--- abstract: | Let $V$ be a Weyl module either for a reductive algebraic group $G$ or for the corresponding quantum group $U_q$. If $G$ is defined over a field of positive characteristic $p$, respectively if $q$ is a primitive $l$'th root of unity (in an arbitrary field) then $V$ has a Jantzen filtration $V=V^0 \supset V^1 \cdots \supset V^r = 0$. The sum of the positive terms in this filtration satisfies a well known sum formula. If $T$ denotes a tilting module either for $G$ or $U_q$ then we can similarly filter the space ${\operatorname{Hom}}_G(V,T)$, respectively ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{U_q}(V,T)$ and there is a sum formula for the positive terms here as well. We give an easy and unified proof of these two (equivalent) sum formulas. Our approach is based on an Euler type identity which we show holds without any restrictions on $p$ or $l$. In particular, we get rid of previous such restrictions in the tilting module case. address: - 'HHA: Department of Mathematics, University of Aarhus , Building 530, Ny Munkegade, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark' - 'UK: TIFR Centre, P.O. Box 1234, IISc Campus, Bangalore 560 012, India' author: - Henning Haahr Andersen and Upendra Kulkarni title: Sum formulas for reductive algebraic groups --- Introduction ============ Let $G$ be a reductive algebraic group over a field $k$ of prime characteristic $p$. The Weyl modules play a fundamental role in the study of finite dimensional representations of $G$. One of the important tools in investigating the structure of Weyl modules is their Jantzen filtration. The sum of the characters of the filtration terms obeys a sum formula analogous to the Verma module case, @MHG. This formula was first proved by J. C. Jantzen some 30 years ago @JCJ with some mild restrictions on $p$. Later the first author @Asum gave another proof valid for all $p$ based on the fact that Weyl modules are special cases of cohomology of line bundles on the flag manifold for $G$ and exploring natural homomorphisms between such cohomology modules. More recently a similar formula @Atiltsum turned up in the theory for tilting modules for $G$. This time one filters the space of homomorphisms from a Weyl module into a tilting module. However, the proof in loc. cit. needs $p$ to be at least the Coxeter number for $G$. Both the above mentioned sum formulas are related to Ext-groups involving integral versions of Weyl modules, see @Kul1 and @Atiltsum. In this paper we start out by proving an Euler-type formula for such Ext-groups using techniques from @Asum and @Kul1. Then we are able to deduce the two sum formulas from this. In particular, our results work for all $p$. It also reveals that the two cases are in fact equivalent. Let $U_q$ denote the quantum group corresponding to $G$. When $q$ is a root of unity (and $U_q$ is obtained via the Lusztig divided power construction) there are completely analogous sum formulas for $U_q$. Our proof applies in this case as well and it avoids the restrictions on the order of $q$ in @Atiltsum. We have taken the opportunity to recall the arguments from @Asum, @Atiltsum and @Kul1 that we need. In this way our proof of the sum formulas for $G$ is completely self-contained relying only on basic facts on Weyl modules, cohomology on line bundles, and tilting modules (which can all be found in @RAG). In the quantum case everything works in the same way and we have only given the statements in that case leaving the analogous proofs to the readers. Some of the results in this paper date back several years. At the meeting AMS Scand 2000 in Odense, Denmark the second author gave a talk, "Ext groups and Jantzen's sum formula" in which he presented the Weyl module sum formula in terms of Ext-groups. This can be found in @Kul1, and it is also referred to in the preprint @Kul2 where he proves the equivalence with the sum formula for tilting modules. Shortly after the appearance of this preprint we realized how to give the uniform proof presented below. Notation ======== Roots ----- Throughout this paper $k$ will denote an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p > 0$ and $G$ will denote a reductive algebraic group over $k$. We choose a maximal torus $T$ in $G$ and a Borel subgroup $B$ containing $T$. Then $R$ will be the root system for $(G,T)$. We fix a set of simple roots $S$ in $R$ by requiring that the roots of $B$ are the corresponding negative roots $-R^+$. The number of positive roots is called $N$. This is also the dimension of the flag variety $G/B$. The character group for $T$ (and $B$) is denoted $X$. We let $X^+$ be the set of dominant characters, i.e., $X^+ = \{\lambda \in X \mid \langle \lambda, \alpha^\vee \rangle\geq ~0 \text { for all } \alpha~\in~R^+\}$. The Weyl group $W = N_G(T)/Z_G(T)$ for $G$ acts naturally on $X$. If $\alpha \in R$ then the reflection $s_\alpha \in W$ corresponding to $\alpha$ is given by $s_\alpha(\lambda) = \lambda - \langle\lambda, \alpha^\vee \rangle \alpha$ for all $\lambda \in X$. We shall also use the 'dot-action' defined by $w \cdot \lambda = w(\lambda + \rho) - \rho, w \in W, \lambda \in X$. Here $\rho$ is the half sum of the positive roots. Each element $w \in W$ is a product of simple reflections (reflections for simple roots) and we have the corresponding length function $l$ on $W$ taking $w$ into the minimal number of such simple reflections needed to express $w$. The unique longest element in $W$ is denoted $w_0$. It has length $l(w_0) = N$. Weights ------- If $M$ is a finite dimensional $T$-module and $\lambda \in X$ then the weight space $M_\lambda$ is defined by $M_\lambda = \{m\in M\mid t m = \lambda(t)m \text { for all } t\in T\}$. We say that $\lambda$ is a weight of $M$ if $M_\lambda \not = 0$. The character ${\operatorname{ch}}M$ is ${\operatorname{ch}}M = \sum_{\lambda \in X} (\dim M_\lambda) e^\lambda \in {\mathbb Z}[X]$. For each $\lambda \in X^+$ we have a Weyl module $\Delta (\lambda)$ for $G$ with highest weight $\lambda$. Its contragredient dual $\Delta (\lambda)^*$ is denoted $\nabla(-w_0\lambda)$. Note that then the dual Weyl module $\nabla(\mu)$ attached to $\mu \in X^+$ has highest weight $\mu$ (because $w_0(\lambda)$ is the smallest weight of $\Delta(\lambda)$). Cohomology modules ------------------ Let $M$ be a finite dimensional $B$-module. Then we will write $H^0(M)$ for the $G$-module ${\operatorname{Ind}}_B^G M$ induced by $M$. This is also the $0$-th cohomology (i.e., the set of global sections) for the vector bundle on $G/B$ associated with $M$. More generally, we denote by $H^i(M)$ the $i$-th cohomology of this bundle, or alternatively the value of the $i$-th right derived functor $R^i{\operatorname{Ind}}_B^G$ on $M$. It is well known (as $G/B$ is a projective variety) that the cohomology $H^\bullet(M)$ is finite dimensional, and that $H^i(M) = 0 $ for $i>N$. The Euler character of a $B$-module $M$ is given by $$\chi (M) = \sum_{\mu \in X} (-1)^i{\operatorname{ch}}(H^i(M)).$$ Note that $\chi $ is additive, i.e., if $0 \rightarrow M_1 \rightarrow M \rightarrow M_2 \rightarrow 0$ is a short exact sequence of finite dimensional $B$-modules then $\chi (M) = \chi (M_1) + \chi (M_2)$. In the following the cohomology modules $H^i(\lambda), \lambda \in X$ will play a vital role. In particular, we recall that the Weyl modules above are special instances of such modules. Precisely, we have $\Delta (\lambda) \simeq H^N(w_0\cdot \lambda)$ for all $\lambda \in X^+$. Also $\nabla (\lambda) = H^0(\lambda)$. Moreover, as we shall see (cf. Section 3.4 below) we have $\chi (\lambda) = {\operatorname{ch}}\Delta(\lambda) = {\operatorname{ch}}\nabla(\lambda)$. Chevalley groups ---------------- Let $G_{\mathbb Z}$ be a split and connected reductive algebraic group scheme over ${\mathbb Z}$ corresponding to $G$. In other words $G_{\mathbb Z}$ is the associated Chevalley group. Then $G$ is obtained from $G_{\mathbb Z}$ by extending scalars to $k$. More generally, we write $G_A$ for the group scheme over an arbitrary commutative ring $A$ obtained via the base change ${\mathbb Z}\rightarrow A$. (The case $A = {\mathbb Z}_p$, the ring of $p$-adic integers, will be needed in Chapter 5.) We use similar notation relative to the subgroups $T$ and $B$. In particular, $T_{\mathbb Z}$ is a split maximal torus in $G_{\mathbb Z}$ with $T_k = T$. We will identify $R$ with the root system associated to $(G_A, T_A)$. Note that for a $G_A$-module $V$ that is free of finite rank as an $A$-module, ${\operatorname{ch}}(V)$ makes sense by considering ranks of weight spaces. If our field $k$ is an $A$-algebra then we have for such a module ${\operatorname{ch}}(V) = {\operatorname{ch}}(V \otimes _A k)$. For any commutative ring $A$ and any $B_A$-module $M$ we write $H^i_A(M)$ for the $G_A$-module $R^i{\operatorname{Ind}}_{B_A}^{G_A} M$. See @RAG, I.5 for the general properties of these modules. In particular, we recall that if $A$ is noetherian and $M$ is finitely generated over $A$, then $ H^i_A(M)$ is also finitely generated over $A$, see @RAG, Proposition I.5.12 c). Given any commutative ring $A$, for each $\lambda \in X^+$ we have the following two $G_A$-modules: the Weyl module $\Delta_A(\lambda)$ and the dual Weyl module $\nabla_A(\lambda)$. These modules are characteristic-free, i.e., as $A$-modules both are free of rank equal to $\dim \Delta(\lambda)$ and we have $G_A$-module isomorphisms $\Delta_A(\lambda) \simeq \Delta_{{\mathbb Z}}(\lambda) \otimes A$ and $\nabla_A(\lambda) \simeq \nabla_{{\mathbb Z}}(\lambda) \otimes A$. Just as for $G$, we have $\nabla_A (\lambda) = H_A^0(\lambda)$ and $\Delta_A (\lambda) \simeq H^N_A(w_0\cdot \lambda)$, see Chapter 3. Any $G_{\mathbb Z}$-module $M$ which is finitely generated as a ${\mathbb Z}$-module has finite torsion submodule $M_t = \{m\in M\mid nm = 0 \text { for some } n\in {\mathbb N}\}$. This is a $G_{\mathbb Z}$-submodule and we set $M_f = M/M_t$. Then we refer to $M_t$ and $M_f$ as the torsion part, respectively free part of $M$. Any $M$ as above allows a surjection $P_0 \rightarrow M$ from a $G_{\mathbb Z}$-module $P_0$ which is free of finite rank as a ${\mathbb Z}$-module. Hence $M$ also has a free presentation $0 \rightarrow P_1 \rightarrow P_0 \rightarrow M \rightarrow 0$ with $P_0$ and $P_1$ free over ${\mathbb Z}$. Divisors -------- Let $\mathcal D({\mathbb Z})$ denote the divisor group for ${\mathbb Z}$, i.e., the free ${\mathbb Z}$-module with basis consisting of all prime numbers $p$. If $n \in {\mathbb Z}\setminus {\{0\}}$ then we write ${\operatorname{div}}(n) \in \mathcal D({\mathbb Z})$ for the divisor associated to $n$. If $M$ is a finite ${\mathbb Z}$-module of order $|M|$ we write ${\operatorname{div}}(M) = {\operatorname{div}}(|M|)$. Clearly, ${\operatorname{div}}$ is additive with respect to short exact sequences of finite ${\mathbb Z}$-modules. Suppose $M$ is a $T_{\mathbb Z}$-module. Then $M$ splits into a direct sum of weight submodules, see @RAG, I.2.11. When $M$ is finite, in analogy with the situation for $T$-modules in Section 2.2, this leads us to the following definition of ${\operatorname{div}}_T(M) \in \mathcal D({\mathbb Z})[X]$ $${\operatorname{div}}_T(M) = \sum_{\mu \in X} {\operatorname{div}}(M_\mu) e^\mu.$$ Again it is clear that ${\operatorname{div}}_T$ is additive on exact sequences of finite $T_{\mathbb Z}$-modules. Ext groups ---------- Consider finitely generated $G_{{\mathbb Z}}$-modules $M$ and $N$. By @RAG, II.B, the groups ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G_{\mathbb Z}}^i(M,N)$ are finitely generated and vanish for large enough $i$. We will also need the following special cases of some vanishing results from loc. cit. For $\lambda, \mu \in X^+$, 1. ${\operatorname{Ext}}^i_{G_{\mathbb Z}} (\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu), \nabla_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)) = 0$ unless ($\mu = \lambda$ and $i = 0$). ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_{\mathbb Z}} (\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda), \nabla_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)) = {\mathbb Z}$. 2. ${\operatorname{Ext}}^i_{G_{\mathbb Z}} (\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu), \Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)) = 0$ unless $\mu < \lambda$ or ($\mu = \lambda$ and $i = 0$). ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_{\mathbb Z}} (\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda),\allowbreak \Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)) = {\mathbb Z}$. The universal coefficient theorem @RAG, Proposition I.4.18a gives analogous results over $G_A$ for other commutative rings $A$. In particular the proposition stays valid after replacing each ${\mathbb Z}$ by ${\mathbb Z}_p$. Tilting modules --------------- A tilting module for $G_A$ is an $A$-finite $G_A$-module $Q$ which has both a Weyl filtration (i.e., a filtration with successive quotients isomorphic to Weyl modules) and a dual Weyl filtration (with successive quotients isomorphic to dual Weyl modules). For a tilting module $Q$ (or more generally any module with a Weyl filtration) we write $(Q:\Delta(\lambda))$ for the number of times $\Delta_A(\lambda)$ occurs in a Weyl filtration of $Q$. This integer is also uniquely defined by the character equation $${\operatorname{ch}}Q = \sum_{\lambda \in X^+} (Q:\Delta(\lambda)) \chi (\lambda).$$ Let $A={\mathbb Z}_p$ in this paragraph. We have the following standard facts, e.g., from @RAG, II.E. For each $\lambda \in X^+$ there is a unique indecomposable tilting module $T(\lambda)$ for $G$ (respectively, $T_A(\lambda)$ for $G_A)$ with highest weight $\lambda$. Every tilting module for $G$ (respectively, of $G_A$) is uniquely expressible as a direct sum of the various $T(\lambda)$ (respectively, $T_A(\lambda)$). We have $T_A(\lambda) \otimes_A k \simeq T(\lambda)$. In particular, every tilting module $\bar Q$ for $G$ lifts uniquely to a tilting module $Q$ for $G_A$ (i.e., $Q \otimes_A k \simeq {\bar Q}$). The Borel-Weil-Bott theorem and its consequences over ${\mathbb Z}$ =================================================================== The Borel-Weil-Bott theorem. ---------------------------- The Borel-Weil-Bott theorem holds over any field of characteristic $0$. Here we only state it over ${\mathbb Q}$. The general case then follows by an easy base change argument, compare 3.2 below. \[@Bott, @Dem\] Let $\lambda \in X$ and choose $w \in W$ such that $w(\lambda + \rho) \in X^+$. Then we have isomorphisms of $G_{\mathbb Q}$-modules $$H_{\mathbb Q}^i(\lambda) \simeq \begin{cases} H^0_{\mathbb Q}(w \cdot \lambda) &\text {if } i = l(w),\\ 0 &\text { otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ Note that if $\lambda \in X$ is singular, i.e., if there exists $\alpha \in R$ with $\langle \lambda + \rho, \allowbreak \alpha^\vee \rangle =\nobreak 0$, then $H^i_{\mathbb Q}(\lambda) =0$ for all $i$. Hence the possible non-uniqueness of $w$ in this statement does not cause ambiguity. Universal coefficients theorem ------------------------------ Let $A$ be an arbitrary commutative ring. Then for any $G_{\mathbb Z}$-module $M$ which is free of finite rank over ${\mathbb Z}$ and for any $i \geq 0$ we have the following short exact sequence of $A$-modules, cf. e.g., @RAG , I.4.18. $$0 \rightarrow H^i_{\mathbb Z}(M) \otimes_{\mathbb Z}A \rightarrow H_A^i(M \otimes_{\mathbb Z}A) \rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}_1^{\mathbb Z}(H^{i+1}_{\mathbb Z}(M), A) \rightarrow 0.$$ The Borel-Weil-Bott theorem over ${\mathbb Z}$. ----------------------------------------------- When we combine 3.1 and 3.2 we find Let $\lambda \in X$ and suppose $w \in W$ satisfies $w \cdot \lambda \in X^+$. Then 1. $H^i_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)$ is a finite ${\mathbb Z}$-module for all $i \not = l(w)$. 2. $H^{l(w)}_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)_f \otimes _{\mathbb Z}{\mathbb Q}\simeq \Delta_{\mathbb Q}(w\cdot \lambda)$. If no $w \in W$ exists with $w \cdot \lambda \in X^+$ (i.e., if $\lambda$ is singular) then $H^i_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)$ is a finite ${\mathbb Z}$-module for all $i$. Kempf's theorem --------------- Recall that Kempf's vanishing theorem @Ke says that if $\lambda$ is dominant then all the higher cohomology modules $H^i(\lambda), i> 0$ vanish. This being true for all fields we get (e.g., via the universal coefficient theorem above) Let $\lambda \in X^+$. Then $H^i_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda) = 0$ for all $i>0$. This means in particular via the universal coefficient theorem above that for dominant $\lambda$ we have that $H^0_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda) \otimes_{\mathbb Z}k \simeq H^0(\lambda)$. Hence $\nabla_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda) \simeq H^0_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)$. Via Serre duality (which is valid over all fields but not over ${\mathbb Z}$), Kempf's theorem gives also $$\begin{aligned} H^i(\lambda) = 0 \text { for all } i < N \text { and all } \lambda \text { with } -\lambda -2 \rho \in X^+.\end{aligned}$$ Hence for each $\lambda \in X^+$ we conclude that $H_{\mathbb Z}^N(w_0\cdot \lambda)$ has no torsion and the dimension of $H^N(w_0\cdot \lambda)$ is independent of $k$. In fact, $H^N(w_0\cdot \lambda) \simeq H^N_{\mathbb Z}(w_0\cdot \lambda) \otimes _{\mathbb Z}k$ and hence $H^N_{\mathbb Z}(w_0\cdot \lambda) \simeq \Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)$. Let $V$ be any $G_{\mathbb Z}$-module (finitely generated over ${\mathbb Z}$ as always). Then for all $\lambda \in X^+$ we have $H^i_{\mathbb Z}(V\otimes_{\mathbb Z}\lambda) = 0$ for all $i>0$ and $H^0_{\mathbb Z}(V \otimes_{\mathbb Z}\lambda) \simeq V\otimes_{\mathbb Z}H^0_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)$. <span><span>**Proof:** </span></span>If $V$ is free over ${\mathbb Z}$ then we have the tensor identity @RAG I.3.6 $H^i_{\mathbb Z}(V\otimes_{\mathbb Z}\lambda) \simeq V \otimes_{\mathbb Z}H^i_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)$. Hence in this case the corollary results directly from Kempf's theorem. In general, we have from 2.4 a presentation $0\rightarrow P_1 \rightarrow P_0 \rightarrow V \rightarrow0$ with $P_1$ and $P_0$ free over ${\mathbb Z}$. The corollary then holds for $P_1$ and $P_0$. It is then immediate to deduce it for $V$. Another important consequence of Kempf's theorem is that since it clearly gives ${\operatorname{ch}}H^0(\lambda) = \sum_{i\geq 0} {\operatorname{ch}}H^i(\lambda) = \chi (\lambda)$ for all dominant weights $\lambda$, we get $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{ch}}\nabla (\lambda) = \chi (\lambda) = {\operatorname{ch}}\Delta (\lambda) \text { for all } \lambda \in X^+.\end{aligned}$$ Here the last equality follows by combining Kempf's vanishing and Serre duality, see (3.1) above. It is well known that $\chi (\lambda)$ is given by Weyl's character formula, see, e.g., @Do (2.2.6). Rank $1$ -------- The (very easy) proof by Demazure @Dem of Bott's theorem relies on an analysis of natural isomorphisms $H^{i+1}_{\mathbb Q}(s_\alpha \cdot \lambda) \rightarrow H^{i}_{\mathbb Q}(\lambda)$ when $\alpha$ is a simple root with $\langle \lambda, \alpha^\vee \rangle \geq 0$. We shall need the underlying homomorphisms over ${\mathbb Z}$ and hence engage in the following considerations. Let $\alpha $ be a simple root and denote the corresponding minimal parabolic subgroup $P_\alpha$ in $G$ containing $B$. Then we denote for any $B$-module $M$ by $H^i_\alpha(M)$ the module $H^i(P_\alpha/B, M)$. Note that $P_\alpha/B$ is the projective line so that these cohomology modules always vanish for $i>1$. When working over ${\mathbb Z}$ we write $H^i_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}}(M)$ for the analogously defined modules for the ${\mathbb Z}$-version $P_{\alpha,{\mathbb Z}}$ of $P_\alpha$. \[cf. @RAG II.5.2 and 8.13\] Let $\lambda \in X$. 1. If $\langle \lambda, \alpha^\vee \rangle \geq 0$ then $H^i_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}} (\lambda) = 0$ for all $i >0$ and $H^0_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}} (\lambda)$ is a free ${\mathbb Z}$-module whose weights are $\lambda, \lambda - \alpha, \dots , s_\alpha (\lambda)$, all occurring with multiplicity $1$. 2. If $\langle \lambda, \alpha^\vee \rangle < -1$ then $H^i_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}} (\lambda) = 0$ for all $i \not = 1$ and $H^1_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}} (\lambda)$ is a free ${\mathbb Z}$-module whose weights are $\lambda + \alpha, \lambda + 2 \alpha, \dots , s_\alpha \cdot \lambda$, all occurring with multiplicity $1$. 3. If $\langle \lambda, \alpha^\vee \rangle = r \geq 0$ then ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{P_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}}}(H^1_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}} (s_\alpha \cdot \lambda), H^0_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}} (\lambda)) \simeq {\mathbb Z}$. Moreover, $H^0_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}} (\lambda)$, respectively $H^1_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}} (s_\alpha \cdot \lambda)$ has a standard ${\mathbb Z}$-basis $\{v_0, v_1, \dots , v_r\}$, respectively $\{v_0', v_1', \dots , v_r'\}$ with $v_j$, respectively $v'_j$, having weight $\lambda - j \alpha$, $j = 0, 1, \dots, r$. A generator $c_\alpha(\lambda)$ of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{P_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}}}(H^1_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}} (s_\alpha \cdot \lambda), H^0_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}}(\lambda)) $ is given by $$c_\alpha(\lambda)(v'_j) = \binom{r}{j} v_j, \ j= 0, 1, \dots , r.$$ Passing from Rank 1 to the general case. ---------------------------------------- Keep the notation from 3.5. By transitivity of induction we have with obvious notation $H^0(M) \simeq H^0(G/P_\alpha, H^0_\alpha(M))$. The same is true over ${\mathbb Z}$. Hence using general properties of $H^i_{\mathbb Z}$, cf. @RAG, II.8 we obtain from Lemma 3.6 a) and b) that if $\lambda \in X$ and $\alpha \in S$ satisfy $\langle \lambda, \alpha^\vee \rangle \geq 0$ then $$\begin{aligned} H^i_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda) \simeq H^i_{\mathbb Z}(H^0_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}}(\lambda))\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} H^{i+1}_{\mathbb Z}(s_\alpha \cdot \lambda) \simeq H^i_{\mathbb Z}(H^1_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}}(s_\alpha \cdot\lambda))\end{aligned}$$ Denote by $Q_\alpha(\lambda)$ the cokernel of the generator $c_\alpha(\lambda)$ from Lemma 3.6 c). Then $Q_\alpha(\lambda)$ is a finite $P_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}}$-module with weights $\lambda-\alpha, \lambda-2 \alpha, \dots , s_\alpha (\lambda)+\alpha$. Each weight space is cyclic and we have $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{div}}_T(Q_\alpha(\lambda)) = \sum_{j =1}^{r-1} {\operatorname{div}}\binom{r}{j} e^{\lambda - j \alpha}.\end{aligned}$$ The short exact sequence of $P_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}}$-modules $$0 \rightarrow H^1_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}}(s_\alpha \cdot\lambda) \rightarrow H^0_{\alpha, {\mathbb Z}}(\lambda) \rightarrow Q_\alpha(\lambda) \rightarrow 0$$ gives via (3.3) and (3.4) rise to the long exact sequence of $G_{\mathbb Z}$-modules $$\cdots \rightarrow H^{i+1}_{\mathbb Z}(s_\alpha \cdot \lambda) \rightarrow H^{i}_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda) \rightarrow H^{i}_{\mathbb Z}(Q_\alpha(\lambda)) \rightarrow \cdots .$$ The isomorphisms over ${\mathbb Q}$ analogous to (3.3) and (3.4) give isomorphisms $H^{i+1}_{\mathbb Q}(s_\alpha \cdot \lambda) \simeq H^i_{\mathbb Q}(\lambda)$ for all $i$. This is the key to Demazure's proof @Dem of Theorem 3.1. Euler type formulas =================== Euler coefficients for $G$-modules. ----------------------------------- Let $V$ and $V'$ be $G_{\mathbb Z}$-modules, both finitely generated over ${\mathbb Z}$. Then ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G_{\mathbb Z}}^i(V, V')$ is finite for all $i>0$. This follows from Section 2.6 and the universal coefficient theorem @RAG, Proposition I.4.18a, because ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G_{\mathbb C}}^i(A, B) = 0$ for all $i>0$ and for any two rational $G_{\mathbb C}$-modules $A$ and $B$ ($G_{\mathbb C}$ being reductive). If the $G_{\mathbb C}$-modules $V \otimes_{\mathbb Z}{\mathbb C}$ and $V' \otimes_{\mathbb Z}{\mathbb C}$ do not have an isomorphic simple summand, then ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_{\mathbb Z}}(V, V')$ is finite. This happens in particular when $V$ or $V'$ is finite. By Section 2.6 we have in any case ${\operatorname{Ext}}^i_{G_{\mathbb Z}}(V, V') = 0$ when $i \gg 0$. So whenever $\lambda \in X^+$ and $V$ is a $G_{\mathbb Z}$-module such that $(V \otimes_{\mathbb Z}{\mathbb C}: \Delta_{\mathbb C}(\lambda)) = 0$ (e.g., when $V$ is a finite $G_{\mathbb Z}$-module), the following expression gives a well defined element in ${\operatorname{Div}}({\mathbb Z})$ $$e_\lambda^G(V) = \sum_{i\geq0} (-1)^i {\operatorname{div}}({\operatorname{Ext}}_{G_{\mathbb Z}}^i(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda), V)).$$ Clearly, $e_\lambda^G$ is additive on exact sequences of such $G_{\mathbb Z}$-modules (in particular finite $G_{\mathbb Z}$-modules). We may extend the above definition of $e_\lambda^G(V)$ to all (finitely generated) $V$ by using just the torsion part of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_{\mathbb Z}}(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda), V)$. Clearly when extended in this way $e_\lambda^G$ will fail to be additive on arbitrary exact sequences in general. The proofs of Theorem 4.1 and Proposition 4.3 below require careful examination of this failure for particular exact sequences. Euler coefficients for $B$-modules. ----------------------------------- Suppose $M$ is a finite $B_{\mathbb Z}$-module. Then for each $i$ the $G_{\mathbb Z}$-module $H_{\mathbb Z}^i(M)$ is also finite (because $G_{\mathbb Z}/B_{\mathbb Z}$ is a projective scheme) and it is $0$ for $i > N = \dim G_{\mathbb Z}/B_{\mathbb Z}$. We define for $\lambda \in X^+$ $$e_\lambda^B(M) = \sum_{j\geq0}(-1)^j e^G_\lambda(H^j_{\mathbb Z}(M)).$$ Again we see that $e_\lambda^B$ is additive on exact sequences of finite $B_{\mathbb Z}$-modules. If the $B_{\mathbb Z}$-structure on $M$ extends to $G_{\mathbb Z}$ then Corollary 3.5 tells us that $H^j_{\mathbb Z}(M) = 0$ for $j>0$ and $H^0_{\mathbb Z}(M) \simeq M$. Hence in this case we have for all $\lambda \in X^+$ $$\begin{aligned} e_\lambda^G(M) = e_\lambda^B(M).\end{aligned}$$ Formulas for $B$-modules. ------------------------- Let $M$ be a finite $B_{\mathbb Z}$-module. Then 1. $e_\lambda^B(M) = \sum_{w \in W}(-1)^{l(w)} {\operatorname{div}}(M_{w\cdot \lambda})$ for all $\lambda \in X^+$. 2. $\sum_{i\geq0} (-1)^i {\operatorname{div}}_T(H^i_{\mathbb Z}(M)) = \sum_{\lambda \in X^+} e_\lambda^B(M) \chi(\lambda)$. <span><span>**Proof:** </span></span>a) The additivity of $e_\lambda^B$ immediately allows us to reduce to the case where $M$ is given by the following short exact sequence $$\begin{aligned} 0 \rightarrow {\mathbb Z}_\mu\stackrel{n} \rightarrow {\mathbb Z}_\mu \rightarrow M \rightarrow 0\end{aligned}$$ with $\mu \in X$ and $n\in {\mathbb N}$. In this case the formula we want to verify is $$e_\lambda^B(M) = \begin{cases} (-1)^{l(w)} {\operatorname{div}}(n) &\text{if } \mu = w\cdot \lambda \text { for some } w\in W,\\ 0& \text {otherwise.}\end{cases}$$ (Note that if $\mu = w\cdot\lambda$ for some $w\in W$ then $\mu$ is non-singular and $w$ is uniquely determined. This is so because $\lambda \in X^+$). To prove this we consider the long exact cohomology sequence arising from (4.2) $$\cdots \rightarrow H^i_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)\stackrel{n} \rightarrow H^i_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) \rightarrow H^i_{\mathbb Z}(M) \rightarrow \cdots.$$ If $\mu$ is singular (i.e., if there is a $\beta \in R$ with $\langle \mu + \rho, \beta^\vee \rangle = 0$) then all modules in this sequence are finite. In this case the additivity of $e_\lambda^B$ immediately gives $e_\lambda^B(M) = 0$ as desired. So suppose $\mu$ is non-singular. Then there exists a unique $i_0$ such that $H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)$ is infinite. Define then $C^t(\mu)$, $C(\mu)$, respectively $C^f(\mu)$ such that the diagram has exact rows. By definition the two first columns are exact and hence it follows that so is the last column, i.e., $$0\rightarrow C^t(\mu) \rightarrow C(\mu) \rightarrow C^f(\mu) \rightarrow 0$$ is exact. Now the long exact sequence arising from (4.2) also gives exact sequences (recall that $H^j_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)$ is a torsion module for $j \not = i_0$) $$\cdots \rightarrow H^{i_0-1}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) \rightarrow H^{i_0-1}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) \rightarrow H^{i_0-1}_{\mathbb Z}(M) \rightarrow H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)_t \rightarrow H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)_t \rightarrow C^t(\mu) \rightarrow 0$$ and $$0\rightarrow C(\mu) \rightarrow H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(M) \rightarrow H^{i_0+1}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)\rightarrow H^{i_0+1}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) \rightarrow H^{i_0+1}_{\mathbb Z}(M) \rightarrow \cdots .$$ This implies $$e_\lambda^G(C^t(\mu)) = (-1)^{i_0-1} \sum_{j=0}^{i_0-1} (-1)^j e_\lambda^G(H^j_{\mathbb Z}(M))$$ and $$e^G_\lambda(C(\mu)) = (-1)^{i_0} \sum_{j\geq i_0} (-1)^j e_\lambda^G(H^j_{\mathbb Z}(M)).$$ We conclude that $e_\lambda^B(M) = \sum_{j\geq 0} (-1)^j e_\lambda^G(H^j_{\mathbb Z}(M))= (-1)^{i_0} (e^G_\lambda(C(\mu))-e_\lambda^G(C^t(\mu))) \allowbreak = (-1)^{i_0}e_\lambda^G(C^f(\mu))$. So let $w \in W$ be determined by $w(\mu+\rho) \in X^+$. Then $i_0 = l(w)$ and the weights of $H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)_f$ coincide with those of $\Delta(w\cdot \mu)$. In particular, if $\lambda = w\cdot \mu$ then $H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)_f$ has unique highest weight $\lambda$. Therefore ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_{\mathbb Z}}(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda),H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)_f) \simeq {\mathbb Z}$ and ${\operatorname{Ext}}^i_{G_{\mathbb Z}}(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda),H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)_f) = 0$ for $i>0$ (since $\lambda \geq \nu$ for all weights $\nu$ of $H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)_f$). Hence in this case $e_\lambda^G(C^f(\mu)) = {\operatorname{div}}(n)$. If on the other hand $\lambda \not = w\cdot \mu$ then ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_{\mathbb Z}}(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda),H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)_f) = 0$ and the long exact ${\operatorname{Ext}}$-sequence arising from $$0\rightarrow H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)_f \stackrel{n}\rightarrow H^{i_0}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)_f \rightarrow C^f(\mu) \rightarrow 0$$ consists entirely of finite ${\mathbb Z}$-modules. It follows that in this case $e_\lambda^G(C^f(\mu))= 0$ as desired. b\) Both sides of the equation in b) are additive in $M$ and hence just as above we may restrict to the case where $M$ is defined by (4.2). Using a) for the right hand side and recalling that $\chi (\mu) = (-1)^{l(w)}\chi(w\cdot \mu)$ for all $w \in W$ we see that the desired equality in this case is $$\sum_{i\geq0}(-1)^i{\operatorname{div}}_T(H^i_{\mathbb Z}(M)) = {\operatorname{div}}(n) \chi(\mu).$$ Note that here $\chi (\mu) = 0$ if $\mu$ is singular. Arguing as in the proof of a) above we obtain in fact $$\sum_{i\geq0}(-1)^i{\operatorname{div}}_T(H^i_{\mathbb Z}(M)) = (-1)^{i_0} {\operatorname{div}}_T(C^f(\mu)) = {\operatorname{div}}(n) \chi(\mu).$$ Here the last equality results from the definition of $C^f(\mu)$ via the fact that ${\operatorname{ch}}(H_{\mathbb Z}^{i_0}(\mu)_f) \allowbreak= (-1)^{i_0} \chi (\mu)$. Formulas for $G$-modules. ------------------------- Combining Theorem 4.1 and the identity (4.1) we obtain Let $V$ be a finite $G_{\mathbb Z}$-module 1. $e_\lambda^G(V) = \sum_{w \in W} (-1)^{l(w)}{\operatorname{div}}(V_{w\cdot \lambda})$ for all $\lambda \in X^+$. 2. ${\operatorname{div}}_T(V) = \sum_{\lambda \in X^+} e_\lambda^G(V) \chi(\lambda)$. The second identity in this corollary was obtained by the second author in @Kul1. The argument there is different. Natural homomorphisms. ---------------------- Fix now $\mu \in X^+$ and a reduced expression $w_0 = s_1s_2\cdots s_N$ for $w_0$ with $s_i$ denoting the reflection corresponding to the simple root $\alpha_i$. Then we set $$\mu_0 = \mu, \ \mu_1=s_1\cdot \mu_0, \dots , \mu_i=s_i\cdot \mu_{i-1}, \dots , \mu_N=s_N\cdot \mu_{N-1} = w_0\cdot \mu.$$ Since $\mu$ is the unique highest weight of $\nabla_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)$ we have up to sign a unique generator $c_\mu$ for ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_{\mathbb Z}}(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu), \nabla_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)) \simeq {\mathbb Z}$. We set $Q(\mu) = {\operatorname{Coker}}(c_\mu)$ so that we have a short exact sequence $$0\rightarrow \Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) \rightarrow \nabla_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) \rightarrow Q(\mu) \rightarrow 0.$$ Now we claim that $c_\mu$ factors through $H_{\mathbb Z}^i(\mu_i)$ for all $i$. In fact, note that $\langle \mu_{i-1}+\rho, \alpha_i^\vee\rangle = \langle\mu+\rho, s_1s_2\cdots s_{i-1}(\alpha_i)^\vee\rangle > 0$ because $s_1s_2\cdots s_{i-1}(\alpha_i) \in R^+$. Using the notation from Lemma 3.6 we therefore have a short exact sequence $$\begin{aligned} 0\rightarrow H_{\alpha_i, {\mathbb Z}}^1(\mu_i) \xrightarrow{ c_i } H_{\alpha_i, {\mathbb Z}}^0(\mu_{i-1}) \rightarrow Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1}) \rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ where $c_i = c_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1})$ and $Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1}) = {\operatorname{Coker}}(c_i)$. When we apply $H_{\mathbb Z}^{i-1}$ to (4.3) we get (see (3.3) and (3.4)) $$\rightarrow H^i_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_i) \xrightarrow{ \tilde H^{i-1}_{\mathbb Z}(c_i) } H^{i-1}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_{i-1}) \rightarrow H^{i-1}_{\mathbb Z}(Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1})) \rightarrow$$ as part of a long exact sequence. Tracing a highest weight vector we see that (up to sign) $c_\mu$ may be identified with the composite $$\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) \simeq H^N_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_N) \xrightarrow{\tilde c_N} \cdots \xrightarrow{\tilde c_{i+1}} H^{i}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_{i})_f \xrightarrow{\tilde c_{i}} H^{i-1}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_{i-1})_f \xrightarrow{\tilde c_{i-1}} \cdots \xrightarrow{\tilde c_{i-1}} H^0_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_0) \simeq \nabla_{\mathbb Z}(\mu).$$ Note that we have passed to the free quotient of $H^i_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_i)$ and denoted the homomorphism here induced by $H^{i-1}_{\mathbb Z}(c_i)$ by $\tilde c_i$. For $i=N$ and $i=0$ the cohomology modules are free, see Section 3.4 and so in these cases we have omitted the subscript $f$. If $Q^f_i(\mu)$ denotes the cokernel of $\tilde c_i$ then we have a short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow H^{i}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_{i})_f \stackrel{\tilde c_{i}}\rightarrow H^{i-1}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_{i-1})_f \rightarrow Q^f_i(\mu) \rightarrow 0.$$ Formulas for Euler coefficients. -------------------------------- Keep the notation from 4.5. Then we have $$e^G_\lambda(Q(\mu)) = \sum_{i=1}^N (-1)^{i-1}e_\lambda^B(Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1})) \text { for all } \lambda \in X^+.$$ <span><span>**Proof:** </span></span>The factorization $c_\mu = \tilde c_1 \circ \tilde c_2 \circ \cdots \circ \tilde c_N$ from 4.5 gives immediately $$\begin{aligned} e^G_\lambda(Q(\mu)) = \sum_{i=1}^N e_\lambda^G(Q^f_i(\mu)) \text { for all } \lambda \in X^+.\end{aligned}$$ If we now set $Q_i(\mu) = {\operatorname{Coker}}(H^{i-1}_{\mathbb Z}(c_i))$ and let $Q_i^t(\mu)$ denote the cokernel of the induced homomorphism $H^i_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_i)_t \rightarrow H^{i-1}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_{i-1})_t$ then we get the following commutative diagram. Here the rows and two first columns are exact. Hence we deduce that the last column is also exact and we get $$e^G_\lambda(Q_i^f(\mu)) = e^G_\lambda(Q_i(\mu)) - e^G_\lambda(Q_i^t(\mu)).$$ Now exactly as in the proof of Theorem 4.1 the long exact sequences involved in the above diagram give (note also that all the terms in the following expressions have to do with finite ${\mathbb Z}$-modules) $$\begin{aligned} e^G_\lambda(Q_i^t(\mu)) = {} & \sum_{j\leq i} (-1)^{j-i-1}(e_\lambda^G(H^j_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_i)_t) - e_\lambda^G(H^{j-1}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_{i-1})_t)) \\ & +\sum_{j<i-1} (-1)^{j-i}e_\lambda^G(H_{\mathbb Z}^j(Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1})))\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} e^G_\lambda(Q_i(\mu)) = {} & \sum_{j>i} (-1)^{j-i}(e_\lambda^G(H^j_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_i)) -e_\lambda^G(H^{j-1}_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_{i-1}))) \\ &- \sum_{j\geq i-1} (-1)^{j-i}e_\lambda^G(H_{\mathbb Z}^j(Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1}))).\end{aligned}$$ When we combine these two equations we obtain $$\begin{aligned} e^G_\lambda(Q_i^f(\mu)) = (-1)^i (e_i^t - e_{i-1}^t -e_\lambda^B(Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1}))),\end{aligned}$$ where we have set $e_r^t = \sum_{j\geq 0} (-1)^j e_\lambda^G(H^j_{\mathbb Z}(\mu_r)_t),\ r=0, 1, 2, \dots ,N$. When we now sum over $i$ in (4.5) we obtain the desired equality since the $e^t_i$ cancel each other leaving only $e^t_0$ and $e^t_N$. Both these are $0$ by Kempf's theorem, see Section 3.4. Two lemmas. ----------- We still use the notation from 4.5. Now we shall combine Proposition 4.3 with Theorem 4.1. Recall from (3.5) that the weights of $Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1})$ are $\mu_{i-1} - \alpha_i, \mu_{i-1} - 2\alpha_i, \dots , \mu_{i-1} - (r_i-1)\alpha_i$ where $r_i = \langle\mu_{i-1}, \alpha_i^\vee\rangle$. All weight spaces are cyclic and the order of $Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_i)_{\mu_{i-1} - m\alpha_i}$ is $\binom{r_i}{m}$, $m = 1, 2, \dots , r_i-1$. Let $\lambda \in X^+$ and $x, y \in W$. Suppose that both $x\cdot \lambda$ and $y\cdot \lambda$ are weights of $Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1})$. Then either $x=y$ or $x = s_iy$. <span><span>**Proof:** </span></span>Suppose $x\cdot \lambda = \mu_{i-1} - m\alpha_i$ and $y\cdot \lambda = \mu_{i-1} - m'\alpha_i$ with $0<m, m'<r_i$. Then $x\cdot \lambda = y\cdot \lambda + (m'-m)\alpha_i$. Hence $$(\lambda+\rho,\lambda + \rho) = (\lambda+\rho, \lambda + \rho) + (\alpha_i,\alpha_i) (m'-m)(\langle y(\lambda+ \rho), \alpha_i^\vee \rangle +(m'-m))$$ and we conclude that either $m'=m$ or $m-m' = \langle y(\lambda+\rho), \alpha_i^\vee \rangle$. In the first case $y\cdot \lambda = x\cdot \lambda$ and therefore $y = x$. In the second case we get $s_iy\cdot \lambda = y\cdot \lambda - \langle y(\lambda+\rho), \allowbreak \alpha_i^\vee \rangle \alpha_i = y\cdot \lambda -(m-m')\alpha_i = x\cdot \lambda$, i.e., $y= s_ix$. Let $\lambda \in X^+$. Suppose there exist $x \in W$ and $0< m < r_i$ with $x\cdot \lambda = \mu_{i-1} -m\alpha_i$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{w\in W} (-1)^{l(w)}{\operatorname{div}}(Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1})_{w\cdot\lambda}) = (-1)^{l(x)}({\operatorname{div}}(r_i+1-m) - {\operatorname{div}}(m)).\end{aligned}$$ <span><span>**Proof:** </span></span>This follows from the Lemma 4.4 together with the observation that for all $r \geq m \geq 0$ we have $${\operatorname{div}}(\binom{r}{m}) - {\operatorname{div}}(\binom{r}{r+1-m}) = {\operatorname{div}}(r+1-m) - {\operatorname{div}}(m).$$ Note in particular that the lemma holds also when $m =1$ (in which case $s_ix\cdot\lambda$ is not a weight of $Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_i)$). An Euler type formula. ---------------------- Let $\lambda, \mu \in X^+$. For each $\beta \in R^+$ we set $$V_\beta(\lambda, \mu) = \{(x,m)\mid x\in W, 0<m< \langle\mu+\rho,\beta^\vee\rangle \text { with } x\cdot \lambda = \mu - m\beta \}.$$ With this notation we have The cokernel $Q(\mu)$ of the canonical homomorphism $\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) \rightarrow \nabla_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)$ satisfies $$e_\lambda^G(Q(\mu)) = -\sum_{\beta \in R^+} \sum_{(x,m) \in V_\beta(\lambda, \mu)} (-1)^{l(x)}{\operatorname{div}}(m).$$ <span><span>**Proof:** </span></span>When we combine Theorem 4.1 a) and Proposition 4.3 we get $$e^G_\lambda(Q(\mu)) = \sum_{i=1}^N(-1)^{i-1} \sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{l(w)} {\operatorname{div}}(Q_{\alpha_i}(\mu_{i-1})_{w\cdot \lambda}).$$ Note that if we set $\beta_i = s_1s_2\cdots s_{i-1}(\alpha_i)$ then $\{\beta_1, \beta_2, \dots ,\beta_n\} = R^+$. Moreover, the equality $x\cdot \lambda = \mu_{i-1} - m\alpha_i$ is equivalent to $s_1s_2\cdots s_{i-1}x\cdot \lambda = \mu - m\beta_i$. Also $r_i = \langle \mu_{i-1},\alpha_i^\vee \rangle = \langle(\mu+\rho,\beta_i^\vee \rangle -1$. Hence the theorem follows by Lemma 4.4 and Lemma 4.5. The arguments in Lemma 4.4 show that the set $V_\beta(\lambda, \mu)$ is either empty or contains exactly two elements (of the form $(x,m)$ and $(s_\beta x, \langle \mu + \rho, \beta^\vee \rangle - \nobreak m)$). Variations. ----------- We present some variations of Theorem 4.6 for later use. $$e_\lambda^G(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)) = \sum_{\beta \in R^+} \sum_{(x,m) \in V_\beta(\lambda, \mu)} (-1)^{l(x)}{\operatorname{div}}(m).$$ <span><span>**Proof:** </span></span>Use Proposition 2.1 with the sequence $0 \rightarrow \Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) \stackrel{c_\mu} \rightarrow \nabla_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) \rightarrow Q(\mu) \rightarrow 0$. (Note that the corollary–as understood by the Remark in Section 4.1–and its proof are valid even for $\lambda = \mu$. We have $e_\lambda^G(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda)) = 0$, see Proposition 7.1 below.) Let $\lambda, \mu \in X^+$. For each $\gamma \in R^+$ we set $$U_\gamma(\lambda, \mu) = \{(w,n)\mid w\in W, n < 0 \text { or } n > \langle\lambda+\rho,\gamma^\vee\rangle, w\cdot \mu = \lambda - n\gamma \}.$$ With this notation, we can deduce from Theorem 4.6 an alternate expression for $e_\lambda^G(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu))$. $$e_\lambda^G(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)) = \sum_{\gamma \in R^+} \sum_{(w,n) \in U_\gamma(\lambda, \mu)} (-1)^{l(w)}{\operatorname{div}}(n).$$ <span><span>**Proof:** </span></span>Let $V(\lambda, \mu) = \bigcup_{\beta \in R^+} \{(\beta,x,m)\mid (x,m) \in V_\beta(\lambda, \mu) \}$ and $$U(\lambda, \mu) = \bigcup_{\gamma \in R^+} \{(\gamma,w,n)\mid (w,n) \in U_\gamma(\lambda, \mu) \}.$$ By Corollary 4.8 it is enough to produce a bijection between $U(\lambda,\mu)$ and $V(\lambda,\mu)$ for which $m = \pm n$ and $x = w^{-1}$. This is an easy check as follows. First let $(\gamma,w,n) \in U(\lambda,\mu)$. Since $\lambda - n \gamma = w \cdot \mu$, we have $w^{-1} \cdot \lambda = \mu + n(w^{-1}\gamma)$. <span>*Case 1a.*</span> If $w^{-1}\gamma \in R^+$ then let $\beta = w^{-1}\gamma$, $x = w^{-1}$ and $m = -n$. We have $$\begin{aligned} \langle \mu + \rho , w^{-1}\gamma^\vee \rangle = \langle w^{-1}(\lambda + \rho) - n(w^{-1}\gamma), w^{-1}\gamma^\vee\rangle = \langle \lambda + \rho, \gamma^\vee\rangle - 2n.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\langle \mu+\rho , \beta^\vee \rangle > 0$ and $\langle \lambda+\rho, \gamma^\vee\rangle > 0$, the possibility $n > \langle \lambda + \rho, \gamma^\vee\rangle$ in the definition of $U_\gamma(\lambda, \mu)$ cannot be true. So $n < 0$ and hence $m = -n >0$. Also $\langle \mu + \rho , \beta^\vee\rangle = \langle \lambda + \rho, \gamma^\vee\rangle - 2n > -2n = 2m$. So $0 < m < \frac{1}{2} \langle \mu + \rho , \beta^\vee\rangle$; in particular $(\beta,x,m) \in V(\lambda,\mu)$. <span>*Case 1b.*</span> If $w^{-1}\gamma \in -R^+$ then let $\beta = -w^{-1}\gamma$, $x = w^{-1}$ and $m = n$. By (4.6) we have $\langle \mu + \rho , \beta^\vee \rangle = 2n - \langle \lambda + \rho, \gamma^\vee \rangle.$ Since $\langle \mu + \rho , \beta^\vee \rangle > 0$ and $\langle \lambda + \rho, \gamma^\vee\rangle > 0$, the possibility $n < 0$ in the definition of $U_\gamma(\lambda, \mu)$ cannot be true. So $n > \langle \lambda + \rho, \gamma^\vee \rangle$. Thus $m = n > 0$. Also $\langle \mu + \rho , \beta^\vee \rangle = 2n - \langle \lambda + \rho, \gamma^\vee \rangle > n = m$, as desired. (Since $0< \langle \lambda +\rho,\gamma^\vee \rangle = 2n- \langle \mu+\rho,\beta^\vee \rangle$, we actually have $\frac{1}{2} \langle \mu +\rho , \beta^\vee \rangle < n = m < \langle \mu + \rho, \beta^\vee \rangle$.) For the inverse map, let $(\beta, x, m) \in V(\lambda,\mu)$. Since $\mu - m\beta = x \cdot \lambda$, we have $x^{-1} \cdot \mu = \lambda + m(x^{-1}\beta)$. <span>*Case 2a.*</span> If $x^{-1}\beta \in R^+$ then let $\gamma = x^{-1}\beta$, $w = x^{-1}$ and $n = -m$. We have $n < 0$ since $m > 0$, so $(\gamma,w,n) \in U(\lambda ,\mu)$. Clearly this case is inverse to Case 1a. ($m$ must satisfy the bounds in the last sentence of Case 1a by the calculation there.) <span>*Case 2b.*</span> If $x^{-1}\beta \in -R^+$ then let $\gamma = -x^{-1}\beta$, $w = x^{-1}$ and $n = m$. Now via a calculation similar to (4.6) we have $\langle \lambda + \rho, \gamma^\vee\rangle = 2m - \langle \mu + \rho , \beta^\vee\rangle < 2m-m = n$. so $(\gamma,w,n) \in U(\lambda ,\mu)$. Clearly this case is inverse to Case 1b (and again the bounds obtained there on $m$ must hold in this case). Note that the above bijection pairs $V_\beta(\lambda, \mu)$ and $U_\gamma(\lambda, \mu)$ where $\gamma = x^{-1}\beta$ with $x \in W$ chosen such that $(x,m) \in V_\beta(\lambda, \mu)$ and $x^{-1}\beta \in R^+$. (This is always possible by replacing $x$ with $s_\beta x$ if necessary, see Remark 4.7.) Sum Formulas ============ Sum formula for Weyl modules ---------------------------- Let $\Delta^i_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) = c_\mu^{-1} (p^i \nabla_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)) \subset \Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)$. Jantzen's filtration is a descending filtration of $\Delta(\mu)$ defined by $\Delta^i(\mu)=$ the $G$-submodule generated by the image of $\Delta^i_{\mathbb Z}(\mu)$ under the canonical map $\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\mu) \rightarrow \Delta(\mu)$. We now have Jantzen's sum formula cf. @JCJ and @Asum. Let $\nu_p$ denote the $p$-adic valuation. Then $$\sum_{i>0} {\operatorname{ch}}(\Delta^i(\mu)) = \sum_{\beta \in R^+} \sum_{0 < m < \langle \mu + \rho, \beta^\vee \rangle} \nu_p(m) \chi(\mu - m \beta).$$ <span><span>**Proof:** </span></span>It is well-known that the left hand side is the coefficient of $[p]$ in ${\operatorname{div}}_T(Q(\mu))$, e.g., diagonalize $c_\mu$ and calculate each expression. The result follows by Corollary 4.2b and Theorem 4.6. A filtration associated to tilting modules ------------------------------------------ Henceforth in this chapter we let $A = {\mathbb Z}_p$, the ring of $p$-adic integers. Fix $Q$, a tilting $G_A$-module. Also fix $\lambda \in X^+$. Following @Atilt we define two descending filtrations as follows. First, let $F_{\lambda}(Q) = {\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q)$. Define $$F_{\lambda}(Q)^j = \{\varphi \in F_{\lambda}(Q) \mid \psi \circ \varphi \in p^j A c_\lambda \text{ for all } \psi \in {\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(Q,\nabla_A(\lambda))\},$$ where $c_\lambda$ now denotes a generator of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), \nabla_A(\lambda))$. Next, let ${\bar Q} = Q \otimes_A k$. Recall that $Q$ is determined uniquely by ${\bar Q}$. Let ${\bar F}_{\lambda}({\bar Q})={\operatorname{Hom}}_G(\Delta(\lambda),{\bar Q}) ={\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q) \otimes_A k$ (by, e.g., universal coefficients and Proposition 2.1 a)). Define ${\bar F}_{\lambda}({\bar Q})^j =$ the $k$-vector space spanned by the image of $F_{\lambda}(Q)^j$ in $F_{\lambda}(Q)\otimes_A k$. In the remaining sections we will prove a sum formula for the latter filtration. Homological considerations -------------------------- Continue with the notation in 5.2. Following @Atiltsum, Chapter 1, we relate the desired sum formula to certain Ext groups via an equivalent description of $F_{\lambda}(Q)^j$. For this, fix an enumeration of dominant weights such that $\lambda_i < \lambda_j$ implies $i < j$. Let $(Q:\Delta_A(\lambda_j)) = n_j$. We will freely use Proposition 2.1 in the following analysis without further mention. A first application gives that $Q$ has a finite filtration $Q = Q_0 \supset Q_1 \supset Q_2 \cdots$ with $Q_{i-1}/Q_i = \Delta_A(\lambda_i)^{n_i}$ for some $n_i \geq 0$. Now fix $i$ such that the chosen $\lambda=\lambda_i$. Consider the two short exact sequences $$\begin{aligned} 0 \rightarrow Q_{i-1} \rightarrow Q \rightarrow Q/Q_{i-1} \rightarrow 0 \quad \text{ and } \quad 0 \rightarrow Q_i \rightarrow Q_{i-1} \stackrel{\pi} \rightarrow \Delta_A(\lambda)^{n_i} \rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ Apply ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), -)$ to these. In the first long exact sequence, for $t > 0$, ${\operatorname{Ext}}^t_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q/Q_{i-1}) = 0$ (since $(Q/Q_{i-1}: \Delta_A(\lambda_j)) = 0$ for any $\lambda_j > \lambda$) and ${\operatorname{Ext}}^t_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q) = 0$ (since $Q$ has a dual Weyl filtration). Also ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), \allowbreak Q/Q_{i-1}) = 0$, since $(Q/Q_{i-1}: \Delta_A(\lambda)) = 0$. Hence ${\operatorname{Ext}}^t_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q_{i-1})=0$ for $t>0$ and the entire sequence reduces to the isomorphism ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda),Q_{i-1})\simeq F_{\lambda}(Q)$. Next we use this information in the second long exact sequence. Since ${\operatorname{Ext}}^t_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), \allowbreak \Delta_A(\lambda)) = 0$ for $t>0$, we get ${\operatorname{Ext}}^t_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q_i) = 0$ for $t>1$. Also ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), \allowbreak Q_i) = 0$ since $(Q_i: \Delta_A(\lambda)) = 0$. So the entire sequence reduces to $$\begin{aligned} 0 \rightarrow F_{\lambda}(Q) \stackrel{\Phi} \rightarrow {\operatorname{End}}_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda))^{\oplus{n_i}} \rightarrow {\operatorname{Ext}}^1_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q_i) \rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ Still following @Atiltsum, we take a closer look at certain maps between several Hom-groups. First, note that $\Phi(\varphi) = \pi \circ \varphi$. (This makes sense since, by the previous paragraph, any map $\varphi \in F_{\lambda}(Q)$ factors through $Q_{i-1}$.) Note that $\Phi$ is an injection between free $A$-modules, each of rank $n_i$. Next, apply ${\operatorname{Hom}}(-,\nabla_A(\lambda))$ to the two short exact sequences (5.1). Each of the resulting long exact sequences reduces to just Hom-terms. Since $(Q_i:\Delta_A(\lambda)) = 0 = (Q/Q_{i-1}:\Delta_A(\lambda))$, we get isomorphisms ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(Q,\nabla_A(\lambda)) \simeq {\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(Q_{i-1},\nabla_A(\lambda)) \simeq {\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda),\nabla_A(\lambda))^{\oplus n_i}.$ This sequence of bijections pairs $\psi \in {\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(Q,\nabla_A(\lambda))$ first with its restriction $\psi |_{Q_{i-1}}$ and then to ${\bar \psi} \in {\operatorname{Hom}}_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda)^{\oplus n_i},\nabla_A(\lambda))$ such that ${\bar \psi} \circ \pi = \psi |_{Q_{i-1}}$. So $\psi \circ \varphi = {\bar \psi} \circ \pi \circ \varphi = {\bar \psi} \circ \Phi(\varphi)$. This easily gives (see @Atiltsum, Proposition 1.6): $$\begin{aligned} F_{\lambda}(Q)^j = \{ \varphi \in F_{\lambda}(Q) \mid \Phi(\varphi) \in p^j {\operatorname{End}}_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda))^{\oplus {n_i}} \}.\end{aligned}$$ A sum formula involving tilting modules --------------------------------------- Keep the notation from 5.2 and 5.3. Additionally, for arbitrary $\xi \in X$, we make the following notation. If there exists $w \in W$ with $\mu = w \cdot \xi$ dominant, define $[Q: \chi(\xi)] = (-1)^{\ell(w)} (Q: \Delta_A(\mu))$. Otherwise let $[Q: \chi(\xi)] = 0$. This makes sense by Theorem 3.1. We now prove the following sum formula, which was discovered (and proved when $p \geq h$) in @Atiltsum. $$\sum_{j > 0} \dim {\bar F}_{\lambda}({\bar Q})^j = - \sum_{\alpha \in R^+} \sum_{n < 0 \text{ \rm or } n > \langle \lambda + \rho, \alpha^\vee \rangle} \nu_p (n) [{\bar Q} : \chi(\lambda - n \alpha)].$$ <span><span>**Proof:** </span></span>From (5.2) and (5.3) it is standard (e.g., by diagonalizing $\Phi$) to see that $$\sum_{j > 0} \dim {\bar F}_{\lambda}({\bar Q})^j = \nu_p({\operatorname{Ext}}^1_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q_i)).$$ Since ${\operatorname{Ext}}^t_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q_i) = 0$ for $t \neq 1$, we have $$\nu_p({\operatorname{Ext}}^1_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q_i)) = - \sum_t (-1)^t \nu_p({\operatorname{Ext}}^t_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q_i)).$$ Recall that $(Q_i:\Delta(\lambda_j))$ is $n_j$ if $j>i$ and 0 otherwise. So $$\sum_t (-1)^t \nu_p({\operatorname{Ext}}^t_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), Q_i)) = \sum_{j>i} n_j \sum_t (-1)^t \nu_p({\operatorname{Ext}}^t_{G_A}(\Delta_A(\lambda), \Delta_A(\lambda_j))).$$ (Note that all the Hom-terms in the previous equation are zero, so additivity of Euler characteristic holds.) The last alternating sum in the preceding equation may be replaced by the coefficient of $[p]$ in $e_\lambda^G(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda_j))$. Then we may take the outer sum over all $j$ as $e_\lambda^G(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda_j)) = 0$ for $j \leq i$. Altogether we have $$\sum_{j > 0} \dim {\bar F}_{\lambda}({\bar Q})^j = - \text{ the coefficient of } [p] \text{ in } \sum_j n_j e_\lambda^G(\Delta_{\mathbb Z}(\lambda_j)).$$ The result follows by Proposition 4.9. Quantum Groups ============== Passing to the quantum case. ---------------------------- The sum formulas Corollary 5.1 and Theorem 5.2 have direct analogues for quantum groups at roots of $1$, see @APW, @T and @Atiltsum. We shall show in this section that our approach above carries over to the quantum case. In particular, this allows us to get rid of the condition in loc. cit. that the order of the root of unity must be at least equal to the Coxeter number. In the Weyl module case the reason for this restriction was that the quantized Kempf vanishing theorem had only been proved in that case (see @APW and @AW). This restriction was removed by Ryom-Hansen's general proof @RH. In the tilting module case the reason for the restriction was that the proof in @Atiltsum required a regular weight as its starting point. We carefully set up the quantized version of the approach in Sections 6.2–5. Once this is done the arguments are completely parallel and we shall leave to the reader the task of repeating the proofs leading to the quantized versions of the sum formulas. The quantum parameter. ---------------------- Throughout this section $k$ will denote an arbitrary field. We set $p = {\operatorname{char}}(k) \geq 0$. For technical reasons we need $p \not = 2$ and also that $p \neq 3$ if the root system in question contains type $G_2$. Then we fix a root of unity $q \in k$ of order $l$ or $2l$ with $l \in {\mathbb N}$ odd. We let $v$ denote an indeterminate and set $\mathcal A = {\mathbb Z}[v,v^{-1}], \; A=k[v,v^{-1}]$. The natural homomorphism $\mathcal A \rightarrow A$ mapping $v \in \mathcal A$ to $v \in A$ makes $A$ into an $\mathcal A$-algebra. We make $k$ into an $\mathcal A$-algebra by specializing $v$ to $q$. Of course so far $q$ could be any non-zero element in $k$ but as we shall see the only interesting case for our present purposes is when $q$ is a root of unity. Roots and weights ----------------- As in Section 2.1 we denote by $R$ a (finite) root system and we choose a set of positive roots $R^+$. This takes place in some euclidian space $E = {\mathbb R}^n$ and we let $\{\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \dots , \alpha_n\}$ be an enumeration of the set of simple roots $S \subset R^+$. Moreover, we denote by $X \subset E$ the set of integral weights, i.e., $$X = \{\lambda \in E \mid \langle \lambda, \beta^\vee \rangle \in {\mathbb Z},\ \beta \in R\}.$$ Then $X \simeq {\mathbb Z}^n$. As before we set $X^+$ equal to the set of dominant weights in $X$. The Weyl group $W$ of $R$ acts naturally on $E$ and $X$. Again we also have the dot-action given by $w\cdot\lambda = w(\lambda + \rho) - \rho, \ w\in W, \lambda \in E$ with $\rho = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\beta\in R^+} \beta$. Quantum groups over $k$. ------------------------ Let $U$ denote the quantum group over ${\mathbb Q}(v)$ associated with $R$. This is the ${\mathbb Q}(v)$-algebra defined by some generators $E_i, F_i, K_i^{\pm}, \ i= 1, 2, \dots , n$ and certain relations, see e.g. @L. It has a triangular decomposition $U = U^-U^0U^+$ with $U^-$, respectively $U^0$, $U^+$ denoting the subalgebra generated by all $F_i$'s, respectively $K_i^{\pm}$'s, $E_i$'s. Inside $U$ we have an $\mathcal A$-subalgebra $U_\mathcal A$, the Lusztig $\mathcal A$-form of $U$. It is defined via the (gaussian) divided powers $E_i^{(m)}$ and $F_i^{(m)}$, $m \in {\mathbb N},\; i= 1, 2, \dots , n$, see @L. Then for each $\mathcal A$-algebra $A'$ we set $U_{A'} = U_\mathcal A\otimes_\mathcal AA'$ and call this the quantum group over $A'$ associated with $R$. In particular, $U = U_{{\mathbb Q}(v)}$ when ${\mathbb Q}(v)$ is given the natural $\mathcal A$-structure obtained by sending $v$ to $v$. In the case where $A' = k$ with $\mathcal A$-structure as above we often write $U_q$ instead of $U_k$. The above triangular decomposition of $U$ generalizes to $U_{A'} = U_{A'}^-U_{A'}^0U_{A'}^+$ for appropriate $A'$-subalgebras $U_{A'}^-, U_{A'}^0$, and $U_{A'}^+$, see @L. We set $B_{A'} = U^-_{A'}U^0_{A'}$. Again we write $B_q$ instead of $B_k$. Integrable modules and induction functors. ------------------------------------------ Let $\lambda \in X$. Then for any $A'$ as above $\lambda$ gives rise to a character $\chi_\lambda : U_{A'}^0 \rightarrow A'$ which extends uniquely to a character of $B_{A'}$ (taking all $F_i^{(m)}$'s to $0$). Then if $M$ is a $U_{A'}^0$-module we set $$M_\lambda = \{m\in M \mid um = \chi_\lambda(u) m, \ u\in U_{A'}^0 \}$$ and call this the $\lambda$-weight space in $M$. We denote by $\mathcal C_{A'}$, respectively $\mathcal C^-_{A'}$ the category consisting of all integrable $U_{A'}$-, respectively $B_{A'}$-modules. A module is integrable if it splits into a direct sum of its weight spaces (as $U^0_{A'}$-module) and all high enough divided powers of all relevant generators vanish on any given element in the module, see @APW. We have a natural induction functor ${\operatorname{Ind}}_{B_{A'}}^{U_{A'}}: \mathcal C_{A'}^- \rightarrow \mathcal C_{A'}$, see @APW. As in loc. cit. we shall denote the right derived functors of this functor by , $j \geq 0$. These functors share many of the properties of the $G/B$-sheaf cohomology functors from Section 2.3. In particular, we have (cf. @APW Theorem 5.8) 1. If $M \in \mathcal C^-_{A'}$ is finitely generated as an $A'$-module then each $H^j_{A'}(M) \in \mathcal C_{A'}$ is also finitely generated over $A'$, 2. $H^j_{A'} = 0$ for all $j > N$ (as before $N$ denotes the number of positive roots). Weyl and dual Weyl modules. --------------------------- Keep the notation from above and fix now $\mu \in X^+$. Then we set $$\Delta_{A'} (\mu) = H^N_{A'}(w_0\cdot \mu) \text { and } \nabla_{A'}(\mu) = H^0_{A'}(\mu).$$ We call these the Weyl module and the dual Weyl module for $U_{A'}$ with highest weight $\mu$. Because of the quantized Kempf's vanishing theorem (which was proved for special $A'$'s in @APW and in general by Ryom-Hansen in @RH)we have in analogy with Section 3.4 $$\begin{aligned} \nabla_{A'}(\mu) = \nabla_\mathcal A(\mu) \otimes_\mathcal A A'.\end{aligned}$$ Since $H^{N+1}_{\mathcal A} = 0$ we also have $$\begin{aligned} \Delta_{A'}(\mu) = \Delta_\mathcal A (\mu) \otimes_\mathcal A A'.\end{aligned}$$ Just as in Section 3.4 we get quantized Weyl character formulas $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{ch}}\Delta_q (\mu) = {\operatorname{ch}}\nabla_q (\mu) = \chi (\lambda).\end{aligned}$$ Simple modules. --------------- We shall now consider the case $A' = k$. Then each $\nabla_q(\mu)$ (again we use index $q$ instead of $k$ here) contains a unique simple submodule which we denote $L_q(\mu)$, cf. @APW. The family $\{L_q(\mu)\}_{\mu \in X^+}$ is then up to isomorphisms the set of simple modules in $\mathcal C_q$ (and in fact this family and their sign-twists constitute all finite dimensional simple $U_q$-modules, see loc. cit.). Serre duality gives that $L_q(\mu)$ is also the unique simple quotient of $\Delta_q(\mu)$. In fact, we have up to scalars a unique homomorphism $c_q(\mu) : \Delta_q(\mu) \rightarrow \nabla_q(\mu)$ and the image is $L_q(\mu)$. This homomorphism may be obtained by specialization from a generator $c_{\mathcal A} (\mu)$ of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathcal C_\mathcal A}(\Delta_\mathcal A(\mu), \nabla_\mathcal A(\mu))$. We shall now study the corresponding homomorphism $c_\mu = c_A(\mu) \in {\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathcal C_A}(\Delta_A(\mu), \nabla_A(\mu))$ (obtained from $c_\mathcal A(\mu)$ by the base change $\mathcal A \rightarrow A$) just as we studied the corresponding homomorphism in Section 4.5. If $q$ was not a root of unity then we would have $\nabla_q(\mu) = L_q(\mu) = \Delta _q(\mu)$ for all $\mu \in X^+$, and $\mathcal C_q$ would be semisimple, see @APW. Rank 1. ------- Fix $i \in \{1, 2, \dots , n\}$. Then we set $P_{A}(i)$ equal to the $A$-subalgebra of $U_A$ generated by $B_A$ and
{'source': 'arXiv_out/math0612768'}