Arxiv:2101.09228V1 [Math.RT]

Home , Satake diagram

arXiv:2101.09228v1 [math.RT] 22 Jan 2021 uin of lutions h once ugopof subgroup connected the h elkoncasfiaino h iptn risin orbits nilpotent the of classification well-known The h corresponding the lsl eae otesuyo h (nilpotent) the of study the to related closely ouint a o h pairs the for (a) to solution a h eea rbe stwo-fold: is problem general the hoyhsbe eeoe n[ in developed been has theory the nte nl n td rpriso nilpotent of properties study and angle another of ( grading ,e σ, b ie norbit an given (b) Let hsrsac a uddb FR project RFBR, by funded was research This phrases. and words Key 2010 a eciethe describe (a) For sl Z ) n - 2 eew rvd oegnrlrslsrltdt b n thei and (b) to related results general some provide we Here . grading -grading G e IPTN RISADMXDGAIG FSMSML LIE SEMISIMPLE OF GRADINGS MIXED AND ORBITS NILPOTENT ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics eae to related lc oe n hs lc oe cu mn h eo of zeros the among occur nodes black these and nodes black eo.I sas hw htif that shown also is It zeros. htteStk igasfrboth for diagrams Satake the that rdn of grading eiipeelement semisimple iptn lmn of element nilpotent respective g A 1 ∈ BSTRACT eacmlxsmsml leri ru with group algebraic semisimple complex a be g h related the g g = 0 and , N ∩ Here . L e g Let . G g σ ( hc scle ie rdn.W rv,i atclr th particular, in prove, We grading. mixed a called is which , an , i,j = edfiea ne involution inner an define we , obt in -orbits ⊂ N ) Z Z ∈ g e 2 G Z σ 0 2 gaig esuyrltosbtennilpotent between relations study We -grading. etaie,wihe ykndarm rdn,involutio grading, diagram, Dynkin weighted Centraliser, sl × gaig i.e., -grading, ∈ ⊕ obt in -orbits ea nouino ope eiipeLealgebra Lie semisimple complex a of involution an be G Z 2 g til containing -triple 2 g 0 g g h h e fnloeteeet.If elements. nilpotent of set the · g 0 0 1 g e hntewihe ykndarmof diagram Dynkin weighted the then , (2) j ilsa yields If . and ( ⊂ G i ( ) g and hc scle a called is which , g e with , 10 G 0 Z ∈ g N N ∩ · 0 -grading e .I hsatce elo tthe at look we article, this In ]. g ( = ) Z σ MTII PANYUSHEV I. DMITRI h htmeet that 0 70,1B0 14L30. 17B70, 17B08, gaigof -grading .I 1. σ ∩ Lie ˇ g snloetand nilpotent is ∈ eemn h poete f orbit of) (properties the determine , g and i 1 ALGEBRAS sl g = } G NTRODUCTION 6= 0 n 0 σ (0) 20-01-00515. ∅ g , σ ˇ e = so g i ( hnteStk iga of diagram Satake the then , σ say , aeioae lc nodes. black isolated have Let . σ ) ˇ = 1 n g g G sthe is g ) uhthat such 0 0 u anto stecombined the is tool main Our . L td fte(nilpotent) the of Study . or obt in -orbits n hnthe then and { e G i ,h f h, e, ( ∈ ie grading mixed σ { sl Z obt meeting -orbits ,h f h, e, eoearglrnloeteeetof element nilpotent regular a denote ( 2 g − n ( σ , i 1) ) sp } so and ⊂ } a ecoe in chosen be can , i eemndby determined g Lie egnpc of -eigenspace 2 n D n meeting σ ) or σ ˇ ( e .. o h ue involutions outer the for i.e., , g e G σ ∈ G omt.Hr eprove we Here commute. 0 σ , sp ) D san is 0 sn ie gradings mixed Using . = G Inv obt in -orbits 2 ( Z eae to related 0 n e obt in -orbits g σ 2 ( i attoscomprise partitions via , gae iuto from situation -graded ) g g σ g sl applications. r tif at a nyisolated only has , Inv ) 0 1 2 a nyisolated only has then , ogl speaking, Roughly . h corresponding The . g til,te the then -triple, n. ( and e g h σ σ ) G G G saregular a is Let . g ilsa yields h e finvo- of set the 0 0 g g · · ( g obt in -orbits e e 0 ,e σ, Z n the and . = Combining . ∩ aur 2 2021 22, January = × g g ) G 0 Z g 0 rjs a just or 0 ; 2 0 ⊕ - Z denote ⊕ × g g 1 Z 1 2 is is - 2 DMITRI I. PANYUSHEV (σ) D g0 = g0 . We prove that the weighted Dynkin diagram of G·eσ, (eσ), has only isolated ′ (σ ) ∅ ′ zeros. Moreover, if G·eσ ∩ g1 =6 for some σ ∈ Inv(g), then the Satake diagram of σ′, denoted Sat(σ′), has only isolated black nodes (IBN for short), and these black nodes

occur among the zeros of D(eσ). Let c(g) be the Coxeter number of a simple Lie algebra g.

We show the orbit G·eσ ⊂ N is even whenever c(g) is even. It is also proved that if g0 is

semisimple and e is distinguished in g0, then e remains even in g and the reductive part of the centraliser ge is toral (i.e., e is almost distinguished in g), see Section 3. For a simple Lie algebra g, let κ(g) denote the maximal number of pairwise disjoint

nodes in the Dynkin diagram. If c(g) is even (i.e., g =6 sl2n+1), then we prove that there is a unique, up to G-conjugation, inner involution ϑ such that D(eϑ) has κ(g) isolated zeros. (ϑ) This ϑ is characterised by the property that g1 contains a regular nilpotent element of g. Let B be a Borel subgroup of G and U =(B, B). Using ϑ, we also show that B has a dense ′ ′ orbit in u = [u, u], where u = Lie U, and if O is the dense B-orbit in u , then G·O = G·eϑ, see Section 4. 1 D As in [14], we say that the orbit G·e ⊂ N is divisible, if 2 (e) is again a weighted Dynkin diagram. Then the respective nilpotent orbit is denoted by G·eh2i. There is an interesting link between mixed gradings and divisible G-orbits. If a (σ, e)-grading has the property that dim g0(0) = dim g1(4), then we prove that G·e is divisible, g0 is semisimple, h2i and dim g0(4k + 2) = dim g1(4k + 2) for all k ∈ Z. Moreover, both e and e are almost distinguished in g and all such instances are classiﬁed, see Section 5 for details.

Given σ ∈ Inv(g), we deﬁne Υ(σ) ∈ Inv(g), if σ is not an inner involution of sl2n+1. Con- (σ) structing the map Υ depends on a choice of eσ ∈ g0 ∩N and exploits the mixed grading related to (σ, eσ), see Section 6. Here σˇ := Υ(σ) is always inner, and the involutions σ and σˇ commute. Hence σσˇ ∈ Inv(g) and σ, σσˇ belong to the same connected component of the (ˇσ) (σσˇ) group Aut(g). The map Υ has the property that eσ ∈ g1 and eσ ∈ g1 . This implies that the Satake diagrams Sat(ˇσ) and Sat(σσˇ) have only IBN. We describe a method that allows us to compute (the conjugacy class of) σˇ or σσˇ. We also discuss the property that σ and σσˇ are G-conjugate, and its connection to the divisibility of G·eσ. The commuting involutions

σ and σˇ provide a Z2 × Z2-grading of g, and our construction based on a mixed grading yields an explicit model for it. Main notation. Let h be a ﬁxed Cartan subalgebra of g, ∆ the root system of (g, h), and x Π a set of simple roots. If γ ∈ ∆, then gγ is the root space in g. Write g or zg(x) for

the centraliser of x ∈ g in g. More generally, zg(M) = ∩x∈M zg(x) for a subset M of g. If G·e ⊂ N is a nonzero orbit, then D(e) is its weighted Dynkin diagram. A direct sum of Lie algebras is denoted by ‘∔’. Our man reference for algebraic groups and Lie algebras is [24]. We refer to [3] for generalities on nilpotent elements (orbits) and their centralisers. NILPOTENT ORBITS AND MIXED GRADINGS 3

2. PRELIMINARIESONNILPOTENTORBITSANDINVOLUTIONS

Suppose for a while that g is a reductive algebraic Lie algebra. We say that x ∈ g is x regular, if dim g = rk(g). The set of regular elements is denoted by greg. Let N be the set of nilpotent elements of g. For e ∈N\{0}, let {e, h, f} be an sl2-triple in g. That is, [h, e]=2e, [e, f] = h, and [h, f] = −2f. The semisimple element h is called a characteristic of e. W.l.o.g. one may assume that h ∈ h and α(h) > 0 for all α ∈ Π. By a celebrated result of Dynkin, one then has α(h) ∈{0, 1, 2} [4, Theorem8.3]. The weighted Dynkin diagram of

G·e (= of e), D(e), is the Dynkin diagram of g equipped with labels {α(h)}α∈Π. The set of

zeros of D(e) is the subset Π0 = {α ∈ Π | α(h)=0}. Z Let g = i∈Z g(i) be the -grading determined by h, i.e., g(i) = {v ∈ g | [h, v] = iv}. Then ge inherits this Z-grading and g(0) = gh. Recall some standard deﬁnitions related to L nilpotent elements and sl2-triples. A nonzero e ∈N is said to be • even, if the h-eigenvalues in g are even;

• distinguished, if zg(e, h, f) is the centre of g (i.e., zg(e, h, f)=0, if g is semisimple);

• almost distinguished, if zg(e, h, f) is a toral Lie algebra (= Lie algebra of a torus);

Write tn for an n-dimensional toral Lie algebra. For e ∈ greg ∩N , any sl2-triple {e, h, f} is

said to be principal (in g). Set g(>j)= i>j g(i). It is well known that (i) ad e : g(i) → g(i + 2) is injectiveL (resp. surjective) if i 6 −1 (resp. i > −1). Hence ge ⊂ g(>0), dim ge = dim g(0) + dim g(1) = dim gh + dim g(1), and e is even if and only if dim ge = dim gh. Furthermore, (ad e)i : g(−i) → g(i) is bijective. (ii) a regular element is distinguished and a distinguished element is even [3, Theo- rem 8.2.3]; however, there exist almost distinguished non-even elements. e e (iii) zg(e, h, f) = g (0) is a maximal reductive subalgebra of g [3, 3.7]. We also write e e gred for it. Then dim gred = dim g(0) − dim g(2) and e is distinguished (resp. almost distinguished) if and only if ge has no non-central semisimple elements (resp. is solvable). e e e (iv) The nilradical of g , gnil, is contained in g(>1) and dim gnil = dim g(1) + dim g(2).

From now on, g is assumed to be semisimple. Let σ be an involution of g and g = g0 ⊕ g1 σ the corresponding Z2-grading. Then g0 = g is reductive, but not necessarily semisimple.

We also say that (g, g0) is a symmetric pair. Whenever we wish to stress that gi is deﬁned via certain σ ∈ Inv(g), especially when several involutions are being considered simulta- (σ) σ (σ) neously, we write gi for it. We can also write g in place of g0 . x x x x The centraliser g is σ-stable for any x ∈ gi, hence g = g0 ⊕ g1 . It is known that 1 x x • if x ∈ g1, then dim G0·x = 2 dim G·x; that is, dim g1 − dim g1 = dim g0 − dim g0 [10, Proposition 5]. x x • if 0 =6 x ∈ g0, then dim g0 + rk(g) > dim g1 [16, Theorem 4.4]. It is well known that the real forms of g are represented by their Satake diagrams (see 4 DMITRI I. PANYUSHEV

e.g. [24, Ch. 4,§ 4.3]) and there is a one-to-one correspondence between the real forms and

Z2-gradings of g. Thereby, one associates the Satake diagram to an involution (symmetric pair), cf. [20]. A Satake diagram of σ, Sat(σ), is the Dynkin diagram of g, with black and

white nodes, where certain pairs of white nodes can be joined by an arrow. Let x ∈ g1 x be a generic semisimple element. Then g1 is a toral subalgebra (a Cartan subspace of g1) x and Sat(σ) encodes the structure of g0 . In particular, the subdiagram of black nodes in x x x x Sat(σ) represents the Dynkin diagram of [g , g ] = [g0 , g0 ], while the number of arrows x x x Z equals dim(g0 /[g0 , g0 ]). Some features of Satake diagrams in the setting of 2-gradings are discussed in [17, Sect. 2].

Example 2.1. As G/G0 is a spherical homogeneous space, dim g1 = dim(G/G0) 6 dim B.

Hence dim g0 > dim U and dim g1 − dim g0 6 rk(g) for any σ ∈ Inv(g). If dim g1 − dim g0 = rk(g), then σ is said to be of maximal rank. (In [20], such involutions are called split.)

Equivalently, g1 contains a Cartan subalgebra of g. For any simple g, there is a unique,

up to G-conjugacy, involution of maximal rank, and we denote it by ϑmax. In this case, x (ϑmax) (ϑmax) g ∩ g0 = {0} for a generic x ∈ g1 . Hence Sat(ϑmax) has neither black nodes nor arrows. Yet another characterisation is that ϑmax corresponds to a split real form of g, see [24, Ch.4,§4.4].

Remark 2.2. By a fundamental result of Antonyan, for any σ ∈ Inv(g) and an sl2-triple

{e, h, f} ⊂ g, one has G·e ∩ g1 =6 ∅ if and only if G·h ∩ g1 =6 ∅, see [1, Theorem 1]. This

readily implies that σ = ϑmax if and only if G·x ∩ g1 =6 ∅ for any x ∈ g ([1, Theorem 2]).

For arbitrary σ and e ∈ N , this means that G·e ∩ g1 =6 ∅ if and only if (i) the set of black nodes of Sat(σ) is contained in the set of zeros of D(e) and (ii) α(h)= β(h) whenever the nodes α, β ∈ Π are joined by an arrow in Sat(σ).

3. MIXEDGRADINGSOFSEMISIMPLE LIE ALGEBRAS

A mixed grading of g is a grading via the group Z × Z2. We consider only mixed gradings

of a special form. Given σ ∈ Inv(g) and a nonzero e ∈ g0 ∩N , take an sl2-triple {e, h, f} in

g0. Then we set gj(i)= {v ∈ gj | [h, v]= iv} and consider the mixed grading

(3·1) g = gj(i)= gj(i). j Z i Z Z Z M∈ 2 M∈ (i,jM)∈ × 2

We say that (3·1)is a mixed grading related to (σ, e) or just a (σ, e)-grading. Here e ∈ g0(2) and f ∈ g0(−2). For such a mixed grading, it follows from (i) in Section 2 that

ad e : g (i) → g (i + 2) is surjective for j =0, 1 and i > −1. (3·2) j j ( ad e : gj(i) → gj(i + 2) is injective for j =0, 1 and i 6 −1. NILPOTENT ORBITS AND MIXED GRADINGS 5

Letting dj(i) = dim gj(i), we have dj(i) > dj(i + 2) for i > −1 and dj(i) = dj(−i). Below,

we mostly consider even nilpotent elements of g0. However, if e ∈ g0 is even in g0, then e is not necessarily even in g.

Lemma 3.1. If g is simple and e is even in g0, then the h-eigenvalues in g1 are either all even or all odd.

+ − + − Proof. Write g1 = g1 ⊕ g1 , where the h-eigenvalues in g1 (resp. g1 ) are even (resp. odd). ± ± + − Since the h-eigenvalues in g0 are even, we have [g0, g1 ] ⊂ g1 ; also [g1 , g1 ] ⊂ g0. On the + − + − other hand, the h-eigenvalues in [g1 , g1 ] are odd. This implies that [g1 , g1 ]=0. Therefore, + − Z letting g˜0 = g0 ⊕ g1 and g˜1 = g1 , we obtain another 2-grading of g. As is well known, for a symmetric pair (g, g0) with simple Lie algebra g, g0 is a maximal proper reductive subalgebra. Consequently, either g˜0 = g0 or g˜0 = g.

Lemma 3.2. Suppose that g0 is semisimple and e ∈ g0 ∩N is distinguished in g0. Then e is almost distinguished and even in g.

Proof. The assumptions imply that zg(e, h, f) ∩ g0 = {0}. Therefore, zg(e, h, f) ⊂ g1. Then zg(e, h, f) is reductive and abelian, hence toral. + − Since e is even in g0, it follows from Lemma 3.1 that either g1 = g1 or g1 = g1 . Assume − − h that g1 = g1 . Since (g1 ) = {0}, we obtain zg(e, h, f) = zg0 (e, h, f)=0. Therefore, e is − distinguished in g and hence even. This contradicts the fact that g1 is nontrivial. Thus, + g1 = g1 and e is even in g, although not necessarily distinguished. For g ∈{sl(V), so(V), sp(V)}, the nilpotent orbits are represented by partitions of dim V, see [3, Ch. 5]. There are also simple algorithms for obtaining D(e) via λ = λ(e)= λ(G·e), which go back to Springer and Steinberg [21, IV.4], and here G·e ⊂ g is even if and only if all parts of λ(e) have the same parity.

Example 3.3. a) If σ ∈ Inv(sl2n+1) is inner, then g0 = slk ∔ sl2n+1−k ∔ t1 with k < 2n +1 − k.

If e ∈ g0,reg, then λ(e) = (2n +1 − k,k) and e is not even in g. Here g0 is not semisimple − and g1 = g1 .

b) Another example is g = sp2n and g0 = sp2k ∔ sp2n−2k with 0

c) It can happen that g0 is simple and e ∈ g0 is even, but e is not even in g. For instance, σ take σ ∈ Inv(F4) such that (F4) = so9. Let e ∈ so9 be such that λ(e) = (3, 3, 3). Then D(e) is 1 0 0 2 . Here (and in Tables 1, 2 below) the shaded nodes in the weighted Dynkin diagrams represent the short simple roots.

Let G(0) (resp. G0(0)) be the connected subgroup of G with Lie algebra g(0) (resp g0(0)).

Lemma 3.4. For any mixed grading of g, G0(0) has ﬁnitely many orbits in any gj(i) if i =6 0.

Consequently, for i =06 , there is a dense G0(0)-orbit in gj(i) and hence dj(i) 6 d0(0). 6 DMITRI I. PANYUSHEV

Proof. The presence of the grading shows that [g, x]∩gj (i) = [g0(0), x] for any x ∈ dim gj(i).

By Vinberg’s lemma [22, §2], this implies that the intersection of any G-orbit with gj(i)

consists of ﬁnitely many G0(0)-orbits. For i =06 , all elements of gj(i) are nilpotent. There-

fore, there are ﬁnitely many (nilpotent) G-orbits meeting gj(i) with i =06 .

Theorem 3.5. Suppose that g is simple, e ∈ g0,reg ∩N , and {e, h, f} ⊂ g0 is a (g0-principal)

sl2-triple. Then h h k (1) [g , g ] ≃ sl2 ∔ ··· ∔ sl2 =(sl2) for some k > 0 and D(e) has only isolated zeros. More precisely, here dim gh = rk(g)+2k and D(e) contains exactly k isolated zeros; e (2) dim gnil 6 2rk(g0), and if the equality holds, then g0 is semisimple. Proof. Consider a mixed grading related to (σ, e). h (1) The centraliser of h in g is reductive and Z2-graded: g = g0(0) ⊕ g1(0). Since h h e is regular nilpotent in g0, g0(0) is a Cartan subalgebra of g0, and therefore [g , g ]0 is commutative. For a semisimple Lie algebra [gh, gh], this is only possible if all its simple h factors are isomorphic to sl2. Each simple factor sl2 of g corresponds to a simple root, and the corresponding set of k simple roots gives rise to a totally disconnected subset of the Dynkin diagram. Recall that the set of zeros of D(e) represent the Dynkin diagram of [gh, gh]. The rest is clear. e + − (2) Recall that dim gnil = dim g(1) + dim g(2). By Lemma 3.1, either g1 = g1 or g1 = g1 . + e If g1 = g1 , then g(1) = 0, and dim gnil = dim g0(2) + dim g1(2) 6 2 dim g0(0) = 2rk(g0). − If g1 = g1 , then g(1) = g1(1) and g(2) = g0(2), with the similar estimate. e In both cases, if dim gnil = 2rk(g0), then dim g0(2) = dim g0(0). Since {e, h, f} ⊂ [g0, g0] and g0(i) ⊂ [g0, g0] for i =06 , we have

dim g0(2) = dim[g0, g0](2) 6 dim[g0, g0](0) 6 dim g0(0).

Hence [g0, g0](0) = g0(0) and therefore [g0, g0]= g0, i.e., g0 is semisimple.

Remark. It is proved by Broer [2] that if e is even, D(e) has isolated zeros, and the set

of zeros Π0 consists of short roots, then the closure of G·e is normal. (If g is simply-laced, then all roots are assumed to be short.)

In Theorem 3.5, e ∈ g0,reg is not necessarily even in g, and we characterise below possible exceptions. Write c(g) for the Coxeter number of g. Let ∆+ be the set of positive roots corresponding to Π and θ ∈ ∆+ the highest root. For γ ∈ ∆ and α ∈ Π, let [γ : α] be the coefﬁcient of α in the expression of γ via Π. Then ht(γ) := α∈Π[γ : α] and c(g)= ht(θ)+1.

Proposition 3.6. Suppose that g is simple and e ∈ g0,reg ∩N .P If c(g) is even, then e is even in g.

Moreover, e is not even in g if and only if g = sl2n+1 and σ is inner.

Proof. (1) If g0 is semisimple, then e is even by Lemma 3.2.

(2) If g0 is not semisimple, then σ is inner and g0 is a Levi subalgebra of a (maximal) NILPOTENT ORBITS AND MIXED GRADINGS 7

parabolic subalgebra with abelian nilradical. Namely, there is β ∈ Π such that [θ : β]=1 and the set of simple roots of g0 is Π0 := Π \{β}. Set ∆β(i) = {γ ∈ ∆ | [γ : β] = i}. Then

∆ = ∆β(−1) ∪ ∆β(0) ∪ ∆β(1),

g0 = h ⊕ ( gγ ) and g1 = gγ = g(−1) ⊕ g(1). γ∈M∆β (0) γ∈∆β (M−1)∪∆β (1) Here g(1) is a simple g0-module, with the highest (resp. lowest) weight θ (resp. β) w.r.t. + + g ∆β(0) = ∆β(0) ∩ ∆ . If θ = β + αi∈Π0 niαi, then c( ) = ni +2. Let {e, h, f} be a principal sl2-triple in [g0, g0] ⊂ g0 such that h ∈ h and e = eα . Then αi(h)=2 P Pαi∈Π0 i for all α ∈ Π and θ(h) = −β(h). It follows that θ(h) = n = c(g) − 2. Thus, the i 0 P i eigenvalue θ(h) is even if and only if c(g) is even. In this case all h-eigenvalues in g are P 1 even (Lemma 3.1) and hence e is even in g. It remains to observe that c(g) is odd if and

only if g = sl2n+1.

Let κ(g) denote the maximal number of pairwise disjoint nodes in the Dynkin diagram σ of g. By Theorem 3.5, if {eσ, hσ, fσ} is a principal sl2-triple in g0 = g for some σ ∈ Inv(g), hσ then dim g 6 rk(g)+2κ(g). We prove in Section 4 that, for g =6 sl2n+1, there is always hϑ an inner involution ϑ such that dim g = rk(g)+2κ(g) and hence D(eϑ) has the maximal possible number of isolated zeros.

rk(g)+1 Remark 3.7. It is readily seen that if g =6 D2n, then κ(g) = 2 , while κ(D2n) = n +1. A uniform but more fancy expression that can also be veriﬁedh case-by-casei is (3·3) κ(g) = #{γ ∈ ∆+ | ht(γ) = [(c(g)+1)/2] =: a}.

Note that γ:ht(γ)>a gγ is an abelian ideal of the Borel subalgebra b = h ⊕ ( γ∈∆+ gγ). Using a result of Sommers related to the theory of ad-nilpotent ideals of b [18, Theo- L L rem6.4], one obtains inequality “>” in (3·3). Moreover, if c(g) is even, which only ex-

cludes g = sl2n+1, then I can give a case-free proof of (3·3).

σ Assume that e ∈ g0 = g is even in g, and let g = i,j gj(2i) be a (σ, e)-grading. Recall that d (i) = dim g (i), d (0) > d (i) for i =6 0 (Lemma 3.4), and d (i) > d (i + 2) for i > 0, j j 0 j L j j cf. Eq. (3·2). Consider the even integers mj = max{k | dj(k) =06 } for j =0, 1.

Proposition 3.8. Given σ ∈ Inv(g) and a (σ, e)-grading of g, suppose that d0(0) = d1(2). Then

(1) G(0)·e ∩ g1(2) =6 ∅. In particular, G·e ∩ g1 =6 ∅; (2) e is almost distinguished in g;

(3) |m0 − m1| 6 2 and d0(0) 6 d1(0).

′ ′ e′ Proof. (1) For e ∈ g1(2), the space [g1(−2), e ] is the orthogonal complement of g0 (0) in ′ g0(0) w.r.t. the Killing form. Let O be the dense G0(0)-orbit in g1(2). If e ∈ O, then e′ ′ g0 (0) = {0} for the dimension reason. Hence [g1(−2), e ] = g0(0) ∋ h. That is, there is 8 DMITRI I. PANYUSHEV

′ ′ ′ f ∈ g1(−2) such that {e , h, f } is an sl2-triple. Because G(0) is the centraliser of h in G, this also implies that e′ ∈ G(0)·e, see [23, Theorem 1(4)].

′ ′ (2) Since both ad e : g0(0) → g1(2) and ad e : g1(0) → g0(2) are onto and d0(0) = d1(2), e′ e′ e′ e we see that g(0) = gred ∈ g1(0). Hence gred is a toral subalgebra, and so is gred. ′ ′ ′ ′ (3) Using the sl2-triple {e , h, f } with e ∈ g1(2), we see that ad e takes gj(i) to gj+1(i+2) ′ ′ and ad e : g(>0) → g(>2) is onto. Since g0(m0) and g1(m1) are in the range of ad e , one

has g0(m1 − 2) =06 and g1(m0 − 2) =06 , i.e., |m0 − m1| 6 2. Note also that d1(0) > d1(2) =

d0(0).

The hypothesis of Proposition 3.8 is rather restrictive. It means that the total number of he, h, fi-modules in g0 equals the number of nontrivial he, h, fi-modules in g1, i.e.,

roughly speaking, g0 cannot be much bigger than g1. Actually, assertions of Proposi- tion 3.8 fail, if g0 is considerably larger than g1. For instance, let e ∈ g0 be regular in g0 for

(g, g0)=(so2n, so2n−1) with n > 3. Then d0(0) = n − 1, d1(0) = d1(2) = 1, m0 = 4n − 6,

and m1 =2n − 2. In this case, we also have G·e ∩ g1 = ∅. The same conclusions hold for

(so2n+1, so2n) as well.

For e ∈ g0, it can happen that G·e∩g1 =6 ∅, while G(0)·e∩g1(2) = ∅. By the construction,

we have e ∈ g0(2) ⊂ g(2) and G(0)·e is the dense orbit in g(2). But this dense G(0)-orbit

does not necessarily meet g1(2). A simple possible reason for that is that g0(2) contains a 1-dimensional G(0)-module.

(σ′) ∅ Proposition 3.9. Given σ ∈ Inv(g) and e ∈ g0,reg ∩N , suppose that G·e ∩ g1 =6 for some σ′ ∈ Inv(g). Then the Satake diagram Sat(σ′) has only isolated black nodes (IBN for short). Moreover, the set of black nodes of Sat(σ′) is contained in the set zeros of D(e).

′ (σ ) ′ Proof. Set g˜i = gi . If x ∈ g˜1 is a generic semisimple element, then Sat(σ ) has IBN if and x x k′ ′ ′ ′ only if [g , g ] ≃ (sl2) for some k (and then Sat(σ ) has exactly k isolated black nodes). ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ Take any e ∈ G·e ∩ g˜1. There is an sl2-triple {e , h , f } such that h ∈ g˜0 and f ∈ g˜1 [10]. ˜ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ Here h = e + f is SL2-conjugate to h in he , h , f i ≃ sl2 and hence in g. Since e ∈ G·e, ′ h h k one also has h ∈ G·h. Therefore h˜ ∈ G·h. Since [g , g ] ≃ (sl2) for some k (Theorem 3.5), ˜ we have thus detected a semisimple element h ∈ g˜1 such that

h˜ h˜ h˜ h˜ k [g˜0 , g˜0 ] ⊂ [g , g ] ≃ (sl2) . ˜ ˜ Since h is semisimple, the G˜0-orbit of h is closed in g˜1. For a generic semisimple x ∈ g˜1, it x ˜ then follows from Luna’s slice theorem [12, III.3] that the stabiliser g˜0 is G0-conjugate to a h˜ x x x x k′ ′ subalgebra of g˜0 . Therefore, [g , g ] = [g˜0 , g˜0 ] ≃ (sl2) for some k 6 k.

Combining Propositions 3.8(1) and 3.9, we obtain NILPOTENT ORBITS AND MIXED GRADINGS 9

Corollary 3.10. Suppose that e ∈ g0,reg ∩N and the (σ, e)-grading satisﬁes the condition that d0(0) = d1(2). Then Sat(σ) has only IBN and the black nodes of Sat(σ) are contained among the zeros of D(e).

The complete list of σ ∈ Inv(g) such that g is simple and d0(0) = d1(2) for e ∈ g0,reg ∩N is as follows. We point out the pairs (g, g0).

1) σ = ϑmax for g =6 sp4n+2, i.e., (sln, son), (so2k, sok ∔sok), (so2k+1, sok+1 ∔sok), (sp4n, gl2n), (E6, C4), (E7, A7), (E8, D8), (F4, C3 ∔ A1), (G2, A1 ∔ A1).

2) the others: (so2k, sok+1 ∔ sok−1), (so4k+1, so2k+2 ∔ so2k−1), (E6, A5 ∔ A1).

4. A PRINCIPAL INNER INVOLUTION AND THE B-ACTION ON [u, u]

+ Z For a ﬁxed choice of h ⊂ g and ∆ ⊂ ∆=∆(g, h), the principal -grading g = i∈Z ghii is deﬁned by the conditions that gh0i = h and ghii = g for i =06 . Then b = gh>0i γ:ht(γ)=i γ L is a Borel subalgebra, u = [b, b] = gh>1i, and u′ = gh>2i. Accordingly, we set ∆hii := L {γ ∈ ∆ | ht(γ) = i} for i =6 0. In particular, ∆h1i = Π is the set of simple roots in ∆+.

(Alternatively, one can say that this Z-grading is determined by a principal sl2-triple.)

For γ ∈ ∆, let eγ ∈ gγ be a nonzero root vector. By a classical result of Kostant [9,

Theorem 5.3], a nilpotent element v = γ∈Π cγ eγ ∈ gh1i is regular in g if and only if cγ =06 for all γ ∈ Π. In this case, the B-orbit B·v is dense in u. Deﬁne the subspaces P

(4·1) gh0i := ghii, gh1i := ghii. i even i M Modd This provides the Z2-grading g = gh0i ⊕ gh1i, and the corresponding involution of g is denoted by ϑ. The G-conjugacy class of ϑ is uniquely determined by two properties (cf. [13, Theorem 2.3]:

1) ϑ is inner (because rk(gh0i)= rk(g)), (ϑ) 2) gh1i = g1 contains a regular nilpotent element of g (because v ∈ gh1i ⊂ gh1i). We say that ϑ is a principal inner involution (= PI–involution). A PI–involution of g is of

maximal rank if and only if g =6 An, D2n+1, E6. ′ Here bh0i = b ∩ gh0i is a Borel subalgebra of gh0i and u ∩ gh0i = u ∩ gh0i is the nilradical of + + bh0i. The roots system of (gh0i, h) is ∆ev := {γ ∈ ∆ | ht(γ) is even}. Clearly, ∆ev := ∆ev ∩∆ + is a set of positive roots in ∆ev, and ∆h2i is a part of the set of simple roots in ∆ev. In order ′ to prove that u contains a dense B-orbit, we ﬁrst attempt to test e = γ∈∆h2i eγ. However, this does not always work. If such an e belongs to the dense B-orbit in u′, then [b, e] = u′ P ′ and hence [bh0i, e] = u ∩ gh0i. Therefore, e must be a regular nilpotent element of gh0i + and ∆h2i must be the whole set of simple roots in ∆ev. If g is simple and rk(g) = r, then #∆h2i = r−1. Hence ∆h2i is a set of simple roots of ∆ev if and only if rk([gh0i, gh0i]) = r−1, i.e., the centre of gh0i is one-dimensional.

As is well known, if (g, g0) is a symmetric pair and g is simple, then either 10 DMITRI I. PANYUSHEV

(A) g0 is semisimple (and g1 is a simple g0-module); or

(B) g0 has a one-dimensional centre (and g1 is a sum of two simple dual g0-modules).

For the PI–involutions, both possibilities occur. Namely, gh0i is semisimple if and only

if θ is fundamental if and only if g is not of type Ar or Cr. These two possibilities are considered separately below.

Case (A). Since gh0i is semisimple and ϑ is inner, we have rk(∆ev) = r. Hence there is a unique minimal root β, with ht(β)=2k > 4, that is not contained in the linear span of ˜ + ∆h2i. Then Π := ∆h2i∪{β} is the set of simple roots in ∆ev. (Actually, ht(β)=4, see

Remark 4.3, but we do not need this now.) Accordingly, e˜ := eβ + γ∈∆h2i eγ = eβ + e is a regular nilpotent element of g . h0i P ϑ Theorem 4.1. Suppose that gh0i = g is semisimple. As above, let e˜ = eβ + e be a regular nilpotent element of gh0i. Then

e˜ e˜ e˜ (i) u ∩ g = gnil and dim gnil =2r =2 rk(g); (ii) the orbit B·e˜ is dense in u′, b ∩ ge˜ = u ∩ ge˜, and ge˜ ⊂ gh> − 1i.

Proof. We have [b, e˜] ⊂ u′ = gh>2i. Since the roots in Π˜ are linearly independent,

[h, e˜]= gγ = gh2i ⊕ gβ. ˜ Mγ∈Π By the very deﬁnition of β, the space [gh2i, e] ⊂ gh4i does not contain gβ. Therefore,

[u, e˜] ⊂ gh>3i ⊖ gβ. (The latter is the sum of all root spaces in gh>3i except gβ.) Hence,

(4·2) dim[u, e˜] 6 dim gh>3i − 1 = dim u − 2r.

e˜ e˜ e˜ On the other hand, dim gnil 6 2r (Theorem 3.5) and u ∩ g ⊂ gnil, since e˜ is almost distinguished in g by Lemma 3.2. Hence

e˜ e˜ (4·3) dim[u, e˜] = dim u − dim(u ∩ g ) > dim u − dim gnil > dim u − 2r. Consequently, there are equalities everywhere in (4·2)and(4·3), which yields (i). One also has [b, e˜] = [h, e˜] ⊕ [u, e˜] = gh>2i = u′, i.e., B·e˜ is dense in u′. Hence dim(b ∩ ge˜)=2r and b ∩ ge˜ = u ∩ ge˜. Finally, [g, e˜] ⊃ gh>2i, hence ge˜ ⊂ gh>2i⊥ = gh> − 1i.

Corollary 4.2. The weighted Dynkin diagram D(˜e) contains κ(g) isolated zeros. ˜ Proof. By Lemma 3.2, e˜ is even in g. Let h ∈ h be a characteristic of e˜ and g = i∈Z g(2i) the corresponding Z-grading of g. Using Theorem 3.5(1) with h = h˜, we obtain L h˜ e˜ rk(g)+2k = dim g = dim g(0) > dim g(2) = dim gnil =2rk(g), D > rk(g)+1 where k is the number of zeros in (˜e). Hence k 2 , which proves the assertion for g =6 D2n (cf. Remark 3.7). If g = D2n, then gh0i = Dhn ∔Dn andi λ(˜e)=(2n−1, 2n−1, 1, 1). NILPOTENT ORBITS AND MIXED GRADINGS 11

The description of D(˜e) via partitions [3, 5.3] shows that the number of zeros equals n +1, as required. Cf. the diagrams for D5 and D6: 2 0 2 0 and 0 2 0 2 0 .

0 0

ϑ Remark 4.3. If gh0i = g is semisimple, then, beside ∆h2i, one more root β is needed for + the basis of ∆ev. For Dr and Er, this β is obtained as follows. If δ ∈ Π corresponds to the branching node in the Dynkin diagram and δ1, δ2, δ3 are the adjacent simple roots, then

(4·4) β = δ + δ1 + δ2 + δ3,

δ1 δ δ2 ...... see the diagram . Obviously, β is not a sum of two roots of height 2. δ3 In the non-simply-laced cases, it is convenient to think that δ is the unique long simple root that has an adjacent short simple root. Using the numbering of Π adopted in [24], δ (δ,δ) equals αr−1 for Br; α3 for F4, α2 for G2. Then one similarly has β = δ + (α,α) α, where the sum ranges over all α ∈ Π adjacent to δ. That is, P

αr−2 + αr−1 +2αr for Br (αr is short),

(4·5) β = 2α2 + α3 + α4 for F4 (α2 is short),  3α1 + α2 for G2 (α1 is short).  ❀ Thus, β is long and ht(β)equals 4. Under the usual unfolding procedure Br Dr+1, F4 ❀ E6, and G2 ❀ D4, this δ gives rise to the simple root associated with the branching node and β of (4·5) transforms into β of (4·4). ˜ Since e˜ is regular in gh0i, one has γ(h)=2 for all γ ∈ ∆h2i∪{β}. This allows us to determine D(˜e) (for the G-orbit of e˜). Namely, the above formulae for δ ∈ Π and β provide the following uniform answer: δ(h˜)=2 and then one put interlacing values 0 and 2 on all remaining nodes, see Tables 1 and 2. Clearly, this procedure provides the maximal possible number of isolated zeros in the weighted Dynkin diagram.

+ Case (B). Here rk(∆ev) = r − 1, ∆h2i is the set of simple roots in ∆ev, and e :=

γ∈∆h2i eγ ∈ gh2i is already a regular nilpotent element of gh0i.

ϑ TheoremP 4.4. Suppose that gh0i = g has a one-dimensional centre and r = rk(g). Then ′ e e (i) B·e is dense in u , (ii) dim(g ∩ u)=2r − 1, (iii) 2r − 2 6 dim gnil 6 2r − 1. e Furthermore, if e is almost distinguished in g, then dim gnil =2r − 1.

Proof. Such a situation occurs only if g is of type Ar or Cr, and it is not hard to check the assertion via direct matrix calculations. However, there is a conceptual argument, too. (i) We have to prove that [b, e]= u′, i.e., [ghj − 2i, e]= ghji for all j > 2. For j even, this

already stems from the fact that e ∈ gh0i is regular nilpotent. Anyway, our next argument applies to all j. 12 DMITRI I. PANYUSHEV

Since e ∈ gh2i,one cantakean sl2-triple {e, h, f} ⊂ gh0i such that h ∈ gh0i and f ∈ gh−2i,

see [23]. Set g(k) = {v ∈ g | [h, v] = kv} so that e ∈ g(2). However, the grading {g(k)}k∈Z is not always the principal Z-grading, i.e., the spaces g(i) and ghii are different. (Actually,

ghki = g(k) for all k if and only if g is of type A2n.) Still, there is a mild relationship, which is sufﬁcient for us. Set ghj, k) := ghji ∩ g(k). Since D(e) has only isolated zeros by Theorem 3.5(1), if γ ∈ ∆+ and ht(γ) > 2, then

γ(h) > 1. In other words, if j > 2 and ghj, k) =6 0, then k > 1. Hence ghji = k>1 ghj, k). Since g(k) ⊂ Im (ad e) for all k > 1 (see (i) in page 3), we see that ghji belongs to Im (ad e) L for any j > 2. Hence [b, e]= u′. (ii) By part (i), we have [u, e]= gh>3i. Hence dim(ge ∩ u) = dim(gh1i ⊕ gh2i)=2r − 1.

(iii) Combining the Z2-grading (4·1) and the Z-grading {g(k)}k∈Z determined by h, one obtains a mixed grading related to (ϑ, e). Here gh0i(1) = 0 and gh0i(2) = gh2i; hence

dim gh0i(2) = r − 1, Next, either gh1i(2) =06 or gh1i(1) =06 (Lemma 3.1); with either dimen- e sion at most r = dim gh0i(0). Hence dim gnil = dim g(1) + dim g(2) 6 2r − 1. e e On the other hand, dim gh0i(0) = 1, i.e., gred ∩ gh0i is one-dimensional. This is only e e e e possible if [gred, gred] is either trivial or sl2. Consequently, dim(u ∩ g ) 6 dim gnil +1, hence e e e dim gnil > 2r − 2. Finally, if e is almost distinguished, then u ∩ g ⊂ gnil and both spaces actually coincide for dimension reason.

Remark 4.5. (1) A posteriori, there are more precise assertions related to Theorem 4.4: e e • If g = A2n−1 or C2n−1, then gred = sl2 and dim gnil =2r − 2 (here r =2n − 1). e e • If g = A2n or C2n, then gred = t1 (i.e., e is almost distinguished in g) and dim gnil = 2r − 1 (here r =2n).

(2) The only case in which e is not even in g is that of A2n (cf. Example 3.3 and Proposi- tion 3.6). In the remaining cases, D(e) has the maximal possible number of isolated zeros, see Table 2.

In Tables 1 and 2, we gather information on the PI–involutions ϑ and the nilpotent orbits of G that contain a regular nilpotent element eϑ of gh0i. For the exceptional (resp. classical)

Lie algebras, the orbit G·eϑ is denoted by the Dynkin-Bala-Carter label [3, 8.4] (resp. by eϑ the corresponding partition). For the exceptional Lie algebras, the structure of gred and eϑ the numbers dim gnil are pointed out in the Tables in [5]. For the classical Lie algebras, this information is being extracted from the partition of G·eϑ, see [3, Theorem 6.1.3].

′ ′ ′ Remark 4.6. Since there is a dense B-orbit in u , the varieties G×B u and G·u contain dense G-orbits. But their dimensions can be different, i.e., the natural ‘collapsing’ in the sense ′ ′ of Kempf [8] τ : G ×B u → G·u is not always generically ﬁnite-to-one. Indeed, if B·e is ′ ′ ′ dense in u , then dim G·u = dim G·e is even and dim(G ×B u ) = 2 dim u − r = dim g − 2r. NILPOTENT ORBITS AND MIXED GRADINGS 13

TABLE 1. The PI–involutions ϑ and orbits G·eϑ for the exceptional Lie algebras

D eϑ eϑ eϑ g gh0i G·eϑ (eϑ) dim g gred dim gnil

2 0 2 0 2 E6 A5 ∔ A1 E6(a3) 12 {0} 12 0

0 2 0 2 0 2 E7 A7 E6(a1) 15 t1 14 0

2 0 2 0 2 0 2 E8 D8 E8(a4) 16 {0} 16 0

F4 C3 ∔ A1 F4(a2) 2 0 2 0 8 {0} 8

G2 A1 ∔ A1 G2(a1) 0 2 4 {0} 4

TABLE 2. The PI–involutions ϑ and orbits G·eϑ for the classical Lie algebras

e e λ D eϑ ϑ ϑ g gh0i (G·eϑ) (eϑ) dim g gred dim gnil

... B2n Bn∔Dn (2n+1, 2n−1, 1) 2 0 2 0 4n {0} 4n

... B2n−1 Bn−1∔Dn (2n−1, 2n−1, 1) 0 2 0 2 0 4n−1 t1 4n−2

... D2n Dn∔Dn (2n−1, 2n−1, 1, 1) 0 2 0 2 4n+2 t2 4n 0

... D2n−1 Dn−1∔Dn (2n−1, 2n−3, 1, 1) 2 0 2 0 2 4n−1 t1 4n−2 0

... C2n−1 gl2n−1 (2n−1, 2n−1) 0 2 0 2 0 4n−1 sl2 4n−4

... C2n gl2n (2n, 2n) 0 2 0 2 4n t1 4n−1

... A2n−1 gln∔sln (n, n) 0 2 0 2 0 4n−1 sl2 4n−4

... A2n gln+1∔sln (n+1, n) 1 1 1 1 1 4n t1 4n−1

Hence the necessary (but not sufﬁcient) condition is that r is even. It is also clear that ′ ′ eϑ d := dim(G ×B u ) − dim G·u = dim g − 2r. Hence using Tables 1 and 2, we obtain

τ is generically ﬁnite-to-one if and only if rk(g) is even and g =6 D2n.

If rk(g) is odd, then d =1, whereas d =2 for D2n. 14 DMITRI I. PANYUSHEV

5. MIXEDGRADINGSANDDIVISIBLEORBITS

1 D 1 For e ∈ N , let 2 (e) be the Dynkin diagram equipped with the labels 2 α(h), α ∈ Π. Fol- 1 D lowing [14], an element e ∈ N (orbit G·e ⊂ N ) is said to be divisible, if 2 (e) is again a weighted Dynkin diagram. Equivalently, if h is a characteristic of e, then h/2 is a characteristic of another nilpotent element. Then we write eh2i for a nilpotent element with 1 D D h2i characteristic h/2. Hence 2 (e) =: (e ). The notation is suggested by the equality

2 h2i h2i dim Ker (ad e) = dim Ker (ad e ) = dim zg(e ).

h2i 2 Furthermore, if g = sln and e is divisible, then one can take e = e , the usual matrix

power [14, Theorem3.1]. Clearly, a divisible element must be even. If {e, h, f} is an sl2- Z triple and g = i∈Z g(i) is the -grading determined by h, then e is divisible if and only if there is an x ∈ g(4) such that h ∈ Im (ad x). In this case, e is necessarily even, there is an L h2i sl2-triple of the form {x, h/2, f˜} with f˜ ∈ g(−4), and one can take e = x. Mixed gradings can be used for detecting divisible orbits with good properties. Sup- pose that e ∈ N is even and σ(e) = e for some σ ∈ Inv(g). Consider a mixed grading related to (σ, e). Our intention is to ﬁnd a suitable element eh2i ∈ g(4). Of course, this is not always possible, and a sufﬁcient condition is given below. Recall that dj(i) = dim gj(i)

and d0(0) > dj(i) whenever i =06 .

Theorem 5.1. As above, let g = i,j gj(i) be a mixed grading related to (σ, e), hence e ∈ g0(2). Suppose that d (0) = d (4). Then 0 1 L h2i (1) the orbit G·e is divisible and there exists e ∈ g1(4) ⊂ g(4);

(2) d0(0) = d0(2) = d1(2) = d1(4) and also d0(4k +2)= d1(4k + 2) for all k ∈ Z;

(3) g1 does not contain 3-dimensional he, h, fi-modules, g0 is semisimple, and e is distin-

guished in g0; (4) both e and eh2i are almost distinguished in g.

x Proof. (1) If x ∈ g1(4), then [g1(−4), x] is the orthogonal complement of g0 (0) in g0(0). By x Lemma 3.4, G0(0) has an open orbit in g1(4), say O. Now, if x ∈ O, then g0 (0) = {0} in view of the hypothesis d0(0) = d1(4). Hence [g1(−4), x] = g0(0) and there is y ∈ g1(−4) such that [x, y] = h/2. Then {x, h/2,y} a desired sl2-triple. Thus, every element of the h2i open G0(0)-orbit in g1(4) can be taken as e . This also implies that e must be even in g.

h2i h2i (2) Since h/2 is a characteristic of e ∈ g1(4), the analogue of Eq. (3·2) for e implies h2i h2i that the mappings ad e : g0(−2) → g1(2) and ad e : g1(−2) → g0(2) are bijective.

Hence dim g0(2) = dim g1(2). Combining this with Eq. (3·2) yields

d0(0) > d0(2) = d1(2) > d1(4) = d0(0). NILPOTENT ORBITS AND MIXED GRADINGS 15

Since the Z-grading of g is determined by a characteristic of e and e ∈ g(2), the sl2-theory readily implies that (ad e)m : g(−m) → g(m) is a bijection. Likewise, since h/2 is a charac- h2i h2i teristic of e and e ∈ g1(4), this implies that

h2i 2k+1 h2i 2k+1 (ad e ) : g0(−4k−2) → g1(4k+2) and (ad e ) : g1(−4k−2) → g0(4k+2)

are bijections. Therefore, d0(4k +2)= d1(4k + 2).

(3) Now, the equality d1(2) = d1(4) means that g1 contains no 3-dimensional he, h, fi-

modules. While the equality d0(0) = d0(2) implies that g0 is semisimple and e is distinguished in g0 (cf. the proof of Theorem 3.5(2)). e ∼ e (4) We know that gred = Ker (ad e) ∩ g(0). Since ad e : g0(0) → g0(2), we see that gred ⊂ e eh2i h2i h2i ∼ g1(0). Hence gred is toral. Likewise, gred = Ker (ad e ) ∩ g(0) and ad e : g0(0) → g1(4). eh2i eh2i Therefore, gred ⊂ g1(0) and gred is toral.

Remark 5.2. For a (σ, e)-grading, the hypothesis d0(0) = d1(4) implies that d0(0) = d1(2).

In Proposition 3.8, we derived from the latter that G(0)·e ∩ g1(2) =6 ∅. For a divisible orbit h2i G·e, it follows from [1, Theorem 1] that the conditions G·e ∩ g1 =6 ∅ and G·e ∩ g1 =6 ∅ are equivalent (cf. also Remark 2.2). However, a subtle point is that if G·e is divisible h2i and G·e ∩ g1 =6 ∅, then one may not simultaneously have that e ∈ g0(2) and e ∈ g1(4). h2i For, starting with e ∈ g0(2), we can certainly ﬁnd e ∈ g(4), but then we need a stronger h2i condition that G(0)·e ∩ g1(4) =6 ∅.

Using Theorem 5.1, we classify below all the pairs (σ, G·e) such that d0(0) = d1(4).

Theorem 5.3. For a mixed grading related to (σ, e), the equality d0(0) = d1(4) holds exactly in the following cases:

(a) g = En, σ = ϑmax, and e is regular in g0; here g0 = C4, A7, D8 and the Dynkin–Bala–

Carter labels of G·e are E6(a1), E6(a1), E8(a4) for n =6, 7, 8, respectively.

(b) g = sln, g0 = son (hence σ is also of maximal rank), and λ(e)=(2m1 +1,..., 2ms + 1)

is a partition of n such that mi−1 − mi > 2 for i > 2. In particular, one obtains a regular

nilpotent element of g0 = so2m1+1 (resp. so2m1+2) if s =1 (resp. if s =2 and m2 =0).

Proof. 1) The “only if” part relies on the explicit description of divisible orbits. For the classical series, such a description is given in terms of partitions [14, Theorem3.1], see also below. For the exceptional algebras, there is the list of divisible orbits [14, Table 1]. By h2i Theorem 5.1(4), if d0(0) = d1(4), then e and e are almost distinguished. Let us begin with ﬁnding the pairs of orbits G·e and G·eh2i such that both e, eh2i are almost distinguished. • For the exceptional algebras, Table 1 in [14], together with the known information on the reductive part of centralisers [5], shows that there are only three such pairs of

orbits. This leads to the three En-cases, see Example 5.5. 16 DMITRI I. PANYUSHEV λ • For son and sp2n, an inspection of partitions (e) of the divisible orbits shows that there are no pairs (e, eh2i) such that both orbits are almost distinguished. More precisely, λ – For g = sp2n, e is divisible if and only if all parts of (e) are odd and occur pairwise. This already implies that e is not almost distinguished, cf. [21, IV.2.25] or [3, Theo- e λ rem 6.1.3], where a description of gred is given in terms of (e).

– For g = son, e is divisible if and only if all parts λi are odd and also

if λ2k−1 =4m +3, then λ2k =4m + 3;  if λ2k−1 =4m +1 > 1, then λ2k ∈{4m +1, 4m − 1};  if λ2k−1 =1, then there is no further conditions. The partition λ(eh2i) is obtained by the following rule applied to each pair (λ ,λ ) of  2k−1 2k consecutive parts of λ(e): (..., 4m +3, 4m +3,... ) 7→ (..., 2m +2, 2m +2, 2m +1, 2m +1,... );  (..., 4m +1, 4m +1,... ) 7→ (..., 2m +1, 2m +1, 2m, 2m, . . . );  (..., 4m +1, 4m − 1,... ) 7→ (..., 2m +1, 2m, 2m, 2m − 1,... ). In all cases, λ(eh2i) has at least two equal even parts, which yields a subalgebra sl = sp  2 2 h2i in zg(e ).

• Let g = sln and λ(e)=(λ1,...,λs), where λ1 > ... > λs. Then e is divisible if and only if all λi’s are odd, say λi =2mi +1; and e is almost distinguished if and only if all λi’s h2i are different, i.e., mi > mi+1. Next, the set of parts of λ(e ) is {mi+1, mi | i =1,...,s} [14, Theorem 3.1]. Since eh2i is almost distinguished as well, all these parts must be different, too. Hence mi > mi+1 +1.

Since g0 has to be semisimple by Theorem 5.1(3), σ is outer, i.e., g0 = spn (if n is even) or son. But a partition with different odd parts does not correspond to a nilpotent orbit in spn [3, Theorem5.1.3]. Hence g0 = son. 2) The ”if” part follows by direct calculations, cf. Example 5.5 below. Let us give some

details for the case of sln = sl(V). Let Ri denote the simple sl2-module of dimension i +1. λ V If (e)=(2m1 +1,..., 2ms +1), g0 = son, and sl2 ≃he, h, fi ⊂ g0, then = R2m1 +···+R2ms

as sl2-module. Therefore

2 2 2 g0 = ∧ (R2m1 + ··· + R2ms )= ∧ R2m1 + ··· + ∧ R2ms + R2mi ⊗ R2mj , i 2, then

(1) the total number of sl2-modules in g0 equals the number of nontrivial sl2-modules in g1, i.e., d0(0) = d1(2), and (2) g1 contains no R2, i.e., d1(2) = d1(4). s s We also notice that here d0(0) = j=1(2j − 1)mj + 2 and d1(0) − d0(0) = s − 1. P NILPOTENT ORBITS AND MIXED GRADINGS 17

Remark 5.4. The constraints on λ for sln exclude exactly the cases with n = 2, 4. This σ means that only those n are allowed for which (sln) = son is again simple.

Example 5.5. (1) Let us provide the numbers dj(i) = dim gj(i) with i > 0 for the En-cases in Theorem 5.3. i 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 g = E6, g0 = C4 : d0(i) 4 43322 1 1 – G·e = E6(a1) d1(i) 4 4 4 332 1 1 1

Here g0 ≃ R2 + R6 + R10 + R14 and g1 ≃ R4 + R8 + R10 + R16 as he, h, fi-modules.

i 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 g = E7, g0 = A7 : d0(i) 7 76543 2 1 – G·e = E6(a1) d1(i) 8 7 7 553 2 1 1 7 Here g0 ≃ i=1 R2i and g1 ≃ R0 +2R4 +2R8 + R10 + R12 + R16 as he, h, fi-modules. P g = E8 i 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

g0 = D8 : d0(i) 8 8776655332211–

G·e = E8(a4) d1(i) 8 8 8 776554322111

Here g0 ≃ R2 + R6 + R10 +2R14 + R18 + R22 + R26

and g1 ≃ R4 + R8 + R10 + R14 + R16 + R18 + R22 + R28 as he, h, fi-modules.

(2) The following is a sample of calculations for the sln-case.

g = sl2n, i 0 2 4 ··· 4m−2 4m

e ∼ (2m +1, 2k + 1) : d0(i) m+3k+1 m+3k+1 m+3k-1 ··· 1 –

m+k = n−1, m−k>1 d1(i) m+3k+2 m+3k+1 m+3k+1 ··· 1 1 Remark 5.6. There are many examples of mixed gradings related to some (σ, e) such that h2i d0(0) >d1(4) and e ∈ g0(2) is divisible in g. Hence there is e ∈ g(4). However, it is then h2i not always the case that G·e ∩ g1(4) =6 ∅.

6. NEWINVOLUTIONSFROMOLDONES

Let σ be an involution of a simple Lie algebra g and e a regular nilpotent element of σ g = g0. If e remains even in g, then one deﬁnes another involution having nice properties,

which is denoted by Υ(σ) or σˇ. It is always assumed below that e ∈ g0,reg is even in g. By

Proposition 3.6, this only excludes the inner involutions of sl2n+1. Deﬁnition/construction of Υ(σ)=ˇσ.

Let g = g0 ⊕ g1 be the Z2-grading corresponding to σ and {e, h, f} ⊂ g0 a principal sl2-

triple in g0. Consider the Z-grading of g determined by h and, assuming that e is even in 18 DMITRI I. PANYUSHEV

g, set

(6·1) g{0} = g(2i), g{1} = g(2i). i Meven iModd Z (ˇσ) Then g = g{0} ⊕g{1} and σˇ is the involution associated with this 2-grading, i.e., g{i} = gi . First properties of Υ (the passage σ 7→ σˇ): σˇ (1) σˇ is inner (for, g = g{0} ⊃ zg(h), and the latter contains a Cartan subalgebra of g).

(2) e ∈ g0(2) ⊂ g0 and therefore e ∈ g{1}. (3) The involutions σ and σˇ commute; hence σσˇ is also an involution. (4) σ and σσˇ belong to the same connected component of the group Aut(g); therefore, σ is inner if and only if σσˇ is inner.

For g =6 sl2n+1, we think of Υ as a map from Inv(g) to the set of inner involutions of g. Z (σσˇ) Let g = g[0] ⊕ g[1] be the 2-grading corresponding to σσˇ, i.e., g[i] = gi . Then

σσˇ (6·2) g = g[0] = g¯i(2i) and g[1] = gi+1(2i), i∈Z i∈Z M M

where ¯i is the image of i in Z/2Z. In particular, e ∈ g[1].

Proposition 6.1. For any σ ∈ Inv(g), the Satake diagrams Sat(ˇσ) and Sat(σσˇ) have IBN. More- over, the set of black nodes of either of them is contained in the set of zeros of D(e).

(ˇσ) (σσˇ) Proof. This readily follows from Proposition 3.9, since e ∈ g1 and e ∈ g1 .

The Satake diagrams with IBN can be extracted from [24, Table 4] or tables in [20].

One can also use information on generic stabilisers for g0-modules g1 (cf. the proof of σn,m Prop. 3.9). For instance, let σn,m be an involution of g = son+m such that g = son ∔ som. n m The g0-module g1 is isomorphic to C ⊗ C and a generic stabiliser is so|n−m|. Therefore,

Sat(σn,m) has only IBN if and only if |n − m| 6 4. Another example is that the Satake diagram of the PI–involution ϑ has no black nodes at all (but has some arrows if g =

An, D2n+1, or E6). Recall from [4] that a subalgebra k of g is said to be regular, if it is normalised by a σ Cartan subalgebra. For σ inner, g = g0 is a regular reductive subalgebra. Therefore, if e ∈ g0,reg ∩N , then [g0, g0] is a “minimal including regular subalgebra” (= MIRS) for G·e (in the terminology of [4]). For g exceptional and e ∈ N , Dynkin explicitly determined all MIRS for G·e, see Tables 16-20 in [4]. (A few inaccuracies has been corrected in [5]). Therefore, it is rather easy to determine G·e and D(e) for the inner involutions.

Example 6.2. For (g, g0)=(E7, D6 ∔ A1) and e ∈ g0,reg, the subalgebra D6 ∔ A1 is a MIRS of g for G·e. Then browsing Table 19 in [4] or Table 5 in [5] one ﬁnds D(e). This orbit is NILPOTENT ORBITS AND MIXED GRADINGS 19

denoted nowadays as E7(a3) and D(e) = 2 2 0 2 0 2 . Since the Satake diagram

0 ✉❡ ✉ ❡ ❡ ❡ for (g, g0) is , we see that here G·e ∩ g1 = ∅ (cf. Proposition 3.9). ✉ ′ ′ By [10, Theorem6], there is a unique maximal nilpotent orbit G·e such that G·e ∩ g1 =6 ∅. Here D(e′) is obtained from Sat(σ) as follows. Set α(h′)=2 (resp. α(h′)=0) if α ∈ Π represents a white (resp. black) node of Sat(σ). It is not hard to determine the conjugacy class of both Υ(σ)=ˇσ and σσˇ for all σ ∈ Inv(g),

excluding the inner involutions of sl2n+1. First, one describes the structure of g0 and g1 as he, h, fi-module. For the classical g, one can use the partition λ(e); while if g is exceptional,

then tables of [11] are helpful. This allows us easily to compute dim g{0} − dim g{1} and dim g[0] − dim g[1]. And the conjugacy class of σ˜ such that Sat(˜σ) has only IBN is uniquely determined by dim gσ˜, see below.

Lemma 6.3. If g0 = k>0 m0,kR2k and g1 = k>0 m1,kR2k as he, h, fi-modules, then k k (6·3) dim gP{0} − dim g{1} = (−1)Pm0,k + (−1) m1,k (for σˇ); k> k> X0 X0 k k+1 (6·4) dim g[0] − dim g[1] = (−1) m0,k + (−1) m1,k (for σσˇ). k> k> X0 X0 Proof. It follows from (6·1) and (6·2) that g0 ∩ g{0} = g0 ∩ g[0] and the h-eigenvalues here are multiples of 4. Therefore, if R2k ⊂ g0, then

k, if k is odd dim(R2k ∩ g{0}) = dim(R2k ∩ g[0])= . k +1, if k is even  g ∩ g g ∩ g ⊂ g On the other hand, 1 {0} = 1 [1]. Therefore ifR2k 1, then k, if k is odd dim(R2k ∩ g{0}) = dim(R2k ∩ g[1])= . k +1, if k is even  k This means that R2k ⊂ g0 contributes ‘(−1) ’ to both differences in the lemma, while k k+1 R2k ⊂ g1 contributes ‘(−1) ’ to (6·3) and ‘(−1) ’ to (6·4).

Remark 6.4. For classical Lie algebras, the structure of g0 and g1 as he, h, fi-modules usu- 2 2 ally involves terms of the form Rm ⊗ Rm+2k or S Rm or ∧ Rm. Then it is easy to compute the contribution of the whole such aggregates to the differences in Lemma 6.3, see Exam- ple 6.6 below. Lemma 6.5. If the Satake diagram of σ ∈ Inv(g) has only IBN, then

dim g1 − dim g0 = rk(g) − 2·#{arrows} − 4·#{black nodes}. Furthermore, for given g, this quantity distinguishes different Satake diagrams with IBN. 20 DMITRI I. PANYUSHEV

x x Proof. For x ∈ g1, the value dim g1 −dim g0 does not depend on x [10, Proposition 5]. Hence the value for x = 0, which we need, can be computed via a generic semisimple x ∈ g1. Then gx is a Levi subalgebra of g whose semisimple part corresponds to the subdiagram x of black nodes of Sat(σ) and g1 is Cartan subspace of g1. Therefore x dim g1 = #{white nodes} − #{arrows} = rk(g) − #{black nodes} − #{arrows} x x x x x k and dim g0 = dim[g , g ]+#{arrows}. Finally, if Sat(σ) has only IBN, then [g , g ] ≃ (sl2) , where k = #{black nodes}. Now, a straightforward veriﬁcation shows that, for a ﬁxed g and the Satake diagrams with only IBN, the quantities #{arrows} +2·#{black nodes} are all different.

V σ Example 6.6. Let g = so2n = so( ) and let σ ∈ Inv(so2n) be such that g = gln. Then σ is inner, dim g0 − dim g1 = n, and Sat(σ) is ✛ ✟ ··· ✟ ❡ ✏, if n is odd; ✉ ❡ ✉❡ ✉❍❍ ✛ ❡ ✑ ✟✟ ✉ ✉ ❡ ··· ✉ ❡❍❍ , if n is even. ❡ These different Satake diagrams suggest that σˇ and σσˇ might also depend on the parity

of n. Indeed, if e ∈ g0,reg ∩ N , then λ(e) =(n, n) and V = Rn−1 ⊕ Rn−1. Therefore 2 g0 = Rn−1 ⊗ Rn−1 and g1 = 2· ∧ Rn−1. The number of simple sl2-modules in g0 (resp. g1) equals n (resp. 2·[n/2]). (i) Suppose that n = 2m +1. Using Lemma 6.3 and the Clebsch–Gordan formulae,

we see that the contribution of all sl2-modules in g0 (resp. g1) to the difference dim g{0} −

dim g{1} equals 1 (resp. −2m = −2·[n/2]). Hence dim g{0} −dim g{1} =1−2m = −(rkg−2). By Lemma 6.5, this can only happen if Sat(ˇσ) has one arrow and no black nodes. Hence ϑ σˇ = ϑ is a PI-involution with g ≃ so2m+2 ∔ so2m = son+1 ∔ son−1.

For σσˇ, the contribution from the sl2-modules in g1 is counted with the opposite sign, i.e., dim g[0] − dim g[1] =1+2m = rk(g). This means that σ and σσˇ are G-conjugate.

(ii) Suppose that n = 2m. Then the sl2-modules in g0 make zero contribution to either of the differences, while the contribution from sl2-modules in g1 to (6·3) and (6·4) equals

n and −n, respectively. Hence dim g{0} − dim g{1} = n = rkg and dim g[0] − dim g[1] = −n = −rk(g). This means that σˇ and σ are conjugate, while σσˇ is of maximal rank, i.e., σσˇ g ≃ son ∔ son.

Example 6.7. For the PI–involution ϑ and g =6 A2n, we have

• Υ(ϑ)= ϑˇ ∼ ϑ unless g ∈{A4n+1, B4n+1, C2n+1, D4n+2, E7}; ϑ Υ(ϑ) • If g = A4n+1, then g = A2n ∔ A2n ∔ t1 and g = A2n+1 ∔ A2n−1 ∔ t1; ϑ Υ(ϑ) • If g = B4n+1, then g = B2n ∔ D2n+1 and g = B2n+1 ∔ D2n; NILPOTENT ORBITS AND MIXED GRADINGS 21

ϑ Υ(ϑ) • If g = C2n+1, then g = gl2n+1 and g = Cn+1 ∔ Cn; ϑ Υ(ϑ) • If g = D4n+2, then g = D2n+1 ∔ D2n+1 and g = D2n+2 ∔ D2n; ϑ Υ(ϑ) • If g = E7, then g = A7 and g = D6 ∔ A1.

For computations in E7 and E8, one can use data from Example 5.5(1). Further calculations show that one always has Υ2(ϑ) ∼ ϑ. Note however that, in general, Υ2(σ) has no relation to σσˇ.

Since σ and σˇ commute, they determine a Z2 × Z2-grading or quaternionic decomposition

g = i,j∈Z2×Z2 gij. We refer to [6, 15, 16] for various invariant-theoretic results related to this structure. However, it is worth stressing that our construction gives an ordered L triple of involutions. For, starting from σˇ or σσˇ, one usually obtains another triple and a

different Z2 × Z2-grading. As a complement to Theorem 5.1, we have

Theorem 6.8. Suppose that σ ∈ Inv(g), e ∈ g0 ∩N is regular in g0, and g = i,j∈Z×Z2 gj(2i) is the related (σ, e)-grading. If d (4k +2) = d (4k + 2) for all k ∈ Z, then dim gσ = dim gσσˇ . 0 1 L Moreover, if g0 is semisimple, then σ and σσˇ are conjugate involutions.

Proof. By Proposition 3.6, e remains even in g, which justiﬁes our notation for the mixed grading. Recall that σ σˇ σσˇ g = g0 = i∈Z g0(2i), g = i∈Z g(4i), and g = i∈Z g¯i(2i) , ¯ Z Z σ σσˇ where i is the image of iLin /2 . Hence dimL g − dim g = k∈ZL(d0(4k +2) − d1(4k +2)), which proves the ﬁrst assertion. P If g0 is semisimple and e ∈ g0,reg, then d0(0) = d0(2) = rk(g0). Hence d0(0) = d1(2). It then follows from Corollary 3.10 that Sat(σ) has IBN. Since dim gσ = dim gσσˇ and both involutions have only IBN in their Satake diagrams, they must be G-conjugate.

Remark 6.9. Actually, the semisimplicity of g0 is not necessary, as long as we know that

Sat(σ) has only IBN. The equalities d0(4k +2) = d1(4k + 2) are often related to the fact h2i that G·e is divisible and G·e ∩ g1(4) =6 ∅, cf. the proof of Theorem 5.1. Hence Theo-

rem 6.8 applies if d0(0) = d1(4). But there are many other cases, where σ ∼ σσˇ, see e.g. Example 6.6 with n odd.

σ Example 6.10. It can happen that σ = ϑmax with g semisimple, but the involutions σ and

σσˇ are not G-conjugate. Suppose that g = B4n+2 and σ is of maximal rank, which is also σ σˇ σσˇ a PI–involution here. Then g0 = g ≃ g ≃ B2n+1 ∔ D2n+1, but g = B2n ∔ D2n+2. The reason is that G·e is not divisible for e ∈ g0,reg and the equality d0(4k +2) = d1(4k +2) fails exactly for k = n, −n − 1. This leads to the relation dim gσσˇ − dim gσ =2.

Example 6.11. There is an interesting case in which three involutions σ, σˇ, and σσˇ are pairwise non-conjugate. Let σ ∈ Inv(g) be a diagram involution for g = A2n−1, Dn, and E6. 22 DMITRI I. PANYUSHEV

(See [7, Ch.8] for diagram automorphisms of simple Lie algebras.) Then σ is outer, gσ

is simple, and if e ∈ g0,reg, then e ∈ greg. By the above “ﬁrst properties”, σˇ is inner and (ˇσ) σσˇ is outer. Since e ∈ g1 , this implies that σˇ = ϑ is a PI–involution. Furthermore, σσˇ is the unique, up to G-conjugacy, outer involution in the connected component of Aut(g) (σσˇ) containing σ that has the property that e ∈ g1 , i.e., the (−1)-eigenspace of the outer involution σσˇ contains a regular nilpotent element of g. If ϑ is not of maximal rank, then σσˇ appears to be of maximal rank. Below is the table with ﬁxed point subalgebras for this triple of involutions, where σσˇ 6∼ ϑmax only for g = D2n.

TABLE 3. Diagram involutions σ and related triples

g gσ gσˇ = gϑ gσσˇ

A2n−1 Cn An−1 ∔ An−1 ∔ t1 Dn

D2n B2n−1 Dn ∔ Dn Bn ∔ Bn−1

D2n+1 B2n Dn ∔ Dn+1 Bn ∔ Bn

E6 F4 A5 ∔ A1 C4

For g = A2n, the diagram involution σ is of maximal rank. Here this procedure provides G-conjugate involutions σ and σσˇ.

REFERENCES

[1] L.V. Anton n. O klassifikacii odnorodnyh зlementov Z2-graduirovannyh poluprostyh algebr Li, Vestnik Mosk. Un-ta, Ser. Matem. Meh., } 2 (1982), 29–34 (Russian). English translation: L.V. ANTONYAN. On classification of homogeneous elements of Z2-graded semisimple Lie algebras, Moscow Univ. Math. Bulletin, 37 (1982), } 2, 36–43. [2] A.BROER. Normality of some nilpotent varieties and cohomology of line bundles on the cotangent bundle of the flag variety, In: J.-L. Brylinski, R. Brylinski, V. Guillemin and V. Kac (Eds.) “Lie Theory and Geometry. In honor of Bertram Kostant”, Progr. Math. 123, 1–19, Birkhäuser Boston, 1994. [3] D.H.COLLINGWOOD and W. MCGOVERN. “Nilpotent orbits in semisimple Lie algebras”, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993. [4] E.B. Dynkin. Poluprostye podalgebry poluprostyh algebr Li, Matem. Sbornik, t.30, } 2 (1952), 349–462 (Russian). English translation: E.B. DYNKIN. Semisimple subalgebras of semisimple Lie algebras, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl., II Ser., 6 (1957), 111–244. [5] A.G.ELASHVILI. The centralizers of nilpotent elements in semisimple Lie algebras, Trudy Razmadze Matem. Inst. (Tbilisi) 46 (1975), 109–132 (Russian). (MR0393148) [6] A.HELMINCK and G.SCHWARZ. Orbits and invariants associated with a pair of commuting involutions, Duke Math. J., 106 (2001), 237–279. [7] V.G. KAC. “Infinite-dimensional Lie algebras”, 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. xxii+400 pp. [8] G.KEMPF. On the collapsing of homogeneous bundles, Invent. Math., 37, no.3 (1976), 229–239. [9] B.KOSTANT. The principal three-dimensional subgroup and the Betti numbers of a complex simple Lie group, Amer. J. Math., 81 (1959), 973–1032. NILPOTENT ORBITS AND MIXED GRADINGS 23

[10] B.KOSTANT and S. RALLIS. Orbits and representations associated with symmetric spaces, Amer. J. Math., 93 (1971), 753–809. [11] R.LAWTHER. Jordan block sizes of unipotent elements in exceptional algebraic groups, Comm. Alg., 23 (1995), 4125–4156. [12] D.LUNA. Slices ètales, Bull. Soc. Math. France, Memoire 33 (1973), 81–105. [13] D.PANYUSHEV. On invariant theory of θ-groups, J. Algebra, 283 (2005), 655–670. [14] D.PANYUSHEV. On divisible weighted Dynkin diagrams and reachable elements, Transformation Groups, 15, no.4 (2010), 983–999. [15] D.PANYUSHEV. Commuting involutions and degenerations of isotropy representations, Transforma- tion Groups, 18, no.2 (2013), 507–537. [16] D.PANYUSHEV. Commuting involutions of Lie algebras, commuting varieties, and simple Jordan algebras, Algebra Number Theory, 7, no.6 (2013), 1505–1534. [17] D.PANYUSHEV and O. YAKIMOVA. On maximal commutative subalgebras of Poisson algebras associated with involutions of semisimple Lie algebras, Bull. Sci. Math., 138, no.6 (2014), 705–720. [18]E.SOMMERS. B-stable ideals in the nilradical of a Borel subalgebra, Canad. Math. Bull., 48 (2005), 460–472. [19] T.A.SPRINGER.“Invariant theory”. Lecture Notes Math., vol. 585. Springer–Verlag, Berlin–New York, 1977. iv+112 pp. [20] T.A.SPRINGER. The classification of involutions of simple algebraic groups, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. 34 (1987), 655–670. [21] T.A. SPRINGER and R. STEINBERG. Conjugacy Classes, In: “Seminar on algebraic and related finite groups”, Lecture Notes Math., Berlin: Springer, 131 (1970), 167–266. [22] З.B. Vinberg. Gruppa Veil graduirovannoialgebry Li, Izv. AN SSSR. Ser. Matem. 40, } 3 (1976), 488–526 (Russian). English translation: E.B. VINBERG. The Weyl group of a graded Lie algebra, Math. USSR-Izv. 10 (1976), 463–495. [23] З.B. Vinberg. Klassifikaci odnorodnyh nilьpotentnyh зlementov poluprostoigradu- irovannoialgebry Li, V sb.: ”Trudy seminara po vekt. i tenz. analizu”, t. 19, str. 155–177. Moskva: MGU 1979 (Russian). English translation: E.B. VINBERG. Classification of homogeneous nilpotent elements of a semisimple graded Lie algebra, Selecta Math. Sov., 6 (1987), 15–35. [24] З.B. Vinberg, V.V. Gorbaceviq, A.L. Oniwik.“Gruppy i algebry Li - 3”, Sovrem. probl. matematiki. Fundam. napravl., t. 41. Moskva: VINITI 1990 (Russian). English translation: V.V.Gorbatsevich, A.L. Onishchik and E.B. Vinberg. “Lie Groups and Lie Algebras” III (Encyclopaedia Math. Sci., vol. 41) Berlin: Springer 1994.

INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION TRANSMISSION PROBLEMSOFTHE R.A.S., BOLSHOI KARETNYI PER. 19,MOSCOW 127051, RUSSIA Email address: [email protected]