format: text

text:
# On the classification of subalgebras of CendN and 𝑔𝑐_𝑁

## 0. Introduction

Since the pioneering papers \[BPZ\] and \[Bo\], there has been a great deal of work towards understanding of the algebraic structure underlying the notion of the operator product expansion (OPE) of chiral fields of a conformal field theory. The singular part of the OPE encodes the commutation relations of fields, which leads to the notion of a Lie conformal algebra \[K1-2\].

In the past few years a structure theory \[DK\], representation theory \[CK,  CKW\] and cohomology theory \[BKV\] of finite Lie conformal algebras has been developed.

The associative conformal algebra CendN and the corresponding general Lie conformal algebra $`gc_N`$ are the most important examples of simple conformal algebras which are not finite (see Sect. 2.10 in \[K1\]). One of the most urgent open problems of the theory of conformal algebras is the classification of infinite subalgebras of CendN and of $`gc_N`$ which act irreducibly on $`[]^N`$. (For a classification of such finite algebras, in the associative case see Theorem 5.2 of the present paper, and in the (more difficult) Lie case see \[CK\] and \[DK\].)

The classical Burnside theorem states that any subalgebra of the matrix algebra $`\text{Mat}_N`$ that acts irreducibly on $`^N`$ is the whole algebra $`\text{Mat}_N`$. This is certainly not true for subalgebras of $`\text{Cend}_N`$ (which is the “conformal” analogue of $`\text{Mat}_N`$). There is a family of infinite subalgebras $`\text{Cend}_{N,P}`$ of $`\text{Cend}_N`$, where $`P(x)\text{Mat}_N[x]`$, $`detP(x)0`$, that still act irreducibly on $`[]^N`$. One of the conjectures of \[K2\] states that there are no other infinite irreducible subalgebras of $`\text{Cend}_N`$.

One of the results of the present paper is the classification of all subalgebras of Cend1 and determination of the ones that act irreducibly on $`[]`$ (Theorem 2.2). This result proves the above-mentioned conjecture in the case $`N=1`$. For general $`N`$ we can prove this conjecture only under the assumption that the subalgebra in question is unital (see Theorem 5.3). This result is closely related to a difficult theorem of A. Retakh \[R\] (but we avoid using it).

Next, we describe all finite irreducible modules over $`\text{Cend}_{N,P}`$ (see Corollary 3.7). This is done by using the description of left ideals of the algebras $`\text{Cend}_{N,P}`$ (see Proposition 1.6a). Further, we describe all extensions between non-trivial finite irreducible CendN,P-modules and between non-trivial finite irreducible and trivial finite dimensional modules (Theorem 3.10). This leads us to a complete description of finite CendN-modules (Theorem 3.28).

Next we describe all automorphisms of CendN,P (Theorems 4.2 and 4.3). We also classify all homomorphisms and anti-homomorphisms of CendN,P to CendN (Theorem 4.6). This gives, in particular, a classification of anti-involutions of CendN,P. One case of such an anti-involution ($`N=1`$, $`P=x`$) was studied by S. Bloch \[B\] on the level of the Lie algebra of differential operators on the circle to link representations of the corresponding subalgebra to the values of $`\zeta `$-function. Representation theory of the subalgebra corresponding to the anti-involution of Cend1 was developed in \[KWY\].

The subspace of anti-fixed points of an anti-involution of CendN,P is a Lie conformal subalgebra that still acts irreducibly on $`[]^N`$. This leads us to Conjecture 6.20 on classification of infinite Lie conformal subalgebras of gcN acting irreducibly on $`[]^N`$. This conjecture agrees with the results of the papers \[Z\] and \[DeK\].

We thank B. Bakalov for providing his results on the subject of the paper, and we also thank D. Djokovic for Theorem 4.25 and very useful correspondance.

## 1. Left and right ideals of CendN,P

First we introduce the basic definitions and notations, see \[K1\]. An associative conformal algebra $`R`$ is defined as a $`[]`$-module endowed with a $``$-linear map,

$$RR[\lambda ]R,aba_\lambda b$$

called the $`\lambda `$-product, and satisfying the following axioms $`(a,b,cR)`$,

$`(A1)_\lambda (a)_\lambda b=\lambda (a_\lambda b),a_\lambda (b)=(\lambda +)(a_\lambda b)`$

$`(A2)_\lambda a_\lambda (b_\mu c)=(a_\lambda b)_{\lambda +\mu }c`$

An associative conformal algebra is called $`finite`$ if it has finite rank as $`[]`$ -module. The notions of homomorphism, ideal and subalgebras of an associative conformal algebra are defined in the usual way.

A module over an associative conformal algebra $`R`$ is a $`[]`$-module $`M`$ endowed with a $``$-linear map $`RM[\lambda ]M`$, denoted by $`ava_\lambda ^Mv`$, satisfying the properties:

$`(a)_\lambda ^Mv`$ $`=[^M,a_\lambda ^M]v=\lambda (a_\lambda ^Mv),aR,vM,`$
$`a_\lambda ^M(b_\mu ^Mv)`$ $`=(a_\lambda b)_{\lambda +\mu }^Mv,a,bR.`$
An $`R`$-module $`M`$ is called trivial if $`a_\lambda v=0`$ for all $`aR`$, $`vM`$ (but it may be non-trivial as a $`[]`$-module).

Given two $`[]`$-modules $`U`$ and $`V`$, a conformal linear map from $`U`$ to $`V`$ is a $``$-linear map $`a:U[\lambda ]_{}V`$, denoted by $`a_\lambda :UV`$, such that $`[,a_\lambda ]=\lambda a_\lambda `$, that is $`^Va_\lambda a_\lambda ^U=\lambda a_\lambda `$. The vector space of all such maps, denoted by Chom$`(U,V)`$, is a $`[]`$-module with

$$(a)_\lambda :=\lambda a_\lambda .$$

Now, we define Cend$`V:=`$ Chom$`(V,V)`$ and, provided that $`V`$ is a finite $`[]`$-module, Cend$`V`$ has a canonical structure of an associative conformal algebra defined by

$$(a_\lambda b)_\mu v=a_\lambda (b_{\mu \lambda }v),a,b\text{Cend }V,vV.$$

###### Remark Remark 1.1

Observe that, by definition, a structure of a conformal module over an associative conformal algebra $`R`$ in a finite $`[]`$-module $`V`$ is the same as a homomorphism of $`R`$ to the associative conformal algebra Cend$`V`$.

For a positive integer $`N`$, let Cend$`{}_{N}{}^{}=`$Cend$`[]^N`$. It can also be viewed as the associative conformal algebra associated to the associative algebra Diff$`{}_{}{}^{N}_{}^{\times }`$ of all $`N\times N`$ matrix valued regular differential operators on $`^\times `$, that is (see Sect. 2.10 in \[K1\] for more details)

$$\text{Conf(Diff}{}_{}{}^{N}_{}^{\times }\text{)}=_{n_+}[]J^nMat_N$$

with $`\lambda `$-product given by ($`J_A^k=J^kA`$)

$$J_A^k{}_{\lambda }{}^{}J_{B}^{l}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}\right)(\lambda +)^jJ_{AB}^{k+lj}.$$

Given $`\alpha `$, the natural representation of Diff$`{}_{}{}^{N}_{}^{\times }`$ on $`e^{\alpha t}^N[t,t^1]`$ gives rise a conformal module structure on $`[]^N`$ over Conf(Diff$`{}_{}{}^{N}_{}^{\times }`$), with $`\lambda `$-action

$$J_A^m{}_{\lambda }{}^{}v=(\lambda ++\alpha )^mAv,m_+,v^N.$$

Now, using Remark 1.1, we obtain a natural homomorphism of conformal associative algebras from Conf(Diff$`{}_{}{}^{N}_{}^{\times }`$) to CendN, which turns out to be an isomorphism (see \[DK\] and Proposition 2.10 in \[K1\]).

In order to simplify the notation, we will introduce the following bijective map, called the symbol,

$`\text{Symb}:\text{Cend}_N`$ $`\text{Mat}_N[,x]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}A_k()J^k`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}A_k()x^k`$
where $`A_k()\text{Mat}_N([])`$. The transfered $`\lambda `$-product is

$$A(,x)_\lambda B(,x)=A(\lambda ,x+\lambda +)B(\lambda +,x).$$
$`1.1`$
The above $`\lambda `$-action of CendN on $`[]^N`$ is given by the following formula:

$$A(,x)_\lambda v()=A(\lambda ,\lambda ++\alpha )v(\lambda +),v()[]^N.$$
$`1.2`$
Note also that under the change of basis of $`[]^N`$ by the invertible matrix $`C()`$, the symbol $`A(,x)`$ changes by the formula:

$$A(,x)C(+x)A(,x)C(x)^1.$$
$`1.3`$
Observe that for any $`C(x)`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])`$, with non-zero constant determinant, the map (1.3) gives us an automorphism of CendN.

It follows immediately from the formula for $`\lambda `$-product that

$$\text{Cend}_{P,N}:=P(x+)(\text{Cend}_N)\text{and}\text{Cend}_{N,P}:=(\text{Cend}_N)P(x),$$

with $`P(x)`$ Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])`$, are right and left ideals, respectively, of CendN. Another important subalgebra is

$$Cur_N:=Cur(\text{Mat}_N)=[](\text{Mat}_N).$$
$`1.4`$
###### Remark Remark 1.5

If $`P(x)`$ is nondegenerate, i.e., $`detP(x)0`$, then by elementary transformations over the rows (left multiplications) we can make $`P(x)`$ upper triangular without changing $`\text{Cend}_{N,P}`$. After that, applying to CendN,P an automorphism of CendN of the form (1.3), with det$`C(x)=1`$ (in order to multiply P on the right, which are elementary transformations over the columns), we get Cend$`{}_{N,P}{}^{}\text{Cend}_{N,D}`$, with $`D=diag(p_1(x),\mathrm{},p_N(x))`$, where $`p_i(x)`$ are monic polynomials such that $`p_i(x)`$ divides $`p_{i+1}(x)`$. The $`p_i(x)`$ are called the elementary divisors of $`P`$. So, up to conjugation, all CendN,P are parameterized by the sequence of elementary divisors of $`P`$.

All left and right ideals of CendN were obtained by B. Bakalov. Now, we extend the classification to CendN,P.

###### Proposition 1.6

a) All left ideals in CendN,P, with det$`P(x)0`$, are of the form CendN,QP, where $`Q(x)`$ Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])`$.

b) All right ideals in CendN,P, with det$`P(x)0`$, are of the form $`Q(+x)`$CendN,P, where $`Q(x)`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

(a) By Remark 1.5, we may suppose that $`P`$ is diagonal with det$`P(x)0`$. Denote by $`p_1(x),\mathrm{},p_N(x)`$ the diagonal coefficients.

Let $`J`$CendN be a left ideal. First, let us see that $`J`$ is generated over $`[]`$ by $`I:=J`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])`$. If $`a(,x)=_{i=0}^m^ia_i(x)J`$, then

$`E_{k,k}P(x)_\lambda a(,x)`$ $`=p_k(\lambda ++x)E_{k,k}a(\lambda +,x)`$ $`1.7`$
$`=p_k(\lambda ++x)E_{k,k}({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\lambda +)^ia_i(x))[\lambda ]J,`$
using that det$`P(x)0`$ and considering the maximal coefficient in $`\lambda `$ of (1.7), we get $`E_{k,k}a_m(x)J`$ for all $`k`$. Hence $`a_m(x)J`$. Applying the same argument to $`a(,x)^ma_m(x)J`$, and so on, we get $`a_i(x)J`$ for all $`i`$. Therefore, $`J`$ is generated over $`[]`$ by $`I:=J`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])`$.

If $`a(x)I`$, then

$$E_{i,j}P(x)_\lambda a(x)=p_j(\lambda ++x)E_{i,j}a(x)=\lambda ^{max}E_{i,j}a(x)+\text{lower terms}[\lambda ]J.$$
$`1.8`$
Therefore, Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}()II`$.

Now, considering the next coefficient in $`\lambda `$ in (1.8) if $`p_j`$ is non-constant, or the constant term in $`\lambda `$ of $`xE_{i,j}P(x)_\lambda a(x)`$ if $`p_j`$ is constant, we get that $`xa(x)I`$. It follows that $`I`$ is a left ideal of Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])`$. But all left ideals of Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])`$ are principal, i.e. of the form Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])R(x)`$, since Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])`$ and $`[x]`$ are Morita equivalent. This completes the proof of (a).

In a similar way, but using the expression $`a(,x)=_i^i\stackrel{~}{a}_i(+x)`$, we get (b). ∎

###### Proposition 1.9

Cend$`{}_{N,P}{}^{}B(+x)(\text{Cend}_N)A(x)`$ if $`P(x)=A(x)B(x)`$. In particular, Cend$`{}_{N,P}{}^{}`$CendP,N.

###### Demonstration Proof

It is easy to see that the map $`a(,x)P(x)B(+x)a(,x)A(x)`$ is an isomorphism provided that $`P(x)=A(x)B(x)`$.∎

## 2. Classification of subalgebras of Cend1

We can identify Cend1 with $`[,x]`$, then the $`\lambda `$product is

$$r(,x)_\lambda s(,x)=r(\lambda ,\lambda ++x)s(\lambda +,x),$$
$`2.1`$
where $`r(,x),s(,x)[,x]`$.

The main result of this section is

###### Theorem 2.2

a) Any subalgebra of Cend1 is one of the following:

b) The subalgebras $`[,x]p(x)`$ with $`p(x)0`$, and $`[]`$ are all the subalgebras of Cend1 that act irreducibly on $`[]`$.

In order to prove Theorem 2.2, we first need some lemmas and the following important notation. Given $`r(,x)[,x]`$, we denote by $`r_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_j`$ the coefficients uniquely determined by

$$r(,x)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}r_i(x)^i=\underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}\stackrel{~}{r}_j(+x)^j$$
$`2.3`$
with $`r_n(x)0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_m(+x)0`$.

###### Lemma 2.4

Let $`S`$ be a subalgebra of Cend1, let $`p(x)`$ and $`q(x)`$ be two non-constant polynomials, and let $`t()[]`$ be a non-zero polynomial.

(a) If $`t()S`$, then $`[]S`$.

(b) If $`t(),r(,x)S`$ and $`r(,x)`$ depends non-trivially on $`x`$, then $`S=`$Cend1. In particular, if $`1S`$, then either $`S=[]`$ or $`S=`$Cend1.

(c) If $`p(x)S`$, then $`[,x]p(x)S`$.

(d) If $`q(+x)S`$, then $`[,x]q(+x)S`$.

(e) If $`p(x)q(+x)S`$, then $`[,x]p(x)q(+x)S`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

(a) If $`t()S`$, we deduce from the maximal coefficient in $`\lambda `$ of $`t()_\lambda t()=t(\lambda )t(\lambda +)`$ that $`1S`$, proving (a).

(b) From (a), we have that $`1S`$. Then the coefficients of $`\lambda `$ in $`r(,x)_\lambda 1=r(\lambda ,\lambda ++x)`$ are in $`S`$. Therefore, using notation (2.3), we obtain that $`\stackrel{~}{r}_j(+x)S`$ for all $`j`$. Since $`r(,x)`$ depends non-trivially on $`x`$, there exist $`j_0`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{j_0}`$ is non-constant, that is $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{j_0}(z)=_{i=0}^la_iz^i`$ with $`a_l0`$ and $`l>0`$. Now, using that $`[]S`$ and

$$1_\lambda \stackrel{~}{r}_{j_0}(+x)=\stackrel{~}{r}_{j_0}(\lambda ++x)=\lambda ^l+\left(la_l(+x)+a_{l1}\right)\lambda ^{l1}+\text{ lower powers in }\lambda $$

we obtain that $`xS`$. Then by induction and taking $`\lambda `$-products of type $`x_\lambda x^k`$ we see that $`x^{k+1}S`$ for all $`k1`$, proving (b).

(c) Let $`p(x)=_{i=0}^na_ix^i`$, with $`a_n0`$ and $`n>0`$. Then, considering the coefficient of $`\lambda ^{n1}`$ in $`p(x)_\lambda p(x)=p(\lambda ++x)p(x)`$, we get that$`(na_n(+x)+a_{n1})p(x)S`$. Since $`S`$ is a $`[]`$-module, we have $`p(x)S`$, obtaining that $`xp(x)S`$. Applying this argument to $`xp(x)`$, we get that $`x^2p(x)S`$, etc, and $`x^kp(x)S`$ for all $`k>0`$, proving (c).

(d) The proof is identical to that of (c).

(e) Assume that $`q(x+)p(x)S`$. Then, we compute $`q(x+)p(x)_\lambda q(x+)p(x)=q(x+)p(\lambda ++x)q(\lambda +x+)p(x)`$, and looking at the monomial of highest degree minus one, we get that $`(x+)q(x+)p(x)S`$, and since by definition $`S`$ is a $`[]`$-module, we deduce that $`q(x+)\stackrel{~}{p}(x):=xq(x+)p(x)S`$. Applying this argument to $`q(x+)\stackrel{~}{p}(x)`$ we deduce that $`x^kq(x+)p(x)S`$ for any $`k_+`$, and therefore $`q(x+)p(x)[,x]S`$.∎

###### Lemma 2.5

Let $`S`$ be a subalgebra of Cend1which does not contain $`1`$.

(a) Let $`p(x)`$ be of minimal degree such that $`p(x)S`$. Then $`[,x]p(x)=S`$.

(b) Let $`q(+x)`$ be of minimal degree such that $`q(+x)S`$. Then $`S=[,x]q(+x)`$.

(c) Let $`q(+x)p(x)`$ be of minimal degree (in x) such that $`q(+x)p(x)S`$. Then $`S=p(x)q(+x)[,x]`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

(a) From Lemma 2.4.(c), we have that $`p(x)[,x]S`$ (by our assumption, $`p(x)`$ is non-constant). Now, suppose that there exist $`q(,x)S`$ with $`q(,x)p(x)[,x]`$ and $`p`$ as above. Then, by applying the division algorithm to each coefficient of $`q(,x)=_{k=0}^lq_k(x)^k`$, we may write $`q(,x)=t(,x)p(x)+r(,x)`$ with $`r(,x)=_{k=0}^nr_k(x)^k=_{j=0}^m\stackrel{~}{r}_j(+x)^k`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}r_k<\mathrm{deg}p`$ (cf. notation (2.3)). Using that $`p(x)[,x]S`$, we obtain that $`r(,x)S`$. Now, since

$$r(,x)_\lambda r(,x)=r(\lambda ,\lambda ++x)r(\lambda +,x),$$
$`2.6`$
looking at the coefficient of maximum degree in $`\lambda `$ in (2.6), we get: $`r_n(x)\stackrel{~}{r}_m(x+)S`$. By our assumption, one of the polynomials in this product is non-constant. If $`\stackrel{~}{r}_m(x+)`$ is constant, then $`r_n(x)S`$, but $`\mathrm{deg}r_n<\mathrm{deg}p`$ which is a contradiction. If $`r_n(x)`$ is constant, then $`\stackrel{~}{r}_m(x+)S`$. Then, looking at the leading coefficient of the following polynomial in $`\lambda `$: $`p(x)_\lambda \stackrel{~}{r}_m(x+)=p(\lambda ++x)\stackrel{~}{r}_m(x+\lambda +)`$ we have that $`1S`$, which contradicts our assumption.

If neither $`\stackrel{~}{r}_m(x+)`$ nor $`r_n(x)`$ are constants, we look at $`p(x)_\lambda \stackrel{~}{r}_m(x+)r_n(x)=p(\lambda ++x)\stackrel{~}{r}_m(\lambda +x+)r_n(x)S`$ and looking at the coefficient of maximum degree in $`\lambda `$ we get that $`r_n(x)S`$, which contradicts the minimality of $`p(x)`$.

(b) The proof is the same as that of (a).

(c) We may assume that $`p`$ and $`q`$ are non-constant polynomials, otherwise we are in the cases (a) or (b). By Lemma 2.4(e), we have $`p(x)q(x+)[,x]S`$. Let $`t(,x)S`$, but $`t(,x)[,x]p(x)q(x+)`$. Then we may have three cases:

(1) $`t(,x)p(x)[,x]`$ or

(2) $`t(,x)q(+x)[,x]`$ or

(3) $`t(,x)p(x)[,x]`$ nor $`t(,x)q(+x)[,x]`$.

Note that these cases are mutually exclusive. Suppose we are in Case (1), so that $`t(,x)=p(x)r(,x)`$ with $`r(,x)q(+x)[,x]`$. Then we get $`r(,x)=q(+x)\stackrel{~}{r}(,x)+s(,x)`$, with $`s(,x)0`$, and (using notation (2.3)) $`\mathrm{deg}\stackrel{~}{s}_k<\mathrm{deg}q`$ for all $`k=0,\mathrm{},m`$. Therefore, we have that $`t(,x)=p(x)r(,x)=p(x)q(+x)\stackrel{~}{r}(,x)+p(x)s(,x)`$ and then $`p(x)s(,x)S`$. Now, we can compute:

$$p(x)s(,x)_\lambda p(x)q(+x)=p(\lambda ++x)s(\lambda ,\lambda ++x)p(x)q(\lambda ++x)$$

and looking at the coefficient of maximum degree in $`\lambda `$, we have (using notation (2.3)) that $`p(x)\stackrel{~}{s}_m(+x)S`$ which is a contradiction.

Similarly, Case (2) also leads to a contradiction.

In the remaining Case (3) we may assume that $`\mathrm{deg}p\mathrm{deg}q`$ since the case of the opposite inequality is completely analogous. We have $`t(,x)S`$, but $`[,x]p(x)`$. Then

$$t(,x)=p(x)h(,x)+r(,x)$$
$`2.7`$
with $`0r(,x)=_{k=0}^nr_k(x)^k=_{j=0}^m\stackrel{~}{r}_j(+x)^k`$ where $`\mathrm{deg}r_k<\mathrm{deg}p`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}\stackrel{~}{r}_j<\mathrm{deg}p`$.

If $`h(,x)[,x]q(+x)`$, then $`r(,x)S`$, but the leading coefficient of

$$p(x)q(+x)_\lambda r(,x)=p(\lambda ++x)q(+x)r(\lambda +,x)$$

is in $`S`$ which is $`q(+x)r_n(x)`$, and this contradicts the assumption of minimality of $`p(x)q(+x)`$.

So, suppose that $`h(,x)[,x]q(+x)`$. Then $`h(,x)=\stackrel{~}{h}(,x)q(+x)+s(,x)`$ with $`0s(,x)=_{k=0}^ls_k(x)^k=_{j=0}^m\stackrel{~}{s}_j(+x)^k`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}\stackrel{~}{s}_j<\mathrm{deg}q`$. By (2.7) we have $`p(x)s(,x)+r(,x)S`$. Now, we compute:

$`(p(x)s(,x)+`$ $`r(,x))_\lambda p(x)q(+x)`$
$`=\left(p(\lambda ++x)s(\lambda ,\lambda ++x)+r(\lambda ,\lambda ++x)\right)p(x)q(\lambda ++x)`$
Then the leading coefficient in $`\lambda `$ is either $`p(x)\stackrel{~}{s}_m(+x)S`$, which is impossible since $`\mathrm{deg}\stackrel{~}{s}_m<\mathrm{deg}q`$, or $`p(x)\stackrel{~}{r}_m(+x)S`$. But in the latter case, $`\mathrm{deg}\stackrel{~}{r}_m\mathrm{deg}q`$, but by construction $`\mathrm{deg}\stackrel{~}{r}_m<\mathrm{deg}p`$, and this contradicts the assumption $`\mathrm{deg}p\mathrm{deg}q`$.∎

###### Demonstration Proof of Theorem 2.2

(a) Let $`S`$ be a non-zero subalgebra of Cend1. If $`S[]`$ then by Lemma 2.4.(a) we have that $`S=[]`$. Therefore we may assume that there is $`r(,x)S`$ which depends nontrivially on x. Recall that we can write $`r(,x)=_{i=0}^mp_i(x)^i=_{j=0}^nq_j(+x)^j.`$ We have

$`r(,x)_\lambda r(,x)`$ $`=r(\lambda ,\lambda ++x)r(\lambda +,x)=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}q_j(+x)p_i(x)(\lambda )^j(\lambda +)^i`$
Then, considering the leading coefficient of this $`\lambda `$-polynomial, we have$`p_m(x)q_n(+x)S`$. Therefore, we may have one of the following situations:

Let us see what happens in each case:

(1) By Lemma 2.4.(b), we have that $`S=`$Cend1.

(2) In this case, we may take $`p(x)S`$ of minimal degree, then using Lemma 2.5.(a) we have $`S=[,x]p(x)`$.

(3) It is completely analogous to (2).

(4) Here, we have that $`p(x)q(x+)S`$ and, again we may assume that it has minimal degree. Now, by Lemma 2.5.(c), we finish the proof of (a).

The proof of (b) is straightforward.∎

## 3. Finite modules over CendN,P

Given $`R`$ an associative conformal algebra (not necessarily finite), we will establish a correspondence between the set of maximal left ideals of $`R`$ and the set of irreducible $`R`$-modules. Then we will apply it to the subalgebras CendN,P.

First recall that the following property holds in an $`R`$-module $`M`$ (cf. Remark 3.3 \[DK\]):

$$a_\lambda (b_\mu v)=(a_\lambda b)_\mu va,bR,vM.$$
$`3.1`$
###### Remark Remark 3.2

(a) Let $`vM`$ and fix $`\mu `$, then due to (3.1) we have that $`R_\mu v`$ is an $`R`$-submodule of $`M`$.

(b) $`TorM`$ is a trivial $`R`$-submodule of $`M`$ (Lemma 8.2, \[DK\]).

(c) If $`M`$ is irreducible and $`M=TorM`$, then $`M`$.

(d) If $`M`$ is a non-trivial finite irreducible $`R`$-module, then $`M`$ is free as a $`[]`$-module.

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $`M`$ be a non-trivial irreducible $`R`$-module. Then there exists $`vM`$ and $`\mu `$ such that $`R_\mu v0`$. In particular, $`R_\mu v=M`$ if $`M`$ is irreducible.

###### Demonstration Proof

Suppose that $`R_\mu v=0`$ for all $`vM`$ and $`\mu `$, then we have that $`r_\mu v=0`$ in $`[\mu ]M`$ for all $`rR`$ and $`vM`$. Thus writing down $`r_\mu v`$ as a polynomial in $`\mu `$ and looking at the $`n`$-products that are going to appear in this expansion, we conclude that $`r_\lambda v=0`$ for all $`vM`$ and $`rR`$. Hence $`M`$ is a trivial $`R`$-module, a contradiction. ∎

By Lemma 3.3, given a non-trivial irreducible $`R`$-module $`M`$ we can fix $`vM`$ and $`\mu `$ such that $`R_\mu v=M`$ and consider the following map

$$\varphi :RM,rr_\mu v.$$

Observe that $`\varphi (r)=(+\mu )\varphi (r)`$ and using (3.1) we also have $`\varphi (r_\lambda s)=r_\lambda \varphi (s)`$. Therefore, the map $`\varphi `$ is a homomorphism of $`R`$-modules into $`M_\mu `$, where $`M_\mu `$ is the $`\mu `$-twisted module of $`M`$ obtained by replacing $``$ by $`+\mu `$ in the formulas for the action of $`R`$ on $`M`$, and Ker$`(\varphi )`$ is a maximal left ideal of $`R`$. Clearly this map is onto $`M_\mu `$.

Therefore we have that $`M_\mu (R/\text{Ker }\varphi )`$ as $`R`$-modules, or equivalently,

$$M(R/\text{Ker }\varphi )_\mu .$$
$`3.4`$
On the other hand, it is immediate that given any maximal left ideal I of $`R`$, we have that $`(R/I)_\mu `$ is an irreducible $`R`$-module. Therefore we have proved the following

###### Theorem 3.5

Formula (3.4) defines a surjective map from the set of maximal left ideals of $`R`$ to the set of equivalence classes of non-trivial irreducible $`R`$-modules.

###### Remark Remark 3.6

(a) Observe that given an $`R`$-module $`M`$ and $`vM`$, the set $`I=\{aR|a_\lambda v=0\}`$ is a left ideal, but not necessarily $`MR/I`$. For example, consider $`[]`$ as a Cend1-module, then the kernel of $`aa_\lambda v`$ is $`\{0\}`$.

(b) If we fix $`\mu `$, there are examples of irreducible modules where $`R_\mu v=0`$ for all $`vM`$ (cf. Lemma 3.3). Indeed, consider $`[]`$ as a Cend1,(x+μ)-module.

Using Remark 3.2, Proposition 1.6 and Theorem 3.5, we have

###### Corollary 3.7

The CendN,P-module $`[]^N`$ defined by (1.2) is irreducible if and only if det$`P(x)0`$. These are all non-trivial irreducible CendN,P-modules up to equivalence, provided that $`detP(x)0`$.

Note that Corollary 3.7 in the case $`P(x)=I`$, have been established earlier in \[K2\], by a completely different method (developed in \[KR\]).

A subalgebra $`S`$ of CendN is called $`irreducible`$ if $`S`$ acts irreducibly in $`[]^N`$.

###### Corollary 3.8

The following subalgebras of CendN are irreducible: CendN,P with det$`P(x)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, and CurN or conjugates of it by automorphisms (1.3).

###### Remark Remark 3.9

It is easy to show that every non-trivial irreducible representation of $`Cur_N`$ is equivalent to the standard module $`[]^N`$, and that every finite module over $`Cur_N`$ is completely reducible.

We will finish this section with the classification of all extensions of CendN,P-modules involving the standard module $`[]^N`$ and finite dimensional trivial modules, and the classification of all finite modules over CendN.

We shall work with the standard irreducible CendN,P-module $`[]^N`$ with $`\lambda `$-action (see (1.2))

$$a(,x)P(x)_\lambda v()=a(\lambda ,\lambda ++\alpha )P(\lambda +)v(\lambda +).$$

Consider the trivial CendN,P-module over the finite dimensional vector space $`V_T`$, whose $`[]`$-module structure is given by the linear operator $`T`$, that is: $`v=T(v)`$, $`vV_T`$. As usual, we may assume that $`P(x)=diag\{p_1(x),\mathrm{},p_N(x)\}`$. We shall assume that $`detP0`$.

###### Theorem 3.10

a) There are no non-trivial extensions of CendN,P-modules of the form:

$$0V_TE[]^N0.$$

b) If there exists a non-trivial extension of CendN,P-modules of the form

$$0[]^NEV_T0,$$
$`3.11`$
then $`detP(\alpha +c)=0`$ for some eigenvalue $`c`$ of $`T`$. In this case, all torsionless extensions of $`[]^N`$ by finite dimensional vector spaces, are parameterized by decompositions $`P(x+\alpha )=R(x)S(x)`$ and can be realized as follows. Consider the following isomorphism of conformal algebras:

$$\text{Cend}_{N,P}S(+x)\text{Cend}_NR(x),a(,x)P(x)S(+x)a(,x)R(x),$$

where $`P(x+\alpha )=R(x)S(x)`$, (this is the isomorphism between CendN,S and CendS,N (Proposition 1.9), restricted to $`\text{Cend}_{N,R}S(x)`$). Using this isomorphism, we get an action of CendN,P on $`[]^N`$:

$$a(,x)P(x)_\lambda v()=S()a(\lambda ,\lambda ++\alpha )R(\lambda +)v(\lambda +).$$

Then $`S()[]^N`$ is a submodule isomorphic to the standard module, of finite codimension in $`[]^N`$.

c) If $`E`$ is a non-trivial extension of CendN,P-modules of the form:

$$0[]^NE[]^N0,$$

then $`E=[]^N^2`$ as a $`[]`$-module (with trivial action of $``$ on $`^2`$) and CendN,P acts by

$$a(,x)_\lambda (c()u)=a(\lambda ,\lambda +1+1J)c(\lambda +)(1u),$$
$`3.12`$
where $`J`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ Jordan block matrix.

###### Demonstration Proof

a) Consider a short exact sequence of $`R=`$CendN,P-modules

$$0TEV0,$$
$`3.13`$
where $`V`$ is irreducible finite, and $`T`$ is trivial (finite dimensional vector space). Take $`vE`$ with $`vT`$, and let $`\mu `$ be such that $`A:=R_\mu v0`$. Then we have three possibilities:

1) The image of $`A`$ in $`V`$ is $`0`$, then $`A=T`$, which is impossible since $`A`$ corresponds to a left ideal of CendN,P.

2) The image of $`A`$ in $`V`$ is $`V`$ and $`AT=0`$, then $`A`$ is isomorphic to $`V`$, hence the exact sequence splits.

3) The image of $`A`$ in $`V`$ is $`V`$ and $`T^{}=AT0`$. Now, if $`T^{}=T`$ then $`A=E`$ and $`E`$ is a cyclic module, which is impossible since it has torsion. If $`T^{}T`$, we consider the exact sequence $`0T^{}AV0`$, by an inductive argument on the dimension of the trivial module, the last sequence split, i.e. $`A=T^{}V^{}E`$ with $`V^{}V`$, hence $`E=TV^{}`$ as CendN,P-modules, proving (a).

b) We may assume without loss of generality that $`\alpha =0`$. Consider an extension of CendN,P-modules of the form (3.11). As a vector space $`E=[]^NV_T`$. We have, for $`vV_T`$:

$`v`$ $`=T(v)+g_v(),\text{ where }g_v()[]^N,`$ $`3.14`$
$`x^lBP(x)_\lambda v`$ $`=f_l^{v,B}(\lambda ,),\text{ where }f_l^{v,B}(\lambda ,)([]^N)[\lambda ],B\text{Mat}_N.`$
Let $`P(x)=_{i=0}^mQ_ix^i`$. Since

$`(x^kAP(x)_\lambda x^lBP(x))_{\lambda +\mu }v`$ $`=(\lambda ++x)^kAP(\lambda ++x)x^lBP(x)_{\lambda +\mu }v`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i+k}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i+k}{j}}\right)(\lambda +)^{i+kj}x^{j+l}AQ_iBP(x)_{\lambda +\mu }v`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i+k}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i+k}{j}}\right)(\mu )^{i+kj}f_{j+l}^{v,AQ_iB}(\lambda +\mu ,)`$
and

$`x^kAP(x)_\lambda (x^lBP(x)_\mu v)`$ $`=x^kAP(x)_\lambda (f_l^{v,B}(\mu ,))`$
$`=(\lambda +)^kAP(\lambda +)f_l^{v,B}(\mu ,\lambda +)`$
must be equal by (A2)λ, we have the functional equation

$$(\lambda +)^kAP(\lambda +)f_l^{v,B}(\mu ,\lambda +)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{i+k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i+k}{j}\right)(\mu )^{i+kj}f_{j+l}^{v,AQ_iB}(\lambda +\mu ,).$$
$`3.15`$
If we put $`\mu =0`$ in (3.15), we get

$$(\lambda +)^kAP(\lambda +)f_l^{v,B}(0,\lambda +)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}f_{i+k+l}^{v,AQ_iB}(\lambda ,).$$
$`3.16`$
Since the right-hand side of (3.16) is symmetric in $`k`$ and $`l`$, so is the left-hand side, hence, in particular, we have

$$(\lambda +)^kAP(\lambda +)f_0^{v,B}(0,\lambda +)=AP(\lambda +)f_k^{v,B}(0,\lambda +).$$

Taking $`A=I`$ and using that $`detP0`$, we get

$$f_k^{v,B}(0,\lambda +)=(\lambda +)^kf_0^{v,B}(0,\lambda +).$$
$`3.17`$
Furthermore, by (A1)λ, we have $`[,x^kAP(x)_\lambda ]v=\lambda x^kAP(x)_\lambda v`$, which gives us the next condition:

$$(\lambda +)f_k^{v,A}(\lambda ,)=f_k^{T(v),A}(\lambda ,)+(\lambda +)^kAP(\lambda +)g_v(\lambda +).$$
$`3.18`$
We shall prove that if $`c`$ is an eigenvalue of $`T`$ and $`p_j(c)0`$ for all $`1jN`$, then (after a change of complement) the generalized eigenspace of $`T`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`c`$ is a trivial submodule of $`E`$ (hence is a non-zero torsion submodule). Indeed, let $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_s\}`$ be vectors corresponding to one Jordan block of $`T`$ associated to $`c`$, that is $`T(v_1)=cv_1`$ and $`T(v_{i+1})=cv_{i+1}+v_i`$ for $`i1`$. Then (3.18) with $`v=v_1`$ becomes

$$(\lambda +c)f_k^{v_1,A}(\lambda ,)=(\lambda +)^kAP(\lambda +)g_{v_1}(\lambda +)$$
$`3.19`$
Observe that the right-hand side of (3.19) depends on $`\lambda +`$, so $`f_k^{v_1,A}(\lambda ,)=f_k^{v_1,A}(0,\lambda +)`$. Then using (3.17), we have

$$f_k^{v_1,A}(\lambda ,)=f_k^{v_1,A}(0,\lambda +)=(\lambda +)^kf_0^{v_1,A}(0,\lambda +)=(\lambda +)^kf_0^{v_1,A}(\lambda ,)$$
$`3.20`$
Similarly, considering (3.18) with $`v=v_{i+1}`$ ($`i1`$), we get

$`(\lambda +c)f_k^{v_{i+1},A}(\lambda ,)`$ $`=f_k^{v_i,A}(\lambda ,)+(\lambda +)^kAP(\lambda +)g_{v_{i+1}}(\lambda +)`$ $`3.21`$
$`=(\lambda +)^k\left[f_0^{v_i,A}(0,\lambda +)+AP(\lambda +)g_{v_{i+1}}(\lambda +)\right]`$
Again, since the right hand side of (3.21) depends only on $`\lambda +`$, we have that (3.20) also holds for any $`v_i`$.

Using that $`p_j(c)0`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$) (recall that $`P`$ is diagonal), and taking $`A=E_{i,l}`$, we obtain from (3.19) with $`k=0`$ that

$$f_0^{v_1,A}(\lambda ,)=AP(\lambda +)h_{v_1}(\lambda +)$$
$`3.22.a`$
where $`g_{v_1}()=(c)h_{v_1}()`$. Now, (3.21) with $`k=0`$ and $`i=1`$ becomes (by (3.22.a))

$`(\lambda +c)f_0^{v_2,A}(\lambda ,)`$ $`=f_0^{v_1,A}(\lambda ,)+AP(\lambda +)g_{v_2}(\lambda +)`$
$`=AP(\lambda +)\left(h_{v_1}(\lambda +)+g_{v_2}(\lambda +)\right)`$
As in (3.22.a), we get

$$f_0^{v_2,A}(\lambda ,)=AP(\lambda +)h_{v_2}(\lambda +)$$

where $`g_{v_2}()+h_{v_1}()=(c)h_{v_2}()`$. Similarly, we obtain for all $`i1`$,

$$f_0^{v_{i+1},A}(\lambda ,)=AP(\lambda +)h_{v_{i+1}}(\lambda +)$$
$`3.22.b`$
where $`g_{v_{i+1}}()+h_{v_i}()=(c)h_{v_{i+1}}()`$. Changing the basis to $`v_i^{}=v_ih_{v_i}()`$, we have from (3.22.a-b) that $`x^kAP(x)_\lambda v_i^{}=0`$ and

$`v_1^{}`$ $`=T(v_1)+g_{v_1}()h_{v_1}()`$
$`=cv_1+(c)h_{v_1}()h_{v_1}()=cv_1^{},`$
$`v_{i+1}^{}`$ $`=T(v_{i+1})+g_{v_{i+1}}()h_{v_{i+1}}()`$ $`3.23`$
$`=cv_{i+1}+v_i+(c)h_{v_{i+1}}()h_{v_{i+1}}()h_{v_i}()`$
$`=cv_{i+1}^{}+v_i^{}.`$
Hence, the $`T`$-invariant subspace spanned by $`\{v_i^{}\}`$ is a trivial submodule of $`E`$. Therefore, if $`p_j(c)0`$ for all $`j`$ and all eigenvalues $`c`$ of $`T`$, then $`E`$ is a trivial extension. This proves the first part of (b).

Now suppose that the extension $`E`$ of $`[]^N`$ by a finite dimensional vector space have no non-zero trivial submodule (equivalently, $`E`$ is torsionless). By Remark 3.2.(b), $`E`$ must be a free $`[]`$-module of rank $`N`$.

Then, the problem reduces to the study of a CendN,P-module structure on $`E=[]^N`$, but using Remark 1.1, this is the same as a non-zero homomorphism from CendN,P to CendN. So, the end of this proof also gives us the classification of all these homomorphisms.

Denote by $`\varphi :`$Cend$`{}_{N,P}{}^{}`$CendN the (non-zero) homomorphism associated to $`E`$. It is an embedding (due to irreducibility) of free $`[]`$-modules $`[]^N[]^N`$, hence it is given by a non-degenerate matrix $`S()`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[]`$. Hence the action on $`E`$ of CendN,P is given by the formula:

$$\varphi (a(,x)P(x))_\lambda (S()v)=S()a(\lambda ,\lambda ++\alpha )P(\lambda ++\alpha )v\text{ for all }v^N.$$

Furthermore, we have:

$`\left(\varphi (a(,x)P(x))S(x)\right)_\lambda v`$ $`=\varphi (a(,x)P(x))_\lambda (S()v)`$
$`=(S(+x)a(,x+\alpha )P(x+\alpha ))_\lambda v\text{ for all }v^N.`$
Hence $`\varphi (a(,x)P(x))=S(+x)a(,x+\alpha )P(x+\alpha )S^1(x)`$, and this is in CendN if and only if $`R(x):=P(x+\alpha )S^1(x)\text{Mat}_N[x]`$, proving b).

c) Consider a short exact sequence of $`R=`$CendN,P-modules

$$0VEV^{}0,$$
$`3.26`$
where $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are irreducible finite. Take $`vE`$ with $`vV`$, and let $`\mu `$ be such that $`A:=R_\mu v0`$. Then we have three possibilities:

1) The image of $`A`$ in $`V^{}`$ is $`0`$, then $`A=V`$, which is impossible because $`vV`$.

2) The image of $`A`$ in $`V^{}`$ is $`V^{}`$ and $`AV=0`$, then $`A`$ is isomorphic to $`V^{}`$, hence the exact sequence splits.

3) The image of $`A`$ in $`V^{}`$ is $`V^{}`$ and $`AV=V`$, hence $`A=E`$ and $`E`$ is a cyclic module, hence corresponds to a left ideal which is contained in a unique max ideal (otherwise the sequence splits). It is easy to see then that $`E`$ is the indecomposable module given in (3.12), where $`J`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ Jordan block.∎

###### Corollary 3.27

There are no non-trivial extensions of CendN-modules of the form:

$$0V_TE[]^N0\text{ or }0[]^NEV_T0$$

###### Theorem 3.28

Every finite CendN-module is isomorphic to a direct sum of its (finite dimensional) trivial torsion submodule and a free finite $`[]`$-module $`[]^NT`$ on which the $`\lambda `$-action is given by

$$a(,x)_\lambda (c()u)=a(\lambda ,\lambda +1+1\alpha )c(\lambda +)(1u),$$
$`3.29`$
where $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary operator on $`T`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Consider a short exact sequence of $`R=`$CendN-modules

$$0VEV^{}0,$$

where $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are irreducible finite. By Theorem 3.10(c), the exact sequence split or $`E`$ is the indecomposable module that corresponds to a $`2\times 2`$ Jordan block $`J`$, i.e., $`E=[]^N^2`$, and $`R`$ acts via (3.29), where $`S=0`$, $`\beta =0`$ and $`\alpha =J`$.

Next, using Corollary 3.27, the short exact sequences of $`R`$-modules $`0VEC0`$ and $`0CEV0`$, where $`C`$ is a trivial $`1`$-dimensional $`R`$module, and $`V`$ is a standard $`R`$-module (1.2), split.

Recall \[K1\] that an $`R`$-module is the same as a module over the associated extended annihilation algebra $`(\text{Alg}R)^{}=(\text{Alg}R)_{}`$, where $`(\text{Alg}R)_{}`$ is the annihilation algebra. For $`R=\text{Cend}_N`$ one has:

$$(\text{Alg}R)_{}=(\text{Diff}^N),(\text{Alg}R)^{}=(\text{Alg}R)_{},$$

where $``$ acts on $`(\text{Alg}R)_{}`$ via $`ad_t`$. Furthermore, viewed as an $`(\text{Alg}R)_{}`$-module, all modules (1.2) are equivalent to the module $`F=[t,t^1]^N/[t]^N`$ , and the modules (1.2) are obtained by letting $``$ act as $`_t+\alpha `$.

Let $`M`$ be a finite $`R`$-module. Then it has finite length and, by Corollary 3.7, all its irreducible subquotients are either trivial $`1`$-dimensional or are isomorphic to a standard $`R`$-module (1.2). Since in the case b) above, the exact sequence splits when restricted to $`(\text{Alg}R)_{}`$, we conclude that, viewed as an $`(\text{Alg}R)_{}`$-module, $`M`$ is a finite direct sum of modules equivalent to $`F`$ or trivial $`1`$-dimensional. Thus, viewed as an $`(\text{Alg}R)_{}`$-module, $`M=S(FT)`$, where $`S`$ and $`T`$ are trivial $`(\text{Alg}R)_{}`$-modules. The only way to extend this $`M`$ to an $`(\text{Alg}R)^{}`$-module is to let $``$ act as operators $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ on $`T`$ and $`S`$, respectively, and as $`_t`$ on $`F`$, which gives (3.29). ∎

## 4. Automorphisms and anti-automorphisms of CendN,P

A $`[]`$-linear map $`\sigma :RS`$ between two associative conformal algebras is called a homomorphism (resp. anti-homomorphism) if

$$\sigma (a_\lambda b)=\sigma (a)_\lambda \sigma (b)(\text{resp }\sigma (a_\lambda b)=\sigma (b)_\lambda \sigma (a)).$$

An anti-automorphism $`\sigma `$ is an anti-involution if $`\sigma ^2=1`$.

An important example of an anti-involution of CendN is:

$$\sigma (A(,x))=A^t(,x)$$
$`4.1`$
where the superscript $`t`$ stands for the transpose of a matrix.

By Corollary 3.7 we know that all irreducible finite CendN-modules are of the form $`(\alpha )`$:

$$A(,x)_\lambda v()=A(\lambda ,\lambda ++\alpha )v(\lambda +).$$

Hence, twisting one of these modules by an automorphism of CendN gives again one of these modules, and we get the following

###### Theorem 4.2

All automorphisms of CendN are of the form:

$$A(,x)C(+x)A(,x+\alpha )C(x)^1,$$

where $`\alpha `$ and $`C(x)`$ is a matrix with a non-zero constant determinant.

This result can be generalized as follows.

###### Theorem 4.3

Let $`P(x)`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ with det$`P(x)0`$. Then all automorphisms of CendN,P are those that come from CendN by restriction. More precisely, any automorphism is of the form:

$$A(,x)P(x)C(+x)A(,x+\alpha )B(x)P(x),$$
$`4.4`$
where $`\alpha `$, and $`B(x)`$ and $`C(x)`$ are invertible matrices in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ such that

$$P(x+\alpha )=B(x)P(x)C(x).$$
$`4.5`$
###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`\pi ^{}(a)=\pi (s(a))`$, where $`\pi `$ is the standard representation and $`s`$ is an automorphism of CendN,P. Since it is equivalent to the standard representation due to Corollary 3.7, we deduce that $`s(a(,x))=C(+x)a(,x+\alpha )C(x)^1`$ for some invertible (in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$) matrix $`C(x)`$. But $`C(+x)`$Cend$`{}_{N,P}{}^{}C(x)^1=`$CendN,P if and only if (4.5) holds. Indeed, we have: $`C(+x)`$ $`P(x+\alpha )C(x)^1=A(,x)P(x)`$ for some $`A(,x)\text{Cend}_N`$. Taking determinants of both sides of this equality, we see that $`detA(,x)`$ is a non-zero constant. Hence $`B(x):=P(x+\alpha )C(x)^1P(x)^1`$ is invertible in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$, finishing the proof. ∎

###### Theorem 4.6

Let $`P(x)`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ with det$`P(x)0`$. Then we have,

a) All non-zero homomorphisms from CendN,P to CendN are of the form:

$$a(,x)P(x)S(+x)a(,x+\alpha )R(x),$$
$`4.7`$
where $`\alpha `$, and $`R(x)`$ and $`S(x)`$ are matrices in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ such that

$$P(x+\alpha )=R(x)S(x).$$
$`4.8`$
(b) All non-trivial anti-homomorphisms from CendN,P to CendN are of the form:

$$a(,x)P(x)A(+x)a^t(,x+\alpha )B(x),$$
$`4.9`$
where $`\alpha `$, and $`A(x)`$ and $`B(x)`$ are matrices in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ such that

$$P^t(x+\alpha )=B(x)A(x).$$
$`4.10`$
(c) The conformal algebra CendN,P has an anti-automorphism (i.e. it is isomorphic to its opposite conformal algebra) if and only if the matrices $`P^t(x+\alpha )`$ and $`P(x)`$ have the same elementary divisors for some $`\alpha `$. In this case, all anti-automorphisms of CendN,P are of the form:

$$a(,x)P(x)Y(+x)a^t(,x+\alpha )W(x)P(x),$$
$`4.11`$
where $`Y(x)`$ and $`W(x)`$ are invertible matrices in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ such that

$$P^t(x+\alpha )=W(x)P(x)Y(x).$$
$`4.12`$
(d) The conformal algebra CendN,P has an anti-involution if and only if there exist an invertible in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ matrix $`Y(x)`$ such that

$$Y^t(x+\alpha )P^t(x+\alpha )=ϵP(x)Y(x)$$
$`4.13`$
for $`ϵ=1`$ or $`1`$. In this case all anti-involutions are given by

$$\sigma _{P,Y,ϵ,\alpha }(a(,x)P(x))=\epsilon Y(+x)a^t(,x+\alpha )Y^t(x+\alpha )^1P(x),$$
$`4.14`$
where $`Y(x)`$ is an invertible in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ matrix satisfying (4.13).

###### Demonstration Proof

a) Follows by the end of proof of Theorem 3.10(b).

b) Since composition of two anti-homomorphisms is a homomorphism, using the anti-involution (4.1) we see that any anti-homomorphism must be of the form

$$a(,x)P(x)R^t(x)a^t(,x+\alpha )S^t(x)$$
$`4.15`$
with $`P(x+\alpha )=R(x)S(x)`$. Then, (4.9) and (4.10) follows by taking $`A(x)=S^t(x)`$ and $`B(x)=R^t(x)`$.

c) Let $`\varphi `$ be an anti-automorphism of CendN,P. In particular, it is an anti-homomorphism as in part b), whose image is CendN,P. Then, for all $`a(,x)P(x)`$ CendN,P, we have that $`\varphi (a(,x)p(x))=A(+x)a^t(,x+\alpha )B(x)`$ CendN,P. Then taking $`a(,x)`$ the identity matrix we have that

$$A(+x)B(x)=b(,x)P(x),\text{ for some }b(,x)\text{Cend}_{N,P}.$$
$`4.16`$
Recall that $`P^t(x+\alpha )=B(x)A(x)`$. Taking determinant of both sides of (4.16), and comparing its highest degrees in $`x`$, we deduce that $`detb(,x)`$ and $`detA(x)`$ are both (non-zero) constants. Now, from (4.16), we see that $`A^1(+x)b(,x)`$ does not depend on $``$. Then we have $`B(x)=W(x)P(x)`$, where $`W(x)=A^1(+x)b(,x)`$ is an invertible matrix. Therefore,

$$\varphi (a(,x)P(x))=A(+x)a^t(,x+\alpha )W(x)P(x),$$
$`4.17`$
with $`A,W`$ invertible matrices such that

$$W(x)P(x)A(x)=P^t(x+\alpha ).$$
$`4.18`$
d) Now suppose that $`\varphi `$ is an anti-involution. Then it is as in (4.11), and it also satisfies $`\varphi ^2=id`$. This condition implies that

$$a(,x)P(x)=Y(+x)W^t(x+\alpha )a(,x)Y^t(x+\alpha )W(x)P(x)$$
$`4.19`$
for all $`a(,x)\text{ Cend}_{N,P}`$. Denote $`Z(x)=Y^t(x+\alpha )W(x)`$. Taking $`a(,x)=`$Id in (4.19) and using that $`detP(x)0`$, , we have $`Y(+x)W^t(x+\alpha )=Z^1(x)`$. Now, (4.19) becomes $`a(,x)P(x)=Z^1(x)a(,x)Z(x)P(x)`$. Hence, we obtain $`Z(x)=\epsilon Id`$, with $`\epsilon =1`$ or $`1`$. Thus, $`Y^1(X)=\epsilon W^t(x+\alpha )`$. From (4.12) we deduce that

$$P(x)Y(x)=\epsilon (P(x+\alpha )Y(x+\alpha ))^t.$$
$`4.20`$
This condition is also sufficient. There exists an anti-involution if (4.20) holds for some invertible matrix $`Y`$, and it is given by

$$\varphi (a(,x)P(x))=\epsilon Y(+x)a^t(,x+\alpha )Y^t(x+\alpha )^1P(x).\mathit{}$$

Two anti-involutions $`\sigma ,\tau `$ of an associative conformal algebra $`R`$ are called conjugate if $`\sigma =\phi \tau \phi ^1`$ for some automorphism $`\phi `$ of $`R`$. Recall that two matrices $`a`$ and $`b`$ in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ are called $`\alpha `$-congruent if $`b=c^{}ac`$ for some invertible in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ matrix $`c`$, where $`c(x)^{}:=c(x+\alpha )^t`$. We shall simply call them congruent if $`\alpha =0`$. The following proposition gives us a characterization of equivalent anti-involutions $`\sigma _{P,Y,ϵ,\alpha }`$ in CendN,P (defined in (4.14)) and relates anti-involutions for different $`P`$.

###### Proposition 4.21

(a) The anti-involutions $`\sigma _{P,Y_1,ϵ_1,\alpha }`$ and $`\sigma _{P,Y_2,ϵ_2,\gamma }`$ of CendN,P are conjugate if and only if $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2`$ and $`P(x+\frac{\gamma \alpha }{2})Y_2(x+\frac{\gamma \alpha }{2})`$ is $`\alpha `$-congruent to $`P(x)Y_1(x)`$.

(b) Let $`\phi _Y`$ be the automorphism of CendN given by

$$\phi _Y(a(,x))=Y(+x)^1a(,x)Y(x),$$

where $`Y`$ is an invertible matrix in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$, and let $`P`$ and $`Y`$ satisfying (4.13). Then

$$\sigma _{P,Y,ϵ,\alpha }=\phi _Y^1\sigma _{PY,I,ϵ,\alpha }\phi _Y.$$
$`4.22`$
(c) Let $`c_\alpha `$ be the automorphism of CendN given by $`c_\alpha (a(,x))=a(,x+\alpha )`$, where $`\alpha `$. Suppose that $`P^t(x+\alpha )=ϵP(x)`$, for $`ϵ=1`$ or $`1`$, then $`Q(x):=P(x+\frac{\alpha }{2})`$ satisfies $`Q^t(x)=ϵQ(x)`$ and

$$\sigma _{P,I,ϵ,\alpha }=c_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}^1\sigma _{Q,I,ϵ,0}c_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}.$$
$`4.23`$
###### Demonstration Proof

(a) Let $`\phi _{B,C,\alpha }`$ be the automorphism of CendN,P given by in (4.4) and (4.5). A straightforward computation shows that $`\phi _{B,C,\beta }^1\sigma _{P,Y,ϵ,\alpha }\phi _{B,C,\beta }=\sigma _{P,\overline{Y},ϵ,2\beta +\alpha }`$, where $`\overline{Y}(x)=C^1(x\beta )Y(x\beta )B^t(x+\alpha +\beta )`$ and $`P(x+\beta )=B(x)P(x)C(x)`$. Hence, if $`\sigma _{P,Y_1,ϵ_1,\alpha }`$ and $`\sigma _{P,Y_2,ϵ_2,\gamma }`$ are conjugate, then $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2`$ and $`Y_2(x)=C^1(x\beta )Y(x\beta )B^t(x+\alpha +\beta )`$, with $`\beta =\gamma \alpha /2`$. Therefore, $`P(x+\beta )Y_2(x+\beta )=B(x)P(x)Y_1(x)B^t(x+\alpha )`$, that is $`P(x+\frac{\gamma \alpha }{2})Y_2(x+\frac{\gamma \alpha }{2})`$ is $`\alpha `$-congruent to $`P(x)Y_1(x)`$.

Conversely, suppose that $`P(x+\frac{\gamma \alpha }{2})Y_2(x+\frac{\gamma \alpha }{2})=B(x)P(x)Y_1(x)B^t(x+\alpha )`$ for some $`B(x)`$ invertible matrix in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$. Recall that $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ are invertibles. Then $`C(x):=Y_1(x)B^t(x+\alpha )Y_2(x+\frac{\gamma \alpha }{2})^1`$ is an invertible matrix in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$, satisfies $`P(x+\frac{\gamma \alpha }{2})=B(x)P(x)C(x)`$, and it is easy to check that the anti-involutions are conjugated by the automorphism $`\phi _{B,C,\frac{\gamma \alpha }{2}}`$, proving (a). Part (b) and (c) are straightforward computations. ∎

###### Theorem 4.24

Any anti-involution of CendN is, up to conjugation by an automorphism of CendN:

$$a(,x)a^{}(,x),$$

where  is the adjoint with respect to a non-degenerate symmetric or skew-symmetric bilinear form over $``$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Using Theorem 4.6(d), we have that any anti-involution of CendN has the form $`\sigma (a(,x))=c(+x)a(,x+\alpha )^tc(x)^1`$, where $`c(x)`$ is an invertible matrix such that $`c(x)^t=\epsilon c(x+\alpha )`$, with $`\epsilon =1`$ or $`1`$. By Proposition 4.21(c), we may suppose that $`\alpha =0`$. Now, the proof follows because $`c(x)`$ is congruent to a constant symmetric or skew-symmetric matrix, by the following general theorem of Djokovic.

###### Theorem 4.25

(Djokovic, \[D1-2\]) If $`A`$ is invertible in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])`$ and $`A^{}=A`$ (resp. $`A^{}=A`$) where $`A(x)^{}=A(x)`$, then $`A`$ is congruent to a symmetric (resp. skew-symmetric) matrix over $``$.

###### Demonstration Proof

The symmetric case follows by Proposition 5 in \[D1\]. The skew-symmetric case was communicated to us by D. Djokovic and we will give the details here. Suppose $`A^{}=A`$. By Theorem (2.2.1), Ch. 7 in \[Kn\] it follows that $`A`$ has to be isotropic, i.e. there exists a non-zero vector $`v`$ in $`[x]^N`$ such that $`v^{}Av=0`$. We can assume that $`v`$ is primitive (i.e., the greatest common divisor of its coordinates is 1). But then $`[x]v`$ is a direct summand: $`[x]^N=[x]vM`$, for some $`[x]`$-submodule $`M`$ of $`[x]^N`$. Then we have $`[x]^N=([x]v)^{}M^{}`$ and $`M^{}`$ is a free rank one $`[x]`$-module, that is $`M^{}=[x]w`$ for some $`w[x]^N`$. Since $`[x]v([x]v)^{}`$, the submodule $`P=[x]v+[x]w`$ is free of rank two. If $`Q=M([x]v)^{}`$, then since $`[x]v([x]v)^{}`$ we have $`([x]v)^{}=[x]vQ`$ and

$$[x]^N=([x]v)^{}[x]w=PQ.$$

Since $`Q=P^{}`$, the submodule generated by $`v`$ and $`w`$ is a direct summand. Choose $`w^{}P`$ such that $`v^{}Aw^{}=1`$. Then $`v,w^{}`$ must be a free basis of $`P`$ and the corresponding $`2\times 2`$ block is of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& f\end{array}\right)$$

for some skew element $`f=gg^{}`$ (cf. Proposition 5 \[D1\]). One can now replace $`f`$ by $`0`$, by taking the basis $`v,w^{}gv`$, and use induction to finish the proof. ∎

###### Remark Remark 4.26

We do not know any counter-examples to the following generalization of Djokovic’s theorem: If $`A`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}([x])`$ and $`A^{}=A`$ (resp. $`A^{}=A`$) where $`A(x)^{}=A(x)`$, then $`A`$ is congruent to a direct sum of $`1\times 1`$ matrices of the form $`(p(x))`$ where $`p`$ is an even (resp. odd) polynomial and $`2\times 2`$ matrices of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& q(x)\\ q(x)& 0\end{array}\right)$$

where $`q(x)`$ is an odd (resp. even) polynomial.

As a consequence of Theorem 4.6, we have the following result.

###### Theorem 4.27

Let $`P(x),Q(x)`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ be two non-degenerate matrices. Then CendN,P is isomorphic to CendN,Q if and only if there exist $`\alpha `$ such that $`Q(x)`$ and $`P(x+\alpha )`$ have the same elementary divisors.

###### Demonstration Proof

We may assume that $`P`$ is diagonal. Let $`\varphi :`$Cend$`{}_{N,P}{}^{}`$CendN,Q be an isomorphism. In particular it is a homomorphism from CendN,P to CendN whose image is CendN,Q. Then, by Theorem 4.6(a), we have that $`\varphi (a(,X)P(X))=A(+x)a(,x+\alpha )B(x)`$, with $`P(x+\alpha )=B(x)A(x)`$. In particular

$$A(+x)a(,x+\alpha )B(x)=Q(x)$$
$`4.28`$
for some $`a(,x)P(x)`$ CendN,P.

Taking determinant in both sides of (4.28), and comparing its highest degrees in $``$, we can deduce that $`detA(x)`$ is constant. Now, define the isomorphism $`\varphi _2=\chi _A\varphi :`$Cend$`{}_{N,P}{}^{}`$CendN,QA, where $`\chi _A(a(,x))=A^1(+x)a(,x)A(x)`$. Hence $`\varphi _2(a(,x)P(x))=a(,x+\alpha )B(x)A(x)`$. Since $`\varphi _2`$ is an isomorphism, we have that

$$B(x)A(x)=D(x)Q(x)A(x)\text{ and }C(x)B(x)A(x)=Q(x)A(x)$$

for some $`C(x)`$ and $`D(x)`$ (obviously $`C`$ and $`D`$ does not depend on $``$). Comparing these two formulas, we have that $`C(x)D(x)`$ $`=Id`$. Then both are invertible matrices, and $`Q(x)A(x)=C(x)B(x)A(x)=C(x)P(x+\alpha )`$ for some invertible matrices $`A`$ and $`C`$. ∎

## 5. On irreducible subalgebras of CendN

In this section we study the conformal analog of the Burnside Theorem. A subalgebra of CendN is called irreducible if it acts irreducibly on $`[]^N`$. The following is the conjecture from \[K2\] on the classification of such subalgebras:

###### Conjecture 5.1

Any irreducible subalgebra of CendN is either CendN,P with det$`P(x)0`$ or $`C(x+)\text{Cur}_NC(x)^1`$ (i.e. is a conjugate of CurN), where det$`C(x)`$=1.

The classification of finite irreducible subalgebras follows from the classification in \[DK\] at the Lie algebra level:

###### Theorem 5.2

Any finite irreducible subalgebra of CendN is a conjugate of CurN.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`R`$ be a finite irreducible subalgebra of CendN. Then the Lie conformal algebra $`R_{}`$ (with the bracket $`[a_\lambda b]=a_\lambda bb_\lambda a`$), of course, still acts irreducibly on $`[]^N`$. By the conformal analogue of the Cartan-Jacobson theorem \[DK\] applied to $`R_{}`$, a conjugate $`R_1`$ of $`R`$ either contains the element $`xI`$ , or is contained in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[]`$. The first case is ruled out since then $`R_1`$ is infinite. In the second case, by the same theorem, $`R_1`$ contains Cur$`𝔤`$, where $`𝔤`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}`$ is a simple Lie algebra acting irreducibly on $`^N`$, provided that $`N>1`$.

By the classical Burnside theorem, we conclude that $`R_1=`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[]`$ in the case $`N>1`$. It is immediate to see that the same is true if $`N=1`$ (or we may apply Theorem 2.2). ∎

###### Theorem 5.3

If $`S`$CendN is an irreducible subalgebra such that $`S`$ contains the identity matrix Id, then $`S=Cur_N`$ or $`S=`$CendN.

###### Demonstration Proof

Since $`IdS`$, and using the idea of (1.7), we have that $`S=[]A`$, where $`A=S`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$. Observe that $`A`$ is a subalgebra of Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$. Indeed,

$$P(x)Q(x)=P(x)_\lambda Q(x)_{|\lambda =}S\text{ for all }P,QA.$$

In order to finish the proof, we should show that $`A=`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}`$ or $`A=`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$. Observe that $`A`$ is invariant with respect to $`d/dx`$. Because $`P(x)_\lambda (Id)=P(\lambda ++x)[\lambda ]S`$.

Let $`A_0\text{Mat}_N`$ be the set of leading coefficients of matrices from $`A`$. This is obviously a subalgebra of $`\text{Mat}_N`$ that acts irreducibly on $`^N`$. Otherwise we would have a non-trivial $`A_0`$-invariant subspace $`u^N`$. Let $`U`$ denote the space of vectors in $`[]^N`$ whose leading coefficients lie in $`u`$; this is a $`[]`$-submodule. But we have:

$$a(x)_\lambda u()=a(\lambda +)u(\lambda +)=\underset{j0}{}\frac{\lambda ^j}{j!}(a(\lambda +)u(\lambda +))^{(j)}|_{\lambda =0},$$

where $`(j)`$ stands for $`j`$-th derivative. Since both $`A`$ and $`U`$ are invariant with respect to the derivative by the indeterminate, we conclude that $`U`$ is invariant with respect to $`A`$, hence with respect to $`S=[]A`$.

Thus, $`A_0=\text{Mat}_N`$. Therefore $`A`$ is a subalgebra of $`\text{Mat}_N[x]`$ that contains $`\text{Mat}_N`$ and is $`d/dx`$-invariant. If $`A`$ is larger than $`\text{Mat}_N`$, applying $`d/dx`$ a suitable number of times, we get that $`A`$ contains a matrix of the form $`xa`$, where $`a`$ is a non-zero constant matrix (we can always subtract the constant term). Hence $`Ax(\text{Mat}_N)a(\text{Mat}_N)=x\text{Mat}_N`$, hence $`A`$ contains $`x^k\text{Mat}_N()`$ for all $`k_+`$. ∎

## 6. Lie conformal algebras $`gc_N`$, $`oc_{N,P}`$ and $`spc_{N,P}`$

A Lie conformal algebra $`R`$ is a $`[]`$-module endowed with a $``$-linear map$`RR[\lambda ]R`$, $`ab[a_\lambda b]`$, called the $`\lambda `$-bracket, satisfying the following axioms $`(a,b,cR)`$,

$`(C1)_\lambda [(a)_\lambda b]=\lambda [a_\lambda b],[a_\lambda (b)]=(\lambda +)[a_\lambda b]`$

$`(C2)_\lambda [a_\lambda b]=[a_\lambda b]`$

$`(C3)_\lambda [a_\lambda [b_\mu c]=[[a_\lambda b]_{\lambda +\mu }c]+[b_\mu [a_\lambda c]]`$.

A module M over a conformal algebra $`R`$ is a $`[]`$-module endowed with a $``$-linear map $`RM[\lambda ]M`$, $`ava_\lambda v`$, satisfying the following axioms $`(a,bR),vM`$,

$`(M1)_\lambda (a)_\lambda ^Mv=[^M,a_\lambda ^M]v=\lambda a_\lambda ^Mv,`$

$`(M2)_\lambda [a_\lambda ^M,b_\mu ^M]v=[a_\lambda b]_{\lambda +\mu }^Mv`$.

Let $`U`$ and $`V`$ be modules over a conformal algebra $`R`$. Then , the $`[]`$-module $`N:=`$ Chom$`(U,V)`$ has an $`R`$-module structure defined by

$$(a_\lambda ^N\phi )_\mu u=a_\lambda ^V(\phi _{\mu \lambda }u)\phi _{\mu \lambda }(a_\lambda ^Uu),$$
$`6.1`$
where $`aR`$, $`\phi N`$ and $`uU`$. Therefore, one can define the contragradient conformal $`R`$-module $`U^{}=`$Chom$`(U,)`$, where $``$ is viewed as the trivial $`R`$-module and $`[]`$-module. We also define the tensor product $`UV`$ of $`R`$-modules as the ordinary tensor product with $`[]`$-module structure $`(uU,vV)`$:

$$(uv)=uv+uv$$

and $`\lambda `$-action defined by $`(rR)`$:

$$r_\lambda (uv)=r_\lambda uv+ur_\lambda v.$$

###### Proposition 6.2

Let $`U`$ and $`V`$ be two $`R`$-modules. Suppose that $`U`$ has finite rank as a $`[]`$-module. Then $`U^{}V`$ Chom$`(U,V)`$ as $`R`$-modules, with the identification $`(fv)_\lambda (u)=f_{\lambda +^V}(u)v`$, $`fU^{},uU`$ and $`vV`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Define $`\phi :U^{}V`$Chom$`(U,V)`$ by $`\phi (fv)_\lambda (u)=f_{\lambda +^V}(u)v`$. Observe that $`\phi `$ is $`[]`$-linear, since

$`\phi ((fv))_\lambda (u)`$ $`=\phi (fv+fv)_\lambda (u)=(f)_{\lambda +^V}(u)v+f_{\lambda +^V}(u)v`$
$`=(\lambda +^V)f_{\lambda +^V}(u)v+f_{\lambda +^V}(u)v=\lambda f_{\lambda +^V}(u)v`$
$`=\lambda \phi (fv)_\lambda (u)=(\phi (fv))_\lambda (u)`$
and $`\phi `$ is a homomorphism, since

$`\phi \left(r_\lambda (fv)\right)_\mu (u)`$ $`=\phi \left(r_\lambda fv+fr_\lambda v\right)_\mu (u)`$
$`=(r_\lambda f)_{\mu +^V}(u)v+f_{\mu +^V}(u)(r_\lambda v)`$
$`=f_{\mu \lambda +^V}(r_\lambda u)v+f_{\mu +^V}(u)(r_\lambda v)`$
and

$`\left(r_\lambda \left(\phi (fv)\right)\right)_\mu (u)`$ $`=r_\lambda \left(\phi (fv)_{\mu \lambda }(u)\right)\phi (fv)_{\mu \lambda }(r_\lambda u)`$
$`=r_\lambda (f_{\mu \lambda +^V}(u)v)f_{\mu \lambda +^V}(r_\lambda u)v`$
$`=f_{\mu +^V}(u)(r_\lambda v)f_{\mu \lambda +^V}(r_\lambda u)v.`$
The homomorphism $`\phi `$ is always injective. Indeed, if $`\phi (fv)=0`$, then $`f_{\mu +^V}(u)v=0`$ for all $`uU`$. Suppose that $`v0`$, then $`f_{\lambda +^V}=0`$, that is $`f=0`$.

It remains to prove that $`\phi `$ is surjective provided that $`U`$ has finite rank as a $`[]`$-module. Let $`g\text{Chom}(U,V)`$, and $`U=[]\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_n\}`$. Then, there exist $`v_{ik}U`$ such that

$$g_\lambda (u_i)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{m_i}{}}(\lambda +^V)^kv_{ik}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{m_i}{}}\phi (f_{ik}v_{ik})_\lambda (u_i),$$

where $`f_{ik}U^{}`$ is defined (on generators) by $`f_{ik}(u_j)=\delta _{i,j}\lambda ^k`$. Therefore, $`g=\phi (_{i=0}^n_{k=0}^{m_i}f_{ik}v_{ik})`$, finishing the proof. ∎

In general, given any associative conformal algebra $`R`$ with $`\lambda `$-product $`a_\lambda b`$, the $`\lambda `$-bracket defined by

$$[a_\lambda b]:=a_\lambda bb_\lambda a$$
$`6.3`$
makes $`R`$ a Lie conformal algebra.

Let $`V`$ be a finite $`[]`$-module. The $`\lambda `$-bracket (6.3) on Cend$`V`$, makes it a Lie conformal algebra denoted by gc$`V`$ and called the general conformal algebra (see \[DK\], \[K1\] and \[K2\]). For any positive integer $`N`$, we define gc$`{}_{N}{}^{}:=`$gc$`[]^N=Mat_N[,x]`$, and the $`\lambda `$-bracket (6.3) is by (1.1):

$$[A(,x)_\lambda B(,x)]=A(\lambda ,x+\lambda +)B(\lambda +,x)B(\lambda +,\lambda +x)A(\lambda ,x).$$

Recall that, by Theorem 4.24, any anti-involution in CendN is, up to conjugation

$$\sigma _{}(A(,x))=A^{}(,x),$$
$`6.4`$
where $``$ stands for the adjoint with respect to a non-degenerate symmetric or skew-symmetric bilinear form over $``$. These anti-involutions give us two important subalgebras of $`gc_N`$: the set of $`\sigma _{}`$ fixed points is the orthogonal conformal algebra $`oc_N`$ (resp. the symplectic conformal algebra $`spc_N`$), in the symmetric (resp. skew-symmetric) case.

###### Proposition 6.5

The subalgebras $`oc_N`$ and $`spc_N`$ are simple.

###### Demonstration Proof

We will prove that $`oc_N`$ is simple. The proof for $`spc_N`$ is similar. Let $`I`$ be a non-zero ideal of $`oc_N`$. Let $`0A(,x)I`$, then $`A(,x)=_{i=0}^m^ia_i(x)=_{j=0}^n^j\stackrel{~}{a}_j(+x)`$, with $`a_i(x),\stackrel{~}{a}_j(x)`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$. Now, using that $`A(,x)=A^t(,x)`$, we obtain that $`n=m`$ and $`a_i(x)=\stackrel{~}{a}_i^t(x)`$. Computing the $`\lambda `$-bracket

$$[xE_{ij}(x)E_{ji}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}A(,x)]=\lambda ^{m+1}(E_{ij}a_m(x)a_m^t(x)E_{ji})+\lambda ^m\mathrm{}$$

we deduce that $`E_{ij}a_m(x)a_m^t(x)E_{ji}I`$, with $`a_m0`$. By taking appropriate $`i`$ and $`j`$, we have that there exist polynomials $`b_k(x)`$ such that $`_{k=1}^N(b_k(x)E_{ik}b_k(x)E_{ki})I`$, with $`b_r0`$ for some $`ri`$. Now by computing $`[(2x+)E_{rr}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}_{k=1}^{N}(b_k(x)E_{ik}b_k(x)E_{ki})]`$ and looking at its leading coefficient in $`\lambda `$, we show that $`E_{ri}E_{ir}I`$, with $`ri`$. Taking brackets with elements in $`o_N`$, we have $`E_{jl}E_{lj}I`$ for all $`jl`$. Now, we can see from the $`\lambda `$-brackets $`[xE_{ri}(x)E_{ir}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}E_{ir}^{}E_{ri}]=(2x+)(E_{ii}E_{rr})`$ and $`[(2x+)E_{ii}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}(2x+)(E_{ii}E_{rr})]=\lambda (2x+)E_{ii}`$, that $`(2x+)E_{ii}I`$ for all $`i`$. The other generators are obtained by $`(ki,j)`$

$$[(x)^kE_{ik}(+x)^kE_{ki}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}E_{jk}^{}E_{kj}]_{|_{\lambda =0}}=x^kE_{ij}(x)^kE_{ji}.$$

Similarly, we can see that $`(x^k(x)^k)E_{ii}I`$, finishing the proof. ∎

The conformal subalgebras $`oc_N`$ and $`spc_N`$, as well as the anti-involutions given by (6.4), and their generalizations can be described in terms of conformal bilinear forms. Let $`V`$ be a $`[]`$-module. A conformal bilinear form on $`V`$ is a $``$-bilinear map $`,_\lambda :V\times V[\lambda ]`$ such that

$$v,w_\lambda =\lambda v,w_\lambda =v,w_\lambda ,\text{ for all }v,wV.$$

The conformal bilinear form is non-degenerate if $`v,w_\lambda =0`$ for all $`wV`$, implies $`v=0`$. The conformal bilinear form is symmetric  (resp. skew-symmetric) if $`v,w_\lambda =ϵw,v_\lambda `$ for all $`v,wV`$, with $`ϵ=1`$ (resp. $`ϵ=1`$).

Given a conformal bilinear form on a $`[]`$-module $`V`$, we have a homomorphism of $`[]`$-modules, $`L:VV^{}`$, $`vL_v`$, given as usual by

$$(L_v)_\lambda w=v,w_\lambda ,vV.$$
$`6.6`$
Let $`V`$ be a free finite rank $`[]`$-module and fix $`\beta =\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_N\}`$ a $`[]`$-basis of $`V`$. Then the matrix of $`,_\lambda `$ with respect to $`\beta `$ is defined as $`P_{i,j}(\lambda )=e_i,e_j_\lambda `$. Hence, identifying $`V`$ with $`[]^N`$, we have

$$v(),w()_\lambda =v^t(\lambda )P(\lambda )w(\lambda ).$$
$`6.7`$
Observe that $`P^t(x)=ϵP(x)`$ with $`ϵ=1`$ (resp. $`ϵ=1`$) if the conformal bilinear form is symmetric (resp. skewsymmetric). We also have that Im$`L=P()V^{}`$, where $`L`$ is defined in (6.6). Indeed, given $`v()V`$, consider $`g_\lambda V^{}`$ defined by $`g_\lambda (w())=v^t(\lambda )w(\lambda )`$, then by (6.7)

$$(L_{v()})_\lambda w()=v^t(\lambda )P(\lambda )w(\lambda )=g_\lambda (P()w())=(P()g)_\lambda (w()),$$

where in the last equality we are identifying $`V^{}`$ with $`[]^N`$ in the natural way, that is $`fV^{}`$ corresponds to $`(f_{}e_1,\mathrm{},f_{}e_N)[]^N`$. Therefore, if the conformal bilinear form is non-degenerate, then $`L`$ gives an isomorphism between $`V`$ and $`P()V^{}`$, with $`detP0`$.

Suppose that we have a non-degenerate conformal bilinear form on $`V=[]^N`$ which is also symmetric or skew-symmetric. Denote by $`P(\lambda )`$ the matrix of this bilinear form with respect to the standard basis of $`[]^N`$. Then for each $`a`$CendN and $`wV`$, the map $`f_\lambda ^{a,w}(v):=w,a_\mu v_{\lambda \mu }`$ is in $`[\mu ]V^{}`$, that is $`f_\lambda ^{a,w}`$ is a $``$-linear map, $`f_\lambda ^{a,w}(v)=\lambda f_\lambda ^{a,w}(v)`$ and depends polynomialy on $`\mu `$, because $`\mathrm{deg}_\mu f_\lambda ^{a,w}(v)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{deg}_\mu f_\lambda ^{a,w}(e_i):i=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$. Observe that if we restrict to CendN,P, then $`f_\lambda ^{aP,w}=(P()f^{a,w})_\lambda \text{Im}L`$. Therefore, since $`,_\lambda `$ is non-degenerate, there exists a unique $`(aP)_\mu ^{}w[\mu ]V`$ such that $`f_\lambda ^{aP,w}(v)=w,aP_\mu v_{\lambda \mu }=(aP)_\mu ^{}w,v_\lambda `$. Thus, we have attached to each $`aP`$CendN,P a map $`(aP)^{}:V[\mu ]V`$, $`w(aP)_\mu ^{}w`$, where the vector $`(aP)_\mu ^{}w`$ is determined by the identity

$$aP_\mu v,w_\lambda =v,(aP)_\mu ^{}w_{\lambda \mu }.$$

Observe that $`(aP)_\mu ^{}(w)=(+\mu )(aP)_\mu ^{}w`$, that is $`(aP)^{}`$Cend$`V`$. Indeed,

$`v,(aP)_\mu ^{}(w)_{\lambda \mu }`$ $`=aP_\mu v,w_\lambda =\lambda aP_\mu v,w_\lambda `$
$`=(aP_\mu v),w_\lambda =\mu aP_\mu v,w_\lambda aP_\mu v,w_\lambda `$
$`=\mu v,(aP)_\mu ^{}w_{\lambda \mu }v,(aP)_\mu ^{}w_{\lambda \mu }`$
$`=v,(\mu +)(aP)_\mu ^{}w_{\lambda \mu }.`$
Moreover we have the following result:

###### Proposition 6.8

(a) Let $`,_\lambda `$ be a non-degenerate symmetric or skew-symmetric conformal bilinear form on $`[]^N`$, and denote by $`P(\lambda )`$ the matrix of $`,_\lambda `$ with respect to the standard basis of $`[]^N`$ over $`[]`$. Then the map $`aP(aP)^{}`$ from CendN,P to CendN defined by

$$a_\mu v,w_\lambda =v,a_\mu ^{}w_{\lambda \mu }.$$
$`6.9`$
is the anti-involution of CendN,P given by

$$(a(,x)P(x))^{}=ϵa^t(,x)P(x),$$
$`6.10`$
where $`P^t(x)=ϵP(x)`$ with $`ϵ=1`$ or $`1`$, depending on whether the conformal bilinear form is symmetric or skew-symmetric.

(b) Consider the Lie conformal subalgebra of $`gc_N`$ defined by

$`g_{}`$ $`=\{a\text{Cend}_{N,P}:a^{}=a\}`$
$`=\{a\text{Cend}_{N,P}:a_\mu v,w_\lambda +v,a_\mu w_{\lambda \mu }=0,\text{ for all }v,w[]^N\},`$
where  is defined by (6.10). Then under the pairing (6.6) we have $`[]^NP()([]^N)^{}`$ as $`g_{}`$-modules.

###### Demonstration Proof

(a) First let us check that $`\phi (aP)=(aP)^{}`$ defines an anti-homomorphism from CendN,P to CendN. Since $`(a,b\text{Cend}_{N,P})`$

$`v,(a_\mu b)_\gamma ^{}w_{\lambda \gamma }`$ $`=(a_\mu b)_\gamma v,w_\lambda =a_\mu (b_{\gamma \mu }v),w_\lambda `$
$`=b_{\gamma \mu }v,a_\mu ^{}w_{\lambda \mu }=v,b_{\gamma \mu }^{}(a_\mu ^{}w)_{\lambda \gamma }`$
$`=v,(b_{\gamma \mu }^{}a^{})_\gamma w_{\lambda \gamma },`$
we have that $`\phi (a_\mu b)_\gamma =(\phi (b)_{\gamma \mu }\phi (a))_\gamma =(\phi (b)_\mu \phi (a))_\gamma `$.

Now, using Theorem 4.6(b), we have that

$$\phi (a(,x)P(x))=A(+x)a^t(,x+\alpha )B(x),$$

with $`\alpha `$ and $`P^t(x+\alpha )=B(x)A(x)`$. Replacing $`\phi (aP)`$ in (6.9) and using (6.7), we obtain

$$P(\lambda \mu )a^t(\mu ,\mu \lambda )P(\lambda )=P(\lambda \mu )A(\lambda \mu )a^t(\mu ,\mu \lambda +\alpha )B(\lambda ),\text{ for all }a(,x).$$
$`6.11`$
Taking $`a(,x)=I`$ and using that $`detP0`$, we have $`P(\lambda )=A(\lambda \mu )B(\lambda )`$. Since the left hand side does not depend on $`\mu `$, we get $`A=A(x)`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}`$, with $`detA0`$. Using that $`ϵP(x\alpha )=P^t(x+\alpha )=B(x)A`$, then (6.11) become

$$a^t(\mu ,\mu \lambda )ϵB(\lambda +\alpha )A=Aa^t(\mu ,\mu \lambda +\alpha )B(\lambda ),\text{ for all }a(,x).$$

In particular, we have $`ϵB(\lambda +\alpha )A=AB(\lambda )`$. Hence $`a^t(\mu ,\mu \lambda )A=Aa^t(\mu ,\mu \lambda +\alpha )`$ for all $`a(,x)`$, getting $`\alpha =0`$ and $`A=cI`$. Therefore,

$$\phi (a(,x)P(x))=ϵa^t(,x)P(x),$$

with $`P^t(x)=ϵP(x)`$ with $`ϵ=1`$ or $`1`$, depending on whether the conformal bilinear form is symmetric or skew-symmetric, getting (a).

(b) Using (6.6), we obtain for all $`ag_{}`$ and $`v,w[]^N`$ that

$$(L_{a_\mu v})_\lambda (w)=a_\mu v,w_\lambda =v,a_\mu w_{\lambda \mu }=(L_v)_{\lambda \mu }(a_\mu w)=(a_\mu (L_v))_\lambda (w).$$

finishing the proof.∎

Observe that ocN (resp. spcN), can be described as the subalgebra $`g_{}`$ of $`gc_N`$ in Theorem 6.8(b), with respect to the conformal bilinear form

$$p()v,q()w_\lambda =p(\lambda )q(\lambda )(v,w)\text{ for all }v,w^N,$$

where $`(,)`$ is a non-degenerate symmetric (resp. skew-symmetric) bilinear form on $`^N`$. For general $`P`$, see (6.16) below.

Then, $`oc_N`$ (resp. $`spc_N`$) is the $`[]`$-span of $`\{y_A^n:=x^nA(x)^nA^{}:A\text{Mat}_N\}`$, where $``$ stands for the adjoint with respect to a non-degenerate symmetric (resp. skew-symmetric) bilinear form over $``$. Therefore we have that $`gc_N=oc_NM_N`$ (resp. $`gc_N=spc_NM_N`$), where $`M_N`$ is the set of $`\sigma _{}`$-fixed points, i.e.

$$M_N=[]\text{-span of }\{w_A^n:=x^nA+(x)^nA^{}:A\text{Mat}_N\}.$$
$`6.12`$
We are using the same notation $`M_N`$ in the symmetric and skew-symmetric case. Observe that $`M_N`$ is an $`oc_N`$-module (resp. $`spc_N`$-module) with the action given by

$`y_A^n{}_{\lambda }{}^{}w_{B}^{m}`$ $`=(\lambda ++w_{AB})^nw_{AB}^m(w_{A^{}B})^nw_{A^{}B}^m`$ $`6.13`$
$`+(1)^n(\lambda w_{AB^{}})^{m+n}(\lambda +w_{BA})^mw_{BA}^n`$
Let us give a more conceptual understanding of the module $`M_N`$. Let $`V=[]^N`$. By definition, $`V^{}=`$Chom$`(V,)=\{\alpha :[]^N[\lambda ]:\alpha _\lambda =\lambda \alpha _\lambda \}`$ and given $`\alpha V^{}`$ it is completely determined by the values in the canonical basis $`\{e_i\}`$ of $`^N`$, this is $`p_\alpha (\lambda ):=(\alpha _\lambda e_1,\mathrm{},\alpha _\lambda e_N)[\lambda ]^N`$. Thus, we may identify $`V^{}[\lambda ]^N`$ and $`[]`$-module structure given by $`(p)(\lambda )=\lambda p(\lambda )`$.

We have that $`gc_N`$ acts on $`V`$ by the $`\lambda `$-action

$$A(,x)_\lambda v()=A(\lambda ,\lambda +)v(\lambda +),v()[]^N,$$

and on $`V^{}`$ by the contragradient action, given by

$$A(,x)_\lambda v()=^tA(\lambda ,)v(\lambda +),v()[]^N.$$

It is easy to check that $`(V^{})^{}V`$ as $`gc_N`$-modules. Observe that by Proposition 6.8(b), $`VV^{}`$ as $`oc_N`$-modules and $`spc_N`$-modules.

We define the 2nd exterior power $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(V)`$ and the 2nd symmetric power $`S^2(V)`$ in the usual way with the induced $`[]`$-module and $`gc_N`$-module structures.

###### Proposition 6.14

(a) $`VV=S^2(V)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(V)`$ is the decomposition of $`VV`$ into a direct sum of irreducible $`gc_N`$-modules. And $`V^{}V`$ is isomorphic to the adjoint representation of $`gc_N`$.

(b) $`gc_NVV=S^2(V)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(V)`$ is the decomposition of $`gc_N`$ into a direct sum of irreducible $`oc_N`$-modules, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(V)`$ is isomorphic to the adjoint representation of $`oc_N`$, and $`M_NS^2(V)`$ as $`oc_N`$-modules.

(c) $`gc_NVV=S^2(V)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(V)`$ is the decomposition of $`gc_N`$ into a direct sum of irreducible $`spc_N`$-modules, where $`S^2(V)`$ is isomorphic to the adjoint representation of $`spc_N`$, and $`M_N\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(V)`$ as $`spc_N`$-modules.

###### Demonstration Proof

(a) Follows from Proposition 6.2 and part (b).

(b) Define $`\phi :VVgc_N`$ by

$$\phi (p()e_iq()e_j)=p(x)q(x+)E_{ji}$$

It is easy to check that this is an $`oc_N`$-module isomorphism. Note that $`\sigma _{}`$ defined in (6.4) corresponds via $`\phi `$ to $`\sigma \left(p()e_iq()e_j\right)=q()e_jp()e_i`$. Therefore it is immediate that $`M_NS^2(V)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(V)oc_N`$. It remains to see that $`M_N`$ is an irreducible $`oc_N`$-module. Let $`W0`$ be a $`oc_N`$-submodule of $`M_N`$ and $`0w(,x)=_{i,j}q_{ij}(,x)E_{ij}W`$. We may suppose that $`q_{11}0`$. Computing $`[y_{E_{11}}^1{}_{\lambda }{}^{}w(,x)]`$ and looking at the highest degree of $`\lambda `$ that appears in the component $`E_{11}`$, we deduce that there exists in $`W`$ an element of the form $`w^{}=_i(p_i(,x)E_{1i}+q_i(,x)E_{i1})`$, with $`p_1=q_1=1`$. Now, computing $`[y_{E_{12}}^1{}_{\lambda }{}^{}w_{}^{}(,x)]`$ we have that $`w^{\prime \prime }=r(,x)E_{11}+w_{E_{12}}^1+\text{ terms out of the first column and row}W`$. And from $`[y_{E_{11}}^1{}_{\lambda }{}^{}w_{}^{\prime \prime }(,x)]`$ and looking at the highest degree in $`\lambda `$, we have that if $`r(,x)`$ is non constant, $`w_{E_{11}}^0W`$, and if $`r(,x)`$ is constant, $`w_{E_{11}}^0+w_{E_{12}}^1W`$. In both cases, by (6.6) we have that $`w_I^0W`$. Now, looking at ($`n>>0`$ and $`A`$ arbitrary)

$$y_A^n{}_{\lambda }{}^{}w_{I}^{0}=\lambda ^n2w_A^0+\lambda ^{n1}2n(w_A^0+w_A^1)+\lambda ^{n2}2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)(^2w_A^0+2w_A^1+w_A^2)+\mathrm{}$$

we get $`W=M_N`$, finishing part (b).

(c) The proof is similar to (b), with $`\phi :VVgc_N`$ defined by $`\phi (p()e_iq()e_j)=p(x)q(x+)E_{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`E_{ij}^{\mathrm{}}=E_{j,\frac{N}{2}+i}`$, $`E_{\frac{N}{2}+i,\frac{N}{2}+j}^{\mathrm{}}=E_{\frac{N}{2}+j,i}`$, $`E_{i,\frac{N}{2}+j}^{\mathrm{}}=E_{\frac{N}{2}+j,\frac{N}{2}+i}`$ and $`E_{\frac{N}{2}+i,j}^{\mathrm{}}=E_{j,i}`$, for all $`1i,j\frac{N}{2}`$. ∎

Observe that $`gc_{N,P}:=gc_NP(x)`$ is a conformal subalgebra of $`gc_N`$, for any $`P(x)\text{Mat}_N[x]`$.

A matrix $`Q(x)`$Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ will be called hermitian (resp. skew-hermitian) if

$$Q^t(x)=\epsilon Q(x)\text{ with }\epsilon =1(\text{ resp. }\epsilon =1).$$

Denote by $`o_{P,Y,\epsilon ,\alpha }`$ the subalgebra of gcN,P of $`\sigma _{P,Y,\epsilon ,\alpha }`$-fixed points. By Proposition 4.21 (b)-(c), we have the following isomorphisms, obtained by conjugating by automorphisms of CendN

$$o_{P,Y,\epsilon ,\alpha }o_{PY,I,\epsilon ,\alpha }o_{Q,I,\epsilon ,0},$$
$`6.15`$
where $`Q(x)=(PY)(x+\alpha /2)`$ is hermitian or skew-hermitian, depending on whether $`\epsilon =1`$ or $`1`$. Therefore, up to conjugacy, we may restrict our attention to the family of subalgebras (6.15), that is it suffices to consider the anti-involutions

$$\sigma _{P,I,\epsilon ,0}(a(,x)P(x))=\epsilon a^t(,x)P(x)$$

where $`P`$ is non-degenerate hermitian or skew-hermitian, depending on whether $`\epsilon =1`$ or $`1`$. From now on we shall use the following notation

$`oc_{N,P}:=`$ $`o_{P,I,1,0}\text{ if }P\text{ is hermitian}`$ $`6.16`$
$`spc_{N,P}:=`$ $`o_{P,I,1,0}\text{ if }P\text{ is skew-hermitian}.`$
These subalgebras are those obtained in Theorem 6.8(b) in a more invariant form. In the special case $`N=1`$ and $`P(x)=x`$, the involution $`\sigma _{x,I,1,0}`$ is the conformal version of the involution given by Bloch in \[B\].

Note that gc$`{}_{N,P}{}^{}oc_NP(x)M_NP(x)`$. If $`P`$ is hermitian, then $`oc_{N,P}=oc_NP(x)`$ and $`M_NP(x)`$ is an $`oc_{N,P}`$-module. If $`P`$ is skew-hermitian, then $`spc_{N,P}=M_NP(x)`$, and $`oc_NP(x)`$ is a $`spc_{N,P}`$-module.

###### Remark Remark 6.17

(a) The subalgebras $`gc_N`$, $`gc_{N,xI}`$, $`oc_N`$ and $`spc_{N,xI}`$ contain the conformal Virasoro subalgebra $`[](x+\alpha )I`$, for $`\alpha `$ arbitrary, $`\alpha =0`$, $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\alpha =0`$ respectively.

(b) Let $`J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)`$, then by (6.15) we obtain

$$spc_N=o_{I,J,1,0}o_{J,I,1,0}=spc_{N,J}.$$

(c) Using the proof of Proposition 6.5, one can prove that $`oc_{N,P}`$ and $`spc_{N,P}`$, with $`detP(x)0`$, are simple if $`P(x)`$ satisfies the property that for each $`i`$ there exists $`j`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}P_{ij}(x)>\mathrm{deg}P_{ik}(x)`$ for all $`kj`$.

###### Proposition 6.18

The subalgebras $`oc_{N,P}`$ and $`spc_{N,P}`$, with $`detP(x)0`$, acts irreducibly on $`[]^N`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`M`$ be a non-zero ocN,P-submodule of $`[]^N`$ and take $`0v()M`$. Since $`detP(x)0`$, there exists $`i`$ such that $`P(y)v(y)`$ has non-zero $`i`$th-coordinate that we shall denote by $`b(y)`$. Recall that $`\{(x^kA(x)^kA^t)P(x)|A\text{Mat}_N\}`$ generates $`oc_{N,P}`$. Now, looking at the highest degree in $`\lambda `$ in

$$(2x+)E_{ii}P(x)_\lambda v()=(\lambda +2)b(+\lambda )e_i$$

we deduce that $`e_iM`$. Now, since the $`i`$th-column of $`P=(P_{r,j})`$ is non-zero, we can take $`k`$ such that $`P_{k,i}(x)0`$ has maximal degree in $`x`$, in the $`i`$th-column. Then, considering the $`\lambda `$ action of $`(xE_{jk}(x)E_{kj})P(x)`$ on $`e_i`$, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$, and looking at the highest degree in $`\lambda `$, we have that $`e_jM`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Therefore $`M=[]^N`$. A similar argument also works for spcN,P. ∎

###### Proposition 6.19

(a) The subalgebras $`oc_{N,P}`$ and $`oc_{N,Q}`$ (resp. $`spc_{N,P}`$ and $`spc_{N,Q}`$) are conjugated by an automorphism of CendN if and only if $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are congruent hermitian (resp. skew-hermitian) matrices.

(b) The subalgebras $`oc_{N,P}`$ and $`spc_{N,Q}`$ are not conjugated by any automorphism of CendN.

###### Demonstration Proof

By Theorem 4.2, any automorphism of CendN has the form $`\phi _A(a(,x))=A(+x)a(,x+\alpha )A(x)^1`$, with $`A(x)`$ an invertible matrix in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$. Suppose that the restriction of $`\phi _A`$ to $`oc_{N,P}`$ gives us an isomorphism between $`oc_{N,P}`$ and $`oc_{N,Q}`$. Then $`\phi _A(a(,x)P(x))=A(+x)a(,x+\alpha )D(x)Q(x)`$ for all $`a(,x)oc_N`$, where $`D`$ is an invertible matrix in Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}[x]`$ and $`P(x+\alpha )=D(x)Q(x)A(x)`$. But the image is in $`oc_{N,Q}`$ if and only if (applying $`\sigma _{Q,I,1,0}`$)

$$a(,x\alpha )R(x)=R^t(x)a(,x+\alpha )\text{ for all }a(,x)oc_N,$$

where $`R(x)=A^t(x)D(x)^1`$. Therefore, we must have $`\alpha =0`$ and $`R=cId`$ ($`c`$), that is $`D(x)=cA^t(x)`$. Hence $`P(x)=cA^t(x)Q(x)A(x)`$, proving (a). Part (b) follows by similar arguments. ∎

A classification of finite irreducible subalgebras of $`gc_N`$ was given in \[DK\]. In view of the discussion of this section, it is natural to propose the following conjecture.

###### Conjecture 6.20

Any infinite Lie conformal subalgebra of $`gc_N`$ acting irreducibly on $`[]^N`$ is conjugate by an automorphism of CendN to one of the following subalgebras:

(a) $`gc_{N,P}`$, where $`detP0`$,

(b) $`oc_{N,P}`$, where $`detP0`$ and $`P(x)=P^t(x)`$,

(c) $`spc_{N,P}`$, where $`detP0`$ and $`P(x)=P^t(x)`$.

Acknowledgment. C. Boyallian and J. Liberati were supported in part by Conicet, ANPCyT, Agencia Cba Ciencia, Secyt-UNC and Fomec (Argentina). V. Kac was supported in part by the NSF grant DMS-9970007. Special thanks go to MSRI (Berkeley) for the hospitality during our stay there.