format: text

text:
# Series of Lie groups

## 1. Introduction

One way to define a collection of Lie algebras $`𝔤(t)`$, parametrized by $`t`$, each equipped with a representation $`V(t)`$, as forming a “series” is, following Deligne, to require that the tensor powers of $`V(t)`$ should decompose into irreducible $`𝔤(t)`$-modules in a manner independent of $`t`$, with formulas for the dimensions of the irreducible components of the form $`P(t)/Q(t)`$ with $`P,Q`$ polynomials decomposing into products of integral linear factors. In this paper we study such decomposition formulas, which provides a companion to  where we study the corresponding dimension formulas. We connect the formulas to the geometry of the closed orbits $`X(t)V(t)`$, and their unirulings by homogeneous subvarieties. We relate the linear unirulings to work of Kostant . By studying such series, we determine new modules that, appropriately viewed, are exceptional in the sense of Brion , e.g., theorem 6.2.

The starting point of this paper was the work of Deligne et. al. , containing uniform decomposition and dimension formulas for the tensor powers of the adjoint representations of the exceptional simple Lie algebras up to $`𝔤^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}}`$. Deligne’s method for the decomposition formulas was based on comparing Casimir eigenvalues and he offered a conjectural explanation for the formulas via a categorical model based on bordisms between finite sets. Vogel  obtained similar formulas for all simple Lie super algebras based on his universal Lie algebra. We show that all primitive factors in the decomposition formulas of Deligne and Vogel can be accounted for using diagram inductions. (The non-primitive factors are those either inherited from lower degrees or arising from a bilinear form, thus knowledge of the primitive factors gives the full decomposition.) We also derive new decomposition formulas for other series of Lie algebras.

In §2, we describe a pictorial procedure using Dynkin diagrams for determining the decomposition of $`V^\mathrm{}k`$. It was discovered by unifying several geometric observations about the closed orbit $`X=G/PV`$. We also give an interpretation of this diagram induction in terms of vector bundles.

For example, in  we determined the Fano varieties $`𝔽_k(X)`$ of $`^{k1}`$’s contained in $`X`$. Since $`𝔽_k(X)`$ is a subset of the Grassmannian of $`(k+1)`$-planes through the origin in $`V`$, $`G(k+1,V)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+1}V`$, $`𝔽_k(X)`$ determines a distinguished component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+1}V`$. This component has the property that it is a Casimir eigenspace and the corresponding Casimir eigenvalue is maximal among Casimir eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+1}V`$. The components of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k𝔤`$ with maximal Casimir eigenvalue were considered by Kostant in . In §9 we explain how Kostant’s results can be extended to general fundamental representations, with special attention paid to minuscule representations. These Casimir eigenspaces provide new examples of distinct modules with the same Casimir eigenvalue which are different from the examples in .

In §3 and §4, we distinguish and interpret the primitive components in the decomposition formulas of Deligne and Vogel.

The exceptional series of Lie algebras occurs as a line in Freudenthal’s magic square (see e.g., , or the variant we use in ). The three other lines each come with preferred representations. Dimension formulas for all representations supported on the cone in the weight lattice generated by the weights of the preferred representations similar to those of the exceptional series were obtained in . In §5, §6 and §7 we obtain the companion decomposition formulas. A very nice property shared by many of these prefered representations is that they are exceptional in the sense of , that is, their covariant algebras are polynomial algebras. We prove that in some cases where this is not naively true, it becomes so if we take into account the symmetry group of the associated marked Dynkin diagram.

In the course of revising the exposition of this paper for the referee, we ran across the closely related preprint .

### 1.1. Notations and conventions

For a given complex simple Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ we fix a Cartan subalgebra and set of positive roots. The highest root of $`𝔤`$ (resp. the sum of the positive roots of $`𝔤`$) will be denoted $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ (resp. $`2\rho `$).

Let $`V=V_\lambda `$ be be an irreducible representation of highest weight $`\lambda `$ of $`𝔤`$. To $`V`$ we associate a marked Dynkin diagram $`D(𝔤,\lambda )`$ where we identify the nodes of the diagram with the fundamental weights $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n`$ and if $`\lambda =a_1\omega _1+\mathrm{}+a_n\omega _n`$ we mark the node corresponding to $`\omega _j`$ with $`a_j`$. We freely interchange the terminology “marked Dynkin diagram” and “irreducible representation”.

Let $`D(𝔣)D(𝔤)`$ be a subdiagram. We define the border set of $`D(𝔣)`$ in $`D(𝔤)`$ to be the nodes of $`D(𝔤)\backslash D(𝔣)`$ adjacent to the nodes of $`D(𝔣)`$. If $`D(𝔤,\lambda )`$ is a marked diagram where all the nonzero markings lie on $`D(𝔣)`$, we say $`\lambda `$ has support on $`D(𝔣)`$ and let $`W_\lambda `$ denote the corresponding $`𝔣`$-module.

If $`P`$ denotes a partition of size $`k`$, we let $`S_P(V)`$ denote the corresponding Schur power, which can be considered as a submodule of $`V^\mathrm{}k`$.

The Cartan product of two irreducible modules $`V_\mu `$ and $`V_\nu `$ is denoted $`V_\mu V_\nu :=V_{\mu +\nu }V_\mu \mathrm{}V_\nu `$.

For a given irreducible $`𝔤`$-module $`V_\lambda `$, we let $`\theta _{V_\lambda }=(\lambda ,\lambda +2\rho )`$ denote the Casimir eigenvalue for $`V`$ with the normalization $`(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })=2`$.

We use the ordering of the roots as in .

## 2. Diagram induction

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`𝔤`$ be a complex simple Lie algebra, with Dynkin diagram $`D(𝔤)`$ and let $`D(𝔣)D(𝔤)`$ be a subdiagram, and let $`\lambda `$ be a weight of $`𝔣`$ which we also consider as a weight of $`𝔤`$ as explained above. We let $`V=V_\lambda `$ (resp. $`W=W_\lambda `$) denote the corresponding $`𝔤`$ (resp. $`𝔣`$-module). Let $`P`$ be a partition of size $`k`$ and let $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n`$ denote the fundamental weights of $`𝔤`$.

1. If $`S_P(W)`$ (i.e., the Schur power $`S_P(W)`$ contains a trivial representation) then the corresponding Schur power $`S_P(V)`$ contains an irreducible representation whose weight has support exactly the border set $`B`$, i.e., the support is contained in $`B`$ and every weight of $`B`$ appears with a nonzero multiplicity.

2. More generally if $`W_\eta S_P(W)`$ is an irreducible submodule, write $`\eta =k\lambda \psi `$, where $`\psi `$ is a sum of simple roots of the root system of $`𝔣`$. Consider $`\psi `$ as a sum of simple roots of the root system of $`𝔤`$, re-express $`\psi `$ as a sum of fundamental weights of $`𝔤`$, $`\psi =a_1\omega _1+\mathrm{}+a_n\omega _n`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }=k\lambda (a_1\omega _1+\mathrm{}+a_n\omega _n)`$ denote the corresponding weight of $`𝔤`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ is a sum of weights from the border set of $`𝔣`$ and the weight $`\eta `$ considered as weights of $`𝔤`$ and $`V_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}`$ occurs as a submodule of $`S_P(V)`$.

3. If $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _s`$ are weights of $`𝔣`$ and $`W_{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}W_{\lambda _s}`$ contains a trival representation, then $`V_{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}V_{\lambda _s}`$ contains an irreducible representation whose weight has support exactly $`B`$ and the analogue of 2. holds for irreducible submodules $`W_\eta W_{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}W_{\lambda _s}`$.

Example. Let $`(𝔤,V_\lambda )=(𝔢_7,V_{\omega _7})`$, let $`(𝔣,W_\lambda )=(𝔡_6,W_{\omega _1})`$. Then since $`S^2W`$ contains the trivial representation, we have $`V_{\omega _7}S^2V_{\omega _1}`$.

Example. Consider $`V=V_{\omega _k}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^k^n`$ as a $`𝔤=𝔰𝔩_n`$-module. There is a natural quadratic form on the $`𝔥=𝔰𝔩_{4p}`$-module $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2p}^{4p}`$. Thus for all $`p<n`$ the trivial representation in $`S^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2p}^{4p}`$ induces a subspace of $`S^2V`$, namely $`V_{\omega _{k2p}+\omega _{k+2p}}`$ and these give us the full decomposition

$$S^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^k^n)=S^2V_{\omega _k}=V_{2\omega _k}+V_{\omega _{k2}+\omega _{k+2}}+V_{\omega _{k4}+\omega _{k+4}}+\mathrm{}$$

Similarly, there is a natural symplectic form on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2p+1}^{4p+2}`$ and the corresponding subdiagrams recover the complete decomposition:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^k^n)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2V_{\omega _k}=V_{\omega _{k1}+\omega _{k+1}}+V_{\omega _{k3}+\omega _{k+3}}+\mathrm{}$$

###### Proof.

We have $`𝔣=𝔰+[𝔰,𝔰]`$, where $`𝔰`$ is the sum of the root spaces of $`𝔤`$ with support in $`D(𝔣)`$. Every dominant weight $`\sigma `$ of $`𝔤`$ with support in $`D(𝔣)`$ defines a $`𝔤`$-module $`V_\sigma `$ and an $`𝔣`$-module $`W_\sigma `$.

The main observation is that if $`\tau `$ is a weight such that $`\sigma \tau `$ has support on $`D(𝔣)`$, its multiplicity must be the same inside $`V_\sigma `$ and $`W_\sigma `$. This is an easy consequence of Kostant’s multiplicity formula:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{dim}V_\sigma (\tau )& =& _{wW(𝔤)}\epsilon (w)P(w(\sigma +\rho )(\tau +\rho )),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{dim}W_\sigma (\tau )& =& _{wW(𝔣)}\epsilon (w)P^{}(w(\sigma +\rho ^{})(\tau +\rho ^{})),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ are the Kostant’s partition functions in $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔣`$ respectively, and $`\rho `$, $`\rho ^{}`$ the half sums of the corresponding positive roots. First observe that since $`\rho `$ is also the sum of the fundamental weights, if $`wW(𝔣)`$, then $`w(\rho )\rho `$ will have some negative coefficient on a simple root not in $`D(𝔣)`$. Then $`\sigma \tau +w(\rho )\rho `$, and a fortiori $`w(\sigma +\rho )(\tau +\rho )`$, is not a sum of positive roots, and the partition function vanishes. Moreover, when $`wW(𝔣)`$, we have $`w(\rho ^{})\rho ^{}=w(\rho )\rho `$, which proves the two multiplicities are the same.

We give details for case 3 with two factors $`W_\sigma \mathrm{}W_\sigma ^{}`$, the other cases are similar:

Take two fundamental weights $`\sigma `$, $`\sigma ^{}`$ with support in $`D(𝔣)`$, and consider the decomposition

$$W_\sigma \mathrm{}W_\sigma ^{}=\underset{\tau \mathrm{\Xi }}{}W_\tau .$$

We can in principle obtain this decomposition by the following algorithm: we consider all the sums of a weight of $`W_\sigma `$ with a weight of $`W_\sigma ^{}`$ (with multiplicities); then we choose a maximal element $`\tau `$ in this set. It must belong to $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. Then we subtract the weights of $`W_\tau `$ (with their multiplicities), and we continue until we are left with an empty set of weights.

Now consider the decomposition of $`V_\sigma \mathrm{}V_\sigma ^{}`$. We apply the same procedure, only we begin with maximal weights which have support on $`D(𝔣)`$. For these weights, the multiplicities are the same as for the corresponding $`𝔣`$-modules, thus we obtain the same set of dominant weights, except that at the end we are left with weights whose support is on $`D(𝔤)\backslash D(𝔣)`$ instead of the empty set. We conclude that

$$V_\sigma \mathrm{}V_\sigma ^{}\underset{\tau \mathrm{\Xi }}{}V_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}.$$

Here $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\sigma +\sigma ^{}\psi _𝔤`$, where $`\psi _𝔤`$ is a non-negative linear combination of simple roots of $`𝔤`$, is a weight of $`𝔤`$ where the corresponding weight $`\tau `$ of $`𝔣`$ is $`\tau =\sigma +\sigma ^{}\psi `$ where $`\psi `$ is the same non-negative linear combination of simple roots of $`𝔤`$ only now considered as simple roots of $`𝔣`$.

Comparing the expressions rewritten in terms of fundamental weights, we see that $`\tau \tau ^{}`$ is a linear combination of fundamental weights coming from $`B`$. ∎

### 2.1. Diagram induction via vector bundles

We explain the case of inducing a representation from a trival module $`W_1\mathrm{}W_2`$, the other cases being similar, following the notation of above. (Here $`W_1=W_\sigma `$ etc… in the notation above.) Say $``$ induces a representation $`UV_1\mathrm{}V_2`$. Let $`𝔭`$ be the parabolic subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ whose semi-simple Levi factor is $`𝔣`$. Pictorially, $`D(𝔣)`$ is the subdiagram of $`D(𝔤)`$ obtained by deleting the nodes corresponding to $`𝔭`$, with the convention that $`𝔭`$ is generated by the root vectors corresponding to the Borel and opposites of the undeleted simple roots.

Consider the rational homogeneous variety $`G/PU`$, obtained by taking the projectivized orbit of a highest weight vector. We interpret diagram induction in terms of homogeneous bundles on $`G/P`$. First of all, $`U=\mathrm{\Gamma }(L)`$, i.e., $`U`$ is the space of sections of a homogeneous line bundle $`L`$ over $`G/P`$ and each $`V_j`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E_j)`$ for some homogeneous vector bundle $`E_j\mathrm{}G/P`$. ($`L`$ is the tautological (hyperplane) line bundle on $`G/P`$.)

The homogenous vector bundles on $`G/P`$ are in one to one correspondence with $`P`$ or $`𝔭`$-modules. Let $`W_j`$ denote the irreducible $`𝔭`$-module inducing $`E_j`$, i.e., $`E_j=G\times _PW_j`$. Write $`𝔭=𝔣\mathrm{}𝔷\mathrm{}𝔫`$, with $`𝔣`$ semi-simple, $`𝔫`$ nilpotent and $`𝔷`$ the center of the reductive part $`𝔣\mathrm{}𝔷`$.

$`𝔫`$ acts trivially on $`W_j`$ because $`W_j`$ is an irreducible $`𝔭`$-module and $`𝔷`$ acts by some character. We have a nonzero multiplication map

$$m:\mathrm{\Gamma }(E_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(E_2)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(E_1\mathrm{}E_2).$$

The occurence of $``$ in $`W_1\mathrm{}W_2`$ as an $`𝔣`$-module extends to a (nontrivial) $`𝔭`$-submodule where $`𝔣`$ and $`𝔫`$ act trivially and the new character for $`𝔷`$ is the sum of the characters for $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$, thus we obtain a line subbundle $`LE_1\mathrm{}E_2`$ and the desired inclusion $`U=\mathrm{\Gamma }(L)m(\mathrm{\Gamma }(E_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(E_2))`$.

Example. Consider $`(𝔤,V)=(𝔰𝔩(W),V_{\omega _k}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^kW)`$. We have $`U=V_{\omega _{k1}+\omega _{k+1}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2V_{\omega _k}`$ as mentioned above. Here $`G/P=𝔽_{k1,k+1}`$, the variety of partial flags $`^{k1}^{k+1}W`$, $`E`$ is the bundle whose fiber over $`(W_{k1},W_{k+1})`$ is $`det(W/W_{k+1})\mathrm{}W_{k+1}/W_{k1}`$. (Due to our convention, we actually have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)=V_{\omega _k}^{}`$, not $`V_{\omega _k}`$.) Then $`L=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2E`$ has fiber $`det(W/W_{k+1})\mathrm{}det(W/W_{k1})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2E)=V_{\omega _{k1}+\omega _{k+1}}^{}`$.

We will apply diagram induction to study $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$, $`S^2V`$ and $`S_{21}V=\mathrm{Ker}(S^2V\mathrm{}V\mathrm{}S^3V)`$. We first review some notions of Tits:

### 2.2. Tits’ transforms and shadows

For any simple Lie group $`G`$, with a fixed Borel subgroup, let $`S,S^{}`$ be two sets of positive roots of $`G`$, and let $`P_S`$ be the parabolic subgroup generated by the Borel and the root subgroups generated by $`S`$. Consider the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & G& & \\ & \pi & & \pi ^{}& \\ X=G/P_S& & & & X^{}=G/P_S^{}\end{array}$$

Let $`x^{}X^{}`$ and consider $`Y:=\pi (\pi ^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(x^{}))X`$. Tits calls $`Y`$ the shadow of $`x^{}`$ in $`X`$. Then $`X`$ is covered by such shadows $`Y`$. Tits shows  that $`Y=H/R`$ where $`𝒟(H)=𝒟(G)\backslash (S\backslash S^{})`$, and $`RH`$ is the parabolic subgroup corresponding to $`S^{}\backslash S`$.

### 2.3. Submodules of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$

We deduce the existence of submodules of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV_\lambda `$ from marked subdiagrams of the marked Dynkin diagram $`D(𝔤,\lambda )`$ isomorphic to $`D(𝔞_{k1},\omega _1)`$ via the trivial representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k^k`$.

In  we showed that these subdiagrams describe linear unirulings of rational homogeneous varieties $`X=G/PV_\lambda `$. If the subdiagram is of type $`D(𝔞_{k1},\omega _1)`$, we get a family of $`^{k1}`$’s on $`X`$ that are linearly embedded, hence a linear uniruling of $`X`$. In the simply-laced case, all complete families of linear unirulings are obtained that way.

To recover a component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$, let $`𝔽_k(X)G(k,V)(\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV)`$ be the Fano variety of $`^{k1}`$’s in $`X`$ sitting inside the Plücker embedded Grassmannian. Our uniruling defines a homogeneous component of $`𝔽_k(X)`$, hence an irreducible submodule of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$ by taking the linear span.

In section §8 we determine the Casimir eigenvalues of these spaces. It turns out that the linear span $`𝔽_k(X)`$ of the Fano variety is a Casimir eigenspace, with eigenvalue the largest possible.

For $`k>1`$, $`𝔽_k(X)`$ is usually not irreducible. When it is reducible, one obtains (pictorially!) distinct irreducible representations with the same Casimir eigenvalue. This construction of representations in the same Casimir eigenspace appears to be different from that in . Some of the Casimir eigenspaces $`𝔽_k(X)`$ were found in  via case by case checking. They were searching for such spaces because a homogeneous space $`G/H`$ with its standard homogeneous metric is Einstein iff $`T_{[e]}G/H`$ is a Casimir eigenspace of $`H`$.

### 2.4. Submodules of $`S^2V`$

We deduce the existence of submodules of $`S^2V_\lambda `$ from marked subdiagrams isomorphic to $`D=D(𝔡_k,\omega _1)`$ or $`D(𝔟_k,\omega _1)`$, thanks to the trivial representation given by the quadratic form.

In the case of such representations, the highest weight $`\tau `$ of the induced representation $`V_\tau S^2V`$ can be computed as follows (recall we already have its support). Let $`W`$ be the Weyl group of $`𝔤`$, and $`W(D)W`$ the subgroup corresponding to the subdiagram $`D`$ so $`W(D)`$ is generated by the simple reflections corresponding to the nodes of $`D`$. Let $`W_1(D)W(D)`$ be the stabilizer of $`\lambda `$, let $`W^1(D)`$ be the set of minimal length representatives of the cosets of $`W_1(D)`$ in $`W(D)`$. Then $`W^1(D)`$ has a unique element $`w_D^1`$ of maximal length, and $`\tau =\lambda +w_D^1(\lambda )`$.

We will use the notation $`V_Q=V_\tau S^2V`$ to denote a representation induced from a subdiagram of quadric type. By Tits’ transforms, the closed $`G`$-orbit $`X_QV_Q`$ is a parameter space for a uniruling of the closed orbit $`XV`$ by quadrics, i.e., linear sections $`XL`$ that are quadric hypersurfaces in the projective space $`L`$. We use the notation $`Q=XL`$ to denote these quadrics. In the language of the section above, these quadrics are the shadows of points in $`X_Q`$ on $`X`$.

###### Proposition 2.2.

Let $`V=V_\lambda `$ be a fundamental representation of $`𝔤`$ such that there is a subdiagram of quadric type $`𝔟_l`$ or $`𝔡_l`$ and let $`V_Q=V_\tau `$ denote the induced submodule of $`S^2V`$. Then the Casimir eigenvalues are related by $`\theta _{V_Q}=2(\theta _V+(\lambda ,\lambda )(\mathrm{dim}Q+2)(\alpha ,\alpha ))`$, where $`\alpha `$ denotes the simple root dual to $`\lambda `$.

In particular, if $`𝔤`$ is simply-laced and $`V=𝔤`$ is the adjoint representation, then $`\theta _{𝔤_Q}=2(\theta _𝔤(\mathrm{dim}Q1)(\alpha ,\alpha ))`$.

###### Proof.

We treat the case of $`𝔡_l`$, the case of $`𝔟_l`$ is similar. Label the nodes of $`D`$ as $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _l`$ and consider them as nodes of $`D(𝔤)`$ in what follows. Let $`\sigma =\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{l2}+\frac{1}{2}(\alpha _{l1}+\alpha _l)`$. Note that with our normalizations, $`(\sigma ,2\rho )=\mathrm{dimQ}`$, $`(\lambda ,\sigma )=1`$ and $`(\sigma ,\sigma )=1`$. We have $`\tau =2\lambda 2\sigma `$ so $`\theta _{V_\tau }=(2\lambda 2\sigma ,2\lambda 2\sigma )+(2\lambda 2\sigma ,2\rho )=2(\theta _V+(\lambda ,\lambda )4(\lambda ,\sigma )+2(\sigma ,\sigma )(\sigma ,2\rho ))`$ and the result follows. ∎

Several such subdiagrams may exist, each of them will provide us with a component of $`S^2V`$.

Example. For every simple Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ whose adjoint representation is fundamental, $`S^2𝔤`$ contains only $`𝔤^{(2)}`$, a trivial factor corresponding to the Killing form, and factors of the form $`𝔤_Q`$ (of which there are at most three, or two up to a symmetry of the Dynkin diagram).

Example. In the case of the subexceptional (see §5) and Scorza series (see §6), there is a unique $`V_Q`$ and $`S^2V=V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}V_Q`$.

Example. In the case of $`(E_n,V_{\omega _4})`$ there are three distinct subdiagrams of quadric type, but they furnish only a small part of $`S^2V_{\omega _4}`$.

Note that in this case a point of $`X_QV_QS^2V`$ produces both a quadric hypersurface in $`V^{}`$ and a quadric section of $`XV`$.

There is another characterization of maximal quadrics on $`X=G/PV`$, at least in the case of minuscule and adjoint representations. Let $`\sigma _+(X)`$ denote a component of the set of points of $`V\backslash X`$ through which pass a family of secants of $`X`$ of maximal dimension. If $`p\sigma _+(X)`$, its entry locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p=\{xX,yXx,p\overline{xy}\}`$, is a maximal quadric on $`X`$.

Example. Let $`𝔤=𝔰𝔬_{2l},V=V_{\omega _k}`$, with $`1<k<l1`$. Here $`X=G_Q(k,^{2l})`$ is the Grassmannian of $`Q`$-isotropic $`k`$-planes in $`W=^{2l}`$, where $`Q`$ denotes the quadratic form preserved by $`𝔤`$. The two families of quadrics given by Tits fibrations or diagram induction may be seen geometrically as follows: For the subdiagram corresponding to $`𝔰𝔬_{2l2k}`$, choose $`EG_Q(k1,W)`$, then

$$q_E=\{PG_Q(k,W),EPE^{}\}Q^{2l2k}.$$

The second family comes from the $`𝔞_3`$ subdiagram. Pick $`EG_Q(k2,W)`$ and $`FG_Q(k+2,W)`$. Then

$$q_{E,F}=\{PG_Q(k,W),EPF\}Q^3.$$

We leave to the reader the pleasure of making the explicit correspondence with the quadric hypersurfaces as above. The correspondance with $`\sigma _+(X)`$ is straightforward: the line joining two distinct isotropic $`k`$-spaces $`U,U^{}`$ is contained in $`X`$ if and only if $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ meet in codimension one, and $`U+U^{}`$ is isotropic. If this is not the case, points on the secant line between $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ are contained in $`\sigma _+(X)`$ if either $`U,U^{}`$ meet in codimension one but $`U+U^{}`$ is not isotropic \- in this case the entry locus is $`q_{UU^{}}`$, unless $`U,U^{}`$ meet in codimension two and $`U+U^{}`$ is isotropic, in which case the entry locus is $`q_{UU^{},U+U^{}}`$.

### 2.5. Linear syzygies and subdiagrams

Consider diagram induction when $`𝔣=𝔞_l`$ with the trivial representation in $`W_{\tau _1}\mathrm{}W_{\tau _l}`$. We obtain subrepresentations of $`V_{\tau _1}\mathrm{}V_{\tau _l}`$. We will call such representations $`(V_{\tau _1}V_{\tau _l})_{Aad}`$. Changing notation, write $`W_{\tau _1}=U_\lambda `$, $`W_{\tau _l}=W_\mu `$, then $`(UW)_{Aad}`$ has highest weight $`\tau =\lambda +\mu \sigma `$ where $`\sigma =\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _l`$ where we have labelled the roots corresponding to the subdiagram $`D(𝔞_l)`$. We can thus compute its Casimir as above.

Let $`SS_{21}(V)`$ denote the space of linear syzygies among the generators of $`I(X)`$, the ideal of $`X`$ (which are of degree two). We have $`S=S_{21}(V)(I_2(X)\mathrm{}V)`$. (We should really consider $`XV^{}`$ here, but our abuse of notation is harmless.)

###### Proposition 2.3.

Let $`V`$ be a fundamental representation, let $`XV`$ be the closed orbit and let $`UI_2(X)`$ be an irreducible component of the space of quadrics containing $`X`$. Then $`(VU)_{Aad}S`$.

Unfortunately we have no general proof of this fact, but it can be checked case by case.

In the cases of the Severi and subexceptional series below we have equality.

## 3. The Vogel decompositions

Vogel  has proposed a universal Lie algebra $`𝔤([\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ])`$, which allows one to parametrize all complex simple Lie superalgebras by a projective plane (over some extension of the rationals) quotiented out by $`𝔖_3`$. Evaluating at particular points, one recovers all complex simple Lie algebras (and Lie superalgebras). He has given dimension and decomposition formulae for the irreducible modules in $`𝔤^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},𝔤^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ that, independent of the existence of the universal Lie algebra, give decomposition and dimension formulae for actual Lie algebras.

In order to connect his formulae to geometry, we break the $`𝔖_3`$ symmetry. One reason for this is because inside $`S^k𝔤`$ there is a preferred factor, the Cartan power $`𝔤^{(k)}`$, which has the geometric interpretation of $`I_k(X_{ad})^{}`$, the annhilator of the degree $`k`$ component of the ideal of the closed orbit $`X_{ad}(𝔤)`$. For example, $`𝔤{}_{}{}^{(2)}S^2𝔤`$ could be $`Y_2,Y_2^{}`$ or $`Y_2^{\prime \prime }`$ for Vogel (following his notations). We fix it to be $`Y_2`$. This has the consequence of normalizing Vogel’s parameter $`\alpha `$ to be $`(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$, as according to Vogel, we have $`2t=\theta _𝔤`$ and $`2(\theta _𝔤\alpha )=2\theta _{𝔤^{(2)}}=2\theta _𝔤+2(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$.

In §2.3 we discussed the factor $`𝔤_QS^2𝔤`$, where we take the largest subdiagram of quadric type here. We break the remaining $`_2`$ symmetry by requiring that this space be $`Y_2^{}`$. We obtain the following geometric interpretation of Vogel’s parameter $`\beta `$, which follows from  and proposition 2.2:

###### Proposition 3.1.

Notations as above: $`\beta =\mathrm{dimQ}`$ where $`Q`$ is the largest quadric contained in the adjoint variety $`X𝔤`$ obtained as a shadow as in §2.4.

Example. In the adjoint representations of $`F_4`$, $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$ and $`E_8`$, there is a unique quadric type subdiagram of the marked Dynkin diagram, respectively of types $`B_3`$, $`D_4`$, $`D_5`$ and $`D_7`$, so that $`\beta =5,6,8`$ and $`12`$, respectively.

Example. If there is a second unextendable family of $`G`$-homogeneous quadrics on the adjoint variety (as is the case for the orthogonal groups), then this supplies a geometric interpretation of $`\gamma `$, namely $`\gamma `$ is the dimension of a quadric in this second family. However, for adjoint representations, this occurs only for the orthogonal groups, and in this case we always have $`\gamma =4`$.

Vogel describes three colinear collections of Lie algebras (in the sense that some choice of inverse images of the points associated with the Lie algebras are colinear in the projective plane). The three Vogel lines are the exceptional, Osp, and Sl. To these we add another line, the subexceptional series, see §5, which lies on the line $`2\alpha \beta +\gamma =0`$.

With the above normalizations:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \alpha & \beta & \gamma \\ \mathrm{Exceptional}& 2& m+4& 2m+4\\ \mathrm{Osp}:SO(m),Sp(m)& 2& m4& 4\\ \mathrm{Sl}:Sl(m)& 2& 2& m\\ \mathrm{subexceptional}& 2& m& m+4\end{array}$$

In the exceptional series the values of $`m`$ are $`\frac{2}{3},0,1,2,4,8`$ for $`G_2,D_4,F_4,E_6,E_7,E_8`$. The subexceptional line is $`A_1,A_1\times A_1\times A_1,C_3,A_5,D_6,E_7`$, with parameter $`m=\frac{2}{3},0,1,2,4,8`$. Although $`A_1\times A_1\times A_1`$ is not simple, one can check that the Vogel dimension and decomposition formulae still hold. The subexceptional line, unlike the three other lines osp, sl and exceptional, is generic to order three in the sense that none of the spaces that appear in Vogel’s decomposition formulas are zero in $`𝔤^\mathrm{}k`$ for $`k3`$ except for the space Vogel labels $`X_3^{\prime \prime }`$ which is zero for all simple Lie algebras. So, by comparing Casimir eigenvalues we can obtain geometric interpretations for all the Vogel spaces. These interpretations (when such spaces exist) persist for other algebras not on the line.

Here are Vogel’s decompositions with our interpretations of the spaces below. Recall our convention that $`V_\mu V_\nu =V_{\mu +\nu }`$.

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝔤`$ $`=X_1\mathrm{}X_2`$
$`=𝔤\mathrm{}𝔤_2`$
$`S^2𝔤`$ $`=Y_2\mathrm{}Y_2^{}\mathrm{}Y_2^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}X_0`$
$`=𝔤{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤_Q\mathrm{}𝔤_Q^{}\mathrm{}_B`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3𝔤`$ $`=X_3\mathrm{}X_3^{}\mathrm{}X_3^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}X_2\mathrm{}S^2𝔤`$
$`=𝔤_3\mathrm{}𝔤_2\mathrm{}S^2𝔤`$
$`S^3𝔤`$ $`=2X_1\mathrm{}X_2\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}B^{}\mathrm{}B^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}Y_3\mathrm{}Y_3^{}\mathrm{}Y_3^{\prime \prime }`$
$`=2𝔤\mathrm{}𝔤_2\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}𝔤𝔤_Q\mathrm{}𝔤𝔤_Q^{}\mathrm{}𝔤{}_{}{}^{(3)}\mathrm{}𝔤_{𝔸^2}\mathrm{}Y^{\prime \prime }`$
$`S_{21}𝔤`$ $`=2X_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}X_2\mathrm{}Y_2\mathrm{}Y_2^{}\mathrm{}Y_2^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}B^{}\mathrm{}B^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}C\mathrm{}C^{}\mathrm{}C^{\prime \prime }`$
$`=2𝔤\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}𝔤_2\mathrm{}𝔤{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤_Q\mathrm{}𝔤_Q^{}\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}𝔤𝔤_Q\mathrm{}𝔤𝔤_Q^{}\mathrm{}𝔤𝔤_2\mathrm{}(𝔤𝔤_Q)_{Aad}\mathrm{}(𝔤𝔤_Q^{})_{Aad}`$
We have written $`𝔤_3=X_3\mathrm{}X_3^{}`$ as it is a Casimir eigenspace. We have no interpretation for $`X_3^{\prime \prime }`$ as it does not exist for actual Lie algebras, nor $`B`$ because it does not exist for the exceptional series and it is $`𝔤_2`$ for the subexceptional series.

The other decompostions can be deduced from these, e.g., $`X_1\mathrm{}X_2=𝔤\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝔤𝔤\mathrm{}𝔤=(S_{21}𝔤\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3𝔤)(S^2𝔤\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝔤)`$.

The only space not yet explained is $`𝔤_{𝔸^2}`$. It comes from diagram induction applied to a subdiagram in the Severi series, the distinguished representations in the second row of Freudenthal’s magic chart (see §7) as there is an invariant cubic on the representation $`W`$. The subdiagram for $`𝔤_{𝔸^2}`$ in the exceptional line is obtained by deleting the nodes for $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔤_2`$.

### 3.1. Comparison with Freudenthal’s magic square

Normalizing $`\alpha =2`$, Vogel’s formula for $`\mathrm{dim}𝔤`$ is

$$\mathrm{dim}𝔤=\frac{(\beta +\gamma 1)(2\beta +\gamma 4)(2\gamma +\beta 4)}{\beta \gamma }$$

The triality model enables one to deduce the following two parameter formula for the dimensions of the Lie algebras occuring in Freudenthal’s magic square (see ).

###### Proposition 3.2.

Let $`𝔤(a,b)`$ denote the Lie algebra that Freudenthal associates to the pair $`(𝔸,𝔹)`$ of real division algebras of dimensions $`a`$ and $`b`$, and let $`p=a+4,q=b+4`$ then

$$\mathrm{dim}𝔤(a,b)=3\frac{(ab+4a+4b4)(ab+2a+2b)}{(a+4)(b+4)}.$$

$$\mathrm{dim}𝔤(p,q)=\frac{3(pq20)(pq2p2q)}{pq}$$

The $`a,b`$ parametrization is natural from the point of view of the composition algebras, the $`p,q`$ parametrization is more natural from the point of view of Tit’s fibrations. That the $`p,q`$ parametrization might be simpler to work with was brought to our attention by B. Westbury.

## 4. The exceptional series

Using either Freudenthal’s perspective of incidence geometry  or the triality model , one has four distinguished representations in the exceptional series, denoted $`X_1,X_2,X_3,Y_2^{}`$ in . We refer the reader to  for the notations and decomposition formulae.

The spaces $`Y_3^{},G^{},H^{},I^{},Y_4^{}`$ all contain virtual representations, i.e., negatives of actual representations, for the larger algebras in the series so it is not possible to assign direct geometric interpretations.

The primitive representations are as follows: $`X_k=𝔤_k,Y_2^{}=𝔤_Q,C^{}=(𝔤I_2)_{Aad}=S_1,F^{}=(C^{}𝔤)_{Aad}S_2`$. Here $`S_1,S_2`$ denote the first and second linear syzygies among the quadrics in the ideal for the closed orbit $`X_{ad}𝔤`$, where in general, for an algebraic variety $`XV`$ defined by quadratic polynomials $`I_2(X)S^2V^{}`$, we let $`S_1:=(V^{}\mathrm{}I_2(X))S_{21}V^{}`$ and $`S_2:=(V^{}\mathrm{}S_1)S_{211}V^{}`$ the second linear syzygies.

The others can be deduced from the primitive ones through Cartan products: $`Y_k=𝔤{}_{}{}^{(k)},A=𝔤Y_2^{},C=𝔤𝔤_2,D=Y_2^{}𝔤{}_{}{}^{(2)},D^{}=Y_3^{}𝔤,E=𝔤C^{},F=𝔤_2Y_2^{},G=𝔤_2𝔤{}_{}{}^{(2)},H=𝔤_2{}_{}{}^{(2)},I=𝔤𝔤_3,J=Y_2^{}^{(2)}`$.

## 5. Subminuscule representations

Recall that a $`𝔤`$-module $`V`$ is called of type-$`\theta `$ if there is a $`/m`$-grading (allowing the possibility of $``$-gradings as well) of a simple Lie algebra $`𝔩`$ such that $`𝔤`$ is the semi-simple part of $`𝔩_0`$ and $`V=𝔩_k`$ for some $`k`$. It is of type I-$`\theta `$ if $`k=1`$ and the grading is a $``$-grading. We define a further subclass, the sub-minuscule representations where the grading of $`𝔩`$ is minuscule (i.e., three step). Geometrically, the subminuscule representations are the representations of semi-simple Lie algebras occuring as the isotropy representation on the tangent space of an irreducible compact Hermitian symmetric space, the type I-$`\theta `$ representations occur as the submodules $`T_1T_{[e]}G/P`$ where $`P`$ is a maximal parabolic and $`T_1`$ is the (unique) irreducible $`P`$-submodule of $`T_{[e]}G/P`$ see .

In  we showed that for subminuscule representations, the only $`G`$ orbits in $`V`$ are the smooth points of the successive secant varieties of the closed orbit $`X=G/PV`$, and moreover that the union of the secant $`^{k1}`$’s, denoted $`\sigma _k(X)`$, is such that its ideal is generated in degree $`k+1`$ with $`I_{k+1}\sigma _k(X)=I_2(X){}_{}{}^{(k1)}:=(I_2(X)\mathrm{}S^{k1}V^{})S^{k+1}V^{}`$, where $`I_2(X)^{(k1)}`$ is called the $`(k1)`$-st prolongation of $`I_2(X)`$. Another way to phrase this prolongation property is that the spaces of generators are the sucessive Jacobian ideals of the highest degree space of generators. In practice these spaces are quite easy to compute and comparing with , we observe that the symmetric algebra is free and the prolongations of $`I_2(X)`$ furnish all the primitive factors for the symmetric algebra, so we obtain:

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`V`$ be a sub-minuscule representation of a semi-simple Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. With the notations above, and our convention $`V_\mu V_\sigma =V_{\mu +\sigma }`$, we have a uniform formula for the decomposition of the symmetric algebra into irreducible $`𝔤`$-modules:

$$_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}t^kS^kV=\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=2}^{\mathrm{}}(1t^jI_2(X){}_{}{}^{(j1)})^1$$

The product on the right hand side is finite.

Here the orbit closures exactly provide the primitive factors for the symmetric algebra. In general, the orbit closures will provide some, but not all primitive factors, see the examples of the subexceptional and sub-Severi series below.

Remark. A version of this result appears to have been known to Kostant as the “cascade of orthogonal vectors”.

#### Example: The Scorza series

Zak established an upper bound on the codimension of a smooth variety $`X^n^{n+a}`$ of a given secant defect. (The secant defect is the difference between the expected dimension of the secant variety of $`X`$ (min$`\{n+a,2n+1\}`$) and its actual dimension.) He then went on to classify the varieties achieving this bound, which he calls the Scorza varieties. They are all closed orbits $`G/PV`$ and give rise to the following two parameter $`(a,n)`$ series: $`(SL_n,V_{2\omega _1})`$, $`(SL_n\times SL_n,V_{\omega _1}\mathrm{}W_{\eta _1})`$, $`(SL_{2n},V_{\omega _2}),(E_6,V_{\omega _1})`$, where $`a`$ is respectively $`1,2,4,8`$ and $`a=8`$ only for the $`n=3`$ case. This series is the second row of the generalized Freudenthal magic square, see . We could add to this the finite group $`𝔖_n`$, case $`a=0`$, corresponding to the variety of $`n`$ points in $`^{n1}`$. In this case the symmetric algebra is generated by the “determinant” (see ), which has degree $`n`$, and the spaces of $`k\times k`$ minors. Here $`I_2(X)^{(j1)}`$ respectively has highest weights $`2\omega _{nk}`$, $`\omega _{nk}+\eta _{nk}`$, $`\omega _{2n2k}`$. We remark that $`\mathrm{dim}V(a,n)=n+a\frac{n(n1)}{2}`$.

## 6. The subexceptional series

This is the series coming from the third line of Freudenthal’s square:

$$A_1,A_1\times A_1\times A_1,C_3,A_5,D_6,E_7.$$

Let $`m=\frac{2}{3},0,1,2,4,8`$ respectively. Freudenthal’s perspective  or the triality model  uncovers three preferred irreducible representations, respectively denoted $`V,V_Q=𝔤,V_2`$ in the table below and of dimensions $`6m+8,\frac{3(2m+3)(3m+4)}{(m+4)},9(m+1)(2m+3)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ be the automorphism group of the Dynkin diagram, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ be the subgroup preserving the marked Dynkin diagram ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝔖_3`$ for $`𝔤=A_1\times A_1\times A_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝔖_2`$ for $`𝔤=A_5`$ and is trivial otherwise). With the help of the programm LiE , we obtained the following decomposition formulae into $`𝔤\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$-Casimir eigenspaces. Letting $`V_0=`$, we have, up to at least degree six:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }^{2p}V& =& V_{2p}\mathrm{}V_{2p2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}V_0,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }^{2p+1}V& =& V_{2p+1}\mathrm{}V_{2p1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}V_1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that $`V_2,V_3`$ are irreducible.

This decomposition coincides with the decomposition into primitives for the symplectic form. In general the decomposition of a symplectic $`𝔤`$ module $`W`$ into primitives is not Casimir-irreducible. Consider the primitives in the $`A_9`$-module $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^5^{10})=\mathrm{}V_{\omega _2+\omega _8}\mathrm{}V_{\omega _4+\omega _6}`$. The last two factors consitute the primitive subspace but they have different Casimir eigenvalues.

In the last four cases of the series, $`V`$ is exceptional in the sense of , that is, the algebra $`[V]^𝔲`$ of invariant regular functions on $`V^{}`$ under a maximal nilpotent subalgebra $`𝔲`$ of $`𝔤`$, i.e., the covariant algebra, is a polynomial algebra. Such an invariant is a highest weight vector of some symmetric power of $`V`$, which allows one to decompose $`S^kV`$ into irrreducible factors for all $`k`$. The results of  imply, again with our convention $`V_\lambda V_\mu =V_{\lambda +\mu }`$, that:

$$\underset{k0}{}t^kS^kV=(1tV)^1(1t^2𝔤)^1(1t^3V)^1(1t^4)^1(1t^4V_2)^1.$$

As with the subminuscule case, the spans of generators of ideals of each orbit closure in $`V`$ give primitive factors in $`S^{}V`$. In contrast, there is one additional primitive factor, $`V_2S^4V`$, which is also the primitive part of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2V`$. The presence of the primitive $`V_2`$ factor may be understood as follows: the symplectic form $`\omega `$ on $`V`$ enables an equivariant identification $`VV^{}`$. Polarizing the invariant quartic form gives a map $`q:S^3V\mathrm{}V^{}V`$. Finally, we obtain a natural map $`s:S^4V\mathrm{}V_2`$ by letting $`s(v^4)=v\mathrm{}q(v^3)`$ mod $`\omega `$. This map is nonzero and exhibits $`V_2`$ as an irreducible component of $`S^4V`$.

The remaining decompositions for $`V^\mathrm{}k`$ in degrees three and four are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S_{21}V& =& V\mathrm{}C\mathrm{}V𝔤\mathrm{}VV_2\hfill \\ \hfill S_{31}V& =& V_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}𝔤\mathrm{}VC\mathrm{}𝔤V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤V_2\mathrm{}𝔤_2\mathrm{}V_2V{}_{}{}^{(2)},\hfill \\ \hfill S_{22}V& =& \mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}V_2\mathrm{}𝔤V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}VC\mathrm{}Q\mathrm{}𝔤{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}V_2{}_{}{}^{(2)},\hfill \\ \hfill S_{211}V& =& V_2\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤\mathrm{}VC\mathrm{}𝔤V_2\mathrm{}𝔤_2\mathrm{}L\mathrm{}VV_3,\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that the only primitives up to degree three are $`C,𝔤`$ and the $`V_k`$’s and the only new primitives in degree four are $`Q`$ and $`L`$.

The Casimir eigenvalues for the modules involved in these formulas are all of the form $`\frac{am+b}{8m+8}`$ with $`a,b`$, and are linear functions of $`(\lambda ,\lambda )=\frac{3}{8m+8}`$. Here are the Casimir eigenvalues:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta _{V^{(k)}}=\frac{k(6m+9)+3(k^2k)}{8m+8},& \theta _{V_k}=\frac{6km+(10kk^2)}{8m+8},& \theta _{𝔤^{(k)}}=\frac{2km+(k^2+k)}{2(m+1)},\\ \theta _C=\frac{12m+9}{8m+8},& \theta _Q=\frac{3m}{2m+2},& \theta _L=\frac{2m+1}{m+1}\end{array}$$

The dimensions of these modules are rational functions of $`m`$ with simple denominators, see  for the dimension formulas with the exception of

$$\mathrm{dim}C=\frac{32(m+1)(2m+3)(3m+4)}{(m+4)(m+6)},$$

$$\mathrm{dim}Q=\frac{(8m)(m+1)(2m+3)(3m+2)(3m+4)}{(m+4)^2(m+6)},$$

$$\mathrm{dim}L=\frac{9(8m)(m+1)(2m+3)(3m+2)(3m+4)}{(m+4)(m+6)(m+8)}.$$

There is a geometric interpretation for the primitives $`C`$ and $`L`$ in terms of syzygies. We lack a geometric interpretation for $`Q`$ as it is empty for $`𝔢_7`$ and it does not appear in the minimal free resolutions.

###### Proposition 6.1.

Let $`S_k`$ denote the space of linear syzygies of order $`k`$ in the minimal resolution of a sub-exceptional variety, beginning with $`S_0=I_2(X)`$. Then

$$S_0=𝔤,S_1=C,S_2=L.$$

The decompositions of $`𝔤^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ and $`𝔤^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ are as with Vogel’s formulas. Except in the case of $`𝔢_7`$, where it is irreducible, $`𝔤_3`$ decomposes into two irreducible representations that are called $`X_3`$ and $`X_3^{}`$, by Vogel. Their dimensions have algebraic expressions which are not rational in $`m`$. (In Vogel’s formulae, the expressions are not rational in $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ either.) From Deligne’s perspective, $`𝔤_3`$ should not be considered a preferred representation as its dimension formula contains a quadratic factor in its numerator:

$$\mathrm{dim}𝔤_3=\frac{(2m+3)(3m+4)(9m+16)(m+1)(18m^2+43m+4)}{(m+4)^3}$$

We also have:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝔤\mathrm{}V& =& V\mathrm{}C\mathrm{}V𝔤,\hfill \\ \hfill 𝔤{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}V& =& V𝔤{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}V𝔤\mathrm{}𝔤C,\hfill \\ \hfill V{}_{}{}^{(3)}\mathrm{}𝔤& =& 𝔤V{}_{}{}^{(3)}\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(3)}\mathrm{}VV_2\mathrm{}CV^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }^2V_2& =& V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤\mathrm{}VC\mathrm{}𝔤V_2\mathrm{}𝔤_2\mathrm{}L\mathrm{}VV_3,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }^2V^{(2)}& =& V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤\mathrm{}𝔤V_2\mathrm{}V_2V{}_{}{}^{(2)},\hfill \\ \hfill S^2V^{(2)}& =& \mathrm{}V_2\mathrm{}𝔤V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(4)}\mathrm{}𝔤{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}V_2{}_{}{}^{(2)},\hfill \\ \hfill V_2\mathrm{}V^{(2)}& =& V_2\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤\mathrm{}VC\mathrm{}𝔤V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤V_2\mathrm{}𝔤_2\mathrm{}VV_3\mathrm{}V_2V{}_{}{}^{(2)},\hfill \\ \hfill V_2\mathrm{}𝔤& =& V_2\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤\mathrm{}VC\mathrm{}𝔤V_2\mathrm{}𝔤_2\mathrm{}L,\hfill \\ \hfill V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤& =& V_2\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}VC\mathrm{}𝔤V{}_{}{}^{(2)},\hfill \\ \hfill V_2\mathrm{}V& =& C\mathrm{}V𝔤\mathrm{}V_3\mathrm{}VV_2\mathrm{}V,\hfill \\ \hfill V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}V& =& V𝔤\mathrm{}VV_2\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(3)}\mathrm{}VV_3,\hfill \\ \hfill C\mathrm{}V& =& V_2\mathrm{}𝔤\mathrm{}VC\mathrm{}𝔤_2\mathrm{}L\mathrm{}Q,\hfill \\ \hfill V𝔤\mathrm{}V& =& V_2\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤\mathrm{}VC\mathrm{}𝔤V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤V_2\mathrm{}𝔤_2\mathrm{}𝔤{}_{}{}^{(2)},\hfill \\ \hfill V_3\mathrm{}V& =& V_2\mathrm{}VC\mathrm{}𝔤V_2\mathrm{}𝔤_2\mathrm{}L\mathrm{}VV_3\mathrm{}V_4,\hfill \\ \hfill VV_2\mathrm{}V& =& V_2\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}VC\mathrm{}𝔤V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤V_2\mathrm{}VV_3\mathrm{}V_2V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}V_2{}_{}{}^{(2)},\hfill \\ \hfill V{}_{}{}^{(3)}\mathrm{}V& =& V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}V_2V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(4)},\hfill \\ \hfill S^2V_2& =& V_2{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}V_4\mathrm{}𝔤V{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝔤{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}V_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}CV\hfill \end{array}$$

The highest weights of the modules involved in the above formulas are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& \hfill A_1& \hfill A_1^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}& C_3\hfill & A_5\hfill & D_6\hfill & E_7\hfill \\ & & & & & & \\ V\hfill & \hfill \left[3\right]& \hfill [1,1,1]& [0,0,1]\hfill & [0,0,1,0,0]\hfill & [0,0,0,0,0,1]\hfill & [0,0,0,0,0,0,1]\hfill \\ V_2\hfill & \hfill \left[4\right]& \hfill [2,2,0]& [0,2,0]\hfill & [0,1,0,1,0]\hfill & [0,0,0,1,0,0]\hfill & [0,0,0,0,0,1,0]\hfill \\ V_3\hfill & & \hfill [3,1,1]& [1,2,0]\hfill & [1,0,0,2,0]\hfill & [0,0,1,0,1,0]\hfill & [0,0,0,0,1,0,0]\hfill \\ V_4\hfill & \hfill \left[4\right]& \hfill [4,0,0]& [0,3,0]\hfill & [0,3,0,0,0]\hfill & [0,1,0,0,2,0]\hfill & [0,0,0,1,0,0,0]\hfill \\ & & \hfill [2,2,2]& [3,0,1]\hfill & [1,1,0,1,1]\hfill & [0,0,2,0,0,0]\hfill & \\ V_5\hfill & \hfill \left[3\right]& & [2,1,1]\hfill & [2,0,1,0,2]\hfill & [1,0,0,0,3,0]\hfill & [0,1,1,0,0,0,0]\hfill \\ & & & [5,0,0]\hfill & [1,2,0,1,0]\hfill & [0,1,1,0,1,0]\hfill & \\ V_6\hfill & \hfill \left[0\right]& \hfill [4,0,0]& [4,1,0]\hfill & [2,1,1,0,1]\hfill & [0,0,0,0,4,0]\hfill & [1,2,0,0,0,0,0]\hfill \\ & & \hfill [2,2,2]& [2,0,2]\hfill & [0,2,0,2,0]\hfill & [1,0,1,0,2,0]\hfill & [0,0,2,0,0,0,0]\hfill \\ & & & & [3,0,0,0,3]\hfill & [0,2,0,1,0,0]\hfill & \\ 𝔤\hfill & \hfill \left[2\right]& \hfill [2,0,0]& [2,0,0]\hfill & [1,0,0,0,1]\hfill & [0,1,0,0,0,0]\hfill & [1,0,0,0,0,0,0]\hfill \\ 𝔤_2\hfill & & \hfill [2,2,0]& [2,1,0]\hfill & [0,1,0,0,2]\hfill & [1,0,1,0,0,0]\hfill & [0,0,1,0,0,0,0]\hfill \\ 𝔤_3\hfill & & \hfill [2,2,2]& [3,0,1]\hfill & [3,0,1,0,0]\hfill & [2,0,0,1,0,0]\hfill & [0,0,0,1,0,0,0]\hfill \\ & & \hfill [4,0,0]& [0,3,0]\hfill & [1,1,0,1,1]\hfill & [0,0,2,0,0,0]\hfill & \\ C\hfill & \hfill \left[1\right]& \hfill [1,1,1]\mathrm{}\rho & [1,1,0]\hfill & [1,1,0,0,0]\hfill & [1,0,0,0,1,0]\hfill & [0,1,0,0,0,0,0]\hfill \\ Q\hfill & & \hfill [0,0,0]\mathrm{}\rho & [0,1,0]\hfill & [1,0,0,0,1]\hfill & [2,0,0,0,0,0]\hfill & \\ L\hfill & & \hfill [2,0,0]& [1,0,1]\hfill & [0,1,0,1,0]\hfill & [0,0,0,0,2,0]\hfill & \end{array}$$

In the column corresponding to $`A_1\times A_1\times A_1`$, $`\rho `$ denotes the two-dimensional irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝔖_3`$.

The first two cases of the series deserve special care since they are slightly degenerate and we discuss them in the following two subsections.

### 6.1. Binary cubics

In the $`A_1`$ case $`V_2=𝔤^{(2)}`$, and there is no factor $`1t^4V_2`$ in the denominator. Moreover, $`V`$ is not exceptional since there exists a relation in degree $`6`$ between the fundamental covariants (see e.g. ). We have

$$\underset{k0}{}t^kS^kV=\frac{1t^6V^{(2)}}{(1tV)(1t^2𝔤)(1t^3V)(1t^4)}.$$

### 6.2.  $`2\times 2\times 2`$ hypermatrices

Write $`A_1\times A_1\times A_1=𝔰𝔩(A)\times 𝔰𝔩(B)\times 𝔰𝔩(C)`$, with $`A,B,C^2`$.

Introduce the symmetrization operator $`\varphi `$ on formal power series with coefficients in $`A_1\times A_1\times A_1`$-modules, which associates to $`S^aA\mathrm{}S^bB\mathrm{}S^cC`$ its complete symmetrization, e.g., $`\varphi (S^2A\mathrm{}B)=S^2A\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}S^2A\mathrm{}C\mathrm{}S^2B\mathrm{}A\mathrm{}S^2B\mathrm{}C\mathrm{}S^2C\mathrm{}A\mathrm{}S^2C\mathrm{}B`$, and $`\varphi (S^3A)=S^3A\mathrm{}S^3B\mathrm{}S^3C`$.

###### Theorem 6.2.

The covariant algebra $`[A\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}C]^{𝔫\times 𝔖_3}`$ is a polynomial algebra. More precisely,

$$\underset{k0}{}t^kS^kV=\varphi \frac{1}{(1tV)(1t^2𝔤)(1t^3V)(1t^4)(1t^4V_2)},$$

where $`V=A\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}C`$, $`𝔤=S^2A\mathrm{}S^2B\mathrm{}S^2C`$ and $`V_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(A\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}C)/=S^2A\mathrm{}S^2B\mathrm{}S^2B\mathrm{}S^2C\mathrm{}`$ $`S^2C\mathrm{}S^2A`$.

Here use the convention $`𝔤^{(k)}=S^{2k}A\mathrm{}S^{2k}B\mathrm{}S^{2k}C`$, and similarly for $`V_2^{(k)}`$.

Thus although $`A\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}C`$ is not exceptional in the sense of , it does become exceptional when we take into account the $`𝔖_3`$-symmetry.

Note that the generators of the symmetric algebra have the same degrees as in the other cases of the subexceptional series.

The theorem is a consequence of the following lemma:

###### Lemma 6.3.

Let $`\mu (n;a,b,c)`$ denote the multiplicity of $`S_{na,a}A\mathrm{}S_{nb,b}B\mathrm{}S_{nc,c}C`$ inside $`S^n(A\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}C)`$. Suppose that $`ca,b`$ and $`2cn`$. Then

$$\mu (n;a,b,c)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \mathrm{if}& c>a+b,\hfill \\ E(\frac{a+bc}{2})+1\hfill & \mathrm{if}& ca+b\mathrm{and}na+b+c,\hfill \\ E(\frac{a+bc}{2})E^+(\frac{a+b+cn}{2})+1\hfill & \mathrm{if}& ca+b\mathrm{and}na+b+c.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`E(x)`$ denotes the largest integer smaller than or equal to $`x`$, and $`E^+(x)`$ the smallest integer greater than or equal to $`x`$.

Recall that irreducible representations of $`𝔖_n`$ are naturally indexed by partitions of $`n`$. We let $`[\lambda ]`$ denote the representation associated to a partition $`\lambda `$, following the notation of .

By Schur duality, $`\mu (n;a,b,c)`$ can be interpreted in terms of representations of symmetric groups, as the dimension of the space of $`𝔖_n`$-invariants in the triple tensor product $`[na,a]\mathrm{}[nb,b]\mathrm{}[nc,c]`$, or the multiplicity of $`[na,a]`$ inside $`[nb,b]\mathrm{}[nc,c]`$. The behavior of the multiplicity of $`[n+\lambda ]`$ inside $`[n+\mu ]\mathrm{}[n+\nu ]`$ as a function of $`n`$ was investigated in , where it was proved to be non-decreasing, and constant for $`n`$ sufficiently large.

###### Proof.

We use Cauchy formula  for the symmetric powers of a tensor product:

$$\underset{k0}{}t^kS^k(A\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}C)=\underset{ab0}{}t^{a+b}S_{a,b}A\mathrm{}S_{a,b}(B\mathrm{}C).$$

Since $`A`$ is two dimensional, $`S_{a,b}A=S^{ab}A`$ as $`𝔰𝔩_2`$-modules. Moreover, we can write $`S_{a,b}(B\mathrm{}C)=S^a(B\mathrm{}C)\mathrm{}S^b(B\mathrm{}C)S^{a+1}(B\mathrm{}C)\mathrm{}S^{b1}(B\mathrm{}C)`$, so we first compute

$$\begin{array}{c}_{ab0}t^{a+b}S_{a,b}A\mathrm{}S^a(B\mathrm{}C)\mathrm{}S^b(B\mathrm{}C)=\hfill \\ =_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta ,\alpha +\beta \gamma +\delta }t^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta }S_{\alpha +\beta ,\gamma +\delta }A\mathrm{}S_{\alpha ,\beta }B\mathrm{}S_{\gamma ,\delta }B\mathrm{}S_{\alpha ,\beta }C\mathrm{}S_{\gamma ,\delta }C.\hfill \end{array}$$

The last equality follows from Cauchy formula. Now the Clebsh-Gordon formula implies that $`S_{\alpha ,\beta }B\mathrm{}S_{\gamma ,\delta }B=S^{\alpha \beta }B\mathrm{}S^{\gamma \delta }B=_{0k\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }S^{\alpha \beta +\gamma \delta 2k}B`$. Define the formal series $`P_{u,v,w}(t)`$ by the identity

$$\underset{ab0}{}t^{a+b}S_{a,b}A\mathrm{}S^a(B\mathrm{}C)\mathrm{}S^b(B\mathrm{}C)=\underset{u,v,w0}{}P_{u,v,w}(t)S^uA\mathrm{}S^vB\mathrm{}S^wC,$$

and observe that the coefficient of $`t^n`$ inside $`P_{u,v,w}(t)`$ is equal to the number of solutions of the system of equations in nonnegative integers

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill n& =& \alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta ,\hfill \\ \hfill u& =& \alpha +\beta \gamma \delta ,\hfill \\ \hfill v& =& \alpha +\gamma \beta \delta 2k,\hfill \\ \hfill w& =& \alpha +\gamma \beta \delta 2l,\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`\alpha +\beta \gamma +\delta `$ and $`0k,l\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta `$. From these equations we first deduce that $`u+v=2\alpha 2\delta 2k`$ and $`u+w=2\alpha 2\delta 2l`$, which imply that $`u,v,w`$ have the same parity. Let $`2r=u+v`$ and $`2s=u+w`$, so that $`k=\alpha \delta r`$ and $`l=\alpha \delta s`$. Suppose that $`uvw`$, so that in particular $`rs`$. Then

$$P_{u,v,w}(t)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\gamma +s\alpha \delta +r\\ \delta +s\beta 0\\ \alpha +\beta =\gamma +\delta +u\end{array}}{}t^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma +\delta }=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\alpha \delta +r\\ \delta +s\beta 0\\ \beta +s=\delta +u\end{array}}{}t^{2\alpha +2\beta u}=\frac{t^v}{1t^2}\underset{\begin{array}{c}\delta +s\beta 0\\ \beta +s=\delta +u\end{array}}{}t^{2\delta +2\beta }=\frac{t^{u+vw}(1t^{2w+2})}{(1t^2)^2(1t^4)}.$$

A similar computation shows that

$$\underset{ab>0}{}t^{a+b}S_{a,b}A\mathrm{}S^{a+1}(B\mathrm{}C)\mathrm{}S^{b1}(B\mathrm{}C)=\underset{u,v,w0}{}Q_{u,v,w}(t)S^uA\mathrm{}S^vB\mathrm{}S^wC,$$

where $`Q_{u,v,w}(t)=\frac{t^{u+vw+2}(1t^{2w+2})}{(1t^2)^2(1t^4)}`$ for $`uvw`$. Thus

$$\underset{k0}{}t^kS^k(A\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}C)=\underset{u,v,w0}{}\frac{t^{u+v+w2m}(1t^{2m+2})}{(1t^2)(1t^4)}S^uA\mathrm{}S^vB\mathrm{}S^wC,$$

with the notation $`m=\mathrm{min}(u,v,w)`$. The lemma is now just a transcription of this formula.∎

The lemma can be rewritten in the following form:

$$\begin{array}{c}_{k0}t^kS^k(A\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}C)=\frac{1}{(1tA\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}C)(1t^3A\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}C)(1t^4)}\times \hfill \\ \times (\frac{1}{1t^4S^2A\mathrm{}S^2B}(\frac{1}{1t^2S^2A}+\frac{1}{1t^2S^2B}1)+\frac{1}{1t^4S^2B\mathrm{}S^2C}(\frac{1}{1t^2S^2B}+\frac{1}{1t^2S^2C}1)+\hfill \\ +\frac{1}{1t^4S^2C\mathrm{}S^2A}(\frac{1}{1t^2S^2C}+\frac{1}{1t^2S^2A}1)\frac{1}{1t^2S^2A}\frac{1}{1t^2S^2B}\frac{1}{1t^2S^2C}+1).\hfill \end{array}$$

and the theorem follows.

### 6.3. Isotropy representations of orthogonal adjoint varieties

The set of semi-simple parts of the isotropy groups for all fundamental adjoint varieties consists of the subexceptional series plus $`𝔰𝔩_2\times 𝔰𝔬_n`$ acting on $`V=A\mathrm{}B=^2\mathrm{}^n`$. This new case is quite similar as:

###### Proposition 6.4.

$$\underset{k0}{}t^kS^kV=\frac{1}{(1tV)(1t^2S_{[1,1]}B)(1t^3V)(1t^4)}\left(\frac{1}{1t^2S_{[2]}A}+\frac{1}{1t^4S_{[2]}B}1\right).$$

Thus the covariant algebra $`[V]^𝔲`$ is not a polynomial algebra as in the subexceptional cases, although it has generators of exactly the same degrees. The fact that we no longer obtain a polynomial algebra seems to be related, first to the nonsimplicity of $`𝔤=S^2A\mathrm{}S_{[1,1]}B`$, and also to the fact that $`V_2=S_{[2]}B\mathrm{}S^2A\mathrm{}S_{[1,1]}B`$ partly comes from $`𝔤`$, since its second factor is just the tensor product of the two components of $`𝔤`$. Unlike the subexceptional case, the orbit closures here are not nested.

###### Proof.

The Cauchy formula gives

$$S^k(AB)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}lm0\\ l+m=k\end{array}}{}S_{l,m}AS_{l,m}B.$$

Here the Schur power $`S_{l,m}B`$ is not irreducible as a $`𝔰𝔬_n`$-module, its decomposition into irreducibles can be found in  and is given by

$$S_{l,m}B=\underset{\begin{array}{c}ab0,\\ pq0\end{array}}{}c_{(2a,2b),(p,q)}^{l,m}S_{[p,q]}B,$$

where $`S_{[p,q]}B`$ denotes the irreducible $`𝔰𝔬_n`$-module indexed by the two-parts partition $`(p,q)`$, and the Littlewood-Richardson coefficient $`c_{(2a,2b),(p,q)}^{l,m}`$ is the multiplicity of the $`GL(C)`$-module $`S_{l,m}C`$ inside the tensor product $`S_{2a,2b}C\mathrm{}S_{p,q}C`$, where $`C`$ is some vector space of dimension at least two. By the Littlewood-Richardson rule, this multiplicity equals the number of triples of non-negative integers $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ such that $`0\beta 2a2b`$ and $`0\gamma \alpha `$, $`l=2a+\alpha `$, $`m=2b+\beta +\gamma `$, $`p=\alpha +\beta `$ and $`q=\gamma `$. Letting $`a=b+c`$, we get

$$\underset{k0}{}t^kS^kV=\underset{\begin{array}{c}b,c,\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma 0\\ 0\beta 2c,0\gamma \alpha \end{array}}{}t^{4b+2c+\alpha +\beta +\gamma }S_{2c+\alpha \beta \gamma }A\mathrm{}S_{[\alpha +\beta ,\gamma ]}B.$$

We let $`\alpha =\gamma +\delta `$, and for $`a`$ we distinguish two cases: either $`\beta =2\rho `$ is even and we let $`a=\rho +\sigma `$, or $`\beta =2\rho +1`$ is odd and we let $`a=\rho +\sigma +1`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _{k0}t^kS^kV& =& \frac{1}{1t^4}(_{\rho ,\sigma ,\gamma ,\delta 0}t^{4\rho +2\sigma +2\gamma +\delta }S_{2\sigma +\delta }A\mathrm{}S_{[\gamma +\delta +2\rho ,\gamma ]}B+\hfill \\ & & +_{\rho ,\sigma ,\gamma ,\delta 0}t^{4\rho +2\sigma +2\gamma +\delta +3}S_{2\sigma +\delta +1}A\mathrm{}S_{[\gamma +\delta +2\rho +1,\gamma ]}B),\hfill \end{array}$$

giving the rational expressions

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _{k0}t^kS^kV& =& \frac{1+t^3A\mathrm{}B}{(1t^4)(1tA\mathrm{}B)(1t^2S_2A)(1t^2S_{[1,1]}B)(1t^4S_{[2]}B)}\hfill \\ & =& \frac{1t^6S_2A\mathrm{}S_{[2]}B}{(1tA\mathrm{}B)(1t^4)(1t^3A\mathrm{}B)(1t^2S_2A)(1t^2S_{[1,1]}B)(1t^4S_{[2]}B)}\hfill \\ & =& \frac{1}{(1tA\mathrm{}B)(1t^4)(1t^3A\mathrm{}B)(1t^2S_{[1,1]}B)}\left(\frac{1}{1t^2S_2A}+\frac{1}{1t^4S_{[2]}B}1\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

## 7. The Severi series

Zak proved Hartshorne’s conjecture that a smooth subvariety $`X^n^{n+a}`$ not contained in a hyperplane cannot have a degenerate secant variety if $`a<\frac{n}{2}+2`$, and then classified the boundary case. The answer gives rise to the series corresponding to the second line in Freudenthal’s square:

$$A_2,A_2\times A_2,A_5,E_6$$

which we parametrize by $`m=1,2,4,8`$. We could add the finite group $`𝔖_3`$ with $`m=0`$. (In the case $`m=0`$ that $`V`$, defined below, has the correct dimension, but $`𝔤`$ does not.)

Freudenthal’s incidence geometries  or the triality model  distinguishes two isomorphic representations of dimension $`3m+3`$. We choose one, call it $`V`$ and call its dual $`V^{}`$. In fact $`V^{}=V_Q=I_2(X)`$ with respect to our previous notations, where $`XV`$ denotes the unique closed orbit. While not singled out by the triality model, $`𝔤`$ does occur as $`𝔤=(VV^{})_{Aad}`$, i.e., as a space of linear syzygies. Its dimension is $`\mathrm{dim}𝔤=\frac{4(m+1)(3m+2)}{m+4}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ be the automorphism group of the Dynkin diagram, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ be the subgroup preserving the marked Dynkin diagram ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is trivial except for $`𝔤=A_2\times A_2`$, for which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝔖_2`$). We obtain the following decomposition formulae into $`𝔤\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$-Casimir eigenspaces:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }^kV& =& V_k,2k6,\hfill \\ \hfill 𝔤\mathrm{}V& =& V\mathrm{}V_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{}V𝔤\mathrm{}J,\hfill \\ \hfill S_{21}V& =& 𝔤\mathrm{}VV^{}\mathrm{}VV_2,\hfill \\ \hfill S_{31}V& =& V\mathrm{}V_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(2)}V_{}^{}\mathrm{}V𝔤\mathrm{}V^{}V_2\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(2)}V_{2}^{},\hfill \\ \hfill S_{22}V& =& V\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{}V{}_{}{}^{(2)}V_{}^{}\mathrm{}V𝔤\mathrm{}V_2{}_{}{}^{(2)},\hfill \\ \hfill S_{211}V& & V_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{}V𝔤\mathrm{}J\mathrm{}V^{}V_2.\hfill \end{array}$$

The Severi series is sub-minuscule, so Theorem 5.1 applies. There are only three orbits:

$$\underset{k0}{}t^kS^kV=(1tV)^1(1t^2V^{})^1(1t^3)^1.$$

The Casimir eigenvalues for these modules are all of the form $`\frac{am+b}{9m}`$ with $`a,b`$ and are linear functions of $`(\lambda ,\lambda )`$ as before.

The dimensions of these modules are rational functions of $`m`$ with simple denominators. The formulas can be found in , with the exceptions of $`V_k`$ which is obvious, $`𝔤`$ given above and

$$\mathrm{dim}J=\frac{3(m+1)(8m)(3m+2)}{2(m+4)(m+6)}.$$

As explained in §2, $`𝔤S_1`$ is a subspace of the space of linear syzygies of $`XV`$. In fact more is true:

###### Proposition 7.1.

Let $`S_k`$ denote the chain of linear syzygies in the minimal resolution of a Severi variety, beginning with $`S_0=I_2(X)`$. Then

$$S_0=V^{},S_1=𝔤,S_2=J.$$

The highest weights of the modules involved in the decomposition formulas are given in the following table. Note that for $`A_1^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ each time a representation occurs, its mirror occurs as well which we supress in the list. In particular, the adjoint representation is not irreducible:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& A_2\hfill & A_2^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\hfill & A_5\hfill & E_6\hfill \\ & & & & \\ V\hfill & [2,0]\hfill & [0,1|1,0]\hfill & [0,1,0,0,0]\hfill & [1,0,0,0,0,0]\hfill \\ 𝔤\hfill & [1,1]\hfill & [1,1|0,0]\hfill & [1,0,0,0,1]\hfill & [0,1,0,0,0,0]\hfill \\ V_2\hfill & [2,1]\hfill & [1,0|2,0]\hfill & [1,0,1,0,0]\hfill & [0,0,1,0,0,0]\hfill \\ V_3\hfill & [3,0]\hfill & [0,0|3,0]\hfill & [0,0,2,0,0]\hfill & [0,0,0,1,0,0]\hfill \\ & [0,3]\hfill & & [2,0,0,1,0]\hfill & \\ & & [1,1|1,1]\hfill & & \\ V_4\hfill & [1,2]\hfill & [2,0|0,2]\hfill & [3,0,0,0,1]\hfill & [0,1,0,0,1,0]\hfill \\ & & [1,0|1,2]\hfill & [1,0,1,1,0]\hfill & \\ V_5\hfill & [0,2]\hfill & [2,0|0,2]\hfill & [4,0,0,0,0]\hfill & [0,2,0,0,0,1]\hfill \\ & & [1,0|1,2]\hfill & [2,0,1,0,1]\hfill & [0,0,0,0,2,0]\hfill \\ & & [2,1|0,1]\hfill & [0,1,0,2,0]\hfill & \\ V_6\hfill & [0,0]\hfill & [0,0|3,0]\hfill & [1,1,0,1,1]\hfill & [0,3,0,0,0,0]\hfill \\ & & [0,3|0,0]\hfill & [3,0,1,0,0]\hfill & [0,1,0,0,1,1]\hfill \\ & & [1,1|1,1]\hfill & [0,0,0,3,0]\hfill & \\ J\hfill & [0,1]\hfill & [1,0|0,1]\hfill & [2,0,0,0,0]\hfill & \end{array}$$

## 8. The Severi-section series

This is the series of the first line in Freudenthal’s square:

$$A_1,A_2,C_3,F_4.$$

Again let $`m=1,2,4,8`$ respectively. This series does not correspond to a line in Vogel’s plane, but $`B_1=A_1,A_2,C_3`$ are on a line, their parameters being $`(7m8,2m,4)`$ for $`m=1,2,4`$. In particular the sum of these coefficients is $`5m4`$, which is precisely the denominator in the Casimir eigenvalues below. There is a distinguished $`𝔤`$-module $`V`$ of dimension $`3m+2`$.

We have a uniform decomposition

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2V=𝔤\mathrm{}V_2$$

where the presence of both factors is easily understood, the first because $`𝔤`$ preserves a quadratic form on $`V`$ and thus lies in $`𝔰𝔬(V)`$, the second by diagram induction.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ be the automorphism group of the Dynkin diagram, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ be the subgroup preserving the marked Dynkin diagram ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is trivial except for $`𝔤=A_2`$, for which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝔖_2`$). We obtain the following decomposition formulae into irreducible $`𝔤\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$-modules:

###### Proposition 8.1.

Let $`\epsilon _m=1`$ for $`m=1`$, $`\epsilon _m=0`$ for $`m=2,4,8`$. Then

$$\underset{k0}{}t^kS^kV=\frac{1\epsilon _mt^6V^{(3)}}{(1tV)(1t^2)(1t^2V)(1t^3)(1t^3V_2)}.$$

All the generators except $`V_2`$ and the quadratic form are generators of ideals of orbits. The presence of $`V_2`$ can be understood as follows: the polarization of the cubic invariant gives a map $`r:S^2V\mathrm{}V^{}V`$, hence a map $`s:S^3V\mathrm{}V_2`$ by letting $`s(v^3)=p(v,r(v))`$, where we identify $`VV^{}`$ using the quadratic form.

For $`m=4`$ or $`8`$ the representation $`V`$ is again exceptional in the sense of , whose results imply the Proposition in those cases.

In the case $`m=1`$ the invariant algebra $`[V]^𝔤`$ is free, but there exists a (unique) relation in degree six between the fundamental covariants in $`[V]^𝔲`$. This is the classical case of quartic binary forms (see  and references therein for covariants of binary forms).

The Casimir eigenvalues for these modules are all of the form $`\frac{am+b}{5m4}`$ with $`a,b`$ and are linear functions of $`(\lambda ,\lambda )`$.

We have

$$\mathrm{dim}𝔤=\frac{3m(3m+2)}{m+4},\mathrm{dim}V_2=\frac{(3m+2)(3m+4)(m+1)}{2(m+4)}$$

and highest weights are given in the following table:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& \hfill A_1& \hfill A_2& \hfill C_3& F_4\hfill \\ & & & & \\ V\hfill & \hfill \left[4\right]& \hfill [1,1]& \hfill [0,1,0]& [0,0,0,1]\hfill \\ 𝔤\hfill & \hfill \left[2\right]& \hfill [1,1]& \hfill [2,0,0]& [1,0,0,0]\hfill \\ V_2\hfill & \hfill \left[6\right]& \hfill [3,0]& \hfill [1,0,1]& [0,0,1,0]\hfill \end{array}$$

### 8.1. The adjoint representation of $`𝔰𝔩_3`$

. The case $`m=2`$ deserves some explanation since $`V_2`$ is irreducible as a $`𝔤\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module, but has two components as a $`𝔤`$-module: $`V_2=V_{3\omega _1}V_{3\omega _2}`$, the nontrivial element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=/2`$ permutes the two components. The identity above should be understood as

$$\underset{k0}{}t^kS^kV=\frac{1}{(1tV)(1t^2)(1t^2V)(1t^3)}\left(\frac{1}{1t^3V_{3\omega _1}}+\frac{1}{1t^3V_{3\omega _2}}1\right).$$

Note that $`(1t^3V_{3\omega _1})^1+(1t^3V_{3\omega _2})^11=1+_{k>0}t^k(V_{3k\omega _1}V_{3k\omega _2})`$, so that the preceeding identity means that $`𝔰𝔩_3`$ is exceptional in the sense that $`[𝔰𝔩_3]^{𝔲\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is a polynomial algebra, although $`[𝔰𝔩_3]^𝔲`$ is not.

We briefly explain how one obtains the preceeding generating function $`g_{𝔰𝔩_3}(t)`$ for the symmetric powers of $`𝔰𝔩_3`$. If $`U`$ denotes the natural three-dimensional module, first note that $`U^{}\mathrm{}U=𝔰𝔩_3`$, so that $`g_{𝔰𝔩_3}(t)=(1t)g_{U^{}\mathrm{}U}(t)`$. Again the symmetric powers of a tensor product are given by the Cauchy formula:

$$S^k(U^{}\mathrm{}U)=\underset{a+2b+3c=k}{}S_{a+b+c,b+c,c}US_{a+b+c,b+c,c}U^{}.$$

But as $`𝔰𝔩_3`$-modules, $`S_{a+b+c,b+c,c}U^{}=S_{a+b,b}U^{}=S_{a+b,a}U`$, and we get

$$g_{𝔰𝔩_3}(t)=\frac{1t}{1t^3}\underset{a,b0}{}t^{a+2b}S_{a+b,a}U\mathrm{}S_{a+b,b}U.$$

Now we use the Littlewood-Richardson rule to compute these scalar products: we refer the reader to  for the statement and the terminology we use in the sequel. Following this rule, the irreducible components of $`S_{a+b,a}U\mathrm{}S_{a+b,b}U`$ are encoded by skew-tableaux of the following type:

$`1`$   $`1`$   $`1`$   $`1`$           $`1`$   $`1`$   $`1`$   $`2`$   $`2`$   $`2`$       $`1`$   $`2`$   $`2`$   $`2`$

We have $`a+b`$ empty boxes on the first line, $`b`$ on the second line. We add $`\alpha _i`$ boxes numbered $`1`$ on the $`i`$-th line, $`i=1,2,3`$, with total number $`a+b`$, and $`\beta _j`$ boxes numbered $`2`$ on the $`j`$-th line, $`j=2,3`$, with total number $`a`$. Moreover, there are two types of constraints. First we must get a semistandard skew-tableau, which means that below a box numbered $`1`$ there can be no box also numbered $`1`$, and below a box numbered $`2`$ there can be no box at all. This means that

$$\alpha _2a,\alpha _2+\beta _2a+\alpha _1,\alpha _3b,\alpha _3+\beta _3b+\alpha _2.$$

Second, the word one obtains by reading the numbered boxes right to left and top to bottom must be Yamanouchi (or a lattice word), which means that

$$\beta _2\alpha _1\mathrm{and}\beta _2+\beta _3\alpha _1+\alpha _2.$$

When these conditions are fulfilled, we have $`S_{a+b+\alpha _1,b+\alpha _2+\beta _2,\alpha _3+\beta _3}US^k(U^{}\mathrm{}U)`$.

Recalling that $`a=\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3`$ and $`b=\beta _2+\beta _3`$, it is easy to see that this set of inequalities actually reduces to:

$$\beta _2\alpha _1,\alpha _2\beta _2+\beta _3,\beta _2+2\beta _3\alpha _1+2\alpha _2.$$

The first of theses implies that we can write $`\alpha _1=\beta _2+u`$ for some non-negative integer $`u`$. Then we have two cases.

If $`\alpha _2\beta _3`$, we let $`\alpha _2=\beta _3+v`$ for some non-negative integer $`v`$, then the third inequality is automatically true and the second one reduces to $`\beta _2v`$, so that $`\beta _2=v+w`$ for some non-negative integer $`w`$. The $`𝔰𝔩_3`$-module we obtain this way is $`S_{2u+3v+2w+\alpha _3+\beta _3,u+3v+w+\alpha _3+\beta _3,\alpha _3+\beta _3}U=S_{2u+3v+2w,u+3v+w}U`$, and the overall contribution of this case is

$$\begin{array}{c}_{u,v,w,\alpha _3,\beta _30}t^{2u+3v+w+2\alpha _3+\beta _3}S_{2u+3v+2w,u+3v+w}U\hfill \\ =\frac{1}{(1t^2S_{21}U)(1t^3S_{33}U)(1tS_{21}U)(1t^2)(1t^3)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`\alpha _2\beta _3`$, we let $`\alpha _2=\beta _3v`$ for some non-negative integer $`v`$; then the second inequality is automatically true and the third one reduces to $`u2v`$, so that $`u=2v+w`$ for some non-negative integer $`w`$. The $`𝔰𝔩_3`$-module we obtain this way is $`S_{4v+2w+\alpha _2+\alpha _3+2\beta _2,v+w+\alpha _2+\alpha _3+\beta _2,v+\alpha _2+\alpha _3}U=S_{3v+2w+2\beta _2,w+\beta _2}U`$, and the overall contribution of this case is

$$\begin{array}{c}_{v,w,\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\beta _20}t^{3v+2w+2\alpha _2+\alpha _3+\beta _2}S_{3v+2w+2\beta _2,w+\beta _2}U\hfill \\ =\frac{1}{(1t^3S_3U)(1t^2S_{21}U)(1t^2)(1t)(1tS_{21}U)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Finally, we counted the case $`\alpha _2=\beta _3`$ twice, whose contribution is easily calculated to be

$$\underset{u,\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\beta _20}{}t^{2u+\alpha _2+2\alpha _3+\beta _2}S_{2u+2\beta _2,u+\beta _2}U=\frac{1}{(1t^2S_{21}U)(1t)(1t^2)(1tS_{21}U)}.$$

Putting together theses three contributions we easily obtain the expression we claimed for the generating series $`g_{𝔰𝔩_3}(t)`$.

## 9. The highest possible Casimir eigenspace of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$

Let $`V`$ be a fundamental representation of a simple Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ with highest weight $`\lambda `$ and Casimir eigenvalue $`\theta _V`$. Let $`\alpha `$ denote the simple root whose coroot is Killing-dual to $`\lambda `$. Define $`V_k\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$ to be the (possibly empty) subspace with Casimir eigenvalue

$$\theta _{V_k}:=k\theta _V+k(k1)\left[(\lambda ,\lambda )(\alpha ,\alpha )\right].$$

We expect that $`V_k`$, when nonempty, is the highest Casimir eigenspace in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$. We show below that this is the case when $`V`$ is minuscule, it is true when $`V`$ is adjoint by , and we extend it to other fundamental representations in low degrees in proposition 9.3. Let $`k_0`$ denote the largest $`k`$ for which $`V_k`$ is nonempty.

Remark. In , a beautiful characterization of $`V_k`$ is given in the case $`V=𝔤`$ is the adoint representation: the components of $`𝔤_k`$ correspond to abelian ideals of a fixed Borel $`𝔟`$. Our answer in the general case is not as elegant and it would be nice to have a simpler characterization.

For the adjoint representations $`k_0`$ is explicitly known. Also note that $`\theta _{𝔤_k}=k`$ as our formula predicts.

In the standard representations of classical series and the Severi series, we have $`V_k=\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$ in low degrees. In the subexceptional series, in low degrees $`V_k`$ is the primitive subspace for the symplectic form $`\omega `$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV=V_k\mathrm{}(\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^{k2}V)`$. For the exceptional series, at least in low degrees, $`𝔤_k`$ is the primitive part of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k𝔤`$ For example, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝔤=𝔤\mathrm{}𝔤_2`$, but the inclusion $`𝔤\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝔤`$ is just the Lie bracket, so the only primitive piece is $`𝔤_2`$.

Let $`W_k`$ denote the Casimir eigenspace of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$ of maximal eigenvalue. The discussion of  implies that $`W_k`$ is decomposably generated, i.e., its highest weight vectors are all of the form $`v_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}v_k`$ for some weight vectors $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_k`$ of $`V`$. (Kostant only considered the case where $`V=𝔤`$ is the adjoint representation, but his arguments apply to any irreducible module.) Note that the set of vectors $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_k`$ is $`B`$-stable and conversely a $`B`$-stable set of vectors wedged together furnishes a highest weight vector. Here $`B`$ denotes the Borel compatible with our choices.

We will call a $`B`$-stable set of weight vectors complete. We will also call the corresponding set of weights complete. A subset $`S`$ of the weights of $`V`$ is complete if and only if for all $`\mu S`$ and each $`\beta `$ that is a sum of positive roots, if $`\mu +\beta `$ is a weight of $`V`$, then $`\mu +\beta S`$.

Thus the problem of characterizing $`W_k`$ is to characterize which complete subsets of weights (possibly with multiplicities, bounded by their multiplicities in $`V`$) determine a maximal Casimir eigenvalue.

Let $`H_j`$ be an orthonormal basis of the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$, and $`X_\beta `$ a generator of the root space $`𝔤_\beta `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denote the Casimir operator. We have (see )

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(v_1\mathrm{}v_k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}H_iH_i(v_1\mathrm{}v_k)+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}}X_\beta X_\beta (v_1\mathrm{}v_k)`$
$`=k\theta _Vv_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}v_k+2{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}v_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}H_lv_i\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}H_lv_j\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}v_k`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(X_\beta ,X_\beta )}}v_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}X_\beta v_i\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}X_\beta v_j\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}v_k.`$
In order to state the main result of this section, we define the diameter of a subset $`S`$ of the weights of $`V`$ to be the minimal number $`\delta `$ such that $`\mu \mu ^{}^2\delta (\alpha ,\alpha )`$ for all $`\mu ,\mu ^{}S`$. The diameter of $`V`$ is obtained for $`\mu =\lambda `$ and $`\mu ^{}=w_0(\lambda )`$, where $`w_0`$ denotes the longest element of the Weyl group. Thus, we easily compute that $`\delta =i`$ for the $`i`$-th fundamental representation of $`A_l`$, $`\delta =2`$ for the natural representations of $`C_l`$, $`\delta =l`$ for the spin representation of $`B_l`$, $`\delta =[l/2]`$ for a spin representation of $`D_l`$, $`\delta =2`$ for the minuscule representation of $`E_6`$, and $`\delta =3`$ for that of $`E_7`$. Note that when $`\delta =2`$, any decomposably generated component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$ has maximal Casimir eigenvalue.

###### Proposition 9.1.

Let $`V`$ be a minuscule representation. Then the irreducible components of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$ have Casimir eigenvalue less than or equal to $`\theta _{V_k}`$. Those with Casimir eigenvalue equal to $`\theta _{V_k}`$ are in correspondance with complete cardinality $`k`$ subsets $`S`$ of the set of weights of $`V`$ of diameter at most $`2`$. In the case of the minuscule representation of $`B_l`$, we require additionally that the difference between two elements of $`S`$ cannot be a root strictly longer than $`\alpha _l`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`U`$ denote a component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$ of maximal Casimir eigenvalue, let $`v_1\mathrm{}v_k`$ be a highest weight vector. Let $`\mu _i`$ denote the weight of $`v_i`$, and suppose that $`V`$ is endowed with an invariant Hermitian product $`,`$, such that the $`v_i`$ are part of a unitary basis. Then the eigenvalue of the Casimir operator on $`U`$ is

$$\theta _U=\mathrm{\Theta }(v_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}v_k),v_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}v_k=k\theta _V+\underset{ij}{}(\mu _i,\mu _j)+\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}\underset{ij}{}\frac{X_\beta v_i\mathrm{}X_\beta v_j,v_i\mathrm{}v_j}{(X_\beta ,X_\beta )}.$$

Since weight vectors of distinct weights are orthogonal, $`X_\beta v_i\mathrm{}X_\beta v_j,v_i\mathrm{}v_j`$ can be nonzero only if $`\mu _i=\mu _j\beta `$ and there exist scalars $`s`$ and $`t`$ such that $`X_\beta v_i=sv_j`$ and $`X_\beta v_j=tv_i`$. Assuming this, we compute

$$stv_i=sX_\beta v_j=X_\beta X_\beta v_i=[X_\beta ,X_\beta ]v_i+X_\beta X_\beta v_i.$$

The latter term is zero since, $`V`$ being minuscule, $`X_\beta ^2v_j=0`$ (, page 128). Moreover, we may suppose that $`[X_\beta ,X_\beta ]=H_\beta `$ is the coroot of $`\beta `$ (see , page 82), and note that in this case $`2(X_\beta ,X_\beta )=(H_\beta ,H_\beta )`$, and we get

$$\frac{X_\beta v_i\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}X_\beta v_j,v_i\mathrm{}v_j}{(X_\beta ,X_\beta )}=\frac{2}{(H_\beta ,H_\beta )}\mu _i(H_\beta )=(\mu _i,\beta )=(\mu _i,\mu _j\mu _i).$$

Hence

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \theta _U& =& k\theta _V+_{ij}(\mu _i,\mu _j)+_{\mu _j\mu _i\mathrm{\Delta }}(\mu _i,\mu _j\mu _i)\hfill \\ & =& k\theta _V+_{\mu _j\mu _i\mathrm{\Delta }}(\mu _i,\mu _j)+_{\mu _j\mu _i\mathrm{\Delta }}(\mu _i,2\mu _j\mu _i).\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that since $`V`$ is minuscule, the weights $`\mu _i`$ are all conjugate under the Weyl group, in particular they have the same norm as $`\lambda `$. We need the following observation:

###### Lemma 9.2.

For $`ij`$, either $`\mu _i\mu _j^2=(\alpha ,\alpha )`$ and $`\mu _i\mu _j\mathrm{\Delta }`$, or $`\mu _i\mu _j^22(\alpha ,\alpha )`$ and $`\mu _i\mu _j\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Proof.

We may suppose that $`\mu _i=\lambda `$, since the Weyl group acts transitively on the weights of $`V`$. Since $`\lambda `$ is the highest weight of $`V`$, we can write $`\mu _j=\lambda _kn_k\alpha _k`$ for some non-negative integers $`n_k`$, where the $`\alpha _k`$ are the simple roots. Since $`\lambda `$ is fundamental it is orthogonal to every simple root except $`\alpha =\alpha _l`$, say, and we get $`(\mu _i,\mu _j)=(\lambda ,\lambda )n_l(\alpha _l,\omega _l)=(\lambda ,\lambda )n_l(\alpha ,\alpha )/2`$, hence $`\mu _i\mu _j^2=n_l(\alpha ,\alpha )`$.

Suppose that $`n_l=1`$. The highest weight of $`V`$ after $`\lambda `$ is $`\lambda \alpha `$. Since every nonzero weight of $`V`$ is obtained by a sequence of simple reflections in $`\lambda `$, there is a sequence $`\nu _i`$, $`1ik+1`$ of weights of $`V`$ such that $`\nu _0=\lambda `$, $`\nu _1=s_\alpha (\lambda )=\lambda \alpha `$, $`\nu _t=\mu _j`$ for some $`t`$ and $`\nu _{k+1}=s_{\beta _k}(\nu _k)`$ for some simple root $`\beta _k`$, which is different from $`\alpha `$ if $`k0`$ because $`n_l=1`$. But then $`s_{\beta _k}(\lambda \nu _k)=\lambda \nu _{k+1}`$, thus $`\lambda \nu _k`$ is a root if and only if $`\lambda \nu _{k+1}`$ is also a root. Since $`\lambda \nu _1=\alpha `$ is indeed a root, we conclude that $`\mu _i\mu _j=\lambda \nu _t`$ is a root. This argument is reversible, proving the lemma if we remember the formula $`\mu _i\mu _j^2=n_l(\alpha ,\alpha )`$. ∎

To conclude the proof of the proposition, we just need, for each pair $`\mu _i,\mu _j`$, to choose an element $`w`$ of the Weyl group such that $`w(\mu _i)=\lambda `$, and define the integer $`n_{i,j}`$ to be the coefficient of $`\lambda w(\mu _j)`$ on the simple root $`\alpha `$. Then $`(\mu _i,\mu _j)=(\lambda ,\lambda )n_{i,j}(\alpha ,\alpha )/2`$ and we get the formula

$$\theta _U=k\theta _V+\underset{\mu _j\mu _i\mathrm{\Delta }}{}((\lambda ,\lambda )n_{i,j}(\alpha ,\alpha )/2)+\underset{\mu _j\mu _i\mathrm{\Delta }}{}((\lambda ,\lambda )n_{i,j}(\alpha ,\alpha )).$$

The $`n_{i,j}`$ are all positive, and they are at least equal to two in the first sum. We conclude that $`\mathrm{\Theta }(v_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}v_k),v_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}v_k`$ will be maximal when $`n_{i,j}`$ is always equal to two in the first sum, meaning that two weights whose difference is not a root have the square of their distance equal to $`2(\alpha ,\alpha )`$, and always equal to one in the second sum (which means that their difference is a root which is not longer than $`\alpha `$). Then we get $`\theta _U=k\theta _V+k(k1)((\lambda ,\lambda )(\alpha ,\alpha ))`$, and the proposition is proved. ∎

In general, it is clear from the Proposition that $`V_k`$ is nonzero when $`k`$ is not too big, but the maximal integer $`k_0`$ for which this is true is not so easy to compute. At least can we say that $`k_0`$ can be quite large. Indeed, for the $`i`$-th fundamental representation of $`A_l`$, the set of weights $`\mu _{j,k}=\omega _i\epsilon _j+\epsilon _k`$, where $`1ji`$ and $`i<kl+1`$, form, with $`\omega _i`$, a set of weights with the required properties, so that $`k_0>i(l+1i)`$. We suspect that $`k_0=i(l+1i)+1`$ in that case but we have not proved it. Note also that the number of irreducible components in $`V_k`$ can be arbitrary large, as easily follows from Proposition 9.1.

A nice consequence of the fact that Proposition 9.1 above holds for the fundamental representations of $`A_l`$ is that we can extend its validity as follows:

###### Proposition 9.3.

Let $`V`$ be a fundamental representation of the simple Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Suppose that the corresponding node of the Dynkin diagram of $`𝔤`$ is on an $`A_l`$-chain in $`D(𝔤)`$, at distance at least $`k_1`$ from an extremity of the diagram. Then for $`kk_1+2`$, $`\theta _{V_k}`$ is the largest Casimir eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$, and the irreducible components of $`V_k`$ can be described in exactly the same way as in the preceeding proposition.

###### Proof.

An irreducible component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$ with maximal Casimir eigenvalue is decomposably generated, hence generated by the wedge product of weight vectors whose set of weights form a complete subset of the set of weights of $`V`$. Moreover, there are at most $`k`$ distinct weights in this set (possibly less if $`V`$ has weights with multiplicity greater than one). But for $`kk_1+2`$, every weight of a complete $`k`$-set of weights of $`V`$ is of the form $`\lambda \theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is a sum of simple roots corresponding to nodes on the $`A_l`$-chain only, and such that $`\lambda \theta `$ is also a weight of the corresponding fundamental representation of $`A_l`$. Indeed, we know that the weights of $`V`$ are the weights of the convex hull of the translates of $`\lambda `$ by the Weyl group, which are congruent to $`\lambda `$ modulo the root lattice. We can obtain the translates of $`\lambda `$ by applying successively the simple reflections of the Weyl group so that the distance to $`\lambda `$ increases (if we measure that distance by the sum of the coefficients of the difference, expressed in terms of simple roots). At the beginning of this process, the simple reflections involved are those associated to nodes of the $`A_l`$-chain only, and the weights one obtains are formally the same as for the corresponding fundamental representation of $`A_l`$. More precisely, this is the case until we do not apply more than $`k_1+1`$ simple reflections. Moreover, we obtain no new weight by considering the convex hull of those, and we conclude that the weights of $`V`$, at a distance at most $`k_1+1`$ from $`\lambda `$, are formally the same as those of the corresponding representation of $`A_l`$, with the same multiplicity, one. The scalar products of two such weights can be computed in terms of $`(\lambda ,\lambda )`$ and $`(\alpha ,\alpha )`$, and a part of the Cartan matrix which only involves the $`A_l`$-chain, thus the computation is formally the same as in the weight lattice of $`A_l`$, and therefore the computation of the Casimir eigenvalue of a $`k`$-set of weights will again be formally identical. Finally, since we only need to consider the same $`k`$-sets of weights and the same Casimir eigenvalues as in the $`A_l`$-case, the conclusions of the preceeding proposition for the fundamental representations of $`A_l`$ directly apply to $`V`$, and this concludes the proof. ∎

Returning to geometry, we arrive at the following statement, which could also be deduced from .

###### Corollary 9.4.

Let $`V`$ be a fundamental representation of $`𝔤`$, and let $`XV`$ be the closed orbit. If the Fano variety $`𝔽_k(X)`$ of $`^{k1}`$’s in $`X`$ is nonempty, then its linear span $`𝔽_k(X)`$ is contained in $`V_k`$ and in this case $`V_k`$ is the highest Casimir eigenspace.

###### Proof.

We know from  that the closed orbits in $`𝔽_k(X)`$ are in correspondance with marked subdiagrams of type $`(𝔞_{k1},\omega _1)`$. By the proposition above, such subdiagrams detect components of $`V_k\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV`$. ∎

We can be more precise for $`k=2`$:

###### Corollary 9.5.

Let $`V`$ be a fundamental representation of $`𝔤`$. Then $`V_2`$ is irreducible and coincides with $`𝔽_2(X)`$, the linear span in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2V`$ of the set of lines contained in the closed orbit of $`V`$.


text:
# Extended Standard Map with Spatio-Temporal Asymmetry

## I Introduction

The motion of a particle in temporally and spatially periodic potential has attracted renewed attention as a model of molecular motors JA97 . In order to make it a motor, that generates unidirectional motion out of periodic motion, the potential has to be a “ratchet”, i.e. its reflection symmetry in both spatial and temporal direction has to be broken, a fact generally known as a Curie’s theorem. Traditionally, the friction has supplied the source of temporal symmetry breaking BH94 ; JK96 ; PU00 ; PA00 . There are several recent works FY00 ; SO01  in which the frictionless “inertial” regime is studied where the time-asymmetric perturbation is the driving force of the unidirectional motion. Through these studies, it has become evident that the characeristics of the phase space plays a dicisive role. The exploration of the full phase space of a dynamical system, however, requires considerable computational resources. This naturally leads to models of ratchet dynamics in which the differential equation governing the time evolution is reducible to the discrete difference equations, namely the map SO01 . One would then like to have a model of a system with ratchet dynamics, which is free from ad hoc assumptions and parameters that tend to obscure the underlying simple physics.

In this article, we propose a simple model of a particle motion under temporally and spatially periodic potential whose key feature is in that the obtained descrete map is a natural extention of the Chirikov-Taylor map, also known as the standard map CH79  whose dynamical properties have been thouroughly analyzed. The unidirectional motion of the system is understood in the context of the deterministic diffusion found in the standard map. Also, as a practical benefit of the discrete evolution of the map dynamics, the computational burden is substantially reduced, and it becomes possible to study, for the first time, the transportation properties of a system in a broad region in the controlling parameter space. A very intricate dependence of the unidirectional motion on the controlling parameter is revealed though a numerical investigation.

## II Extended Standard Map: Frictionless case

We consider the motion of a classical particle described by a time-periodic Hamiltonian with instantaneous potential action, or $`\delta `$-function kick, which has space periodic part and alternating-current type driving motion;

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[u(x)+xAs_n\right]\delta (tnT\{1+\epsilon s_n\}),`$ (1)
where, for now, the trapping potential $`u(x)`$ is set to be symmetric and given by

$`u(x)=K\mathrm{cos}x,`$ (2)
and $`s_n(1)^n`$ is the parity of the iteration number $`n`$. The evolution of the system is described by

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`p`$ (3)
$`\dot{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[u^{}(x)+As_n\right]\delta (tnT\{1+\epsilon s_n\}),`$ (4)
One can integrate the motion in between the $`\delta `$-function kicks and obtain the map which describe the evolution of position $`x_n`$ and momentum $`p_n`$ at discrete time $`t_n=nT(1+\epsilon s_n)0`$;

$`x_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`x_n+p_{n+1}(1+\epsilon s_n)`$ (5)
$`p_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`p_nK\mathrm{sin}x_nAs_n.`$ (6)
This set of equations can be regarded as a three-parameter extension of the standard map CH01 . The parameter $`K`$, which is present in original standard map is the strength of the periodic potential that traps the particles in each periodic location. The parameter $`A`$ is the amplitude of alternating swing motion, and $`\epsilon `$ is the measure of its time asymmetry. As with the case of the standard map, the dynamical properties of the system is studied through the analysis of phase space RE91 . The transport property of standard map, $`A`$ = $`\epsilon `$ = 0, is characterized in terms of phase space average of functions of position and momentum $`x`$ and $`p`$. It is well known that the direct averages $`x`$ and $`p`$ are zeroas a direct result of the fact that the standard map is both time-reversal and space-reflectional symmetric. However the mean square $`p^2`$ can be non zero when one has the chaotic motion unbounded by KAM tori in $`p`$-direction. This happens with sufficiently large value of $`K`$. One then has deterministic diffusion through chaotic motion which is characterized by the random-walk behavior, $`x^2`$ $``$ $`t`$. In the extended standard map (5)-(6), a unidirectional motion can be realized if one has by the non-zero value for the $`p`$ itself in the diffusive motion.

The reflection symmetries play an essential role in the existence (or non-existence) of the unidirectional motion FY00 . One can rewrite (5)-(6) as

$`x_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`x_np_{n+1}(1+\epsilon s_n)`$ (7)
$`p_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`p_nK\mathrm{sin}(x_n)+As_n.`$ (8)
These become identical in form to (5)-(6) themselves in case of $`A`$ = 0. Therefore, in this case, one has

$`x_n`$ $`=`$ $`x_n=0,`$ (9)
$`p_n`$ $`=`$ $`p_n=0(\mathrm{for}A=0),`$
which means that there cannot be any directed transport.

We now define $`\stackrel{~}{x}_nx_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_np_{n+1}`$, obtain a reverse map

$`\stackrel{~}{x}_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{x}_n\stackrel{~}{p}_{n1}(1\epsilon s_n)`$ (10)
$`\stackrel{~}{p}_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{p}_nu(\stackrel{~}{x}_n)As_n.`$ (11)
Therefore, if one sets $`\epsilon `$ = 0, the map for $`\{x_n,p_n\}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}_n,\stackrel{~}{p}_n\}`$ are identical, and one has

$`p=\stackrel{~}{p}=p=0(\mathrm{for}\epsilon =0)`$ (12)
Therefore, one needs both $`A0`$ and $`\epsilon 0`$ to have directed motion. It is important to note that the map (5)-(6) in fact atcs differently for odd and ven $`n`$ because of the existence of $`s_n`$ term. It is advantageous to consider the phase spaces for odd $`n`$ and even $`n`$ separately. The reflection symmetry between (5)-(6) and (7)-(8) should then be interpreted as one between two phase space profiles each representing odd $`n`$ and even $`n`$.

For the standard map, $`A=`$ $`\epsilon =0`$, as is well known, the map is $`2\pi `$-periodic in both $`x`$ and $`p`$ directions. The periodicity for $`x`$ direction is kept intact for non-zero $`A`$ and $`\epsilon `$: when one has a map $`(x_n,p_n)`$ $``$ $`(x_{n+1},p_{n+1})`$, one also has

$`(x_n+2\pi ,p_n)(x_{n+1}+2\pi ,p_{n+1}).`$ (13)
On the other hand, original $`2\pi `$ periodicty for $`p`$ \- direction is lost when non-zero $`\epsilon `$ is present. If, however, $`\epsilon `$ is a rational number, $`M/N`$ where $`M`$ and $`N`$ are mutually incomensurate positive integers, a new $`2N\pi `$-periodicty for $`p`$-direction emerges, because in this case, one has

$`(x_n,p_n+2N\pi )`$ $``$ (14)
$`(x_{n+1}`$ $`+2`$ $`(N\pm M)\pi ,p_{n+1}+2N\pi )`$
$`(\mathrm{for}\epsilon =M/N;N>M>0).`$
The change of the $`p`$-periodicity has a direct impact on the transportation properties of the extended standard map. The $`2N\pi `$-periodicity in $`p`$-direction for a rational number $`\epsilon =M/N`$ (where $`M`$ and $`N`$ are two mutually incommensurate natural numbers) means that the KAM-tori (when they exit) appear at least once in $`2N\pi `$ period. Thus the chaotic diffusion is bounded within the region in between two adjacent tori. This fact gives an estimate for the average momentum $`p`$ within a region that include $`p=0`$ in the form

$`pN\pi (\mathrm{for}\epsilon =M/N;N>M>0).`$ (15)
Note that only the upperbound is obtained since the exact location of the two adjacent KAM tori near $`p=0`$ cannot be determined a priori. This is evident when one considers $`\epsilon =0`$ case, in which the map is $`2\pi `$-periodic in $`p`$-direction, and a similar estimate to above gives $`p`$ $``$ $`\pi `$, while, as we have lernt in (12), it is zero because KAM tori is placed symmetrically around $`p=0`$.

The situation is illustrated in Fig.1 where we draw phase space profiles for the frictionless extende standard map with various $`\epsilon `$ and $`A`$. The strength parameter is chosen to be $`K`$ $`=0.6`$ in these examples. The effect of the breaking of phase space symmetries on the transportation properties of the system becomes evident by the inspection of Fig. 2, where we plot the portion of the phase space profile that is reached from a set of initial conditions clustered around in the vicinity of $`p=0`$. With the onset of non-zero $`A`$ and non-zero $`\epsilon `$ terms, the average momenta in the chaotic region around $`p=0`$ is shifted from zero, and the directed tranport is realized. This is essentially in accordance with the conclusion of Flach et al. FY00 , in which they identify this phenomenon asymmetrical Levy flight. We are now ready to ready to look at the directed transport not just in one parameter set, but in a global region in the parameter space. In Fig. 3, we plot the average momentum $`p`$ of the chaotic band that include $`p=0`$ as the function of swing parameter $`A`$ and time asymmetry $`\epsilon `$. The coupling strength $`K`$ is taken to be $`K=0.5`$ (top), $`K=0.6`$ (middle) and $`K=0.7`$ (bottom). We start from a ensemble of 800 random initial configuration satisfying $`|p|`$ $`<`$ $`\pi /10`$ and $`|x|`$ $`<`$ $`\pi /2`$. We symmetrize the ensemble in terms of $`p`$ and $`x`$ to guarantee $`p=0`$ exactly at the start. Each configuration is evolved with (5)-(5) for 12,000 times, and the momentum $`p`$ is averaged over that period and over the ensemble to obtain $`p`$ for a given $`A`$ and $`\epsilon `$. Calculation on the grid points of $`48\times 42`$ in the space of $`(A,\epsilon )`$ is used for each of the three figures.

From these figures, it appears that the direction of the asymmetric transport (positivity or negativity) is controllable, having step-like structure of increasing $`p`$ with decreasing $`\epsilon `$, which is in broad accordance to our arguments leading to (15). An intriguing feature is the direction-reversal of $`p`$ with parameter variation, whose occurence is not at all obvious in the outset. Note also that the speed of unidirectional transport can be rather large: $`p`$ is almost $`2\pi `$ in the peak region, which means that the particle moves one spatial period in one temporal period.

## III Ratchet map with friction

Our model can be extended to incorporate the ratchet dynamics with damping through the addition of friction. In place of eqs. (5)-(6), we set

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`p`$ (16)
$`\dot{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[u_{AS}^{}(x)+As_n\right]`$
$`\times \delta (tnT\{1+\epsilon s_n\})\gamma p`$
where we now add spatially asymmetric term to the trapping potential as

$`u_{AS}^{}(x)=K\{\mathrm{sin}x_n+2\mu \mathrm{sin}(2x_n+\delta )\}.`$ (18)
The map obtained from these is written as

$`x_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`x_n+p_{n+1}(e^{\gamma (1+\epsilon s_n)}1)/\gamma `$ (19)
$`p_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[p_nu_{AS}^{}(x_n)As_n\right]e^{\gamma (1+\epsilon s_n)}`$ (20)
There are now six parameters in the model: $`K`$, $`A`$, $`\mu `$, $`\delta `$, $`\gamma `$, and $`\epsilon `$. We reduce this number by setting $`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`0`$. Since the temporal asymmetry is already broken by $`\gamma `$ alone, we do not expect to loose out much. We now obtain

$`x_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`x_n+p_{n+1}(e^\gamma 1)/\gamma `$ (21)
$`p_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[p_nu_{AS}^{}(x_n)As_n\right]e^\gamma `$ (22)
As in the frictionless case, we consider the reflection symmetry of the map (21)-(22). With with the diffinition $`\stackrel{~}{x}_nx_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_np_{n+1}`$, one obtains a reverse map

$`\stackrel{~}{x}_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{x}_n\stackrel{~}{p}_{n1}(\gamma 1)/\gamma `$ (23)
$`\stackrel{~}{p}_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{p}_ne^\gamma +[u_{AS}^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}_n)As_n]e^\gamma `$ (24)
In the elastic limit $`\gamma `$ $``$ $`0`$, the map for $`\{x_n,p_n\}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}_n,\stackrel{~}{p}_n\}`$ are identical, and one has

$`p=\stackrel{~}{p}=p=0(\mathrm{for}\gamma 0)`$ (25)
irrespective to the symmetry property of $`u_{AS}`$. This result, puzzling in first inspection, is of course in accordance with Curie’s theorem. If, on the other hand, we have $`A=0`$, the motion is overdamped, and in sufficient steps, it will come to stand still, namely,

$`x=x_0(u_{AS}^{}(x_0)=0),p=0(\mathrm{for}A=0)`$ (26)
With friction, after sufficiently large steps $`n`$, all trajectories fall into the atractors. They can be either stable attractors with finite period, or the strange attractors with fractal dimension depending on the parameter value OT93 . Two examples from each case are shown as the top and bottom figures in Figs. 4. As is well known, these two cases alternate with minute variation of parameters. If one has $`\mu =`$ $`\delta =0`$, the shape of attractor respects the spatial reflection symmetry, when both even and odd $`n`$ are considered. Therefore, one can only have $`p`$ in this case. On the other hand, as long as $`\mu 0`$ and $`\delta 0`$, one has no spatial mirror symmetry in the phase space, and one should have $`p0`$ in general. It is expected that the value of $`p`$ can vary wildly as fuctions of parameter because of the afore-mntioned alternation of periodic and strange attractors with minute change of he parameter.

The transport property of the extended standard map with friction can be overviewd in Fig. 5, in which we show the three-dimensional plot of $`p`$ as functions of two controlling parameters $`A`$ and $`\gamma `$. The spatial asymmetry parameters are fixed to be $`\mu =0.2`$ and $`\delta =0.3`$. The coupling strength $`K`$ is varied from $`K=1.0`$ to $`K=1.2`$ from the top to bottom. As before, we start from a $`p`$ and $`x`$symmetrized ensemble of 1600 initial configuration satisfying $`|p|`$ $`<`$ $`\pi /10`$ and $`|x|`$ $`<`$ $`\pi /2`$. Each configuration is evolved with (21)-(22) for 40,000 times, and the momentum $`p`$ is averaged over that period and over the ensemble to obtain $`p`$ for a given $`A`$ and $`\epsilon `$. The grid points of $`64\times 64`$ in the parameter space of $`(A,\gamma )`$ in the range $`A[0.8,2.8]`$ and $`\gamma [0.02,0.10]`$ are used for each of the three figures.

One can see from these figures, that the overdamped motion in ratchet potential shows directed transport, but is less controllable than the inertial counterpart, as expected from our preceeding arguments. At the moment, we do not have any clue as to the physical origin of the intriguing structure found in Fig. 5. However, we feel that the simplicity of our model (21)-(22) should yield to a mathematical analysis eventually to give us such clue.

## IV Summary and Prospects

In this work, an extended standard map which has spatial and temporal asymmetry is formulated. We have outlined its phase space properties, and have studied the unidirectional diffusion, which is thought to be relevant for molecular and biological motors. There exist several studies of great mathematical rigor on the standard map GR79 ; MK87 . Our extended standard map may hopefully become a subject of similar research. One immediate extension of the current model is to introduce the randomness. Namely, one may consider $`\epsilon `$ not as a fixed quantity, but a fluctuating number for each $`n`$. This is a simple way to include the thermal fluctuation into the model. Lastly, the study of quantum version of the current model may be of great interest. This is particularly so, because the quantum version of standard map CC79 ; FG82  is again a standard tool in the study of quantum chaotic diffusion.

### Acknowledments

TC expresses his thanks to Prof. Izumi Tsutsui for helpful dicsussions. He also thanks members of the Theory Group of High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) at Tsukuba for the Hospitality extended to him during his stay. This work has been supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid (C) (No. 10640413) of the Japanese Ministry of Science and Education, and also by GAAS and the Czech Ministry of Education within the projects A1048101 and ME170.