Bourbaki

Lemma 2

Tag 0A2C, permanent. Cite it as [Bourbaki, Tag 0A2C].

Lie Groups and Lie Algebras, chapter II, § 1. Enveloping bigebra of a Lie algebra

Let V be a vector space, E a cogebra and f:S(V)→Ef : S(V) \to E a cogebra morphism. If the restriction of f to S0(V)+S1(V)S^0(V) + S^1(V) is injective, then f is injective. Let n≥0n \geq 0; we write Sn=∑i≥nSi(V)S_n = \sum_{i \geq n} S^i(V) and cSc_S for the coproduct of S(V)S(V) and show by induction on n that f∣Snf | S_n is injective. Since the assertion is trivial for n=0n = 0 and n=1n = 1, we assume that n≥2n \geq 2 and let u∈Snu \in S_n be such that f(u)=0f(u) = 0. Then

0=cE(f(u))=(f⊗f)(cS(u))=f(u)⊗1+1⊗f(u)+(f⊗f)(cS+(u))=(f⊗f)(cS+(u)). 0 = c_E(f(u)) = (f \otimes f)(c_S(u)) = f(u) \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes f(u) + (f \otimes f)(c_S^+(u)) = (f \otimes f)(c_S^+(u)).
As cS+(u)∈Sn−1⊗Sn−1c_S^+(u) \in S_{n-1} \otimes S_{n-1}, by (11) the induction hypothesis shows that u is a primitive element of S(V)S(V), hence is of degree 1 (no. 5, Remark 4) and hence is zero, since f∣S1(V)f | S^1(V) is injective. It follows in particular that the family (Xα)(X_\alpha) is free. We show that fEf_E is surjective if E has a filtration compatible with its bigebra structure. Let (En)n≥0(E_n)_{n \geq 0} be such a filtration and write En+=En∩Ker(εE)E_n^+ = E_n \cap \mathrm{Ker}(\varepsilon_E). We show by induction on n that En+E_n^+ is contained in the image of fEf_E. As E=K.1+⋃n≥0En+E = K.1 + \bigcup_{n \geq 0} E_n^+, this will imply the surjectivity of fEf_E. The assertion is trivial for n=0n = 0 and follows from the Corollary to Proposition 6 of no. 3 for n=1n = 1; suppose henceforth that n≥2n \geq 2 and let x∈En+x \in E_n^+. By Proposition 6 of no. 3,
cE+(x)∈∑i=1n−1Ei+⊗En−i+ c_E^+(x) \in \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} E_i^+ \otimes E_{n-i}^+

and by the induction hypothesis there exist scalars λα,β\lambda_{\alpha, \beta}, where α,β\alpha, \beta are in N(Ω)\mathbf{N}^{(\Omega)}, which are zero except for a finite number, such that

(19)

cE+(x)=∑α,β≠0λα,βXα⊗Xβ. c_E^+ (x) = \sum_{\alpha, \beta \neq 0} \lambda_{\alpha, \beta} X_\alpha \otimes X_\beta.

Hence by formula (18)

(cE+⊗IdE)(cE+(x))=∑α,β,γ≠0λα+β,γXα⊗Xβ⊗Xγ (c_E^+ \otimes \mathrm{Id}_E)(c_E^+ (x)) = \sum_{\alpha, \beta, \gamma \neq 0} \lambda_{\alpha + \beta, \gamma} X_\alpha \otimes X_\beta \otimes X_\gamma
(IdE⊗cE+)(cE+(x))=∑α,β,γ≠0λα,β+γXα⊗Xβ⊗Xγ. (\mathrm{Id}_E \otimes c_E^+)(c_E^+ (x)) = \sum_{\alpha, \beta, \gamma \neq 0} \lambda_{\alpha, \beta + \gamma} X_\alpha \otimes X_\beta \otimes X_\gamma.

By Proposition 3 of no. 1 and the linear independence of the XαX_\alpha it follows that

(20)

λα+β,γ=λα,β+γfor α,β,γ in N(Ω)−{0}. \lambda_{\alpha + \beta, \gamma} = \lambda_{\alpha, \beta + \gamma} \quad \text{for } \alpha, \beta, \gamma \text{ in } \mathbf{N}^{(\Omega)} - \{0\}.

On the other hand, the coproduct cEc_E is cocommutative; the same argument as above implies

(21)

λα,β=λβ,αfor α,β in N(Ω)−{0}. \lambda_{\alpha, \beta} = \lambda_{\beta, \alpha} \quad \text{for } \alpha, \beta \text{ in } \mathbf{N}^{(\Omega)} - \{0\}.

Suppose that there exists a family of scalars (μα)(\mu_\alpha) with ∣α∣≥2|\alpha| \geq 2, such that

(22)

μα+β=λα,βfor α,β in N(Ω)−{0}. \mu_{\alpha + \beta} = \lambda_{\alpha, \beta} \quad \text{for } \alpha, \beta \text{ in } \mathbf{N}^{(\Omega)} - \{0\}.

Then

cE+(x)=∑α,β≠0μα+βXα⊗Xβ=∑∣γ∣≥2μγcE+(Xγ) c_E^+ (x) = \sum_{\alpha, \beta \neq 0} \mu_{\alpha + \beta} X_\alpha \otimes X_\beta = \sum_{|\gamma| \geq 2} \mu_\gamma c_E^+ (X_\gamma)
by formula (18), hence y=x−∑∣γ∣≥2μγXγy = x - \sum_{|\gamma| \geq 2} \mu_\gamma X_\gamma is primitive and hence belongs to P(E)⊂Im(fE)P(E) \subset \mathrm{Im}(f_E). Hence
x=y+∑∣γ∣≥2μγfE(eγ)∈Im(fE). x = y + \sum_{|\gamma| \geq 2} \mu_\gamma f_E(e_\gamma) \in \mathrm{Im}(f_E).

The proof will therefore be complete when we have proved the following lemma:

Bourbaki puts the proof directly after the statement, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.

Cited by

Cites

Transcribed from the printed volume. Not translated.