Recall that the reflections for
preserve
. They generate a group
called the Weyl group. Moreover, since
spans
, the map
, the symmetric group on
, is injective. So
is a finite group of orthogonal isomorphisms of
, i.e. leaving invariant the bilinear form
.
Everything here actually makes sense for root systems in general, but we are restricting ourselves to the case of a root system associated to semisimple Lie algebra and a Cartan subalgebra. The only difference is that one has to prove the result on maximal strings (which was proved in the case of Lie algebras here), though it can be done for root systems in general.
Now choose a base for
and a corresponding partition
; the
for
are called simple reflections.
The goal we are aiming for is the following theorem, which gives a large amount of information about the Weyl group.
Theorem 1
acts simply transitively on Weyl chambers and on bases. Any root can be moved by an element of the Weyl group into a given base.
is generated by the simple reflections.
Action of simple reflections on a base
So, first we’re going to look at simple reflections and show
Lemma 2 The simple reflection
permutes
and sends
into its inverse.
Indeed, suppose . If
, then
is not a multiple of
and contains some other element of the base with positive coefficient, say
. Then applying
to
only changes the coefficient of
, so
still has a positive coefficient of
and is thus a positive root. It is clear that
; this is just a fact about reflections in general.
Transitivity on Weyl chambers
We are now going to prove that the subgroup generated by the simple reflections (associated to a base
) acts transitively on the Weyl chambers. In particular, given a regular element
(one that is not orthogonal to any element of
), we will show that there is
such that
The idea is to start by considering the element , which will show up frequently in the sequel. A quantitative consequence of Lemma 1 is
So, given , choose
maximizing
. Then I claim
for all simple roots
. Indeed,
Now the claim follows. If we prove that we have strict inequality () then we will have proved transitivity of
on the Weyl chambers. But if
for some
, then
would be orthogonal to
, a contradiction by regularity.
Let be two bases associated to
. We can use an element of
to move
into the same Weyl chamber as
, which means that
gets transformed into
—as a result,
gets transformed into
. So
acts transitively on the set of bases.
is generated by the simple reflections
The next step towards the proof of this theorem will be to show:
Lemma 3 Any root
is contained in a base
.
We will choose a regular vector such that
brackets positively with
but to a very small number, so
is indecomposable in the corresponding choice of positive roots
.
Consider the hyperplane . We can choose
that is not perpendicular to any other root in
(except
). Modifying
slightly, we can get a vector
such that
is very small, smaller than
for any root
. Then
is a simple root in
.
It is now possible for us to show that ; we must show that
for
belongs to
. Now we can find
with
by the above lemma. Then
acts simply transitively on the bases
We first prove a lemma on shrinking expressions of products of simple reflections.
Lemma 4 Given simple roots
and the corresponding reflections
. If
, then we can write
as a product of smaller length using only
.
There has to be a first index where
. By the above lemma, since these are simple reflections, it must be the case that
Now if is an orthogonal transformation, then
as is easily checked. Therefore,
and it follows that
since .
Suppose satisfies
; I claim
.
Write as a minimal product of simple reflections associated to
. By assumption
, so
This means we can shrink the expression for by the second lemma, contradiction.
As a result, it follows that acts simply transitively on Weyl chambers too, since they are in bijection with bases.
The size of the minimal expression
I discussed in the last section how one could exploit properties of the minimal expression for as a product
of simple reflections. A minimal expression is called reduced and
is called the length
.
If is a simple reflection, then
sends precisely one positive root into a negative root, and
.
More generally:
Proposition 5 The length
equals the number
of positive roots sent into negative roots.
This is proved by induction on the length; we have just stated it for above. We can write
where the expression
is itself reduced. Suppose these reflections are associated to
. Then
(if it were in
, we could use the previous lemma to shrink the expression). In particular,
—in this respect,
behaves differently from the subproduct
. Now
permutes the positive roots in
. So in particular,
But we have , so the inductive argument completes the proof.
Leave a Reply