On the other hand, we have z g ( h ) ( a ) = z g ( h ) ( a ) becauseelements of degree = 0 in g ( h ) do not commute with the defining element h ∈ a ; thus, t z g ( h ) ( a ) is a maximal toral subalgebra. We can write t = z ( g ( h )) ⊕ t ′ , where t ′ is a maximal toral subalgebraof z s ( a ) , and so for every subset X ⊆ g ( h ) we have( ∗∗ ) z X ( t ) = z X ( t ′ ) . The construction in (3.1) shows that m ′ = z s ( t ′ ) is a minimal Levi subalgebra of s containing e , so m = z ( g ( h )) ⊕ m ′ is a minimal Levi subalgebra of g ( h ) containing e . Now ( ∗ ), ( ∗∗ ), and Lemma 3.1 show m = z ( g ( h )) ⊕ z s ( t ′ ) = z g ( h ) ( t ′ ) = z g ( h ) ( t ) = g ( t , e ) , so g ( t , e ) is a minimal Levi subalgebra in g ( h ) containing e . The construction in (3.1) shows that e isdistinguished in [ m , m ] , and the latter is semisimple of parabolic type. Since [ g ( t , e ) , g ( t , e )] = [ m , m ] isthe carrier algebra, the claim follows; [2, Proposition 5.3] shows uniqueness up to Z G ( e ) -conjugacy. (cid:3) For Z -graded semisimple Lie algebras g , we have g = g ( h ) where h = 2 h is the defining element,see [7, Remark 33], so the two approaches by Vinberg and Bala & Carter coincide. Corollary 3.3. If g is a Z -graded complex semisimple Lie algebra, then up to Z G ( e ) -conjugacy, thesubalgebra g ( t , e ) obtained by Vinberg’s construction and the subalgebra m obtained by Bala & Carter’sconstruction coincide. Even in the situation where g is given without a grading and e is a nonzero nilpotent element in g , achoice of h induces a Z -grading on g to which Vinberg’s approach can be applied; this is then equivalentto Bala & Carter’s approach; note that Bala & Carter use the element h rather than h = h to definetheir grading, which leads to an additional factor two in the degrees. NOTE ON ÉTALE REPRESENTATIONS FROM NILPOTENT ORBITS 7
4. G
YOJA ’ S CONSTRUCTION
Gyoja [9] described constructions of étale modules out of a given prehomogeneous module. Let G be acomplex reductive algebraic group with algebraic representation ̺ : G → GL( V ) on a finite-dimensionalcomplex vector space V such that ( G, ̺, V ) is a prehomogeneous module. Let v ∈ V be the point ingeneric position. The construction in [9, Theorem A] proceeds as follows: Let G v be the stabilizer of v in G with Cartan subgroup T G v , define G ′ = N G ( T ) /T , and let V ′ = V T be the set of fixed pointsin V under T ; then V ′ is an étale module for the induced action of G ′ . Arising from a normaliser of atorus, G ′ is a reductive algebraic group. The second construction [9, Theorem B] yields a procedure toobtain a super-étale module from an étale module. (This means that the stabiliser of the point in genericposition is trivial and not just finite.) Given an étale module ( G, ̺, V ) with v ∈ V in generic positionand stabilizer G v , choose = h ∈ G v , and let G ′′ = N G ( h ) and V ′′ = V h , the set of fixed points for h in V . Then V ′′ is an étale module for the induced action of G ′′ , and | G ′′ v | < | G v | . Since h h i is finite, G ′′ is also reductive. After finitely many iterations (with G ′′ instead of G ), one obtains a super-étale module.4.1. Relation to carrier algebras.
Gyoja’s construction was formulated for groups, but can just aswell be formulated for the corresponding Lie algebras. We show that this covers some of Vinberg’sconstructions. For this let g be a semisimple Lie algebra with nonzero nilpotent e ∈ g , let ( h, e, f ) be an sl -triple in g , and furnish g with the Z -grading induced by ad( h ) , where h = h . Proposition 4.1.
Gyoja’s construction, applied to the reductive Lie algebra g , the nilpotent element e ,and the adjoint g -module (ad , g ) , produces Vinberg’s étale representation associated with e ∈ g .Proof. The stabiliser algebra of e is z g ( e ) . We have shown that t = ker λ (as introduced in Lemma 3.1)is a maximal toral subalgebra of z g ( a ) , where a is the subalgebra spanned by ( h, e, f ) . By [11, p. 21], wehave z g ( a ) = z g ( e, h ) , and since h = 2 h ∈ g , it follows that z g ( a ) = z g ( e ) . Thus, a maximal toralsubalgebra of z g ( e ) is t = ker λ , which takes the place of Gyoja’s t . Now Lemma 3.1 shows that thefixed point set of t in g is V ′ = z g ( t ) ∩ g = g ( t , e ) , with t = C h ⊕ t ; moreover, z g ( t ) = g ( t , e ) is reductive with centre t . Hence, g ′ = z g ( t ) / t satisfies g ′ ∼ = [ g ( t , e ) , g ( t , e ) ] , so Gyoja’s g ′ is the -component of the carrier algebra of e in g . Lastly, V ′ = g ( t , e ) = [ g ( t , e ) , g ( t , e )] is the 1-componentof that carrier algebra: this follows since the centre of the reductive g ( t , e ) is contained in g ( t , e ) . (cid:3) Gyoja’s result encapsulates what is interesting to us in Vinberg’s and Bala & Carter’s theory: thefocus on the étale action of the reductive subalgebra of degree on the subspace of degree , ignoringthe subspaces of higher degree. R EFERENCES [1] P. Bala, R. W. Carter.
Classes of unipotent elements in simple algebraic groups I . Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 79(1976) 401–425.[2] P. Bala, R. W. Carter.
Classes of unipotent elements in simple algebraic groups II . Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 80(1976) 1–18.[3] D. Burde.
Left-Invariant Affine Structures on Reductive Lie Groups . J. Algebra 181 (1996) 884–902.[4] D. Burde.
Left-symmetric algebras, or pre-Lie algebras in geometry and physics . Cent. Eur. J. Math. 4 (2006) 323–357.[5] D. Burde, W. Globke.
Étale representations for reductive algebraic groups with one-dimensional centre . J. Algebra 487(2017) 200–216.[6] D. Burde, W. Globke, A. Minchenko.
Étale representations for reductive algebraic groups with factors Sp n or SO n . Transform. Groups 24 (2019) 769–780.[7] H. Dietrich, P. Faccin, W. A. de Graaf.
Regular subalgebras and nilpotent orbits of real graded Lie algebras . J. Algebra423 (2015) 1044–1079.[8] D. Djokovi`c.
Classification of Z -graded real semisimple Lie algebras . J. Algebra 76 (1982) 367–382.[9] A. Gyoja. A theorem of Chevalley type for prehomogeneous vector spaces . J. Math. Soc. Japan 48 (1996) 161–167.[10] M. Sato, T. Kimura.
A Classification of Irreducible Prehomogeneous Vector Spaces and their Relative Invariants . NagoyaMath. J. 65 (1977) 1–155.[11] È. B. Vinberg.