Talk:Lie algebra

Category theoretic definition

The definition in that section looks a bit useless and seems to say that category theory complicates things. Perhaps the category of vector spaces over k should be replaced by any braided monoidal k-linear category. The notion of a Lie algebra can be defined (and is studied) in this generality, and I guess that this is what the category theoretic definition is all about. Martin B. 92.231.13.68 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, apparently, someone removed this at some point. It's a shame, because the category-theoretic definition helps build insight and understanding into what is going on; once you understand Lie algebras, the cat-th defition helps you go say "a hah!" to the next level. Anyway, some other comment, up above (in Archive 1 of this talk page) noted:

The category theoretic definition provided doesn't work over a field of characteristic 2. The correct definition is as follows:""

A Lie algebra is an object A in the category of vector spaces together with a morphism $[\cdot ,\cdot ]:A\otimes A\rightarrow A$ such that

$[\cdot ,\cdot ]\circ \Delta =0$ where $\Delta :A\rightarrow A\otimes A$ is the diagonal morphism, and

$[\cdot ,\cdot ]\circ ([\cdot ,\cdot ]\otimes id)\circ (id+\sigma +\sigma ^{2})=0$ where σ is the cyclic permutation braiding $(id\otimes \tau _{A,A})\circ (\tau _{A,A}\otimes id)$.

This is not correct since the diagonal "morphism" doesn't exist in the category of vector spaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.213.93 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(It should probably also be added that the morphism $\tau _{A,A}:A\otimes A\rightarrow A\otimes A$ is the interchange morphism rather than leave that as assumed knowledge.)

This content should be restored and expanded. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I restored it. I did not expand it. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a rather old thread. However, Maricumpli has removed this section again, because the "diagonal morphism" that was used (and is used in the above quotation) is not a morphism. This is true. I have not found how to fix this error by using alternativity. However, it can be fixed by using antisymmetry, which excludes the characteristic two. So I have rewritten the section this way, and, by the way, I have improved the style (MOS:MATH). D.Lazard (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree and think the first response that it provides "insight" is unjustified. It's nothing more than a rephrasing of the definition that does not provide any insight. This section should be deleted.

Anticommutativity follows from what?

I am not familiar with Lie algebras, but I don't see how the anticommutativity follows from the bilinearity and alternativity properties alone, without the use of the Jacobi relation. Could a hint to why it does be added? (Or could it be added that the Jacobi relation is also necessary).

When I show anticommutativity (using all three relations), I assume that the Lie bracket with any argument z and the zero element (0) of the vector space is 0, but I am not sure that this is true.

To whoever made an edit, thank you! A few more words (not even one line) and the article has probably been made clearer to many readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.98.190 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Once upon a time (maybe it was removed??) there was an explicit discussion of this. Basically, if you try to write out every possible way that an associative algebra could work, you are forced into having only two choices. Bilinearity allows only one of these two possibilities. There are similar arguments that can be made in various other kinds of algebras (not just Lie algebras) and I've noticed that, more than once, that some of these were removed; one edit summary called them "pointless philosophical ruminations". Of course, as your question shows, they are not pointless at all. I reverted that one, but I can't go run around and try to police these kinds of (destructive) edits. Perhaps someone else can find/reconstruct this argument; it can be found in the better-written textbooks. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Classical Lie algebras

It has been proposed that classical Lie algebras be merged here.

• Oppose: I feel that they warrant an article of their own, much like classical group displays the unique status (application and mathematics-wise) of these groups. On the technical side, the classical Lie algebras can be treated in a surprisingly uniform manner. YohanN7 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per YohanN7. There is a lot of activity w.r.t affine/non-rigid stuff, and so having a distinct article focused on the classical cases make sense, this can avoid having to jam everything into one article. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lie algebra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420004313/http://math.mit.edu/~lesha/745lec/ to http://www.math.mit.edu/~lesha/745lec/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Rotation Velocity Concern

At the end of the intro, we find ...

This is the Lie algebra of the Lie group of rotations of space, and each vector $v\in \mathbb {R} ^{3}$ may be pictured as an infinitesimal rotation around the axis $v$, with velocity equal to the magnitude of $v$.

My concern is that the magnitude of $v$ represents the angle (or magnitude) of the rotation, not its velocity.

Am not confident enough in my concern to edit the page, hence am adding this topic, here.

Any thoughts? WadoNeil (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

As the velocity mentioned at the end of the sentence is not related to anything, I think that the module of $v$ might stand for the angle of rotation than for the velocity. Stefan Groote (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Lie-isotopic algebra into Lie algebra

This is one small subtopic in the larger topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

True but there is an issue of "undue weight". Since the Lie-isotopic algebra article isn't short, a simple merger would create an unbalance. Maybe we want something like a generalization of a Lie algebra. -- Taku (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

In fact, I would like to officially propose that we create generalization of a Lie algebra and then an article like Lie-isotopic algebra can be merged into it very narurally. I will wait a day or two to see if there is any objection. -- Taku (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is not an issue here. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. So, you mean to say you don’t object then. (The "undue" is relevant here since a Lie-isotopic algebra is never discussed in the context of the Lie algebra theory; saying it’s a non-issue doesn’t make it so.) Taku (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Something not being mentioned and then content of that thing being added isn't an UNDUE issue. UNDUE deals with maintaining NPOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

No, no, I meant that the proposed merger would create an undue issue since, like said, a Lie-isotopic algebra is typically not covered in standard references on Lie algebra. Also, while an undue issue can arise related to NPOV, in math articles context, UNDUE refers to treating a topic in a place where the topic is not commonly discussed (at least I used the term in that sense). So, it's a concern here. I'll wait a day or two before implementing my proposal as there doesn't seem an objection. -- Taku (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

That isn't covered in WP:UNDUE. Please don't use that term in that manner. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

In these policy or guildlines pages, the articles considered are bio articles or such. So, often, the writings in those page do not apply directly to math articles, which don't discuss various viewes. Thus, it is not common to use those terms like undue in some broader senses (e.g., concepts in place of viewes). But of course, one should keep in mind that practice may not be obvious to non-math editors. Taku (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears that all the sources belong to a single author, R. M. Santilli. The two non-Santilli sources do not appear to even use the term (I am not an expert, so would be happy to be proven wrong). For this construct to be notable, I would expect to see multiple independent sources. Викидим (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, two sources listed in further reading use Santilli and appear to be independent. Also, one source in the references, the one by Sourlas, Dimitris S. and Tsagas, Grigorious, is an independent source as it seems. So the multiple independent source requirement looks clear (otherwise I wouldn't move it out of the draftspace). So, I'm convinced that Wikipedia should cover the topic somehow but am just not convinced about the notability as a standalone article. Taku (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)