Kac-Moody algebras in Deligne’s Category

The degree v component for v\in \textbf{V}(D) is equal to U(\mathfrak{g}(D,\textbf{N})_0) e_v. We may take the positive part of the Lie algebra freely generated by elements e_v for v\in \textbf{V}(D) and for any vertex y adjacent to v impose the Serre relation

Then the action of the corresponding algebra U(\mathfrak{gl}_{t_e}) on e_v will generate one of the modules V_{e}^*,V_e or L_{e,[(1),(1)]} (whether e\in S_v,T_v or L_v), because it does so for the associated Dynkin diagram. Here we use the fact that the maximal graded ideal with trivial degree 0 part in the contragredient Lie algebra without Serre relations for a simply-laced Dynkin diagram is generated by Serre relations (a theorem by O. Gabber, V. Kac [GK]). Now, since the actions of \mathfrak{gl}_{t_e} commute for different edges e, we get that the resulting U(\mathfrak{g}(D,\textbf{N})_0)-module is isomorphic to the tensor product of smaller modules as above.(Note that here we don’t have to use the second relation ad_{e_{v}}^2(e_{y})=0 due to degree considerations. We also don’t use [e_v,e_w]=0 for distinct and not connected v,w\in \textbf{V}(D). ) The last part follows directly from the above. \square

Recall that the commutator of a free Lie algebra FLie(V) in degree 2 is the anti-symmetrization map

Also note that for vector spaces V_i,i\in I labeled by an ordered set I

and for finite I

Similarly

and

Therefore, we may decompose the second degree part of the free Lie algebra (3.2) into the simple \mathfrak{g}(D,\textbf{N})_0-modules and analyze where the Serre relations of the form [e_v,[e_v,e_i]] or [e_v,e_w] lie (here e_i is the closest to v generator from an edge adjacent to v). It is easy to see that the adjoint action of e_i on e_v translates to the action only on the highest vector of the corresponding simple module V_i (here we abuse the notation by referring to the adjacent to v vertex i on the corresponding edge). That’s why we have only one exterior power and the highest weight simple submodules in the symmetric powers for the other modules in the cases a) and b).

In the cases c) and d) we have two similar relations but for the same edge. It’s not hard to see that for \mathfrak{gl}_n with standard basis E_{ij}, a choice of a Borel subalgebra and dual Cartan basis \epsilon_i we have that

are both lowest weight vectors of weights -\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2+2\epsilon_n and -2\epsilon_1+ \epsilon_{n-1}+\epsilon_n correspondingly. Then the highest weight vectors of such submodules will have weights \epsilon_1+\epsilon_2-2\epsilon_n and 2\epsilon_1- \epsilon_{n-1}-\epsilon_n correspondingly.

It is useful to provide a decomposition of \Lambda^2(V\otimes V^*) and S^2(V\otimes V^*) into simple V\otimes V^*-modules. According to (Proof) and (Proof) we have

Furthermore, the contraction ev_{1,3} along the 1st and 3rd tensor components gives us a V\otimes V^*-invariant map from both of the summands in (?) and (?) into \ker(ev_v) (i.e. \mathfrak{sl}(V)), so we have

but the dimension comparison (using the Weyl dimension formula) tells us that ? is zero.

Analogously,

because the contraction map ev_{13} now maps both S^2V\otimes S^2 V^* and \Lambda^2V\otimes \Lambda^2 V^* surjectively onto V\otimes V^* \cong L_{[1,1]} \oplus L_{\emptyset,\o}. The rest follows from the Weyl dimension formula.

Finally, in the cases e) and f) of two different vertices v,w the quadratic relation lies in the tensor product of the corresponding degree one components and it’s not hard to see that it generates the suggested submodules. \square

The only thing we have to show is that for any three irreducible subobjects X,Y,Z of KM(D,\textbf{t}) the map

is identically zero. For integer values of our parameters t_e we have a standard symmetric tensor functor F from \operatorname{\underline{\smash{\text{Rep}}}}(\prod_{e\in \textbf{E}(D)} GL_{t_{e}}) to Rep(\prod_{e\in \textbf{E}(D)} GL_{t_{e}}) which for a fixed graded part of KM(D,\textbf{t}) and large enough parameters t_e sends it to the respective graded part of the associated Kac-Moody Lie algebra with some additional center. This functor is fully faithful and surjective there in the sense that the decomposition of these components in both algebras involves the same number (and type) of irreducible \mathfrak{l}-modules. Clearly, then

Now, suppose that X,Y,Z and images of each term of the map above are simultaneously well-defined objects in the classical representation category \operatorname{\underline{\smash{\text{Rep}}}}(\prod_{e\in E(D)} GL_{t_{e}}) (i.e. every simple term appearing in the K-group decomposition is non-zero) for some integer parameters t_e. Then it’s not hard to see that the map (Proof) can be realized as a morphism in a bigger space expressible in a uniform way via (w,w')-diagrams with coefficients in \mathbb{Q}(t_e) [CW]. But if the map above becomes zero under F-specialization for any large enough integers t_e, then it had to be zero to begin with. \square

Obviously, the images above lie in the center. For the converse, note that any other central map from \text{\usefont{U}{bbold}{m}{n}1} to \mathfrak{l}\subset \text{KM}(D,\textbf{t}) (remember about grading by \Gamma(D)) should not have any nontrivial components in L_{e,[(1),(1)]} \subset \mathfrak{l} for any e\in \textbf{E}(D). Without loss of generality we may assume that the central map has nontrivial components only at \text{\usefont{U}{bbold}{m}{n}1}_v, v\in \textbf{V}(D), but due to the nontrivial action of these objects the central map must be identically zero. \square

We may identify \mathfrak{h} and \mathfrak{h}^* via the quadratic function in (4.1). One can check that the functions above are indeed W-invariant. For the converse, we may assume that a W-invariant function is homogeneous with respect to a_v,a_{i,k}. Let us pick M\in \mathbb{N} and let a_{i,k}=0 for i>M. Note then that the computation of invariant polynomials in this case is equivalent to the computation of invariants of the Cartan polynomial algebra \mathfrak{h}^{W_M}_M of a direct sum of the Kac-Moody Lie algebra corresponding to the star-shaped diagram with N legs of length M-1 with N-dimensional center spanned by 1_v-\sum_{i=1}^{M}E_{i,i}^k. Since the W-action on a_v,a_{i,k} has real coefficients, we know that the invariant algebra generators must have real coefficients. We may take the quotient over a_v-\sum_{i} a_{i,k}=0, then the quadratic function above corresponds to the Tits form of signature (1,N(M-1)). Furthermore, it is generally known that a hyperbolic Coxeter group W_M is Zariski dense in the Lorentz group O(1,N(M-1)) of this form (see [YH]). Therefore, all the invariants of the quotient symmetric algebra are generated by the quadratic function above. Now the original statement follows by taking the limit M\rightarrow \infty. \square

As we have already seen, the functions above are W-invariants, so they have to be constant on the orbit. For the divisibility property, note that v has (N-2)|a_{i,k} and the only generator that might change is s_v, but from the formula for the generator it is evident that if a vector q satisfies this property then s_v(q) does as well. As for the inequality, note that

and \alpha_v+\sum_{i\le M,k} \alpha_{i,k} is a positive root. If we choose any fixed element w of the Weyl group W, then in its reduced form it must be finitely supported on the Dynkin diagram, therefore the set of inversion roots for w must lie in a finitely generated root sub-lattice. On the other hand, we may choose M arbitrarily large, so that w does not affect \epsilon_{M+1,k} and \alpha_{M,k}, therefore

must be a positive root with a_{M+1,k}=1. Additionally, the support of any root must be connected (Bourbaki, p. 173, Cor. 3 [Bou]), so a_v \neq 0. Therefore from the description of the positive part of our Lie algebra from the previous chapter it is evident that w(\epsilon_v) has nonnegative coefficients.

Finally, it is clear that the stabilizer of \epsilon_v contains W_{X}. Suppose that w\in W stabilizes \epsilon_v. Then in a matrix form (w.r.t. a_v and a_{i,k}) the element w looks like

Note that

so v=0. Then w must be an integer orthogonal matrix in the subspace defined by the equation a_v=0, but the only vectors with integer coefficients of length one are \pm \epsilon_{i,k}, so w(\epsilon_{l,m})=\pm \epsilon_{i,k}. By considering the invariants, we derive that m=k and the sign is +, so w lies in W_X. \square

Assume without loss of generality that a_{1,k} is the largest positive number in each individual leg. Let x_{n,k}=a_{n,k}/a_{1,k}, n>1, then 0\le x_{n,k}\le 1 and

From this we get

so

and

Therefore

This means that we may reduce a_v until one of the maximal a_{1,k} becomes 0, but in that case a_v=1 and all a_{i,k}=0. \square

We wish to prove that

but firstly, let us note that the root

is positive, therefore if it has some nonzero a_v, then it must be positive. Now,

The element s_{i_2}\dots s_{i_n}s_v\epsilon_v is a previous state of the state s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\dots s_{i_n}s_v\epsilon_v and the condition that

means precisely that s_{i_2}\dots s_{i_n}s_v\epsilon_v and s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\dots s_{i_n}s_v\epsilon_v are different states. \square

Suppose that it does, then we have

for some (\emptyset, X)-reduced words s_{i_1}\dots s_{i_n} and s_{j_1}\dots s_{j_n}. Clearly s_k s_{i_1}\dots s_{i_n} is reduced, otherwise l(s_k s_{i_1}\dots s_{i_n})<n and the state s_{j_1}\dots s_{j_n}(\epsilon_v) is actually of some level l<n+1 which is absurd. Then

and n+1=l(s_{j_1}\dots s_{j_n} \cdot w_x)=n+l(w_x), so w_x=s_m for some m. The statement of the Proposition is then equivalent to the following: this situation can not occur for s_{i_1}\dots s_{i_n} \neq s_{j_1}\dots s_{j_n}. Indeed, suppose that s_{i_1}\dots s_{i_n} is not (\{k\},\o)-reduced, then

so the word s_k s_{i_1}\dots s_{i_n} is not reduced, which is impossible. But then we definitely know that s_{j_1}\dots s_{j_n} is not (\{k\},\o)-reduced and

where s_{j_1'} \dots s_{j_{n-1}'} is (\{k\},X)-reduced, so

both words s_{i_2}\dots s_{i_n} and s_{j_1'} \dots s_{j_{n-1}'} are (\emptyset,X)-reduced and s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\dots s_{i_n} is reduced, so we are in the same situation and we can induct on n. \square

Let us take the longest element w_X in W_X, then we have

Note that due to the decomposition of u the set R_X^+ of all positive roots supported at X lies in the set of inversion roots of u, therefore w must send w_X R_X^+=R_X^- to the set of negative roots R^-. In particular, we have w(R_X^+)\subset R^+ which is equivalent to the original statement. \square