Consider $sl_n\mathbb{C}$ as aLie-algebra, and choose h the CSA formed by diagonal matrixes. I can i demonstrate that the Cartan-Killing form in $sl_n\mathbb{C}$ is $
cartan-killing form in $sl_n\mathbb{C}$
-
0Just look at http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/135567/computation-of-the-killing-form-of-mathfrakgl-m/1248343#1248343 and put $tr(A)=tr(B)=0$ condition at the result. – 2015-04-23
1 Answers
Granting that $sl(n)$ is simple, one might first show that, up to scalars, there is a unique $sl(n)$-invariant non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form on it. To see this, note that a non-degenerate bilinear form gives an $sl(n)$-module map $f$ of $sl(n)$ to its dual $sl(n)^*$, by $f(x)(y)=\langle x,y\rangle$. The non-degeneracy is equivalent to trivial kernel, so, by finite-dimensionality, equivalent to $f$ being an isomorphism. Given two such pairings, and corresponding maps $f,g$, the composite $f^{-1}\circ g$ is an $sl(n)$-isomorphism of $sl(n)$ to itself. By Schur's Lemma, this is a scalar. [done]
Thus, it suffices to evaluate Casimir and the "trace pairing" on a single pair of elements of the Cartan subalgebra, to evaluate the constant. For example, $x=y=(1,-1,0,...,0)$ (diagonal) has eigenvalues $+2$ (once), $-2$ (once), $+1$ ($n-2$ times), and $-1$ ($n-2$ times). Applying it twice and adding up gives $2n$.
(To show from scratch that $sl(n)$ is simple is not too hard, if one wants...)
-
0@balestrav, ... without looking at the details of your computation... I fear this induction is a little delicate, if we insist on incorporating the trace=0 condition. It might work better to arrange a version for gl(n), instead. – 2012-01-08