MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7140786196 · doi:10.5802/jolt.743

The Structure of H-(co)module Lie algebras

2013· article· en· W7140786196 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lie theory · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Topics in Algebra
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraded Lie algebraLie conformal algebraAffine Lie algebraUniversal enveloping algebraSemisimple Lie algebra(g,K)-moduleLie algebraAdjoint representationAlgebraic group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let L be a finite dimensional Lie algebra over a field of characteristic 0 .Then by the original Levi theorem, L = B R where R is the solvable radical and B is some maximal semisimple subalgebra.We prove that if L is an H -(co)module algebra for a finite dimensional (co)semisimple Hopf algebra H , then R is H -(co)invariant and B can be chosen to be H -(co)invariant too.Moreover, the nilpotent radical N of L is H -(co)invariant and there exists an H -sub(co)module S R such that R = S N and [B, S] = 0 .In addition, the H -(co)invariant analog of the Weyl theorem is proved.In fact, under certain conditions, these results hold for an H -comodule Lie algebra L , even if H is infinite dimensional.In particular, if L is a Lie algebra graded by an arbitrary group G, then B can be chosen to be graded, and if L is a Lie algebra with a rational action of a reductive affine algebraic group G by automorphisms, then B can be chosen to be G-invariant.Also we prove that every finite dimensional semisimple H -(co)module Lie algebra over a field of characteristic 0 is a direct sum of its minimal H -(co)invariant ideals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lie theorySame topicAdvanced Topics in AlgebraFrench-language works237,207