On Simple Completely Reducible Binary-Lie Superalgebras over sl2(F) ()
1. Introduction
All algebras mentioned in this article are algebras over a fixed arbitrary field
of characteristic zero.
A superalgebra is a
-graded algebra, i.e., an algebra
such that
for every
. The elements of
are called homogeneous. Given a homogeneous element x we de-
fine
if
,
If
is homogeneous we say that
is even if
, and that
is odd if
. A superalgebra
is said to be anti-commutative if
![]()
Let us remember that for any anti-commutative algebra we define the Jacobian
by the formula
, and a Lie algebra is an anti-commutative alge- bra whose Jacobian is the null function (see [1] or [2] for properties of Lie algebras). The super-analog of the Jacobian, i.e. the analog of the Jacobian for anti-commutative superalgebras is the function defined by
![]()
Since the Jacobian is an 3-linear alternating function, its super-analog
satisfies the identities
(1)
for every
homogeneous. A superalgebra
is a Lie superalgebra if and only if
for every
, (see [3] for information about Lie superalgebras).
Lie algebras are a particular case of Malcev algebras (see [4] - [7] for definition and properties of Malcev algebras). Analogously Lie superalgebras are a particular case of Malcev superalgebras, (see [8] - [10] for infor- mation about Malcev superalgebras).
An algebra is called binary-Lie if every pair of elements generates a Lie algebra. This class of algebras con- tains properly the class of Malcev algebras and it was characterized by A. T. Gainov (see Id. (2) in [11] , Section 2, p. 142). Gainov proved that an anti-commutative algebra
was binary Lie if and only if
(2)
or equivalently
(3)
for every
. If we define the function
(4)
we have that the identity
is the complete linearization of (3), so it is satisfied in every binary- Lie algebra (see also [12] -[18] for information about binary-Lie algebras).
In consequence, we say that an anti-commutative superalgebra
is a binary-Lie superalgebra, if it satisfies
for every
homogeneous in
, where
is the super-analog of the function
, i.e.
(5)
A subset
of a superalgebra
is said to be a super-ideal of
, if and only if
is an ideal of
and
where
for every
. We say that a superalgebra is simple if its unique super- ideals are
and the superalgebra itself. Simple Lie superalgebras have been classified by V. G. Kac in [3] and simple Malcev superalgebras have been classified by I. P. Shestakov in [19] .
For every superalgebra
, the space
is an algebra and
is a module over
. If
is a Lie superalgebra then
is a Lie algebra and
is a Lie module. The same is true for binary-Lie superalgebras, i.e., for any binary-Lie superalgebra
the algebra
is a binary-Lie algebra and
is a binary-Lie mo- dule over
.
As usual we call
the Lie algebra consisting in all two by two matrices with coficients in
and null trace. This algebra is a simple Lie algebra of dimension three, moreover if
is algebraically closed,
is the unique 3-dimensional simple Lie algebra over
. Our aim is to characterize binary-Lie superalgebras whose even part is isomorphic to
and whose odd part is a completely reducible module over the even part. In particular we want to prove the following theorem.
Main Theorem. Let
be a simple binary-Lie superalgebra, such that
is isomorphic to
and
is a completely reducible module over
. Then
is a Lie superalgebra.
In Section 2, we explain some basics facts about binary-Lie superalgebras and irreducible binary-Lie modules over
We also give an example of a non-completely reducible binary-Lie module over
. In Section 3, we prove that, under the conditions described in the last parragraph the odd part is a Lie module over the even part. Finally in Section 4, we prove the main theorem.
2. Modules and Superalgebras
According to our main purpose, we must pay attention to the theory of modules over
. We know that
has a basis
whose products are given by
,
,
. If
is an irreducible Lie module over
of dimension
, then
has a basis
whose products are defined by
(6)
We call this module, the irreducible Lie module of type
. Besides those modules, there is a non-Lie, binary- Lie module over
(in fact it is Malcev) called the irreducible module of type
(see Id. (5) in [16] , Section 1, p. 245). This module have a basis
with products given by:
(7)
The following result of A. N. Grishkov (see Lemma 3 in [16] , Section 1, p. 247) implies that there is no other irreducible
-module:
Let
be a binary-Lie module over
Then
has a Lie sub-module
such that
can be decomposed as the direct sum of
-modules of type
.
We conclude that if an irreducible module over
is not Lie it has to be isomorphic to the irreducible binary-Lie module of type
.
Remark 1. For every
let
be the adjoint operator in
, i.e.,
. Since
and
are nilpotent operators, both have 0 as its only eigenvalue. Therefore, if
satisfies that
or
for some
, then
. The set of eigenvalues of
is
. Therefore, if
satisfies that
for some
, then
.
Remark 2. For every
we have that
implies
for some
, also
implies
for some
, and finally
implies
for some
.
We notice that not every binary Lie module over
is completely reducible as we can see in the following example:
Example 1. Let
be the
-module where the products are given by
(8)
We observe that
is an irreducible Lie module of type 0 and the quotient
is an irreducible mo- dule of type
. Let
be a non trivial sub-module of
, then we have that
for some scalars
and at least one of them is different from zero. We have that
and
. Thus, if
or
, then
. If
, then
with
. We conclude that in any case
therefore
is a sub-module of
, but
is irreducible. This implies that either
or
. We conclude that
is the only irreducible sub-module of
which is not completely reducible.
Therefore, it only remains to prove that the split null extension
is a binary-Lie algebra. To do that we define
by:
![]()
Note that the vector on the right hand side is written as a column to fit the equation in one line. This function gives the coordinates of the product
in the ordered basis
, where
and
hence the expression
is checked to be identically 0.
In what follows
is a binary-Lie superalgebra whose even part
is
and whose odd part
is a completely reducible module over
, Under such conditions we have that
(9)
for some pair
, where
is a Lie irreducible module of type
for every
, and
is a module of type
for every
.
We finish this section with the following lemma.
Lemma 1. Let
be a simple binary-Lie superalgebra with a direct decomposition as in (9).
Then
for any
.
Proof. Assume
for some
. Without loss of generality we can suppose that
. It follows that
, where
. We conclude
. Define
![]()
We have that
is a sub-module of
over
. Next define
and note that
.
We can easily see that
, and
. It follows that
, whence
is a
super-ideal of
with
and
. It is not zero because
, and it is not
since
. We obtain a contradiction with the simplicity of
. □
3. Sub-Modules of Type ![]()
The aim of this section is to prove that none element of type
can be found in the decomposition given by (9). This implies that
is a Lie module over
. Since
is a Lie algebra,
is zero for every
. So, if we set
even and
odd in (5), we get
. (10)
On the other hand, if we set
, and
in (5) we get
. (11)
Lemma 2. Let
be a binary-Lie superalgebra with a decomposition given by (9). Let
be the basis of
that satisfies (7). Then, there are three functions
such that,
for every
, we have
,
and
.
Remark 3. Observe that, since odd elements commute, the functions
and
are always symmetric while
might fail to be.
Proof. Using (10), a straightforward computation gives
![]()
Therefore, Remark 2 implies that
for some
. In the same way we obtain
,
and
.
It follows that
, for some
, and
, for some
. □
Lemma 3. Let
be a binary-Lie superalgebra with a decomposition given by (9). Let
for some
, be a sub-module of type
. Then
.
Proof. Let
be the basis of
satisfying (7), while we write
,
and
for simplicity. It suffices to prove that
. Using (11), straightforward computations give both
,
and
.
It follows that
. Assuming this result, and using (11) again, we obtain
,
we conclude
as claimed. □
Lemma 4. Let
be a simple binary-Lie superalgebra with decomposition given by (9). Let be
and
for some pair
with
, and
, two sub-modules of type
. Then
.
Proof. If
the result follows from lemma 3. Fix a pair
with
. Denote by
and
the basis of
and
respectively satisfying (7). Because of remark 3, it suffices to prove that
. Using (11) and Lemma 3, straightforward computations give us the following results:
![]()
![]()
It follows that
. Using this last result and (11) we get that
![]()
and
![]()
We conclude
as claimed. □
Lemma 5. Let
be a superalgebra with a direct decomposition given by (9). Let
for some
be a Lie sub-module of type
and let
for some
, be a sub-module of type
. Then
.
Proof. Call
,
, the elements of the basis of
satisfying (6) and
,
the elements of the basis of
satisfying (7). Let
. Using (10) we obtain
, whence it follows
, (12)
for every
. On the other hand, setting
,
,
,
in (10), we obtain
. So (12) is satisfied by every
. Computing the left hand side of (12), we find that, for every
, identity
holds. At this point, a simple in- duction proves that
(13)
for every
(the case
is trivial). Now using (10), we obtain
.
Since,
by Lemma 1, we have that
. Thus Remark 1 implies that
, and (13) implies that
for every
.
Let be
. Using (10) again we conclude
and since
it follows that
, (14)
for every
. On the other hand, setting
,
,
,
in (10), we obtain
. So (14) is satisfied by every
. Computing the left side of (14) when
, we have
(15)
Form here a simple induction proves
(16)
for every
, where
![]()
Now using (10) we obtain
. Since
we have
, whence remark 1 implies that
, and therefore (16) implies
for every
. □
Now we can prove the following:
Theorem 1. Let
be a simple binary-Lie superalgebra, such that
is
and
has a decomposition given by (9). Then
, i.e there is no sub-module of type
in the decomposition. In other words
is a Lie module over
.
Proof. Let
be a space of type
in the direct decomposition given by (9). Thanks to Lemma 4 we have
for every
. As a consequence of Lemma 5 we get
for every
. Thus
, and since
, we conclude that
is a super-ideal of
with
and
Since
and
is simple, necessarily
.
We have prove that the decomposition of
given by (9) reduces to
(17)
where
is a Lie irreducible sub-module of type
, for every
. Therefore
is a Lie module over
. □
4. The Main Theorem
In this section we are going to prove that
is a Lie superalgebra. We need two previous lemmas.
Lemma 6. Let
and
be two sub-modules of type
and m respectively in the decomposition given by (17). Then
, which clearly implies that
.
Proof. Since
is a Lie module if
and
we have that
, whence (11) becomes
(18)
Without loss of generality, we assume that
. Let w be an arbitrary element of
. Set
,
,
, and
in (18). We have
![]()
Therefore, if
satisfy
then
. In particular, if
is odd, then
for every
and
. Assume that
is an even integer (zero included). If we set
,
,
, and
in (18) we get
(19)
If
are two indices such that
and
, then
. Thus Equation (18) implies
.
for every
and every
. On the other hand (19) implies
![]()
for every
. Observe that
implies
. Then
for every
.
Next, set
,
,
, and
in (18). It follows that
![]()
Since
by lemma (1), necessarily
. We conclude that
for every
. □
Lemma 7. Let
,
be two submodules of type
and
respectively in the decom-
position given by (17). Then
, which clearly implies that
.
Proof. Let be
and
the basis of
and
respectively satisfying (6). It is enough to prove that every pair of indices
satisfies
. For simplicity we use the notation
,
and
. We call
-matrix to the
by
matrix with entrances in
whose
entrence is
(called the
-coefficients). Similarly we define the
-matrix and the
-matrix. We need to prove that these three matrices are the null matrix. Table 1 shows us some identities obtained using (10) by evaluating
in different 4-tuples in
.
We claim that the eight identities of Table 1 suffice to prove that the
-coefficient and the
-coefficient are zero, with the only possible exception of
when
.
To explain how this implication works we notice that identity (1) of Table 1 implies that the
-matrix is zero if
is odd and has the form in Figure 1 if
is even. We also see that identities (4), (5), (7) and (8) imply that the
-matrix is as in Figure 2, note that, in every position where neither (4) nor (5) implies that
-coefficient is zero, either (7) or (8) does.
We introduce now a diagram notation to keep track of the information involved by the other identities. First we write down two matrices in the same diagram as follows: If
and
are two matrices of the same size we put both in a double matrix diagram as in the left side of Figure 3.
![]()
Table 1. Some identities involving H-coefficients and X-coefficients implied by (10).
![]()
Figure 2. The X-matrix with m and n arbitrary.
![]()
Figure 3. Left: Example of a 2 × 2 double matrix. Right: Digram of identity (6) in Table 1.
In those diagrams we draw an arrow from a coefficient to another one if the nullity of the second one can be obtained from the nullity of the first one. We use a full triangle on the tip of the arrow if the implication works without any restriction and an empty triangle on the tip of the arrow if the implication depend of some restriction explained in the legend of the figure. With this notation, the information from identities (2) and (3) of Table 1 is encoded in Figure 4, and information from identity (6) of Table 1 is encoded in the right side of Figure 3. If a coefficient of the
-matrix is in the last column or in the last row it is zero as we see in Figure 2. Otherwise we can see in Figure 4 that we can apply identity (2) or (3) in Table 1 and conclude that it is zero except in the following situations.
1) Neither identity (2) nor identity (3) can be applied. This occurs only when
and
.
2) Identity (2) cannot be applied and the
-coefficient that is pointed by the empty triangle in the right side of Figure 4 corresponds to a bullet in Figure 1. This occurs only when
and
.
3) Identity (3) cannot be applied and the
-coefficient that is pointed by the empty triangle in the left side of Figure 4 corresponds to a bullet in Figure 1. This occurs only when
and
.
Therefore, the only coefficients that might be different from zero are
,
or
We
call them the exceptional
-coefficients.
As we see in Figure 2, if any of this three coefficients is in the last row or the last column, then it is zero. Otherwise this
-coefficient can be put in the right side of Figure 3 with a non-exceptional
-coefficient in
the other side of the arrow. Therefore, it is zero (notice that
and
can be put in the left side of Figure 3 in each tip of the arrow, but if one them is not in the last row or column, then either
or
is available).
We have proved that the
-matrix is the matrix zero. Now we can see that every
-coefficient different than
can be put either in the left side or in the right side of Figure 4 with an
-coefficient on the other side of the arrow. We conclude that
, for every
.
Now we have to look at Table 2. Information from identities (1) and (2) is encoded in Figure 5. We can see that the
-coefficients are 0 except in three cases.
1) Neither identity (1) nor identity (2) can be applied. This occurs only for
.
2) Identity (1) cannot be applied, and the
-coefficient pointed by the triangle in the right side of Figure 5 is
. This occurs only for
when
.
![]()
Figure 4. Diagram of identities (2) and (3) in Table 1 with their restrictions.
![]()
Figure 5. Diagram of identities (1) and (2) in Table 2.
![]()
Table 2. Identities involving the H-coefficients and A-coefficients implied by (10) and the nullity of the X-matrix.
3) Identity (2) cannot be applied, and the
-coefficient pointed by the triangle in the left side of Figure 5 is
. This occurs only for
when
.
To prove that
we set
in identity (3) of Table 2. This always can be done since
. The second and the third cases occur only if
, and in this case, it is enough to prove that just one among
,
,
is zero. In this case the desired result can be proved using identity (3) of Table 2 with
, but we are able do that provided
. Thus, the only coefficients we have not proved yet to be zero, are
when
. This is the reason why we included identity (4) in Table 2. At this point we have proved that every
-coefficient is zero, every
-coefficient is zero and every
-coefficient is zero. This means that
![]()
for every pair
finishing thus the proof of the lemma. □
Proof of the main theorem: We need to prove that
for every w, u, v homogeneous. Since
is a Lie algebra
whenever these three elements are even. Theorem 1 implies that the identity holds whenever two of these elements are even and the other one is odd. So we only have to prove that
when at least two of this three elements are odd. Thanks to the simmetries described in identity (1) it suffices to prove that
when u and v are odd. Because of the decomposition given by (17) we only have to prove that the identity holds when
for some
and
for some
, but this follows from Lemma 7 if w is even, and from Lemma 6 if w is odd. This proves that
is a Lie superalgebra. □
Funding
Supported by FONDECYT process 2010/11100092.