## Reductive Lie algebra of a Lie group

### Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

In the answer of my question:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/23085/on-the-full-reducibility-of-representations-of-reductive-lie-algebras

James E. Humphreys replied to me saying that:"the notion of "reductive" for a Lie algebra in characteristic 0 has no intrinsic interest, unless you study the Lie algebra of a Lie (or algebraic) group and relate their representations carefully."

Can please someone explain that to me or give to me any reference? thank you!

-

I should let the experts answer, but my understanding is that all this means is that there is very little you can say (except structurally) about a reductive Lie algebra in characteristic zero.  For example, you cannot infer much about its representation theory simply from the fact that a Lie algebra is reductive.  On the other hand, if you know that it the Lie algebra of a Lie group, then at least for those representations which integrate to representations of the group you can say more. – José Figueroa-O'Farrill May 6 2010 at 13:32

## 2 Answers

What Jim means is that one naive definition of reductive Lie algebra

• $\mathfrak{g}$ is reductive if all its finite-dimensional representations are semi-simple.

already has a name: semi-simple.

Another one

• $\mathfrak{g}$ is reductive if all its representations are semi-simple.

is actually trivial; there are no Lie algebras that satisfy it.

Of course, there actually is a pretty good definition that matches better with reductive for groups:

• $\mathfrak{g}$ is reductive if its adjoint representation is semi-simple.

but it's important to keep in mind that the properties above don't follow from that.

-

1
To reinforce what Ben says, the standard definition of "reductive" Lie algebra in characteristic 0 just tells you that it is the direct sum of a semisimple and an abelian Lie algebra. The semisimple ones are characterized by having a nondegenerate Killing form (and resulting rich structure), while the abelian ones are just boring vector spaces. Even for algebraic groups, "reductive" has strong representation-theoretic implications only in characteristic 0; but the structure is interesting in any characteristic and over various ground fields. – Jim Humphreys May 6 2010 at 14:33
Thank you. The fact is that I'm dealing with a Lie algebra of a connected algebraic group and I'm trying to understand their connection, also because I'd like to prove that a certainly representation is semisimple. – Michele Torielli May 6 2010 at 14:55

### You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.

I wouldn't exclude the possibility that some nicely-looking ("intrinsic"?) characterization of reductive Lie algebras exist, say, in homological terms. How relevant such characterization might be to the questions discussed here (connection with Lie groups and representation theory) - that's another matter (probably it will not).

-
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 3, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9390001893043518, "perplexity_flag": "middle"}