1

For a root system R prove or disprove:

a. Assume that the angle θ between the roots α and β is obtuse (θ > π/2) Then α+β ∈R.

b. The angle θ between α and β is π/2 . Then α+β is not a root.

c. If the roots α and β have the same length then θ = π/3 or 2π/3 .

Using the definition 8.1 in Brian.C Hall's book on lie group, lie algebras and representations, and looking at propositions 8.6 and 8.7 (section 8).

Proposition 8.6. Shows part c (though I did not notice the "if" part explicitly and in my question I do not assume that $(\alpha,\alpha)\geq (\beta,\beta)$).

In the case where $m_1=m_2=1$ they mention that if $(\alpha,\beta) > 0$ then $\theta=\pi/3$ and in the case $m_1=m_2=-1$ if $(\alpha,\beta) < 0$ then $\theta=2\pi/3$. Why this holds, i.e. why we get these angles?

Is it because $(\alpha,\beta)=\sqrt{(\alpha,\alpha)}\sqrt{(\beta,\beta)}cos(\theta)$ ; $0\leq \theta\leq \pi$.

So $(\alpha,\beta)>0$ iff $cos(\theta)>0$ iff $0<\theta<\pi/2$ And $(\alpha,\beta)<0$ iff $cos(\theta)<0$ iff $\pi/2<\theta<\pi$ ?

Proposition 8.7. shows part a. How do we see that ,"the projection of β onto α equals $-\alpha/2$ thus $s_{\alpha}\beta=\alpha+\beta$ is again a root"?

Part b should be seen by definition I think. If the angle between the two roots is $\pi/2$ then they are orthogonal and $(\alpha,\beta)=0$, but I did not understand how to conclude that $\alpha+\beta$ is not in $R$.

I would be glad for clarifying this for me.

1 Answers1

1

Part a. From the list in Dietrich Burde's answer to https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1545723/96384, and w.l.o.g. assuming $(\beta, \beta) \ge (\alpha, \alpha)$, infer that when $(\alpha, \beta ) <0$ (which indeed by the cosine definition means $\pi/2 < \theta < \pi$), then either

$(\alpha, \beta)/(\alpha, \alpha) =-1/2$ and $(\beta, \beta) = (\alpha, \alpha)$ and $\theta = 2\pi/3$ (case of $A_2$); or

$(\alpha, \beta)/(\alpha, \alpha) =-1$ and $(\beta, \beta) = 2(\alpha, \alpha)$ and $\theta= 3\pi/4$ (case of $B_2$); or

$(\alpha, \beta)/(\alpha, \alpha) =-3/2$ and $(\beta, \beta) = 3(\alpha, \alpha)$ and $\theta= 5\pi/6$ (case of $G_2$).

Note that in any Euclidean vector space, the projection of $v$ to $w$ is $\dfrac{(v,w)}{(w,w)} \cdot w$. So e.g. the first case says the projection of $\beta$ onto $\alpha$ is $-\alpha/2$.

So in your source, they apparently assume they are in the first case, and since you say you know the definition of the reflections $s_\alpha$, it is immediate in that case that $s_\alpha(\beta) =s_\beta(\alpha) =\alpha +\beta$. Note that in the other two cases, we still have $s_\beta(\alpha) = \alpha +\beta$, while $s_\alpha(\beta) = \beta + 2\alpha$ and $\beta +3\alpha$, respectively.

Part b. Look at the above root system $B_2$ and consider (not the ones called $\alpha, \beta$ above, but) two orthogonal roots.

Part c. Again, look at that root system $B_2$. (Note that if one excludes this counterexample case of $\theta=\pi/2$, the assertion is true, and you proved half of it if you inferred what was stated in a. The case of acute angles is rather analogous.)

  • Thanks! In the book they did a little different assuming that $(\alpha,\alpha)\geq (\beta,\beta)$ thus getting $s_{\alpha}(\beta)=\beta+\alpha$. Do I need to also look at the other two cases?? And I can do part c first then a (since c uses the calculations in a) right? – user652838 Jun 17 '22 at 11:02
  • 1
    I don't understand your first question. If one assumes it the other way around, then everything is the other way around, but there are still three cases, and if you want to write a complete proof it should cover all possible cases ... --- Since c, as stated, is answered by a counterexample, it can be done independently of everything else. If you want to prove what I wrote in parentheses in c, I think you will have to use, one way or another, at least some of the the calculations I put in (or left to you for) part a. – Torsten Schoeneberg Jun 17 '22 at 20:25
  • I mean that in a, using the assumption the other way around, in the three cases I get that $s_{\alpha}(\beta)=\alpha+\beta$.
    c isn't to prove the given claim? (Is not is theorem 8.6 in Hall's book?) @Torsten Schoeneberg
    – user652838 Jun 18 '22 at 05:39
  • 1
    Ah, if that's so in a, all good. In c, please read what I wrote. The root system $B_2$ contains several roots $\alpha, \beta$ of identical length but with angle $\pi/2$ between them. – Torsten Schoeneberg Jun 18 '22 at 06:02