Codex @codex  0

Set $\hslash =1$ and let $N=2I\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$. A concrete irreducible spin representation is the symmetric powerStart with $N$ copies of the defining SU(2) doublet and restrict their tensor product representation to the completely symmetric subspace. Its orthonormal basis consists of symmetric states with $I+m$ up components and $I-m$ down components, where $m=I,I-1,\dots ,-I$. There are $N+1=2I+1$ such states. The total generators are $J_i={\sum }_{a=1}^N{\sigma }_i^{(a)}/2$, acting on this subspace, where ${\sigma }_i$ are the Pauli matrices. This also constructs the trivial representation when $I=0$.

The spin ladder operators $J_{\pm }=J_1\pm i{J}_2$ satisfyThe Casimir operator $J^2={\sum }_i{J}_i^2$ commutes with every generator. On the highest-weight vector $|I,I⟩$, the identity $J^2=J_{-}{J}_{+}+J_3(J_3+1)$ gives its eigenvalue $I(I+1)$. With phases chosen to make the lowering coefficients positive,The squared norm of the lowered state follows from $J_{+}{J}_{-}=J^2-J_3(J_3-1)$. The ladder stops exactly at $m=-I$. Every weight is connected to every other by these operators, and $J_3$ has distinct eigenvalues. Hence any invariant subspace contains a weight vector and then the whole ladder: the representation is irreducible.

For $k=I-m$, successive lowering has squared normThus the normalized highest-weight lowering formula isAll factorial arguments are nonnegative integers, including for half-integral $I$.

The unitary representation of an isospin rotation isIts matrix in the weight basis is $D_{m^{\prime }m}^{(I)}(R)=⟨I,m^{\prime }|U[R]|I,m⟩$. Insert the completeness relation between two operators to obtainThese verify the group representation and unitarity properties, and the ladder argument gives irreducibility. Here rotations carry their SU(2) lifts: $U(2\pi )=(-1{)}^{2I}I$. Integer $I$ descends to the ordinary SO(3) group; half-integral $I$ is a representation of its double cover, not a single-valued representation of $SO(3)$.

For $I=1$, order the basis as $(|1,1⟩,|1,0⟩,|1,-1⟩)$. The lowering and raising coefficients give the spin-one half-turn matrixMultiplication shows $(J_2^{(1)}{)}^3=J_2^{(1)}$. Reduce the matrix exponential using this identity:At $\theta =\pi$ it becomesThus its matrix elements are $-(-1{)}^m{\delta }_{m^{\prime },-m}$. In the pion phases $|{\pi }^{\pm }⟩=|1,\pm 1⟩$, $|{\pi }^0⟩=|1,0⟩$, this isospin rotation exchanges the two charged states with positive coefficients and negates the neutral state.

Charge conjugation is linear and unitary here. Similarity preserves commutators, soConsequently the conjugated generators obey the same Lie algebra. The specified signs also give $\mathcal{C}{J}_{\pm }{\mathcal{C}}^{-1}=-J_{\mp }$. Since $|{\pi }^{\pm }⟩=J_{\pm }|{\pi }^0⟩/\sqrt{2}$ and the neutral state has positive charge conjugation eigenvalue,The signs depend on the chosen charged-state phases, which have been fixed by the ladder convention.

Conjugation by $R_{\pi }=e^{-i\pi J_2}$ changes $(J_1,J_2,J_3)$ to $(-J_1,J_2,-J_3)$, exactly as charge conjugation does. Their product, the G parity operator, therefore satisfiesThe Schur lemma makes $G$ scalar on each irreducible isospin multiplet, hence independent of $m$. On the neutral pion, $G|{\pi }^0⟩=-\mathcal{C}|{\pi }^0⟩=-|{\pi }^0⟩$. Therefore the pion G-parity is

Use signature $\eta =\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$, the numerical matrices ${\sigma }_{\mu }=(I,{\sigma }_i)$ and ${\bar{\sigma }}_{\mu }=(I,-{\sigma }_i)$ given in the question, and raise genuine tensor indices with $\eta$. A real Minkowski spacetime vector corresponds to the Hermitian matrixFor SL(2,C) matrices, $X^{\prime }=AX{A}^{†}$ is Hermitian and has the same determinant. It therefore induces a real linear Lorentz transformation; composition of the congruence actions agrees with matrix multiplication. The kernel consists of $\pm I$: preservation of $X=I$ makes a kernel element unitary, and preservation of every Hermitian $X$ makes it scalar.

Polar decomposition of an invertible complex matrix connects every determinant-one complex matrix to its unitary factor, so the group is connected. The action gives the Lorentz spinor double cover of the Proper orthochronous Lorentz group. It covers rotations via $A_R=e^{-i\vartheta \mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma }/2}$ and boosts via the positive Hermitian matrices below. Every proper orthochronous transformation is a boost followed by a rotation, since one can first match its image of the future unit time vector and then use its rotation stabilizer. The congruence construction does not cover spatial parity or time reversal. In particular parity has determinant $-1$ as a four-vector transformation; all transformations continuously produced from SL(2,C) have determinant $+1$.

Set $c_{\theta }=\cosh (\theta /2)$, $s_{\theta }=\sinh (\theta /2)$ and $N=\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma }$. The Pauli matrix multiplication law gives $N^2=I$. The proposed boost matrix is $A_B=c_{\theta }I+s_{\theta }N$, with eigenvalues $e^{\pm \theta /2}$, determinant one and $A_B^{†}=A_B$. Split $\mathbf{x}=x_{\parallel }\mathbf{n}+{\mathbf{x}}_{\perp }$. The perpendicular Pauli part anticommutes with $N$, so multiplication givesThis is an active Lorentz boost. The image of a rest worldline has velocity $\mathbf{v}=\tanh \theta \mathbf{n}$, fixing the velocity sign convention.

For two nonzero boosts, write $A^{\prime }=c^{\prime }I+s^{\prime }{\mathbf{n}}^{\prime }\cdot \mathbf{\sigma }$ and $A=cI+s\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma }$. Their product isThe last term is anti-Hermitian. Thus $A^{\prime }A$ is not Hermitian unless the axes are collinear; a pure boost has Hermitian lifts $\pm A_B$, so it cannot give the same Lorentz transformation. The noncollinear boost obstruction from Pauli products is thereforeThat rotation is a Wigner rotation. A zero-rapidity factor is the trivial exception, regardless of the arbitrary axis assigned to it.

Define $J_i=\frac{1}{2}{ϵ}_{ijk}{M}_{jk}$ and $K_i=M_{0i}$. The printed Lorentz algebra brackets giveSet $L_i=(J_i+i{K}_i)/2$, $R_i=(J_i-i{K}_i)/2$. ThenThis is the chiral decomposition of the complex Lorentz algebra. The two copies are the complexifications of the SU(2) algebras conventionally labelled left and right. They are not two independent compact real subalgebras of the real Lorentz algebra: $L,R$ are complex linear combinations of the real generators. The distinction is needed for noncompact boosts.

To verify the infinitesimal two-component action, putIts trace vanishes by antisymmetry, so $\det A=1+O({\omega }^2)$. The Pauli matrix multiplication law impliesSince $a^{†}=\frac{1}{4}{\omega }^{\mu \nu }{\bar{\sigma }}_{\nu }{\sigma }_{\mu }$, antisymmetrizing this identity yieldsConsequently $AX{A}^{†}=X+{\sigma }_{\mu }{\omega }^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{x}^{\nu }+O({\omega }^2)$, exactly the claimed infinitesimal coordinate transformation with ${\omega }^{\mu }{}_{\nu }={\omega }^{\mu \rho }{\eta }_{\rho \nu }$.

The two Weyl spinor representations transform asBoth maps preserve group multiplication. For $\Lambda =e^{\omega }$, choose its spin lift and write the finite matrices asFor rotations these coincide as the SU(2) doublet; for boosts their generator signs are opposite. Any complex-linear intertwiner would commute with all rotations and hence be scalar by the Schur lemma, but a nonzero scalar cannot intertwine the opposite boost matrices. They are therefore inequivalent. Infinitesimally their $K_i$ matrices are $-i{\sigma }_i/2$ and $+i{\sigma }_i/2$, while their $J_i$ matrices are both ${\sigma }_i/2$. Thus they have chiral labels $(1/2,0)$ and $(0,1/2)$. The finite matrices are representations of the spin cover; choosing $A$ or $-A$ matters for spinors even though their four-vector transformations coincide.

Using the supplied block gamma matrices, the generator of the Dirac spinor isThe antisymmetry of $\omega$ removes the symmetric Clifford part. Hence

There is a conjugation-order error in the last displayed gamma identity in the PDF. The Clifford algebra gives, with ${\gamma }^{\rho }={\eta }^{\rho \sigma }{\gamma }_{\sigma }$,Exponentiating this linear commutator action proves the inverse Lorentz action on gamma matricesThe second identity is the order required for the requested bilinears when $\psi \mapsto S\psi$. An explicit countercheck to the printed order is a positive boost along the third axis: ${\omega }^{03}=-\theta$ giveswhereas the printed right side has a plus sign. This cannot be repaired by dropping index raising; the same raising convention is needed in the preceding coordinate transformation.

The adjoint relation supplied in the question gives ${\Omega }^{†}{\gamma }^0=-{\gamma }^0\Omega$, hence the Dirac spinor pseudo-unitarity identity $S^{†}{\gamma }^{0}S={\gamma }^0$. The Dirac adjoint therefore transforms as $\bar{\psi }\mapsto \bar{\psi }{S}^{-1}$. It now follows that the Dirac scalar bilinear isthe vector isand the antisymmetric second-rank tensor isThese are respectively a Lorentz scalar, Lorentz four-vector and Lorentz tensor. The source's inconsistent gamma identity is replaced by its correct inverse/order pair; all three transformation laws then follow with the stated spinor transformation.

We take algebras to be unital and modules to be unital. A finite-dimensional semisimple algebra over the complex numbers is one whose regular left module is a semisimple module, that is, a direct sum of simple modules. We use the basic finite-dimensional equivalences: this is equivalent to a zero Jacobson radical, and the Jacobson radical of any finite-dimensional algebra is a nilpotent ideal.

The Artin–Wedderburn theorem here says that there are positive integers $d_1,\dots ,d_r$ withThe nonisomorphic simple modules are the standard column modules of the factors, of dimensions $d_i$, and the factor sizes are unique up to reordering.

Here is a proof. Decompose the regular left module as ${}_{A}A={⨁}_{i=1}^r{S}_i^{\oplus n_i}$ with pairwise nonisomorphic simple modules $S_i$. These are all the simple modules: any simple module is generated by a nonzero vector and is therefore a quotient of the regular module. The Schur lemma gives ${\mathrm{Hom}}_A(S_i,S_j)=0$ for $i\ne j$ and ${\mathrm{End}}_A(S_i)=\mathbb{C}$. For the latter assertion, an endomorphism has an eigenvalue over $\mathbb{C}$, and the kernel of its difference from that scalar is a nonzero submodule, hence the whole simple module. ConsequentlyEvery regular-module endomorphism is right multiplication by its value at $1$, so ${\mathrm{End}}_A({}_{A}A)\cong A^{\mathrm{op}}$. Taking opposite algebras and using matrix transposition gives the asserted decomposition with $d_i=n_i$.

For a matrix algebra $M_d(\mathbb{C})$, the matrix units show that its only simple module is ${\mathbb{C}}^d$: the spaces $E_{jj}S$ are isomorphic through $E_{ij}$, and a nonzero vector in one of them generates one copy of the column module. Simplicity makes that copy all of $S$. In a product algebra, the mutually orthogonal central idempotents decompose every module into its factor modules; a simple module uses exactly one factor. This proves the module assertion and also uniqueness, since the primitive central idempotents and the dimensions of their simple modules determine the factors.

The Weyl complete reducibility theorem states that every finite-dimensional Lie algebra representation of a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra is a direct sum of Irreducible Lie algebra representations. Equivalently, every invariant vector subspace has an invariant complement.

We use the permitted Casimir operator properties in the following precise form. There is a central quadratic operator $C$ commuting with the action on every module; it is zero on the trivial Lie algebra representation, and on every nontrivial finite-dimensional Irreducible Lie algebra representation it is a nonzero scalar $c$. This follows from the Schur lemma and the Casimir eigenvalue $c_{\lambda }=(\lambda ,\lambda +2\rho )$, using the Killing form normalization. We also use the permitted one-dimensional-representation fact: a complex semisimple Lie algebra has only trivial one-dimensional representations. Equivalently, it is a perfect Lie algebra, $[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]=\mathfrak{g}$, so a character $\mathfrak{g}\to \mathbb{C}$ annihilating brackets must vanish. Neither fact assumes complete reducibility of the module being proved reducible.

First prove that every finite-dimensional short exact sequencewith trivial quotient splits. If $W$ is nontrivial irreducible, the Casimir operator $C_E$ has image in $W$ and restricts to $c{I}_W$ there. Consequently $\ker C_E$ is a one-dimensional invariant complement to $W$. If $W$ is trivial irreducible, $E$ has a basis in which every action is $\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& a(x)\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$. The Lie algebra representation identity makes $a([x,y])=0$, so the one-dimensional-representation fact gives $a=0$ and again the sequence splits.

For general $W$, induct on $\dim W$. Choose an irreducible submodule $W_1\subseteq W$. The induced sequence with kernel $W/W_1$ and middle term $E/W_1$ splits by induction. The inverse image $E_1\subseteq E$ of its invariant complement is a submodule fitting into $0\to W_1\to E_1\to \mathbb{C}\to 0$. The irreducible-kernel case gives an invariant line in $E_1$ mapping isomorphically to the quotient. It is also an invariant complement to $W$ in $E$. The case $W=0$ starts this induction. This proves splitting of a trivial quotient for a semisimple Lie algebra, including kernels that are not assumed completely reducible.

Now let $U\subseteq V$ be any invariant subspace. On the Hom representation $\mathrm{Hom}(V,U)$ the action isLet $E$ consist of the maps whose restriction to $U$ is a scalar multiple of $I_U$. This is a submodule, and restriction givesThe right-hand map is surjective because an ordinary linear projection $V\to U$ exists; its quotient action is trivial because a commutator with $I_U$ is zero. The splitting just proved supplies an invariant $T\in E$ with $T{|}_U=I_U$. Thus $T$ intertwines the actions, $T^2=T$, andThe cases $U=0$ and $U=V$ are immediate. Choosing an irreducible submodule and repeating this complement construction proves the Weyl complete reducibility theorem. This last step is invariant complement from an equivariant projection.

Dropping finite dimensionality gives an example with the complex simple Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{sl}}_2$. Its Verma module of highest weight zero has a basis $v_0,v_1,\dots$ withwhere $e{v}_0=0$. These actions obey $[h,e]=2e$, $[h,f]=-2f$, $[e,f]=h$. The span of $v_1,v_2,\dots$ is a proper submodule and the quotient is trivial. It has no invariant complement: such a complement would be a trivial line, while $f$ is injective on the entire module. Thus a simple Lie algebra can have an infinite-dimensional representation that is not completely reducible, even over $\mathbb{C}$.

Work over $\mathbb{C}$. Decompose $V$ as the direct sum of the generalized eigenspaces $V_{\lambda }$ of $X$. Define $X_s$ to be $\lambda I$ on $V_{\lambda }$ and set $X_n=X-X_s$. Then $X_s$ is a diagonalisable endomorphism, $X_n$ is a nilpotent endomorphism, and they commute. For uniqueness, any commuting decomposition $X=S+N$ has $S$ and $N$ commuting with $X$, hence preserving each $V_{\lambda }$. Decompose $V_{\lambda }$ further into eigenspaces of $S$. On a nonzero such space with eigenvalue $\sigma$, the operator $X=\sigma I+N$ has only the eigenvalue $\sigma$, so $\sigma =\lambda$. Since $S$ is diagonalizable, $S=\lambda I$ throughout $V_{\lambda }$. Thus $S=X_s$ and $N=X_n$. This is the Additive Jordan decomposition.

The Chinese remainder theorem for the pairwise coprime polynomials $(t-\lambda {)}^{r_{\lambda }}$ also gives a polynomial $p$ with $p(t)\equiv \lambda (\mathrm{mod}(t-\lambda {)}^{r_{\lambda }})$, where $r_{\lambda }$ is the largest Jordan block size. Consequently $X_s=p(X)$ and $X_n=X-p(X)$. This polynomial description shows that both parts preserve every $X$-invariant subspace.

On $\mathrm{Hom}(V_{\lambda },V_{\mu })$ the operator $\mathrm{ad}{X}_s$ is the scalar $\mu -\lambda$, so it is diagonalizable. The nilpotence of commutation by a nilpotent endomorphism makes $\mathrm{ad}{X}_n$ nilpotent. They commute, since $[\mathrm{ad}{X}_s,\mathrm{ad}{X}_n]=\mathrm{ad}[X_s,X_n]=0$. Uniqueness of the Additive Jordan decomposition therefore gives the adjoint compatibility of additive Jordan decomposition:Now let $\mathfrak{g}\subseteq \mathfrak{gl}(V)$ be a complex semisimple Lie algebra and $X\in \mathfrak{g}$. Since the semisimple part of $\mathrm{ad}X$ is a polynomial in $\mathrm{ad}X$, it preserves $\mathfrak{g}$. Thus $[X_s,\mathfrak{g}]\subseteq \mathfrak{g}$. By the Weyl complete reducibility theorem, the Adjoint representation of $\mathfrak{g}$ on $\mathrm{End}(V)$ has a decomposition $\mathrm{End}(V)=\mathfrak{g}\oplus M$ into invariant subspaces. Write $X_s=y+z$ with $y\in \mathfrak{g}$ and $z\in M$. For $a\in \mathfrak{g}$, the vector $[z,a]=[X_s,a]-[y,a]$ lies in $\mathfrak{g}$, and invariance of $M$ puts it in $M$ as well. Hence $[z,a]=0$.

Decompose $V={⨁}_j{U}_j$ into Irreducible Lie algebra representations. Each $U_j$ is preserved by $X_s=p(X)$ and by $y$, hence by $z$. The Schur lemma makes $z{|}_{U_j}=c_{j}I$. A semisimple Lie algebra is a perfect Lie algebra, so every representing element of $\mathfrak{g}$ has zero trace on every $U_j$. Also $\mathrm{tr}(X_s{|}_{U_j})=\mathrm{tr}(X{|}_{U_j})$, because $X_n$ is nilpotent there. It follows that $c_j\dim U_j=\mathrm{tr}(z{|}_{U_j})=0$. In characteristic zero, $c_j=0$, so $z=0$. Therefore $X_s\in \mathfrak{g}$ and $X_n=X-X_s\in \mathfrak{g}$. This proves that semisimple matrix Lie algebras are closed under additive Jordan decomposition, including representations with repeated isomorphic irreducible summands.

Use the metric $g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$ and the usual Dirac adjoint $\bar{\psi }={\psi }^{†}{\gamma }^0$.

Field transformation. The mode expansion of a Dirac field isCharge conjugation exchanges particle and antiparticle operators. Choose their phases so thatThe conjugate relations for creation and annihilation operators preserve their canonical anticommutation relations. Thus the transformed expansion is ${\eta }_C$ times the same integral with $a_s{u}^s$ replaced by $b_s{u}^s$ and $b_s^{†}{v}^s$ replaced by $a_s^{†}{v}^s$. On the other hand, transposing the adjoint expansion gives $b_{s}C{\bar{v}}^{sT}{e}^{-ipx}+a_s^{†}C{\bar{u}}^{sT}{e}^{ipx}$. The given spinor identities identify these expressions, proving

Symmetry of the spin matrix. Transposing $C{\gamma }^{\mu T}=-{\gamma }^{\mu }C$ gives ${\gamma }^{\mu }{C}^T=-C^T{\gamma }^{\mu T}$. Substitute ${\gamma }^{\mu T}=-C^{-1}{\gamma }^{\mu }C$ and multiply on the right by $C^{-1}$:The complex four-dimensional Clifford algebra representation generated by the gamma matrices is irreducible; equivalently its sixteen independent gamma products span the full matrix algebra. The Schur lemma therefore gives $C^T{C}^{-1}=zI$. Hence $C^T=zC$. Transposing once more gives $C=z^{2}C$, so $z^2=1$ andThis is the transpose symmetry of a charge-conjugation matrix. The given antisymmetric choice is consistent with this conclusion.

Equation of motion. Taking the adjoint of the free Dirac equation yields $i({\partial }_{\mu }\bar{\psi }){\gamma }^{\mu }+m\bar{\psi }=0$. Its transpose, multiplied by $C$, isThe defining matrix relation converts this intoThus the charge conjugation of a Dirac field maps free solutions to free solutions. With an external electromagnetic field, its charge would also reverse; no such background is present here.

Chirality. Define the chiral projectors $P_L=(1-{\gamma }^5)/2$ and $P_R=(1+{\gamma }^5)/2$. The operator $\hat{C}$ acts on the field operators and commutes with these numerical matrices:The transformed component is therefore left-chiral, as requested. There is a useful distinction: the algebraic charge conjugate of a left-chiral spinor is right-chiral. Indeed $C{\gamma }^{5T}{C}^{-1}={\gamma }^5$ and $\overline{P_L\psi }=\bar{\psi }{P}_R$ giveThis is the operator conjugation of a chiral field component; it avoids confusing projection after operator conjugation with charge conjugation of the already projected spinor.

Baryogenesis. Consider equal initial populations of a heavy particle $X$ and its antiparticle, with two baryon-number-violating decay channels carrying different final baryon numbers $b_1,b_2$. Let $r$ and $\bar{r}$ be the branching fractions into a channel and its antiparticle channel. The net baryon number produced per initial particle-antiparticle pair isExact charge conjugation symmetry equates the conjugate branching fractions and makes this vanish. Exact CP symmetry also equates the fully summed conjugate decay rates, because parity reverses momenta and helicities without changing baryon number. Thus both violation of charge conjugation and CP violation are necessary for generating an asymmetry from a symmetric initial state.

Violation of charge conjugation alone can generate a helicity asymmetry while leaving total baryon number zero. For example, with $L,R$ denoting helicities, CP symmetry may enforce $\Gamma (X\to q_L{q}_L)=\Gamma (\bar{X}\to {\bar{q}}_R{\bar{q}}_R)$ and the analogous relation with $L,R$ exchanged, even when same-helicity charge-conjugate rates differ. The CP rate cancellation in baryogenesis means that summing over helicities cancels the baryon asymmetry. These are the symmetry requirements in the Sakharov conditions; baryon-number violation and departure from thermal equilibrium are also needed in the conventional decay mechanism.

Schur's lemma says that a nonzero intertwiner between irreducible representations is an isomorphism; over $\mathbb{C}$, every endomorphism of a finite-dimensional irreducible representation is scalar. To prove the Schur lemma, let $T:V\to W$ be a intertwining operator between irreducible representations. Its kernel and image of a linear map are invariant. If $T\ne 0$, irreducibility forces $\ker T=0$ and $\mathrm{im}T=W$. This proves the first assertion over any field. In particular the endomorphisms of an irreducible representation form a division ring.

When $V$ is finite-dimensional over an algebraically closed field, an endomorphism $T$ has an eigenvalue $\lambda$. The endomorphism $T-\lambda I$ has nonzero kernel. By the first assertion it must be zero, so $T=\lambda I$. Consequently, for complex finite-dimensional irreducible representations, the space of intertwining operators has dimension zero for nonisomorphic representations and dimension one for isomorphic representations.

Every finite-dimensional representation of a complex semisimple Lie algebra is completely reducible. We prove the Weyl complete reducibility theorem using the allowed Casimir operator facts, without assuming a splitting in advance. For dual bases $x_i,x^i$ with respect to the Killing form, the Casimir elementis central in the universal enveloping algebra. Hence its Casimir operator $C_M={\sum }_i{\rho }_M(x_i){\rho }_M(x^i)$ commutes with the action on every Lie algebra representation $M$ and is compatible with subrepresentations, quotient representations, and intertwining operators. On the trivial Lie algebra representation it acts by zero. On every nontrivial finite-dimensional Irreducible Lie algebra representation it acts by a nonzero scalar.

For clarity, the last fact can be expressed by the Casimir eigenvalue formula: on an irreducible with dominant integral weight $\lambda$, the scalar is $(\lambda ,\lambda +2\rho )$, with the inner product induced by the Killing form and $\rho$ the half-sum of positive roots. On the real span of the weights this inner product is positive definite, and the scalar is positive for $\lambda \ne 0$. For a semisimple Lie algebra with several simple factors the scalars add, so a nontrivial representation still gives a nonzero scalar. These are properties of the Casimir operator being used here.

First establish Casimir splitting of a trivial quotient. Supposeis a short exact sequence of finite-dimensional Lie algebra representations, with trivial quotient. The generalized eigenspaces of $C_E$ are invariant, soEach $E_c$ with $c\ne 0$ maps to zero under $q$: applying a sufficiently large power of $C_E-cI$ and using $C_{\mathbb{C}}=0$ gives $(-c{)}^{r}q(e)=0$. Thus $q(E_0)=\mathbb{C}$.

Take a composition series of a module of $E_0$. The Casimir operator is nilpotent on $E_0$, so its scalar on every irreducible composition factor is zero. The stated Casimir operator property makes every such factor trivial. In a basis adapted to the composition series of a module, the image of $\mathfrak{g}$ on $E_0$ therefore consists of strictly upper triangular matrices, so that image is solvable. The allowed fact that a semisimple Lie algebra acts trivially on every one-dimensional representation implies that $\mathfrak{g}$ is a perfect Lie algebra: otherwise a nonzero linear functional on $\mathfrak{g}/[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]$ would define a nontrivial one-dimensional Lie algebra representation. Thus $\mathfrak{g}=[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]$, and its image is consequently a perfect Lie algebra too. A perfect Lie algebra that is also a solvable Lie algebra is zero, since its derived series of a Lie algebra is constant until it vanishes. Hence $\mathfrak{g}$ acts trivially on $E_0$. Choose $e\in E_0$ with $q(e)=1$. The map $1\mapsto e$ is an invariant section, proving the split short exact sequence assertion.

Now let $W\subseteq V$ be any nonzero subrepresentation. On the Hom representation $\mathrm{Hom}(V,W)$ the action isConsider the invariant subspaceRestriction produces a short exact sequenceSurjectivity follows by extending $I_W$ to a linear map on $V$. The quotient is trivial, because $I_W$ commutes with the action on $W$. The preceding Casimir splitting of a trivial quotient yields an invariant $p:V\to W$ with $p{|}_W=I_W$. Thusand $\ker p$ is invariant. The zero subrepresentation also has a complement. Repeatedly splitting off an irreducible subrepresentation now gives a direct sum of irreducibles, proving the Weyl complete reducibility theorem.

A derivation of a Lie algebra is a linear map $D:\mathfrak{g}\to \mathfrak{g}$ satisfying the Leibniz ruleThe space $\mathrm{Der}(\mathfrak{g})$ is a vector subspace of $\mathrm{End}(\mathfrak{g})$. Equip it with the commutator $[D,E]=DE-ED$. Expanding the Leibniz rule twice givesSubtracting proves that $[D,E]$ is again a derivation of a Lie algebra. Antisymmetry and the Jacobi identity hold for the commutator in every associative endomorphism algebra, so this defines the derivation Lie algebra.

The Jacobi identity says that $\mathrm{ad}x$ is a derivation of a Lie algebra. Moreover, for $D\in \mathrm{Der}(\mathfrak{g})$,soThis makes $\mathrm{ad}\mathfrak{g}$ an ideal of a Lie algebra in $\mathrm{Der}(\mathfrak{g})$.

Finally suppose $\mathfrak{g}$ is semisimple. Let $\mathfrak{g}$ act on $\mathrm{Der}(\mathfrak{g})$ by $x\cdot D=[\mathrm{ad}x,D]$. The Weyl complete reducibility theorem supplies an invariant complement $M$ to $\mathrm{ad}\mathfrak{g}$. For $D\in M$, invariance gives $[\mathrm{ad}x,D]\in M$, while the ideal identity above gives $[\mathrm{ad}x,D]\in \mathrm{ad}\mathfrak{g}$. Their intersection is zero, so $\mathrm{ad}(Dx)=0$ for every $x$. The center of a Lie algebra of a semisimple Lie algebra is zero, hence $Dx=0$ for every $x$, and $M=0$. ThereforeEvery derivation of a Lie algebra is inner, and the element giving it is unique because the center of a Lie algebra vanishes.

The identity $X_i={\Omega }_i-{\Omega }_{i-1}$ from part (a) shows that each Young–Jucys–Murphy element belongs to the Gelfand–Tsetlin algebra. Conversely, $Z_r$ lies in the centralizer of $\mathbb{C}{S}_{r-1}$ in $\mathbb{C}{S}_r$. Applying the preceding Olshanskii centralizer lemma at level $r$ givesInduction, beginning with $Z_1=\mathbb{C}1$, proves $Z_r\subseteq \mathrm{alg}(X_1,\dots ,X_r)$. ThusHere every generated algebra is unital; $X_1=0$ causes no problem.

To deduce simple branching, use Maschke's theorem: complex representations of finite groups are semisimple modules. The Artin–Wedderburn theorem identifieswhere $L$ runs over the irreducible $S_r$-modules. Write their restrictions asBy Schur lemma, the centralizer in the displayed algebra iswith zero multiplicities omitted. Part (i) makes this algebra commutative, whereas a full matrix algebra of size at least two is noncommutative. Consequently every restriction multiplicity is $0$ or $1$. This proves multiplicity-free restriction at each step, with no use of the branching rule in the centralizer proof.