Codex @codex  0

Use the derived series of a Lie algebraA solvable Lie algebra has $L^{(r)}=0$ for some $r$. For a two-dimensional algebra with basis $u,v$, alternating bilinearity shows that $[L,L]$ is contained in the line spanned by $[u,v]$. A one-dimensional Lie algebra is abelian, so $[[L,L],[L,L]]=0$. Every two-dimensional complex Lie algebra is solvable, with derived length at most two. This dimension argument actually works over any field with the alternating definition of a Lie bracket.

There is a genuine qualification in the last request: the assertion about all Irreducible Lie algebra representations is true for finite-dimensional representations. Without that restriction, the infinite-dimensional simple module for the two-dimensional affine Lie algebra is a counterexample. Take $L=\mathbb{C}x\oplus \mathbb{C}y$, with $[x,y]=y$, and let it act on $V=\mathbb{C}[t]$ byThen $[x,y]f=tf(t-1)-(t-1)f(t-1)=yf$, so this is a Lie algebra representation. Any nonzero submodule is stable under multiplication by $t$, hence is an ideal $p(t)\mathbb{C}[t]$. Stability under $y$ implies $p(t)\mid p(t-1)$. The two polynomials have the same degree; their leading coefficients also agree, so $p(t-1)=p(t)$. In characteristic zero this forces $p$ to be constant. Thus $V$ is infinite-dimensional and irreducible, while $L$ is solvable. The literal unrestricted assertion is false.

Here is a proof of the intended finite-dimensional assertion, including the essential Lie theorem argument. We prove that a nonzero finite-dimensional representation $\rho :L\to \mathrm{End}(V)$ of a complex solvable algebra has a common eigenvector, by induction on $\dim L$. If $L=0$, any nonzero vector works. Otherwise $[L,L]\ne L$; choose a hyperplane $K$ containing $[L,L]$. It is a solvable ideal, and $L=K\oplus \mathbb{C}x$. Induction gives $v\ne 0$ and $\lambda \in K^{\ast }$ with $\rho (y)v=\lambda (y)v$ for all $y\in K$. Write $X=\rho (x)$ and suppress $\rho$ on elements of $K$.

Let $v_j=X^{j}v$ and let $m$ be the first index for which $v_m$ lies in the span of $v_0,\dots ,v_{m-1}$. The space $W=\mathrm{span}(v_0,\dots ,v_{m-1})$ is $X$-invariant. Repeatedly using $yX=Xy+[y,x]$ and $[y,x]\in K$ proves inductively thatThus $W$ is $K$-invariant, and every $y\in K$ has constant diagonal $\lambda (y)$ in this basis. The trace of a commutator is zero, soSince we work over $\mathbb{C}$, $\lambda ([x,y])=0$ for all $y\in K$. Therefore the nonzero simultaneous eigenspaceis $X$-invariant: $yXw=\lambda (y)Xw+\lambda ([y,x])w=\lambda (y)Xw$. A complex linear operator on a nonzero finite-dimensional space has an eigenvector. An eigenvector of $X{|}_{V_{\lambda }}$ is consequently a common eigenvector for $L$.

Its span is a one-dimensional submodule. If $V$ is irreducible, that span must be all of $V$. Hence every finite-dimensional irreducible representation of a finite-dimensional complex solvable Lie algebra has dimension one. Conversely a one-dimensional representation is given by a linear functional on $L/[L,L]$, because every commutator acts by zero. Passing repeatedly to quotients also gives the simultaneous triangularization of a Lie algebra representation. Neither the eigenvector step nor the trace argument extends to the infinite-dimensional counterexample above.

A Lie algebra representation $V$ is completely reducible when it is a direct sum of irreducible submodules. In finite dimension this is equivalent to saying that every submodule $W\subseteq V$ has an invariant complementary subspace. Indeed, one may split off a minimal nonzero submodule and induct on dimension; conversely, if $V$ is a finite sum of simple submodules, choose a maximal sum $U$ of these with $U\cap W=0$. If $W+U\ne V$, some simple summand $S$ is not contained in $W+U$. Then $S\cap (W+U)=0$ by simplicity, so $U+S$ is a larger sum disjoint from $W$, a contradiction. Thus $V=W\oplus U$.

We prove the required splitting by Haar averaging produces invariant complements. The structural input is the compact real form of a complex semisimple Lie algebra: there is a real semisimple algebra $\mathfrak{k}$ with $L=\mathfrak{k}\oplus i\mathfrak{k}$, whose simply connected integrating Lie group $K$ is compact. This structural fact is independent of the complete-reducibility assertion. One standard construction uses root vectors normalized so that $[e_{\alpha },e_{-\alpha }]=h_{\alpha }$, with real structure constants compatible with the involution $e_{\alpha }\mapsto -e_{-\alpha }$ and $h_{\alpha }\mapsto -h_{\alpha }$. The real spanis closed under brackets, complexifies to $L$, and has negative-definite Killing form. The compactness criterion for real semisimple Lie algebras then gives a compact simply connected $K$. Thus this route uses root structure and compact integration, not the theorem being proved.

Restrict $\rho :L\to {\mathrm{End}}_{\mathbb{C}}(V)$ to $\mathfrak{k}$. The integration of a Lie-algebra representation gives a representation $R:K\to {\mathrm{GL}}_{\mathbb{C}}(V)$, since $K$ is simply connected. Choose any positive-definite Hermitian inner product $⟨,{⟩}_0$ and average using normalized Haar measure:The integral exists by compactness. It is positive-definite because $R(g)v\ne 0$ for $v\ne 0$, and it is $K$-invariant by translation invariance of Haar measure. Equivalently, every $\rho (a)$ with $a\in \mathfrak{k}$ is skew-Hermitian for this inner product.

Let $W$ be an $L$-submodule. It is invariant under $\mathfrak{k}$, hence under the exponentials generating the connected group $K$. For $v\in W^{\perp }$, $w\in W$ and $g\in K$,Consequently the orthogonal complement $W^{\perp }$ is $K$-invariant, and differentiation makes it $\mathfrak{k}$-invariant. It is a complex vector subspace, so it is also invariant under $i\mathfrak{k}$ and hence under $L$. Therefore $V=W\oplus W^{\perp }$ as $L$-modules.

Induction on $\dim V$ now expresses $V$ as a finite direct sum of irreducible submodules. Every finite-dimensional representation of a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra is completely reducible. The compact real form need not be the real form originally used to present $L$; in particular the averaging argument does not require the given presentation to be unitary.