Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2018 / iii / Paper 102 / 1

For a finite-dimensional complex Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, the following three conditions are equivalent descriptions of a semisimple Lie algebra.

First, its solvable radical is zero. An ideal of a Lie algebra is a linear subspace $I$ satisfying $[\mathfrak{g},I]\subseteq I$. A solvable Lie algebra is one whose derived series, defined by $I^{(0)}=I$ and $I^{(r+1)}=[I^{(r)},I^{(r)}]$, eventually becomes zero. The solvable radical is the largest solvable ideal of a Lie algebra; its vanishing is equivalent to the absence of nonzero solvable ideals.

Second, the Killing formis a nondegenerate bilinear form: if $\kappa (u,v)=0$ for every $v$, then $u=0$. Here $\mathrm{ad}u(v)=[u,v]$ is the Adjoint representation, and $\mathrm{tr}$ is the trace. This equivalence is the Cartan criterion for semisimplicity.

Third, $\mathfrak{g}$ is a direct sum of Lie algebras that are nonabelian simple Lie algebras. A simple Lie algebra is nonabelian and has no ideals of a Lie algebra other than zero and itself. Thus the three equivalent criteria are

The derived series gives a direct test, with no structural theorem needed. By bilinearity and antisymmetry of the Lie bracket, every bracket in $\mathfrak{h}$ is a multiple of $z$, and $z=[x,y]$ actually occurs. ThereforeConsequently this Heisenberg Lie algebra is a nonzero solvable Lie algebra. It is an ideal of a Lie algebra in itself, since $[\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{h}]\subseteq \mathfrak{h}$. Its solvable radical is therefore all of $\mathfrak{h}$, contradicting the first criterion in part (a). Hence

A two-dimensional Lie algebra representation already provides a counterexample. In the basis $e_1,e_2$ of $V={\mathbb{C}}^2$, defineThe commutator $[\rho (x),\rho (y)]$ is zero, agreeing with $\rho (z)$; the other defining Lie brackets also map to zero. Thus $\rho$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism, although it is not a Faithful Lie algebra representation.

The line $L=\mathbb{C}{e}_1$ is an invariant subspace. Any complementary line has the form $\mathbb{C}(e_2+a{e}_1)$ for some $a\in \mathbb{C}$. Butso no complementary line is an invariant subspace. Equivalently, every invariant line is killed by $\rho (x)$: its restriction to a line is a scalar, and its square is zero, forcing that scalar to be zero. A decomposition into two invariant lines would then force $\rho (x)=0$, a contradiction. This representation is therefore not a semisimple representation. Thus