Highest Weights of Defining and Adjoint Representations of $mathfrak{so}_5$












3












$begingroup$


I am asked to describe the defining representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ in terms of highest weights, and then I am asked to repeat this process for the defining and adjoint representations of $mathfrak{so}_5$



To start with, I noted that the subalgebra of diagonal matrices in $mathfrak{sp}_4$ gave a Cartan Subalgebra $mathfrak{t}$ that is spanned by the two diagonal $4times 4$ matrices, $t_1 = diag(1,0,1,0)$ and $t_2 = diag(0,1,0,1)$.



Knowing this, suppose we take any vector $v = (a,b,c,d) in mathbb R^4$, then:



$t_1v = (a,0,c,0)$ and $t_2v = (0,b,0,d)$.



Hence, if $v$ were in the $omega$ weight space of $V = mathbb R^4$, then:



Either $omega(t_1) = 0$ or $ b = d = 0$, and:



Either $omega(t_2) = 0$ or $a = c = 0$.



Putting these two things together I concluded that $V = V_0$ is the $0$-weight space, and hence $V$ has highest weight $0$.



Second, noting that $mathfrak{so}_5 cong mathfrak{sp}_4$, I argued that the defining representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ would behave in the same way, and thus would all be the $0$-weight space.



However, I feel like I must have made a mistake here somewhere because this doesn't seem right to me.



Additionally, I am unsure how to proceed to answer the part about the adjoint representation.



I think I will be taking the Cartan subalgebra $mathfrak{t}$ of diagonal matrices in $mathfrak{so}_5$, with some basis $t_1, t_2$.



Then I suppose I would take a general matrix $x in mathfrak{so}_5$ and compute $t_1x - xt_1 $ and $t_2x - xt_2$ to see if these are non-trivial scalar multiples of $x$. If so then $x$ can belong to some non-zero weight space of $V = mathbb R^5$.



I wanted to ask though if there would be a better way to do questions of this kind.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you know about Dynkin diagrams? Under your isomorphism the standard representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ corresponds to the adjoint representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ and vice versa.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hill
    Jan 8 at 19:08
















3












$begingroup$


I am asked to describe the defining representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ in terms of highest weights, and then I am asked to repeat this process for the defining and adjoint representations of $mathfrak{so}_5$



To start with, I noted that the subalgebra of diagonal matrices in $mathfrak{sp}_4$ gave a Cartan Subalgebra $mathfrak{t}$ that is spanned by the two diagonal $4times 4$ matrices, $t_1 = diag(1,0,1,0)$ and $t_2 = diag(0,1,0,1)$.



Knowing this, suppose we take any vector $v = (a,b,c,d) in mathbb R^4$, then:



$t_1v = (a,0,c,0)$ and $t_2v = (0,b,0,d)$.



Hence, if $v$ were in the $omega$ weight space of $V = mathbb R^4$, then:



Either $omega(t_1) = 0$ or $ b = d = 0$, and:



Either $omega(t_2) = 0$ or $a = c = 0$.



Putting these two things together I concluded that $V = V_0$ is the $0$-weight space, and hence $V$ has highest weight $0$.



Second, noting that $mathfrak{so}_5 cong mathfrak{sp}_4$, I argued that the defining representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ would behave in the same way, and thus would all be the $0$-weight space.



However, I feel like I must have made a mistake here somewhere because this doesn't seem right to me.



Additionally, I am unsure how to proceed to answer the part about the adjoint representation.



I think I will be taking the Cartan subalgebra $mathfrak{t}$ of diagonal matrices in $mathfrak{so}_5$, with some basis $t_1, t_2$.



Then I suppose I would take a general matrix $x in mathfrak{so}_5$ and compute $t_1x - xt_1 $ and $t_2x - xt_2$ to see if these are non-trivial scalar multiples of $x$. If so then $x$ can belong to some non-zero weight space of $V = mathbb R^5$.



I wanted to ask though if there would be a better way to do questions of this kind.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you know about Dynkin diagrams? Under your isomorphism the standard representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ corresponds to the adjoint representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ and vice versa.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hill
    Jan 8 at 19:08














3












3








3





$begingroup$


I am asked to describe the defining representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ in terms of highest weights, and then I am asked to repeat this process for the defining and adjoint representations of $mathfrak{so}_5$



To start with, I noted that the subalgebra of diagonal matrices in $mathfrak{sp}_4$ gave a Cartan Subalgebra $mathfrak{t}$ that is spanned by the two diagonal $4times 4$ matrices, $t_1 = diag(1,0,1,0)$ and $t_2 = diag(0,1,0,1)$.



Knowing this, suppose we take any vector $v = (a,b,c,d) in mathbb R^4$, then:



$t_1v = (a,0,c,0)$ and $t_2v = (0,b,0,d)$.



Hence, if $v$ were in the $omega$ weight space of $V = mathbb R^4$, then:



Either $omega(t_1) = 0$ or $ b = d = 0$, and:



Either $omega(t_2) = 0$ or $a = c = 0$.



Putting these two things together I concluded that $V = V_0$ is the $0$-weight space, and hence $V$ has highest weight $0$.



Second, noting that $mathfrak{so}_5 cong mathfrak{sp}_4$, I argued that the defining representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ would behave in the same way, and thus would all be the $0$-weight space.



However, I feel like I must have made a mistake here somewhere because this doesn't seem right to me.



Additionally, I am unsure how to proceed to answer the part about the adjoint representation.



I think I will be taking the Cartan subalgebra $mathfrak{t}$ of diagonal matrices in $mathfrak{so}_5$, with some basis $t_1, t_2$.



Then I suppose I would take a general matrix $x in mathfrak{so}_5$ and compute $t_1x - xt_1 $ and $t_2x - xt_2$ to see if these are non-trivial scalar multiples of $x$. If so then $x$ can belong to some non-zero weight space of $V = mathbb R^5$.



I wanted to ask though if there would be a better way to do questions of this kind.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I am asked to describe the defining representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ in terms of highest weights, and then I am asked to repeat this process for the defining and adjoint representations of $mathfrak{so}_5$



To start with, I noted that the subalgebra of diagonal matrices in $mathfrak{sp}_4$ gave a Cartan Subalgebra $mathfrak{t}$ that is spanned by the two diagonal $4times 4$ matrices, $t_1 = diag(1,0,1,0)$ and $t_2 = diag(0,1,0,1)$.



Knowing this, suppose we take any vector $v = (a,b,c,d) in mathbb R^4$, then:



$t_1v = (a,0,c,0)$ and $t_2v = (0,b,0,d)$.



Hence, if $v$ were in the $omega$ weight space of $V = mathbb R^4$, then:



Either $omega(t_1) = 0$ or $ b = d = 0$, and:



Either $omega(t_2) = 0$ or $a = c = 0$.



Putting these two things together I concluded that $V = V_0$ is the $0$-weight space, and hence $V$ has highest weight $0$.



Second, noting that $mathfrak{so}_5 cong mathfrak{sp}_4$, I argued that the defining representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ would behave in the same way, and thus would all be the $0$-weight space.



However, I feel like I must have made a mistake here somewhere because this doesn't seem right to me.



Additionally, I am unsure how to proceed to answer the part about the adjoint representation.



I think I will be taking the Cartan subalgebra $mathfrak{t}$ of diagonal matrices in $mathfrak{so}_5$, with some basis $t_1, t_2$.



Then I suppose I would take a general matrix $x in mathfrak{so}_5$ and compute $t_1x - xt_1 $ and $t_2x - xt_2$ to see if these are non-trivial scalar multiples of $x$. If so then $x$ can belong to some non-zero weight space of $V = mathbb R^5$.



I wanted to ask though if there would be a better way to do questions of this kind.







representation-theory lie-algebras root-systems






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 7 at 20:15









user366818user366818

1,080511




1,080511








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you know about Dynkin diagrams? Under your isomorphism the standard representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ corresponds to the adjoint representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ and vice versa.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hill
    Jan 8 at 19:08














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you know about Dynkin diagrams? Under your isomorphism the standard representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ corresponds to the adjoint representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ and vice versa.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hill
    Jan 8 at 19:08








1




1




$begingroup$
Do you know about Dynkin diagrams? Under your isomorphism the standard representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ corresponds to the adjoint representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ and vice versa.
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Jan 8 at 19:08




$begingroup$
Do you know about Dynkin diagrams? Under your isomorphism the standard representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ corresponds to the adjoint representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ and vice versa.
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Jan 8 at 19:08










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

The diagonal matrices you set up are not completely correct (since any matrix in $mathfrak{sp}_4$ is tracefree). It should be $t_1=diag(1,0,-1,0)$ and $t_2=diag(0,1,0,-1)$. Now since weights are linear functionals, they are best expressed in terms of the dual basis to ${t_1,t_2}$ which usually is denoted by ${e_1,e_2}$. So $e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix and $e_2$ extracts the second of these entries. Now consider the standard basis ${v_1,dots,v_4}$ of $mathbb C^4$. By defintion $t_1v_1=v_1=e_1(t_1)v_1$ and $t_2v_1=0=e_2(t_1)v_1$, so $v_1$ is a weight vector of weight $e_1$. Similarly, the other $v_i$ are weight vectors with weights $e_2$, $-e_1$ and $-e_2$, respectively. The standard ordering of weights is that $e_1>e_2>0$, so the highest weight is $e_1$. For the adjoint representation you have to work similarly using an appropriate basis of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ consisting of matrices with only one or two non-zero entries. Just give it a try. For $mathfrak{so}_5$ you first need a Cartan subalgebra, then you can analyze the representations similarly, showing the as stated in the comment of @David_Hill that the standard representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ corresponds to the adjoint representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ and vice versa.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for this response. I am a little lost however on two parts. What do you mean by "$e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix"? Do you mean that because it only returns $1$ for the $t_1$ component, and because the first entry of a diagonal matrix is the first entry of the $t_1$ component, then we are effectively taking this value? Secondly, what exactly are $s_1, s_2$? In the line that you introduce $s_2$ I would have expected you to use $e_2$ as $e_2(t_1) = 0$. Is $s_2$ a scalar multiple of $s_2$ here? In which case why couldn't we have just used $e_2$?
    $endgroup$
    – user366818
    Jan 9 at 13:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am sorry, I have changed notation during writing the reply and didn't do this completely. I have now edited the answer, hopefully correcting this. (I have removed $s_1$ and $s_2$ now.) What I mean by $e_1$ is the functional that sends $diag(a,b,-a,-b)$ to $a$, while $e_2$ sends it to $b$.
    $endgroup$
    – Andreas Cap
    Jan 9 at 14:19










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the clarification, I understand now!
    $endgroup$
    – user366818
    Jan 9 at 16:19












Your Answer








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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065446%2fhighest-weights-of-defining-and-adjoint-representations-of-mathfrakso-5%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

The diagonal matrices you set up are not completely correct (since any matrix in $mathfrak{sp}_4$ is tracefree). It should be $t_1=diag(1,0,-1,0)$ and $t_2=diag(0,1,0,-1)$. Now since weights are linear functionals, they are best expressed in terms of the dual basis to ${t_1,t_2}$ which usually is denoted by ${e_1,e_2}$. So $e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix and $e_2$ extracts the second of these entries. Now consider the standard basis ${v_1,dots,v_4}$ of $mathbb C^4$. By defintion $t_1v_1=v_1=e_1(t_1)v_1$ and $t_2v_1=0=e_2(t_1)v_1$, so $v_1$ is a weight vector of weight $e_1$. Similarly, the other $v_i$ are weight vectors with weights $e_2$, $-e_1$ and $-e_2$, respectively. The standard ordering of weights is that $e_1>e_2>0$, so the highest weight is $e_1$. For the adjoint representation you have to work similarly using an appropriate basis of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ consisting of matrices with only one or two non-zero entries. Just give it a try. For $mathfrak{so}_5$ you first need a Cartan subalgebra, then you can analyze the representations similarly, showing the as stated in the comment of @David_Hill that the standard representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ corresponds to the adjoint representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ and vice versa.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for this response. I am a little lost however on two parts. What do you mean by "$e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix"? Do you mean that because it only returns $1$ for the $t_1$ component, and because the first entry of a diagonal matrix is the first entry of the $t_1$ component, then we are effectively taking this value? Secondly, what exactly are $s_1, s_2$? In the line that you introduce $s_2$ I would have expected you to use $e_2$ as $e_2(t_1) = 0$. Is $s_2$ a scalar multiple of $s_2$ here? In which case why couldn't we have just used $e_2$?
    $endgroup$
    – user366818
    Jan 9 at 13:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am sorry, I have changed notation during writing the reply and didn't do this completely. I have now edited the answer, hopefully correcting this. (I have removed $s_1$ and $s_2$ now.) What I mean by $e_1$ is the functional that sends $diag(a,b,-a,-b)$ to $a$, while $e_2$ sends it to $b$.
    $endgroup$
    – Andreas Cap
    Jan 9 at 14:19










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the clarification, I understand now!
    $endgroup$
    – user366818
    Jan 9 at 16:19
















2












$begingroup$

The diagonal matrices you set up are not completely correct (since any matrix in $mathfrak{sp}_4$ is tracefree). It should be $t_1=diag(1,0,-1,0)$ and $t_2=diag(0,1,0,-1)$. Now since weights are linear functionals, they are best expressed in terms of the dual basis to ${t_1,t_2}$ which usually is denoted by ${e_1,e_2}$. So $e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix and $e_2$ extracts the second of these entries. Now consider the standard basis ${v_1,dots,v_4}$ of $mathbb C^4$. By defintion $t_1v_1=v_1=e_1(t_1)v_1$ and $t_2v_1=0=e_2(t_1)v_1$, so $v_1$ is a weight vector of weight $e_1$. Similarly, the other $v_i$ are weight vectors with weights $e_2$, $-e_1$ and $-e_2$, respectively. The standard ordering of weights is that $e_1>e_2>0$, so the highest weight is $e_1$. For the adjoint representation you have to work similarly using an appropriate basis of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ consisting of matrices with only one or two non-zero entries. Just give it a try. For $mathfrak{so}_5$ you first need a Cartan subalgebra, then you can analyze the representations similarly, showing the as stated in the comment of @David_Hill that the standard representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ corresponds to the adjoint representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ and vice versa.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for this response. I am a little lost however on two parts. What do you mean by "$e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix"? Do you mean that because it only returns $1$ for the $t_1$ component, and because the first entry of a diagonal matrix is the first entry of the $t_1$ component, then we are effectively taking this value? Secondly, what exactly are $s_1, s_2$? In the line that you introduce $s_2$ I would have expected you to use $e_2$ as $e_2(t_1) = 0$. Is $s_2$ a scalar multiple of $s_2$ here? In which case why couldn't we have just used $e_2$?
    $endgroup$
    – user366818
    Jan 9 at 13:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am sorry, I have changed notation during writing the reply and didn't do this completely. I have now edited the answer, hopefully correcting this. (I have removed $s_1$ and $s_2$ now.) What I mean by $e_1$ is the functional that sends $diag(a,b,-a,-b)$ to $a$, while $e_2$ sends it to $b$.
    $endgroup$
    – Andreas Cap
    Jan 9 at 14:19










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the clarification, I understand now!
    $endgroup$
    – user366818
    Jan 9 at 16:19














2












2








2





$begingroup$

The diagonal matrices you set up are not completely correct (since any matrix in $mathfrak{sp}_4$ is tracefree). It should be $t_1=diag(1,0,-1,0)$ and $t_2=diag(0,1,0,-1)$. Now since weights are linear functionals, they are best expressed in terms of the dual basis to ${t_1,t_2}$ which usually is denoted by ${e_1,e_2}$. So $e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix and $e_2$ extracts the second of these entries. Now consider the standard basis ${v_1,dots,v_4}$ of $mathbb C^4$. By defintion $t_1v_1=v_1=e_1(t_1)v_1$ and $t_2v_1=0=e_2(t_1)v_1$, so $v_1$ is a weight vector of weight $e_1$. Similarly, the other $v_i$ are weight vectors with weights $e_2$, $-e_1$ and $-e_2$, respectively. The standard ordering of weights is that $e_1>e_2>0$, so the highest weight is $e_1$. For the adjoint representation you have to work similarly using an appropriate basis of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ consisting of matrices with only one or two non-zero entries. Just give it a try. For $mathfrak{so}_5$ you first need a Cartan subalgebra, then you can analyze the representations similarly, showing the as stated in the comment of @David_Hill that the standard representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ corresponds to the adjoint representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ and vice versa.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The diagonal matrices you set up are not completely correct (since any matrix in $mathfrak{sp}_4$ is tracefree). It should be $t_1=diag(1,0,-1,0)$ and $t_2=diag(0,1,0,-1)$. Now since weights are linear functionals, they are best expressed in terms of the dual basis to ${t_1,t_2}$ which usually is denoted by ${e_1,e_2}$. So $e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix and $e_2$ extracts the second of these entries. Now consider the standard basis ${v_1,dots,v_4}$ of $mathbb C^4$. By defintion $t_1v_1=v_1=e_1(t_1)v_1$ and $t_2v_1=0=e_2(t_1)v_1$, so $v_1$ is a weight vector of weight $e_1$. Similarly, the other $v_i$ are weight vectors with weights $e_2$, $-e_1$ and $-e_2$, respectively. The standard ordering of weights is that $e_1>e_2>0$, so the highest weight is $e_1$. For the adjoint representation you have to work similarly using an appropriate basis of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ consisting of matrices with only one or two non-zero entries. Just give it a try. For $mathfrak{so}_5$ you first need a Cartan subalgebra, then you can analyze the representations similarly, showing the as stated in the comment of @David_Hill that the standard representation of $mathfrak{sp}_4$ corresponds to the adjoint representation of $mathfrak{so}_5$ and vice versa.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 9 at 14:09

























answered Jan 9 at 8:25









Andreas CapAndreas Cap

11.4k923




11.4k923












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for this response. I am a little lost however on two parts. What do you mean by "$e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix"? Do you mean that because it only returns $1$ for the $t_1$ component, and because the first entry of a diagonal matrix is the first entry of the $t_1$ component, then we are effectively taking this value? Secondly, what exactly are $s_1, s_2$? In the line that you introduce $s_2$ I would have expected you to use $e_2$ as $e_2(t_1) = 0$. Is $s_2$ a scalar multiple of $s_2$ here? In which case why couldn't we have just used $e_2$?
    $endgroup$
    – user366818
    Jan 9 at 13:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am sorry, I have changed notation during writing the reply and didn't do this completely. I have now edited the answer, hopefully correcting this. (I have removed $s_1$ and $s_2$ now.) What I mean by $e_1$ is the functional that sends $diag(a,b,-a,-b)$ to $a$, while $e_2$ sends it to $b$.
    $endgroup$
    – Andreas Cap
    Jan 9 at 14:19










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the clarification, I understand now!
    $endgroup$
    – user366818
    Jan 9 at 16:19


















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for this response. I am a little lost however on two parts. What do you mean by "$e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix"? Do you mean that because it only returns $1$ for the $t_1$ component, and because the first entry of a diagonal matrix is the first entry of the $t_1$ component, then we are effectively taking this value? Secondly, what exactly are $s_1, s_2$? In the line that you introduce $s_2$ I would have expected you to use $e_2$ as $e_2(t_1) = 0$. Is $s_2$ a scalar multiple of $s_2$ here? In which case why couldn't we have just used $e_2$?
    $endgroup$
    – user366818
    Jan 9 at 13:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am sorry, I have changed notation during writing the reply and didn't do this completely. I have now edited the answer, hopefully correcting this. (I have removed $s_1$ and $s_2$ now.) What I mean by $e_1$ is the functional that sends $diag(a,b,-a,-b)$ to $a$, while $e_2$ sends it to $b$.
    $endgroup$
    – Andreas Cap
    Jan 9 at 14:19










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the clarification, I understand now!
    $endgroup$
    – user366818
    Jan 9 at 16:19
















$begingroup$
Thank you for this response. I am a little lost however on two parts. What do you mean by "$e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix"? Do you mean that because it only returns $1$ for the $t_1$ component, and because the first entry of a diagonal matrix is the first entry of the $t_1$ component, then we are effectively taking this value? Secondly, what exactly are $s_1, s_2$? In the line that you introduce $s_2$ I would have expected you to use $e_2$ as $e_2(t_1) = 0$. Is $s_2$ a scalar multiple of $s_2$ here? In which case why couldn't we have just used $e_2$?
$endgroup$
– user366818
Jan 9 at 13:00




$begingroup$
Thank you for this response. I am a little lost however on two parts. What do you mean by "$e_1$ extracts the first entry of a diagonal matrix"? Do you mean that because it only returns $1$ for the $t_1$ component, and because the first entry of a diagonal matrix is the first entry of the $t_1$ component, then we are effectively taking this value? Secondly, what exactly are $s_1, s_2$? In the line that you introduce $s_2$ I would have expected you to use $e_2$ as $e_2(t_1) = 0$. Is $s_2$ a scalar multiple of $s_2$ here? In which case why couldn't we have just used $e_2$?
$endgroup$
– user366818
Jan 9 at 13:00




1




1




$begingroup$
I am sorry, I have changed notation during writing the reply and didn't do this completely. I have now edited the answer, hopefully correcting this. (I have removed $s_1$ and $s_2$ now.) What I mean by $e_1$ is the functional that sends $diag(a,b,-a,-b)$ to $a$, while $e_2$ sends it to $b$.
$endgroup$
– Andreas Cap
Jan 9 at 14:19




$begingroup$
I am sorry, I have changed notation during writing the reply and didn't do this completely. I have now edited the answer, hopefully correcting this. (I have removed $s_1$ and $s_2$ now.) What I mean by $e_1$ is the functional that sends $diag(a,b,-a,-b)$ to $a$, while $e_2$ sends it to $b$.
$endgroup$
– Andreas Cap
Jan 9 at 14:19












$begingroup$
Thank you for the clarification, I understand now!
$endgroup$
– user366818
Jan 9 at 16:19




$begingroup$
Thank you for the clarification, I understand now!
$endgroup$
– user366818
Jan 9 at 16:19


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065446%2fhighest-weights-of-defining-and-adjoint-representations-of-mathfrakso-5%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Index of /

Tribalistas

Várzea Paulista