Codex @codex  0

The appropriate abstract object is a finite reduced crystallographic root system $R$ in a real inner-product space $E$. Its axioms are: $R$ is finite, spans $E$, and does not contain zero; for $\alpha \in R$, $R\cap \mathbb{R}\alpha =\{\alpha ,-\alpha \}$; each root reflectionpermutes $R$; and every Cartan integer $n_{\alpha \beta }=2(\alpha ,\beta )/(\beta ,\beta )$ is an integer. The restriction to a reduced root system and crystallographic integrality distinguishes roots of complex semisimple Lie algebras from more general reflection configurations.

For any two roots of a root system, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality givesIf the inner product is zero, both Cartan integers vanish. Otherwise their signs agree, and the absolute value of each is a positive integer. Dividing their product by an integer of absolute value at least one provesFor nonproportional roots the product is strictly less than four. In a reduced root system, proportional roots are just $\pm \alpha$ and have Cartan integers $\pm 2$, so the printed bound is intentionally looser than the resulting bound of three.

A fundamental system of a root system is a basis $\Delta$ of $E$ made of roots, such that each root is an integer combination of $\Delta$ with either all coefficients nonnegative or all nonpositive. Its members are the simple roots. Suppose distinct $\alpha ,\beta \in \Delta$ had $n_{\alpha \beta }>0$. Thenhas a positive coefficient of $\alpha$ and a negative coefficient of $\beta$, contradicting the defining sign condition. Thus $n_{\alpha \beta }\le 0$. Distinct simple roots are linearly independent, so their Cartan-integer product is strictly less than four. Combining integrality and the sign condition givesHere nonpositive is the intended sense of the printed convention that includes zero among “negative” numbers; orthogonal simple roots really do give zero.

To form a Dynkin diagram, place a vertex at each simple root. Join two vertices by $n_{\alpha \beta }{n}_{\beta \alpha }$ bonds, hence zero, one, two or three. A multiple bond has an arrow toward the short root. Indeed $n_{\alpha \beta }/n_{\beta \alpha }=(\alpha ,\alpha )/(\beta ,\beta )$ determines the squared length ratio, and the diagram with the Cartan matrix reconstructs the angles and relative lengths. A single bond joins equal-length roots.

The connected finite Dynkin diagrams are the following. The descriptions include bond multiplicities and arrow directions, so distinguish dual diagrams:

There are no other connected finite Dynkin diagrams. Low-rank conventions also identify $B_1=C_1=A_1$ and $D_3=A_3$; $D_2$ is disconnected, so introduces no further connected type. Affine diagrams are outside this finite classification.

Finally suppose the underlying graph contained a cycle on $m\ge 3$ distinct simple roots ${\alpha }_1,\dots ,{\alpha }_m$. Put $u_i={\alpha }_i/\Vert {\alpha }_i\Vert$. Any bonded pair hasand all other distinct pairs have nonpositive inner products. The cycle contributes at least $m$ bonded pairs, soBut the simple roots, and hence these normalized vectors, are linearly independent, making the displayed sum nonzero. Positive definiteness gives a contradiction. Thus the underlying graph of a finite Dynkin diagram has no cycle. This acyclicity of a finite Dynkin diagram argument also excludes cycles with extra chords or multiple bonds; multiple bonds themselves are not treated as two-edge cycles.

For a complex semisimple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, a Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$ is a maximal abelian subalgebra consisting of elements whose Adjoint representation matrices are diagonalizable. Equivalently it is a nilpotent self-normalizing Lie subalgebra. The root-space decomposition iswhere the roots are the nonzero weights of that Adjoint representation.

We use these properties of the Killing form $B$: it is nondegenerate on $\mathfrak{g}$ and on $\mathfrak{h}$, it is invariant, distinct root spaces are orthogonal unless their roots sum to zero, and $B$ pairs ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha }$ nondegenerately with ${\mathfrak{g}}_{-\alpha }$. Define $t_{\alpha }$ by $B(t_{\alpha },h)=\alpha (h)$, and choose $e\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha }$, $f\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{-\alpha }$ with $B(e,f)=1$. Since weights add, $[e,f]\in \mathfrak{h}$, and invariance givesThe nonisotropic root lemma shows $\alpha (t_{\alpha })\ne 0$. Here is its short proof: if this number were zero, the span of $e,f,t_{\alpha }$ would be a Solvable Lie algebra with $t_{\alpha }$ central. Apply the Lie theorem to its action on $\mathfrak{g}$. The commutator $\mathrm{ad}{t}_{\alpha }=[\mathrm{ad}e,\mathrm{ad}f]$ would be strictly upper triangular and hence nilpotent. But $t_{\alpha }\in \mathfrak{h}$ makes it diagonalizable. It would therefore be zero, putting $t_{\alpha }$ in the zero center of a Lie algebra of $\mathfrak{g}$, contrary to its definition. SetThenso their span is the sl2 subalgebra associated with a root.

The abstract reduced crystallographic root system axioms are as follows. In a finite-dimensional real inner-product space $E$, the set $R$ is finite, consists of nonzero vectors and spans $E$; for every $\alpha \in R$, one has $R\cap \mathbb{R}\alpha =\{\alpha ,-\alpha \}$; the root reflection $s_{\alpha }(\beta )=\beta -2(\beta ,\alpha )\alpha /(\alpha ,\alpha )$ preserves $R$; and $2(\beta ,\alpha )/(\alpha ,\alpha )$ is an integer for every pair of roots. We verify the positive-definite real form as well as these axioms, rather than assuming the complex Killing form is already positive.

First $R$ is finite and has no zero element by its definition. The roots span ${\mathfrak{h}}^{\ast }$ over $\mathbb{C}$: any $h\in \mathfrak{h}$ annihilated by all roots commutes with the whole root-space decomposition and is central, hence zero. Therefore the $t_{\alpha }$, and also the $H_{\alpha }$, span $\mathfrak{h}$ over $\mathbb{C}$. For every root $\beta$, the classification of finite-dimensional sl2 representations applied to the Adjoint representation of the root subalgebra gives $\beta (H_{\alpha })\in \mathbb{Z}$. Put ${\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathbb{R}}={\mathrm{span}}_{\mathbb{R}}\{H_{\alpha }:\alpha \in R\}$. Every root takes real values on this space, andThe strict inequality follows because the roots span ${\mathfrak{h}}^{\ast }$. This also shows that the complexification of ${\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathbb{R}}$ injects into $\mathfrak{h}$: an equality $h_1+i{h}_2=0$ with real $h_j$ would contradict positivity of $B(h_1,h_1)$ and $B(h_2,h_2)$. Since its complex span is all of $\mathfrak{h}$, it is a real form. Moreover $B(H_{\alpha },H_{\alpha })=4/\alpha (t_{\alpha })>0$, so $t_{\alpha }$ is a real scalar multiple of $H_{\alpha }$. The dual inner product thus makes $E={\mathrm{span}}_{\mathbb{R}}R$ a Euclidean space, as in the Euclidean subspace of a Cartan subalgebra.

To prove reducedness without assuming it, consider the root-subalgebra modulewith absent root spaces understood to be zero. Its $H_{\alpha }$ weights are even, so every nontrivial Irreducible Lie algebra representation in it has even positive highest weight and one-dimensional weight-zero space. The action of $X_{\alpha }$ on its weight-zero space $\mathfrak{h}$ has image exactly $\mathbb{C}{X}_{\alpha }$, of dimension one. Therefore there is precisely one nontrivial irreducible summand, the already embedded adjoint ${\mathfrak{sl}}_2$ module of highest weight $2$. Thus $\dim {\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha }=1$ and $2\alpha \notin R$. If $\beta =c\alpha$ is any root on the same real line, the integral numbers $\beta (H_{\alpha })=2c$ and $\alpha (H_{\beta })=2/c$ have product $4$. Hence $c$ is one of $\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm 1,\pm 2$; the half and double cases are excluded by applying the preceding argument to the appropriate root. This proves the root-space reducedness lemma and $R\cap \mathbb{R}\alpha =\{\pm \alpha \}$.

For a root $\beta$ not parallel to $\alpha$, the sum of root spaces ${⨁}_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}{\mathfrak{g}}_{\beta +j\alpha }$ is stable under the root ${\mathfrak{sl}}_2$. Its integer $H_{\alpha }$ weights are symmetric under sign in each irreducible summand. Therefore the weight $-\beta (H_{\alpha })$ also occurs, at the root $\beta -\beta (H_{\alpha })\alpha$. The Killing form normalization givesso this root is exactly $s_{\alpha }(\beta )$. For $\beta =\pm \alpha$ the reflection just swaps the two roots. This proves reflection invariance and the Cartan integer condition. All axioms of the reduced crystallographic root system have now been verified.