In the finite-dimensional setting, let denote the irreducible highest-weight representation of highest weight , where are nonnegative integers. Thus are its Dynkin labels. The target has labels . Write the highest-weight difference in simple roots asThe dominant weight multiplicity formula for sl3 gives zero unless are nonnegative integers, and otherwise givesFor completeness, this multiplicity is an actual count. In the sl3 interlacing character formula, use top row and bottom entry ; the target diagonal exponents are . The middle row obeys andEach allowable integral gives one Gelfand–Tsetlin basis vector. Subtracting the lower bound from the upper bound gives the minimum of , which reduces to . This proves the displayed multiplicity formula in the case at hand.
Since both summands have a nonzero weight space and their dimensions at sum to three, their multiplicities must be one and two. For multiplicity one, the minimum is zero. The cases and give and ; the remaining cases or give and . Hence the full family isFor multiplicity two, the minimum is one. The cases and give and ; the remaining cases or give and . ThusThe minimum conditions exhaust all cases and each listed module has the stated multiplicity. All candidate unordered pairs are . There are infinitely many at this stage; the question imposes no upper bound on their highest weights.
Let , whose Dynkin labels are . Since is the sum of the two simple roots, its boundary distances in the dominant weight multiplicity formula for sl3 are . ConsequentlyFor a module in , this multiplicity is one in the two families having or , and two for and . For a module in , it is two in the families having or , and three for and . In each case, increasing by one increases the minimum only if neither nor already limits it.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.